RANT: The state of hockey development in Canada is completely broken, and national pride/arrogance is preventing us from fixing it

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, stawns said:

 

I think it's a bit of a bait and switch with the US......... they develop the absolute cream of the crop and keep that small group together (mostly) all the way through their development and into the wjhc, where they do very well.  The rest of the kids don't get much help, imo.  So while it looks like the US is a dominant hockey nation, they really aren't as great as they seem.

Wouldn't know.   But do know they support their Olympic program a lot better then we do.   As for hockey, my experience is limited.   Just living vicariously through others.  You'd have as much experience as most posters im

sure.  

[PureQuickness]

3 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Thank you for posting an article that I literally put up for you yesterday.

 

How the fuck is the US not getting results?  Owen Power played in the USHL, then went to the NCAA.  He got drafted first overall.  Two years later, Adam Fantilli played in the USHL, then went to the NCAA.  He got drafted second overall.  This upcoming year, Macklin Celebrini, who went from the USHL, then went to the NCAA.  He is probably going to get drafted first overall.

 

What do these three guys have in common?  Ah, yes, THEY ALL PLAY FOR TEAM CANADA.  Oh yeah, THEY ALL WENT THROUGH THE US DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM.  Wow!  How is this fucking possible!?

 

Out of the North American NHLers, where did the best defencemen and goalies go for junior hockey?  Where did Hughes, Fox and Makar go to school?  Where did Demko/Hellebuyck/Oettinger/Swayman go to school?  Where?  Give me an answer. 

 

So why don't the US have identical results? You still haven't answered this question. You've been making all kinds of excuses not to answer this properly.

[Miss Korea]

35 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

So why don't the US have identical results? You still haven't answered this question. You've been making all kinds of excuses not to answer this properly.

Holy shit, man.  Just answer the fucking questions I laid out for you.

 

20 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

#1: You don't have to stay in Canada to play for Team Canada.  And you don't have to stay in the US to play for Team USA.  This thread is about hockey development, not international tournaments.

 

#2: High profile players are choosing the US hockey system over the Canadian system.  We've seen a glut of Canadian phenoms opt to develop their game in the USHL/NCAA over the CHL.  On the other hand, the top American prospects have almost completely abandoned Canada as a development path.  In the past, tons of Americans came up north to play in the CHL, but not anymore.  Even worse, American rejects who got cut from US leagues are starting to flood our junior leagues in BC and Alberta.

 

#3: Women's hockey is entirely skewed towards the United States.  Canadian or American, any talented player goes to an American college to play hockey.  The only exception I can think of is Hayley Wickenheiser, who has been retired for years now.

 

 

[PureQuickness]

32 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

Holy shit, man.  Just answer the fucking questions I laid out for you.

 

 

 

 

No, you don't get it - do you?

 

The United States as a whole for men should be performing BETTER than Canada on international tournaments. No wonder why you won't answer this - the answer is clear: Canada outperforms the United States (junior OR otherwise). No wonder why you try to weasel out of this and say "medals don't matter" when talking about INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE. It's laughable.

 

I love how you suddenly decide to talk about women's hockey (introducing a new factor) rather than ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION.

 

BTW here's Canadian women's hockey from 2013 to 2023 (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_women's_national_ice_hockey_team)

 

  

Here's the United States (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_women's_national_ice_hockey_team)

 

 

Here's something you fail to mention in your women's hockey example: the competition level when it comes to women's hockey is basically either Canada vs United States, for the most part. This is a fact. If you look at the records for the other countries, you can see above that it is either the US or Canada that wins these tournaments. That said, I thoroughly enjoy watching hockey, regardless if it's men or women.

 

Suddenly medals matter now for women's hockey in your example? LOL. This is why I've been calling you out for your tactics. You are picking and choosing what to include in your argument.

Here's Canada: Looks pretty competitive to me, as I said. US women take the edge for the wins, but Canada's pretty much on-par with the US.

 

Edited January 5 by PureQuickness

[Miss Korea]

10 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

No, you don't get it - do you?

