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

[shiznak]

21 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Ah, Heatley and Kariya are good examples.  The rest are what-ifs.  Hull did go to college.  Those other Americans did go to college.  Jack Hughes didn't even go to college - he just made the jump straight from the USHL.  Meanwhile, Crosby did not go to college.  Maybe he would've picked college in today's age. 

 

But it's not like North Dakota or Boston College suddenly developed into great academic institutions overnight.  They've always been better schools than a lot of Canadian counterparts.  11 years ago, six players from the US junior gold squad came from the CHL.  This year, just two.  If you track the numbers of Americans coming up to the CHL, it has dropped dramatically.  If you look at the numbers of Canadians going down to the NCAA, that has increased dramatically.  You cannot deny  the shift that we have seen in the past decade.  Educational opportunity doesn't explain the shift.

 

I think it’s more to do with staying in the US than going to a new country, going into a random family’s household, and into a small town city in Canada. 
 

If you were an American born hockey player and had the choice of staying in the US, going to an university with people you grew up playing with/against, or going to a “foreign” country with no direction. I think most would pick the former.

 

Again, one of the biggest factor for most Canadians going down to the States, is living on their own and being independent. You don’t have that freedom playing in the CHL, being supervised by your billet family.

[Miss Korea]

1 minute ago, shiznak said:

 

If these kids, are one-and-done talents…… wouldn’t they choose the CHL, where it’s the fastest way to the NHL? If you’re talented then it doesn’t really matter where you go, right? Take Bedard for example, he could have just stayed in prep school a year, go to college to strengthen his body and then go straight to the NHL. Why didn’t he take that route? Why didn’t Auston Matthews take the same route as his peers and play for Nebraska rather than play in Sweden? Again, it’s more about preferences than development. 
 

We seen numerous players, over the course of time, go straight to the NHL. Most recently, Zach Benson. 

Our American superstars have been here since 2019 and haven’t done anything for us until now. Is it because we got all the “ Canadian crap” out of our team or is it because we finally have a coach who can implement a winning structure?

 

 

It has nothing to do with where they're from, and that's my point.  All are hypothetical Team USA has to do is get a coach who can implement a winning structure.  They have the talent - more than they've ever had.

 

You cannot keep dropping names.  Individual stories are not as important as the bigger picture.  My argument is largely about sheer numbers.  How many guys have successfully made the jump from college or CHL to the NHL without any years in the minors?  Or better yet, what is the average number of years that a college/CHL alum spends in the AHL before cracking the main roster?

 

The preferences you speak of have started to tip strongly in the United States' favour.  Either Canada has slipped up or the United States is surging forward, or both.  Either way, it means that we as a hockey development nation are starting to get eclipsed by them.

 

My argument is that both things happened.  Zachary Benson and Connor Bedard were drafted by Regina and Vancouver.  Imagine if they got drafted by Kootenay and Moose Jaw.   Since they're elite talents i guess they still would've stuck around.  But if you're a mid-round WHL draft pick, you can choose the NCAA.  The education opportunity is undeniable.  But your chances of going pro also increase.  Now you don't have to make that decision at age 20.  You can make it at age 24.

[Miss Korea]

4 minutes ago, shiznak said:

I think it’s more to do with staying in the US than going to a new country, going into a random family’s household, and into a small town city in Canada. 
 

If you were an American born hockey player and had the choice of staying in the US, going to an university with people you grew up playing with/against, or going to a “foreign” country with no direction. I think most would pick the former.

 

Again, one of the biggest factor for most Canadians going down to the States, is living on their own and being independent. You don’t have that freedom playing in the CHL, being supervised by your billet family.

 

Right, and none of those circumstances have changed in the past 10 years.  Hell, Conor Garland declined a full ride scholarship to Penn State and played for my hometown Moncton.  And good for him.  But he is becoming more and more of a minority case every single year.

