Enhance Your Experience: Why the CHL/NHL's Under-20 Agreement needs to go
Recently, SB Nation Hockey and Samsung partnered to create a series of sponsored posts entitled "Enhance Your Experience". Last week, I focused on improving the fan experience through friendly wagering. This week, I am going to delve into how the NHL's "under-20 agreement" with the Canadian Hockey League is stifling the development of young talent, creating an inferior minor league product, and potentially hurting the junior leagues that it was designed to protect.
Basically, the agreement between the NHL and the Canadian Hockey League (OHL, QMJHL, and WHL) states that any player drafted out of one of the CHL leagues who is under the age of 20 is ineligible to play professionally for a minor league team. This means that teams are forced to make the difficult decision to send a player back to their junior team or rush them to the NHL.
For a lot of players, the extra year or two in juniors is benefitial because they are not ready for the jump to the pro game. There are also players like Tyler Seguin, whose game was already NHL-ready. Then there is the large number of players that need to learn the ins and outs of the pro game, but are not ready for "The Show". Ideally, these players should be placed in the AHL or ECHL to gain professional experience. However, just because these players came out of one of the premier junior leagues in Canada, they are deprived of that experience.
I understand that the rule is in place so that the CHL teams can keep their marque players longer and improve ticket sales, but at the end of the day isn't junior hockey supposed to be about the player's development and not the all mighty Loonie? Is a player really developing as a player and a person by playing with and against teenagers? I would argue that learning the team's systems and culture and playing against seasoned professionals is far more beneficial to the prospect. Staying at the junior level against lesser talent can reinforce bad habits on the ice that a player might not be able to get away with at the next-level.
Much like the CHL teams, minor league teams would like to see these prospects on their rosters to help fill seats and put a better product on the ice. Fans in minor league cities enjoy seeing prospects work their way through the system and get to the NHL. Often times, an organization's top prospects will spend little to no time in the AHL. This damages the AHL's on-ice product both from a fan's perspective and developmental standpoint. The NHL's top prospects should be competing against each other in the AHL and developing their games to get ready for the next level.
The other issue that has not really been discussed much is how this rule could potentially damage the junior leagues it was designed to protect. In recent years, we have seen more and more Canadian-born players chose to play college hockey in the United States as opposed to playing major junior in Canada. While you could argue that the CHL better prepares young players for the pro game, some top prospects are seeing that the road to the pro game is shorter by going to college for a year or two then turning pro. Now, you have students that have no interest in graduating or getting a college education on college campuses simply to play hockey. The issue of players leaving college hockey early is a discussion for another day, but is part of the cause and effect of the under-20 rule. With players that would normally be in juniors now playing college hockey, it creates watered-down leagues for the OHL, QMJHL, and WHL.
That's just my two cents on the under-20 rule. I think it is bad for the NHL, bad for the minor leagues, bad for the junior leagues, bad for college hockey, bad for minor league fans, and most importantly bad for the player's development. The only people that benefit from this rule are CHL owners that want to keep an 18 or 19 year old kid around a year or two longer to put butts in seats.
So, what do you think of the under-20 rule?
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with you, the rule needs to change
Although as a teenager growing up in Oregon, it was pretty sweet when the Sens sent Marian Hossa down to the Winter Hawks to play a year of post-draft junior hockey. Alongside current-Bruin Andrew Ference and current-Star Brenden Morrow, that 97/98 team was pretty fun to watch—Memorial Cup winners, in fact.
Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.
I agree with everything you said
Watch The Internet Sport Show
Help get Lacrosse on SBN. Join the lacrosse community at The Lacrosse Blog
Something about junior hockey rubs me the wrong way. It’s a great show, and the NHL would do themselves a huuuuge favor by getting more junior games onto NHL Network, but something about having teenagers play on for-profit franchises just doesn’t seem right (insert NCAA joke here). I certainly agree – there’s no good argument for the current U20 rule beyond the health of the CHL teams. It’s not like a drafted player is leaving home by going to the AHL, they’ve already left home to play in major junior so they should be mature enough to handle being on their own. My only objection would be whether or not this would further marginalize college hockey, which needs the support (and the NHL needs to grow).
there’s no good argument for the current U20 rule beyond the health of the CHL teams.
Well, pretty much, yes. That’s the reason for the rule. I guess it comes down to whether you like the AHL or the ECHL or the various CHL leagues better in this debate. I bet people in Peterborough would prefer players stay on the Petes instead of going to [insert cold lonely ECHL city here].
I bet the div-1 NCAA teams wish they had a similar protection, too.