 

The United States as a whole for men should be performing BETTER than Canada on international tournaments. No wonder why you won't answer this - the answer is clear: Canada outperforms the United States (junior OR otherwise). No wonder why you try to weasel out of this and say "medals don't matter" when talking about INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE. It's laughable.

 

I love how you suddenly decide to talk about women's hockey (introducing a new factor) rather than ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION.

 

BTW here's Canadian women's hockey from 2013 to 2023 (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_women's_national_ice_hockey_team)

 

 

Here's the United States (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_women's_national_ice_hockey_team)

 

Here's something you fail to mention in your women's hockey example: the competition level when it comes to women's hockey is basically either Canada vs United States, for the most part. This is a fact. If you look at the records for the other countries, you can see above that it is either the US or Canada that wins these tournaments. That said, I thoroughly enjoy watching hockey, regardless if it's men or women.

 

Suddenly medals matter now for women's hockey in your example? LOL. This is why I've been calling you out for your tactics. You are picking and choosing what to include in your argument.

Here's Canada: Looks pretty competitive to me, as I said. US women take the edge for the wins, but Canada's pretty much on-par with the US.

 

 

Once again you continue to reference medal tables from tournaments.  I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but... THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOCKEY DEVELOPMENT, NOT INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AMERICAN TO PLAY IN AMERICA AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CANADIAN TO PLAY IN CANADA.  Honestly, why do you not get this basic concept?  Every single poster here gets the memo except you.  Notice how you are literally the only poster in four pages of discussion to even talk about the world juniors/world championships?  Everyone else here gets what I'm saying.  They don't have to agree with me, but they get my point.  You don't.  

 

Go read my post regarding women's hockey AGAIN.  Read it slowly.  Notice how I'm talking about young Canadian and American women going to the NCAA to play hockey.  That has literally nothing to do with Olympics or World Championships or anything.  Hillary Knight has played in CANADA.  Marie-Philip Poulin has played in the UNITED STATES.  Get that through your head?

 

Let me make it simpler for you:

 

 

J.T. Miller.  Gold medalist.  Played junior hockey in.... CANADA.

 

 

Here's an ironic photo.  Guess where the guy on the left went for junior hockey?  That's right - CANADA.  And guess where the guy on the right went to school?  THE UNITED STATES!!!

 

Here are some more young players who went through multiple years of the US DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM:

 

  

 

Thank you, America.  Thank you for helping develop the next generation of Canadian talent.

[PureQuickness]

4 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Once again you continue to reference medal tables from tournaments.  I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but... THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOCKEY DEVELOPMENT, NOT INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AMERICAN TO PLAY IN AMERICA AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE CANADIAN TO PLAY IN CANADA.  Honestly, why do you not get this basic concept?  Every single poster here gets the memo except you.  Notice how you are literally the only poster in four pages of discussion to even talk about the world juniors/world championships?  Everyone else here gets what I'm saying.  They don't have to agree with me, but they get my point.  You don't.  

 

Go read my post regarding women's hockey AGAIN.  Read it slowly.  Notice how I'm talking about young Canadian and American women going to the NCAA to play hockey.  That has literally nothing to do with Olympics or World Championships or anything.  Hillary Knight has played in CANADA.  Marie-Philip Poulin has played in the UNITED STATES.  Get that through your head?

 

Let me make it simpler for you:

 

 

J.T. Miller.  Gold medalist.  Played junior hockey in.... CANADA.

 

 

Here's an ironic photo.  Guess where the guy on the left went for junior hockey?  That's right - CANADA.  And guess where the guy on the right went to school?  THE UNITED STATES!!!

 

Here are some more young players who went through multiple years of the US DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM:

 

  

 

Thank you, America.  Thank you for helping develop the next generation of Canadian talent.

 

Answer the question: why don't the United States have similar if not better results than Canada? If all things are equal?

 

Still waiting for an answer.

 

 

[Miss Korea]

26 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Answer the question: why don't the United States have similar if not better results than Canada? If all things are equal?