 

Now, there is an argument that the NCAA's changing NIL rules are going to allow athletes to make money off sponsorships.  That is an opportunity not offered to any young hockey athlete here in North America.  But again, what has Hockey Canada and the CHL to counteract those trends?  They obviously don't have the big money that those schools have, but they're not doing anything about it.  It definitely hurts the prestige of Canadian hockey when you see a declining rate of American CHLers while also seeing an increasing rate of Canadian USHLers.  

[PureQuickness]

5 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

It has nothing to do with where they're from, and that's my point.  All are hypothetical Team USA has to do is get a coach who can implement a winning structure.  They have the talent - more than they've ever had.

 

You cannot keep dropping names.  Individual stories are not as important as the bigger picture.  My argument is largely about sheer numbers.  How many guys have successfully made the jump from college or CHL to the NHL without any years in the minors?  Or better yet, what is the average number of years that a college/CHL alum spends in the AHL before cracking the main roster?

 

The preferences you speak of have started to tip strongly in the United States' favour.  Either Canada has slipped up or the United States is surging forward, or both.  Either way, it means that we as a hockey development nation are starting to get eclipsed by them.

 

My argument is that both things happened.  Zachary Benson and Connor Bedard were drafted by Regina and Vancouver.  Imagine if they got drafted by Kootenay and Moose Jaw.   Since they're elite talents i guess they still would've stuck around.  But if you're a mid-round WHL draft pick, you can choose the NCAA.  The education opportunity is undeniable.  But your chances of going pro also increase.  Now you don't have to make that decision at age 20.  You can make it at age 24.

 

Right, so basically the rules for the argument you want to make can be changed on the fly. Fits your MO.

 

Like when you said tournament medals don't matter when it doesn't support your narrative (Canada having more medals than the US historically, even from a recent lenses)... but they suddenly matter when grouped by players from America with medals. I'm still laughing out loud at this sudden change.

 

...and when you don't want to drop names, individual stories "don't matter".

 

People go to school when they're not a TOP PICK because their certainty in the NHL is not solidified. If you can go to school (American) and play hockey, why the hell not?

 

The opportunities are BIG in the US and that's not new, OBVIOUSLY. This is BEYOND hockey. So your original point about American hockey development being SUPERIOR to Canadian hockey development is not supported with your points.

 

Obviously your priority is to bash Hockey Canada because it's all their fault.

[Rekker]

7 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

But again, what has Hockey Canada and the CHL to counteract those trends?  They obviously don't have the big money that those schools have, but they're not doing anything about it.

Scholarships at US schools are also way more lucrative. Usports scholarships are ok, but usually not nearly as lucrative as US schools. I do find Usports athletes are more likely to complete their terms with their teams though, which is nice. The States are a grind and kids are constantly cut loose. My kid has a $6000 education a season Usport scholarship, free sticks, free hockey. This is up there for incentives. She's in her third year and having the time of her life. 

[Miss Korea]

16 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Right, so basically the rules for the argument you want to make can be changed on the fly. Fits your MO.

 

Like when you said tournament medals don't matter when it doesn't support your narrative (Canada having more medals than the US historically, even from a recent lenses)... but they suddenly matter when grouped by players from America with medals. I'm still laughing out loud at this sudden change.

 

...and when you don't want to drop names, individual stories "don't matter".

 

People go to school when they're not a TOP PICK because their certainty in the NHL is not solidified. If you can go to school (American) and play hockey, why the hell not?

 

The opportunities are BIG in the US and that's not new, OBVIOUSLY. This is BEYOND hockey. So your original point about American hockey development being SUPERIOR to Canadian hockey development is not supported with your points.

 

Obviously your priority is to bash Hockey Canada because it's all their fault.

 

All I want you is to tell me what USPORTS is and you can't.  If someone doesn't know what that is, it's a waste of time to try and debate hockey development.

 

Do you or do you not know what it is?