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: Game 7 Preview: I wonder if Dennis Seidenberg and Marco Sturm are offended by "The Kraut Line"?l (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 5, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry...
but keeping the players under 20 is not just for ticket sales and money like you have eluded to. The biggest complaint right now in the CHL is that its already watered down and that there are enough players that do not deserve to be there as it is. Now you want the best of those players to be able to play in the AHL? What benefit does that provide to the CHL? none. You say why benefit the CHL owners etc? Well they are the ones that invest the money into bringing in coaches and strength trainers etc to develop these kids into NHL prospects, so should they not get a bit of a return on their investment. One of your biggest arguments is that AHL fans want to see these players play and to help improve that product and put fans in the seats….well how is that any better than the CHL owners wanting them on their roster so their fans can see them?
As for Canadian born kids going the US route to college….the vast majority of them go down there because we dont get scholarships like you do in the states. There are no athletic scholarships here in Canada. They are starting to bring them on board but as of yet I have not heard that they have. Yes a lot of Canadian kids do go the states because they dont feel their game is of NHL calibre and why not take advantage of a free education at a great school? As for the college route….there are more Canadians there now then in the past because the world is catching up in skill and the CHL allows more imports every year which means less roster spots for Canadians so they need somewhere to play!
All in all I cant understand who this benefits more but being a Canadian I can surely tell you that the CHL would have a hard time continuing business if they start losing all of their players to the semi pro leagues. You argue about on ice product and putting fans in the seats of AHL arenas but what about the CHL? What happens when those teams start folding because no one wants to watch them? We already have a league for that and its called Tier II. We dont need another one.
one more thing....
those players that are drafted and come back to the CHL for a year have a great opportunity to become a leader and be the go to guy on a team. Is that not good for the development? Hey if ths kids NHL ready let him go but if hes not NHL ready then how is he ready to play against grown men in the AHL? He needs to be on the 1st line, on the first PP unit and also be on the ice in the last minutes of games. That is how a player develops…not by sitting on the bench watching.
Another year in juniors is beneficial to some players, but I think that decision should be made by the organization not some rule mandating it.
My main argument is that some players would benefit more from learning organization’s systems, playing with the guys that are going to be their teammates, and learning the pro game.
I get that you are a CHL fan and want to see elite players stay, but there doesn’t have to be a rule mandating it. The organization and individual player should be able to chose what is best for their development.
by Stanley Cup of Chowder on Nov 5, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
There does have to be a rule for it or as soon as a kid gets drafted where else would an NHL team want them to play? They would want them in their farm system to learn their systems from their coaches. Needless to say I understand why an NHL team would want this… but in order to protect the league that develops these players (lets say for arguments sake roughly 60% of the talent that comes into the NHL is from the CHL) you need rules like this. You want the kids that are up and comers not drafted yet to test themselves against kids that have been drafted…been to pro camps and like I said before it gives these young kids that have been drafted a chance to become a leader and teach the undrafted kids. Taking them straight to the AHL would be a bad move. I would bet you would see more wasted prospects than not. Remember the AHL doesnt babysit players but the CHL knowing how young these kids are and not being professionals have a responsibility not only to the kids they bring in but to their parents as well. I dont think submersing an 18yr old kid into the professional game is only warranted in special situations….like a Crosby, Ovie, Hall etc. but the majority of kids are not ready to be in a pro league and some of it has to do with off ice stuff as well.
I just think there are a lot of players that are ready to take the next step to the pro game, but aren’t ready for the NHL. I would rather have those players learning the pro game the way that their team wants them to. Playing against inferior talent can only reinforce bad habits. If a player is ready to play at the AHL level, why hold him back because he is 19 years old?
by Stanley Cup of Chowder on Nov 5, 2010 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You see the problem there, though, right?
“Thanks for developing these guys for the NHL! Now we’re just going to take all the good-enough-to-be-drafted ones, enjoy selling tickets to your U18 league!”
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: Game 7 Preview: I wonder if Dennis Seidenberg and Marco Sturm are offended by "The Kraut Line"?l (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 6, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
The ultimate goal of those league should be player development. Let’s be honest, a lot of these teams are in places where there aren’t a lot of other entertainment options. Ticket sales would not suffer that greatly.
by Stanley Cup of Chowder on Nov 6, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Also consider that having drafted-but-not-quite-ready players in the CHL brings up the level of play there, improving the development of everyone.
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: Game 7 Preview: I wonder if Dennis Seidenberg and Marco Sturm are offended by "The Kraut Line"?l (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 6, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Another year in juniors is beneficial to some players, but I think that decision should be made by the organization not some rule mandating it.
Ding ding ding! I do think in most cases it’s better to send a guy back to juniors (let him be a top liner, be a captain, develop leadership, work on defense, etc) but yeah, it should be the organization’s choice.
by red army line on Nov 6, 2010 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions
There’s a rise in Europeans in NCAA as well. Basically there’s a rise in overall talent level worldwide. This is a good thing.
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: Game 7 Preview: I wonder if Dennis Seidenberg and Marco Sturm are offended by "The Kraut Line"?l (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 5, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

by 





