 

Still waiting for an answer.

 

Why are the world juniors that important to you?  Do you honestly believe that hockey development is over as soon as you turn 20 years old?  Why do you not seem to understand the fact that American colleges offer Canadians AND Americans the opportunity to develop their game even in the mid-20s?  The Canucks literally just signed four college guys last Spring.  None of them have played international hockey.  How the fuck does an under-20 tournament have any bearing on how those four guys spent time in the United States?

 

Canadians have talent.  We are very good at hockey.  We send our best players to dress up for Team Canada and bring home the silverware.  Great.  And a lot of these Canadians are going to the fucking United States of America to play hockey.  They do so for multiple reasons, but one is because they have a really good development program there.

 

Keep in mind that if you actually want to talk about medal results, you are in an extremely poor position to make any type of argument.  The current USA team features three players from the OHL.  The rest are exclusively freshmen/sophomores in college.  They are 6-0 in this year's tournament.  They are going to play for the gold medal tomorrow.  Canada, on the other hand, went 3-2 and featured a squad almost entirely of CHL players.  Three exceptions: Celebrini (NCAA), Wood, (NCAA), and Poitras (Bruins).

 

Keep in mind, this is not my premise.  This is your premise.  I don't give a shit about a 7-game junior tournament when it comes to actual player development.  The best 18 and 19 year olds aren't even playing in Sweden right now.  Bedard.  Fantilli.  Carlsson.  Wright.  Slafkovsky.  Cooley.  Nemec.  Korchinski.  Benson.  All of them were eligible to play this year and did not.  Beyond that, there are hundreds of non WJC players who are going to make the NHL someday.  They will never play for their country but they will find success in the NHL.

Edited January 5 by Miss Korea

[Miss Korea]

@stawns @HKSR someone help me out here.  Help me get this simple idea through this guy's head.

[PureQuickness]

25 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Why are the world juniors that important to you?  Do you honestly believe that hockey development is over as soon as you turn 20 years old?  Why do you not seem to understand the fact that American colleges offer Canadians AND Americans the opportunity to develop their game even in the mid-20s?  The Canucks literally just signed four college guys last Spring.  None of them have played international hockey.  How the fuck does an under-20 tournament have any bearing on how those four guys spent time in the United States?

 

Canadians have talent.  We are very good at hockey.  We send our best players to dress up for Team Canada and bring home the silverware.  Great.  And a lot of these Canadians are going to the fucking United States of America to play hockey.  They do so for multiple reasons, but one is because they have a really good development program there.

 

Keep in mind that if you actually want to talk about medal results, you are in an extremely poor position to make any type of argument.  The current USA team features three players from the OHL.  The rest are exclusively freshmen/sophomores in college.  They are 6-0 in this year's tournament.  They are going to play for the gold medal tomorrow.  Canada, on the other hand, went 3-2 and featured a squad almost entirely of CHL players.  Three exceptions: Celebrini (NCAA), Wood, (NCAA), and Poitras (Bruins).

 

Keep in mind, this is not my premise.  This is your premise.  I don't give a shit about a 7-game junior tournament when it comes to actual player development.  The best 18 and 19 year olds aren't even playing in Sweden right now.  Bedard.  Fantilli.  Carlsson.  Wright.  Slafkovsky.  Cooley.  Nemec.  Korchinski.  Benson.  All of them were eligible to play this year and did not.  Beyond that, there are hundreds of non WJC players who are going to make the NHL someday.  They will never play for their country but they will find success in the NHL.

 

Uh huh, sure. The results should speak for themselves when it comes to development, right? The United States has always attracted people to go to school. Like I said in my previous posts, this is not new to hockey. You go to any discipline and the attraction is to find jobs down there. The market is HUGE there and so is the education when it's paid for.

 

So you're totally ok to entertain the idea of women's hockey being skewed towards the US, but you claim not to give a shit about the WJCs lol.

 

Alright, WJCs are not a prime indicator of a country's success, but to claim not to care about the medals is stupidly obtuse.