[Miss Korea]

6 minutes ago, Rekker said:

Scholarships at US schools are also way more lucrative. Usports scholarships are ok, but usually not nearly as lucrative as US schools. I do find Usports athletes are more likely to complete their terms with their teams though, which is nice. The States are a grind and kids are constantly cut loose. My kid has a $6000 education a season Usport scholarship, free sticks, free hockey. This is up there for incentives. She's in her third year and having the time of her life. 

 

One of the only legitimately good stories about Canadian hockey and it comes from outside of Hockey Canada's influence.

[PureQuickness]

Just now, Miss Korea said:

 

All I want you is to tell me what USPORTS is and you can't.  If someone doesn't know what that is, it's a waste of time to try and debate hockey development.

 

Do you or do you not know what it is?

 

Uh huh. You tell people to READ posts, but you are not actualy reading posts. You are selectively picking parts of the argument to fit your narrative. It's like trying to stuff square pegs into circle ones.

 

Mind I remind you that this is what Shiznak wrote:

 

[quote]
 

There’s many pro reasoning why players choose the college route over the CHL, and it has little to do with development. 
- You can get to choose your own path, life after hockey.

- The freedom of getting to choose your own school to attend.

- The facilities.

- Playing with mature players (which I don’t understand.)

- Experiencing the college life. Being independent.

 

When you playing in the CHL, you don’t get to experience those things.

- You start off for the team that drafts you.

- Education is not at its best. 

- High-school gyms.

- Playing with players around your own age.

- Living with your billets.
 

[/quote]

 

So again, you're not REALLY talking about hockey development here. You're talking about Canada vs US, specifically Hockey Canada being supposedly worse at development than the United States.

 

But hilariously, you don't want to talk about the opportunities that the US has (in fact, a few of your posts have downplayed the significance of them), which is ODD.

 

Why should I take a discussion about hockey development with you seriously? You haven't re-assessed your initial points. You are just making excuses and then going back to your original points.

 

[Miss Korea]

@PureQuickness tell me right now what USPORTS is.  And tell me right now what the situation is for the BCHL and AJHL.  I promise to try my hardest to address your questions if you can just answer these basic prompts first.

[Ghostsof1915]

I have a possible solution but it will never happen because no province will have the the money to fund it.

 

Create a School hockey system.

 

Beginner: Grade 6-7. No hitting, no fighting at any level full face helmets, one game a week. Mostly practice to learn the basics and provide foundation for skills and skating.

Novice: Grade 8. This is where it goes from being for everyone to the better players. Limited hitting learning how to give/take a hit. Games 1 game per week, then 2 every alternate week.  Upgrading skills and skating getting players to focus on one type of position Goalie/Forward/Defence.

Intermediate: Grades 9-10. Advanced skills and drills. Systems are being taught. 2 games a week.

Senior: Grades 11-12. 2 games one week, 3 games next week. Systems, and advanced skills.

 

Work with wholesalers, consignment sales, last years products at discounts. Equipment gets provided for players. Skates/mouth guards/ Helmets/Sticks.

So families can afford to have kids at least try hockey. Every school district gets funding for 4 rinks, provided the school has the room for a small rink.

Rinks don't have to be large or anything. Tickets for games $2 minimum per person, but people can donate more and get a receipt and it counts as charity.

 

That way there's an additional pipeline for hockey players. Scouts are allowed to attend games. Players can get scholarships.

 

LIke I said it won't happen because it will cost too much. But kids will at least in grade 6-7 should get the chance to play hockey. And try to improve skills, and parents won't have to work 3 jobs to just pay for it. Maybe we might find a whole new group of Goalies and Skaters that we never would have had a chance before.

[Curmudgeon]

4 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

Now, despite me saying that, Brzustewicz has represented Team USA in the U-18 championships.  In that format, the Americans are king.  Interpret that however you want.

 

I agree that the US hockey development system is superior to whatever it is Hockey Canada is trying to do. But you said nobody comes to Canada, and that isn't/wasn't true. not intended as a correction, but a reminder.

[PureQuickness]

3 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

 

I agree that the US hockey development system is superior to whatever it is Hockey Canada is trying to do. But you said nobody comes to Canada, and that isn't/wasn't true. not intended as a correction, but a reminder.

 

May I ask in your honest opinion why the US hockey develop system is superior to Hockey Canada?

[PureQuickness]

31 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I have a possible solution but it will never happen because no province will have the the money to fund it.

 

Create a School hockey system.

 

Beginner: Grade 6-7. No hitting, no fighting at any level full face helmets, one game a week. Mostly practice to learn the basics and provide foundation for skills and skating.

Novice: Grade 8. This is where it goes from being for everyone to the better players. Limited hitting learning how to give/take a hit. Games 1 game per week, then 2 every alternate week.  Upgrading skills and skating getting players to focus on one type of position Goalie/Forward/Defence.

Intermediate: Grades 9-10. Advanced skills and drills. Systems are being taught. 2 games a week.

Senior: Grades 11-12. 2 games one week, 3 games next week. Systems, and advanced skills.

 

Work with wholesalers, consignment sales, last years products at discounts. Equipment gets provided for players. Skates/mouth guards/ Helmets/Sticks.

So families can afford to have kids at least try hockey. Every school district gets funding for 4 rinks, provided the school has the room for a small rink.

Rinks don't have to be large or anything. Tickets for games $2 minimum per person, but people can donate more and get a receipt and it counts as charity.

 

That way there's an additional pipeline for hockey players. Scouts are allowed to attend games. Players can get scholarships.

 

LIke I said it won't happen because it will cost too much. But kids will at least in grade 6-7 should get the chance to play hockey. And try to improve skills, and parents won't have to work 3 jobs to just pay for it. Maybe we might find a whole new group of Goalies and Skaters that we never would have had a chance before.

 

It's a pretty interesting and thoughtful system. I think it will help solidify the talent in the country. How would we cut the costs down?

 

And if the money is coming from the province, I can see some people raising a stink about their tax payer money going to a sport they don't want their kids to play, which could be a valid criticism.

[HKSR]

10 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

It's a pretty interesting and thoughtful system. I think it will help solidify the talent in the country. How would we cut the costs down?

 

And if the money is coming from the province, I can see some people raising a stink about their tax payer money going to a sport they don't want their kids to play, which could be a valid criticism.

Corporate Sponsorships?  

[Ghostsof1915]

7 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Corporate Sponsorships?  

Whatever works. It would be great to also see improvements in our collegiate system in sports as well. Sure we will never be NCAA. But it would be great to see Canadians get universities get an education, and have decent sports programs. Our youth could use more social skills, teamwork, and improving overall health.

[Curmudgeon]

2 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

May I ask in your honest opinion why the US hockey develop system is superior to Hockey Canada?

 

There is no single thing that leads me to that opinion. I look at the NCAA structure and how it has become much stronger and has provided good development programs, resulting in more college players playing in the NHL. The US National Development Teams (U17, U18) put together the best 16- and 17-year old players in the country and keep them together for two years before pretty much all of them move on to World Juniors and NCAA schools. In the past few years we are beginning to see players from non-traditional hockey outposts as California, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Colorado, and even a handful from southern states of Alabama, Missouri and Mississippi. US Hockey has spread from the traditional northeast and midwest hotbeds to becoming more mainstream and developing more NHL players. In Canada there really isn't anywhere to grow the game.

 

In Canada you play U-13, U15 and U18, then you may be drafted by a Major Junior Team. If you make a Major Junior Team, you will play twice as many games as the NCAA and the only accountability is how you perform on the ice. In the NCAA you have an academic obligation as well as a team obligation that puts great emphasis on physical conditioning and strengthening. Overall, I think the US development process has evolved and changed as the game has evolved. The Canadian model remans the same as it ha always been.

Edited January 25 by Curmudgeon

[Miss Korea]

2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I have a possible solution but it will never happen because no province will have the the money to fund it.