 

[Miss Korea]

14 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Uh huh, sure. The results should speak for themselves when it comes to development, right? The United States has always attracted people to go to school. Like I said in my previous posts, this is not new to hockey. You go to any discipline and the attraction is to find jobs down there. The market is HUGE there and so is the education when it's paid for.

 

So you're totally ok to entertain the idea of women's hockey being skewed towards the US, but you claim not to give a shit about the WJCs lol.

 

Alright, WJCs are not a prime indicator of a country's success, but to claim not to care about the medals is stupidly obtuse.

 

Women's hockey is skewed towards the United States because players go over there to fucking play hockey.  Any Canadian player not named Wickenheiser has gone over to the United States to play college hockey.  That's my point with women's hockey, and that's my point with men's hockey. 

 

We have never had Canadian first overall picks go to the United States to play junior hockey in the past.  Never.  Now it's happening every fucking year - a lottery pick abandons the CHL for the USHL/NCAA.  Happened in 2017 (Makar).  Happened again in 2021 (Power).  Happened last year (Fantilli).  Gonna happen again in 2024 (Celebrini).  You're telling me these guys who are going 1st/2nd overall chose the United States because of school??  How much more do I have to simplify this message for you?

 

If you really do care about the World Juniors, you should be eating your words right now.  Canada got absolutely clobbered this tournament.  I'm choosing not to engage in such an easy argument because 5-7 games do not indicate the state of an entire fucking country's development system.

Edited January 5 by Miss Korea

[stawns]

25 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Women's hockey is skewed towards the United States because players go over there to fucking play hockey.  Any Canadian player not named Wickenheiser has gone over to the United States to play college hockey.  That's my point with women's hockey, and that's my point with men's hockey. 

 

We have never had Canadian first overall picks go to the United States to play junior hockey in the past.  Never.  Now it's happening every fucking year - a lottery pick abandons the CHL for the USHL/NCAA.  Happened in 2017 (Makar).  Happened again in 2021 (Power).  Happened last year (Fantilli).  Gonna happen again in 2024 (Celebrini).  You're telling me these guys who are going 1st/2nd overall chose the United States because of school??  How much more do I have to simplify this message for you?

 

If you really do care about the World Juniors, you should be eating your words right now.  Canada got absolutely clobbered this tournament.  I'm choosing not to engage in such an easy argument because 5-7 games do not indicate the state of an entire fucking country's development system.

[Curmudgeon]

2 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

Thank you, America.  Thank you for helping develop the next generation of Canadian talent.

 

Why do you insist on looking at the world through nationalistic glasses? I really don't know what difference it makes where young folks choose to develop their game. Is it that you want to stand up proudly and boast that we here in Canada develop the best players in the world? Do you really need to take credit for the development of players? Like, who cares?

[Miss Korea]

19 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

 

Why do you insist on looking at the world through nationalistic glasses? I really don't know what difference it makes where young folks choose to develop their game. Is it that you want to stand up proudly and boast that we here in Canada develop the best players in the world? Do you really need to take credit for the development of players? Like, who cares?

I'm sure a lot of Canadians would care if they were told that the United States has outclassed them in terms of national hockey development and infrastructure.  At the same that USA Hockey has gotten its shit together and holds a ton of influence, Hockey Canada has lost its control over hockey development in this country.  Canadians might be the most talented group of hockey players in the world, but as a country it is no longer the best place to actually develop that talent.  Ultimately, it makes for lesser viewing experience across the CHL and Junior A leagues if our best players continue to leave the country.

 

The uncertainty and news surrounding BC Hockey, the BCHL and the new Junior A leagues is an example of a national problem (Hockey Canada) trickling down to the local level.  It's a legitimate concern for the future of Canadian hockey.  

[Miss Korea]

As I predicted in the opening thread, the AJHL appears to be suffering from mutiny.  Say hello to the mess that is Canadian junior hockey!