 

Create a School hockey system.

 

Beginner: Grade 6-7. No hitting, no fighting at any level full face helmets, one game a week. Mostly practice to learn the basics and provide foundation for skills and skating.

Novice: Grade 8. This is where it goes from being for everyone to the better players. Limited hitting learning how to give/take a hit. Games 1 game per week, then 2 every alternate week.  Upgrading skills and skating getting players to focus on one type of position Goalie/Forward/Defence.

Intermediate: Grades 9-10. Advanced skills and drills. Systems are being taught. 2 games a week.

Senior: Grades 11-12. 2 games one week, 3 games next week. Systems, and advanced skills.

 

Work with wholesalers, consignment sales, last years products at discounts. Equipment gets provided for players. Skates/mouth guards/ Helmets/Sticks.

So families can afford to have kids at least try hockey. Every school district gets funding for 4 rinks, provided the school has the room for a small rink.

Rinks don't have to be large or anything. Tickets for games $2 minimum per person, but people can donate more and get a receipt and it counts as charity.

 

That way there's an additional pipeline for hockey players. Scouts are allowed to attend games. Players can get scholarships.

 

LIke I said it won't happen because it will cost too much. But kids will at least in grade 6-7 should get the chance to play hockey. And try to improve skills, and parents won't have to work 3 jobs to just pay for it. Maybe we might find a whole new group of Goalies and Skaters that we never would have had a chance before.

 

Getting 11 and 12 year olds to try hockey will cultivate grassroots interest and your ideas all improve overall accessibility.  The average family can get their kids into the sport.  It will not generate talent you'd expect to see in pro hockey, though.  Grade 6 is too late for a future pro.  That will require a more specific effort in providing more facilities, coaching and technology at the Junior A/Major Junior level.  

 

The grassroots ideas you're proposing should be aimed at the U7 and U9 level.  U7 already has a corporate sponsorship: Timbers Hockey.  The problem with Hockey Canada acquiring more sponsorships is... it's Hockey Canada.  They're not gonna get more funding from the government.  And it's a really tough sell job to potential sponsors given their current state.

 

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Whatever works. It would be great to also see improvements in our collegiate system in sports as well. Sure we will never be NCAA. But it would be great to see Canadians get universities get an education, and have decent sports programs. Our youth could use more social skills, teamwork, and improving overall health.

 

Once a CHL kid ages out, their only collegiate option is Canadian universities.  We are already seeing manor improvements in the USPORTS program, and that will be crucial for the future of the CHL.  There are very few players who have cracked the NHL this way, but Derek Ryan is a notable name - he has eked out a fantastic career as a bottom six forward, and only made it after he turned 30.  Hopefully we can see a few more make it in the coming years.

[Miss Korea]

33 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

 

There is no single thing that leads me to that opinion. I look at the NCAA structure and how it has become much stronger and has provided good development programs, resulting in more college players playing in the NHL. The US National Development Teams (U17, U18) put together the best 16- and 17-year old players in the country and keep them together for two years before pretty much all of them move on to World Juniors and NCAA schools. In the past few years we are beginning to see players from non-traditional hockey outposts as California, Arizona, Florida, Texas, Colorado, and even a handful from southern states of Alabama, Missouri and Mississippi. US Hockey has spread from the traditional northeast and midwest hotbeds to becoming more mainstream and developing more NHL players. In Canada there really isn't anywhere to grow the game.

 

In Canada you play U-13, U15 and U18, then you may be drafted by a Major Junior Team. If you make a Major Junior Team, you will play twice as many games as the NCAA and the only accountability is how you perform on the ice. In the NCAA you have an academic obligation as well as a team obligation that puts great emphasis on physical conditioning and strengthening. Overall, I think the US development process has evolved and changed as the game has evolved. The Canadian model remans the same as it ha always been.