 

 

[PureQuickness]

On 1/4/2024 at 9:56 PM, Curmudgeon said:

 

Why do you insist on looking at the world through nationalistic glasses? I really don't know what difference it makes where young folks choose to develop their game. Is it that you want to stand up proudly and boast that we here in Canada develop the best players in the world? Do you really need to take credit for the development of players? Like, who cares?

 

I'm gonna take a stab that he has a personal vendetta at Hockey Canada for some reason: perhaps he wasn't selected for advancement or they didn't help him with his hockey career.

 

He's been presented with facts that Hockey Canada as an organization has been fairly known as a winning one, so we look at medals to define success. Naturally, OP doesn't want to do this because it would blow his point out of the water, which was to argue that the US has better development than Canada. But how do you measure development? Winning. And how is winning measured? Medals. Canada overall has more medals than the US, especially in recent memory. It's not to say that the US teams are incompetent, but for the US that has so much money poured in (again, that is an argument that OP has brought up to define success), they are underperforming on the world stage.

 

His counterpoint is that tournament success doesn't mean anything and he points out that many players who do well on the tournament stage don't end up doing well as a career. A lot of the kids start off in Canada, so those early development programs - guess what? Hockey Canada. He also talks about how you can see people moving to the US as some kind of proof that they are better. Well, it's not limited to hockey. Many people outside of hockey go over to the US (or abroad) for the special opportunities. Yes, you could even be paid a lot better in the States. And as we are all aware, the States is far from rosy on everything else, so you really have to weigh out what you want in life.

 

It's a joke of an analysis. You've correctly identified where he's coming from. He's not in it to change his mind. He just wants to cherrypick facts to support his point.

Edited January 24 by PureQuickness

[stawns]

One thing is for sure, this is the latest in a string of sexual assault scandals to hit hockey Canada in the last two decades.  A reckoning is coming and very likely hockey Canada, as we currently know it will cease to exist

 

And those are just the reported, verifiable ones 

Edited January 24 by stawns

[Coconuts]

I don't see anything wrong with wanting Canada's league's to be competitive with the US's when it comes to things like development quality and scholarships. Most players aren't going to make the bigs, why wouldn't you take the athlete university ride and get an education if that were an option? 

 

Hockey is expensive to play but that doesn't mean players in lower leagues are all silver spoon types, for several guys it's likely the best way to build a career without taking on student dept. 

[Miss Korea]

7 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

I'm gonna take a stab that he has a personal vendetta at Hockey Canada for some reason: perhaps he wasn't selected for advancement or they didn't help him with his hockey career.

 

He's been presented with facts that Hockey Canada as an organization has been fairly known as a winning one, so we look at medals to define success. Naturally, OP doesn't want to do this because it would blow his point out of the water, which was to argue that the US has better development than Canada. But how do you measure development? Winning. And how is winning measured? Medals. Canada overall has more medals than the US, especially in recent memory. It's not to say that the US teams are incompetent, but for the US that has so much money poured in (again, that is an argument that OP has brought up to define success), they are underperforming on the world stage.

 

His counterpoint is that tournament success doesn't mean anything and he points out that many players who do well on the tournament stage don't end up doing well as a career. A lot of the kids start off in Canada, so those early development programs - guess what? Hockey Canada. He also talks about how you can see people moving to the US as some kind of proof that they are better. Well, it's not limited to hockey. Many people outside of hockey go over to the US (or abroad) for the special opportunities. Yes, you could even be paid a lot better in the States. And as we are all aware, the States is far from rosy on everything else, so you really have to weigh out what you want in life.

 

It's a joke of an analysis. You've correctly identified where he's coming from. He's not in it to change his mind. He just wants to cherrypick facts to support his point.

 

What a stupid response.  You measure success based on the amount of talent coming out of that country's system.  If someone from another country comes to Canada, lights it up in the CHL and has success in the NHL, that reflects upon CANADA.  If a Canadian goes down to the United States as a kid and plays his whole junior career there, that reflects upon the UNITED STATES.

 

The entire development system of this country has been rotting away for decades due to HC's mismanagement, and yet there are clowns like you who think none of that matters because Canada is still winning medals.  Guess what, buddy?  All those American kids who used to come up to Canada to play junior?  They're all gone.  All of them.  Half of the US WJC gold medal squad from 11 years ago played junior in Canada.  This year, just one.

 

You still haven't been able to answer why more Americans stay in their country while more Canadians choose to leave their country to play junior hockey.

[Provost]

With two nephews playing high level hockey (neither of them likely to get drafted but solid chances at college or Europe/lower leagues), I can agree that the system needs to be changed up.

 

Weird mix of volunteers and people getting rich off of running expensive academies where purse strings are more important than talent.  Different leagues with empire building and internal squabbles.

 

I think that pretty much everyone can agree that the US development team is the gold standard the last decade or so and we shouldn’t feel ashamed to shamelessly borrow from that model.

[PureQuickness]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

 

What a stupid response.  You measure success based on the amount of talent coming out of that country's system.  If someone from another country comes to Canada, lights it up in the CHL and has success in the NHL, that reflects upon CANADA.  If a Canadian goes down to the United States as a kid and plays his whole junior career there, that reflects upon the UNITED STATES.

 

The entire development system of this country has been rotting away for decades due to HC's mismanagement, and yet there are clowns like you who think none of that matters because Canada is still winning medals.  Guess what, buddy?  All those American kids who used to come up to Canada to play junior?  They're all gone.  All of them.  Half of the US WJC gold medal squad from 11 years ago played junior in Canada.  This year, just one.

 

You still haven't been able to answer why more Americans stay in their country while more Canadians choose to leave their country to play junior hockey.

 

I have, lots of goddamn times.

 

The phenomenon is not at all unique to hockey. If you stick your head out of the window and get some fresh air, you'd realize that America is approximately 10x bigger than Canada in scale. Your point is pretty weak when you consider that fact.

 

But of course you don't care about facts: you just want to mudsling Hockey Canada. And I'm not cucking Hockey Canada. The hockey scandal is absolutely disgraceful to their reputation and no one should be defending that.

[Miss Korea]

4 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I don't see anything wrong with wanting Canada's league's to be competitive with the US's when it comes to things like development quality and scholarships. Most players aren't going to make the bigs, why wouldn't you take the athlete university ride and get an education if that were an option? 

 

Hockey is expensive to play but that doesn't mean players in lower leagues are all silver spoon types, for several guys it's likely the best way to build a career without taking on student dept. 

 

That is exactly what USPORTS is trying to do here in Canada and they have made significant strides.  It's the one positive thing about the current state of hockey development in this country.  Everything else is a complete mess at the moment.

[Miss Korea]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

With two nephews playing high level hockey (neither of them likely to get drafted but solid chances at college or Europe/lower leagues), I can agree that the system needs to be changed up.

 

Weird mix of volunteers and people getting rich off of running expensive academies where purse strings are more important than talent.  Different leagues with empire building and internal squabbles.

 

I think that pretty much everyone can agree that the US development team is the gold standard the last decade or so and we shouldn’t feel ashamed to shamelessly borrow from that model.

 

Go tell this poster below that. 

 

Just now, PureQuickness said:

 

I have, lots of goddamn times.

 

The phenomenon is not at all unique to hockey. If you stick your head out of the window and get some fresh air, you'd realize that America is approximately 10x bigger than Canada in scale. Your point is pretty weak when you consider that fact.

 

But of course you don't care about facts: you just want to mudsling Hockey Canada. And I'm not cucking Hockey Canada. The hockey scandal is absolutely disgraceful to their reputation and no one should be defending that.

 

You have by far been the most fervent defender of Hockey Canada in this thread.  The news that is breaking today is actually old-ass news.  I have repeatedly stated how they've put an insane amount of effort into covering up scandals and not focusing on improving hockey development.  And all you keep spouting is medals medals medals.  I'm talking about the influence that Hockey Canada has over the THOUSANDS of kids trying to make their way through the various junior systems across the country, and here you're talking about medals medals medals.  What the fuck does a Junior A league in British Columbia have anything to do with World Championships?

[PureQuickness]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

With two nephews playing high level hockey (neither of them likely to get drafted but solid chances at college or Europe/lower leagues), I can agree that the system needs to be changed up.

 

Weird mix of volunteers and people getting rich off of running expensive academies where purse strings are more important than talent.  Different leagues with empire building and internal squabbles.

 

I think that pretty much everyone can agree that the US development team is the gold standard the last decade or so and we shouldn’t feel ashamed to shamelessly borrow from that model.

 

I don't think it is the gold standard at all, so I'm not sure why you're speaking on my behalf. I've made the argument that the US has always been bigger in scale, so naturally, everything else will be magnified. If you were to reverse the positions of Canada and the United States, you would get a similar result, I'm betting.

 

Take this into account: Hockey Canada is more than just the juniors: the programs BEFORE the juniors is also under Hockey Canada jurisdiction. In short, Hockey Canada is a governing body. To say Hockey Canada sucks because of the players flocking elsewhere is a weird thing to say.

 

To be perfectly honest, Canada is doing very well competitively despite its southern neighbour having a lot more resources. There's a reason why we, as a country, has more medals than the US does. Now, OP will say, "well a lot of the Canadian players benefited from the US system". So why is the US underperforming when it matters the most? Medal counts. If what OP is saying is true that the US has a better development program, they should be on par with Canada, but that's not the case.

 

Tournament appearances are one of the biggest reasons for funding. That exposure is proof of a development program flourishing.

[PureQuickness]

1 minute ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Go tell this poster below that. 

 

 

You have by far been the most fervent defender of Hockey Canada in this thread.  The news that is breaking today is actually old-ass news.  I have repeatedly stated how they've put an insane amount of effort into covering up scandals and not focusing on improving hockey development.  And all you keep spouting is medals medals medals.  I'm talking about the influence that Hockey Canada has over the THOUSANDS of kids trying to make their way through the various junior systems across the country, and here you're talking about medals medals medals.  What the fuck does a Junior A league in British Columbia have anything to do with World Championships?

 

It's weird that you start changing the dynamics of your argument as soon as I address a weakness in your point. The SCALE of the two countries has to be considered when making an argument.

 

It's a weak point to say "Look, the US hockey program is doing good because EVERYONE is rushing to go to the US"

 

The US overall has a better academic system, especially when it's paid off for you. To me, it makes sense why people will go there. This is BEYOND a Hockey Canada thing is what I've been trying to tell you.

[Provost]

10 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

I don't think it is the gold standard at all, so I'm not sure why you're speaking on my behalf. I've made the argument that the US has always been bigger in scale, so naturally, everything else will be magnified. If you were to reverse the positions of Canada and the United States, you would get a similar result, I'm betting.

 

Take this into account: Hockey Canada is more than just the juniors: the programs BEFORE the juniors is also under Hockey Canada jurisdiction. In short, Hockey Canada is a governing body. To say Hockey Canada sucks because of the players flocking elsewhere is a weird thing to say.

 

To be perfectly honest, Canada is doing very well competitively despite its southern neighbour having a lot more resources. There's a reason why we, as a country, has more medals than the US does. Now, OP will say, "well a lot of the Canadian players benefited from the US system". So why is the US underperforming when it matters the most? Medal counts. If what OP is saying is true that the US has a better development program, they should be on par with Canada, but that's not the case.

 

Tournament appearances are one of the biggest reasons for funding. That exposure is proof of a development program flourishing.

You are missing some very key elements to make what you are saying true.

 

The US is larger, but hockey is more of a fringe sport choice there.  In Canada it is the sport of choice.  Canada is the Goliath in hockey and you are making it seem the other way around.

 

Hockey participation by kids in Canada is roughly double than that of kids in the US.  That isn’t a rate… it is around half a million kids who play hockey in Canada to a quarter of a million kids who play hockey in the USA.  Your argument is just based on a false assumption.  The size of the overall US population is a poor proxy for how big its hockey program is.

 

No one said Hockey Canada was just the juniors so you are batting at windmills there.

Edited January 24 by Provost