 

To add on that, there is an additional stage of development that the NCAA offers.  In Canada, the decision to go professional is made at age 20; in the USA, that decision can be pushed as far back as age 24.  And while I'm certainly optimistic about what USPORTS can do for CHL alumni, those folks also have to be realistic about their prospects of making the NHL.

 

When you have a country whose U-18 system and collegiate system have made massive strides and compare it to the progress we've made in that same time, it becomes clear we've fallen behind.

 

Trying to reason with that guy is pointless, though.  He has this notion that gold medals are all that matters.

Edited January 25 by Miss Korea

[shiznak]

5 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

To add on that, there is an additional stage of development that the NCAA offers.  In Canada, the decision to go professional is made at age 20; in the USA, that decision can be pushed as far back as age 24.  And while I'm certainly optimistic about what USPORTS can do for CHL alumni, those folks also have to be realistic about their prospects of making the NHL.

 

When you have a country whose U-18 system and collegiate system have made massive strides and compare it to the progress we've made in that same time, it becomes clear we've fallen behind.

 

Trying to reason with that guy is pointless, though.  He has this notion that gold medals are all that matters.

I think that a moot point, considering most collegiate hockey players, who are highly touted turn pro at 20/21, anyway.

 

If you are still playing college at 24, then the likelihood of playing in the NHL is pretty slim. Of course there’s are rare occasions, like Matt Gilroy.

Edited January 25 by shiznak

[Miss Korea]

8 hours ago, shiznak said:

I think that a moot point, considering most collegiate hockey players, who are highly touted turn pro at 20/21, anyway.

 

If you are still playing college at 24, then the likelihood of playing in the NHL is pretty slim. Of course there’s are rare occasions, like Matt Gilroy.

 

Well, this is not just about players cracking the NHL - it's about the decision to go pro.  Half of the college guys signed to NHL teams will never make the main roster, but the extra years of development obviously go a long way.

 

Let's go down Vancouver's entire roster and see how many years the college kids went to school for.

 

Matt Irwin - 2 years

Ian Cole - 3 years

Casey DeSmith - 3 years (suspended in his 4th year)

Carson Soucy - 4 years

Phil Di Giuseppe - 3 years

Teddy Blueger - 4 years

Sheldon Dries - 4 years

Christian Wolanin - 3 years

Sam Lafferty - 4 years

Thatcher Demko - 3 years

Mark Friedman - 3 years

Dakota Joshua - 4 years

Brock Boeser - 2 years

Akito Hirose - 3 years

Quinn Hughes - 2 years

Aidan Mcdonough - 4 years

Max Sasson - 2 years

Ty Glover - 2 years

Cole McWard - 2 years

 

On top of the fact that there are 19 players on our current roster who went to college, the average number of years spent in college is... 3.0 years.  That also does not factor in how old these players were when they actually started college.  In fact, only 9 of those players listed started as teenagers.  Apart from the 1st round picks, the majority of these guys signed their first pro contracts at the ages of 21-23.  Joshua was 23.  Soucy was 23.  Lafferty was 23.  Dries was 23.  Sasson was 22.  McDonough was 23.  Hirose was 24.

 

You are understating the value of being able to make that decision later in one's hockey career.  In all fairness, we are likely an outlier team in the amount of talent we bring in from US colleges (although a third of them are not from the US).  But I'm sure all the other NHL teams bring in a significant amount of "overaged" talent from the NCAA.  

[IBatch]

On 1/24/2024 at 1:26 PM, 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.

When I was a kid, playing hockey was a luxury sport.   I'm not sure it's changed much really. 

[Coconuts]

 

 

[Coconuts]

Not sure where to put this so I'll put it here, I don't think this is related to the thread I posted the other day 

 

 

 

[Miss Korea]

6 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Not sure where to put this so I'll put it here, I don't think this is related to the thread I posted the other day 

 

 

 

 

This was initially a thread intended to showcase the level of corruption and incompetence across Canadian junior hockey, with a particular comparison to the United States.  From leagues separating from Hockey Canada to abuse/hazing scandals to some of our very best players now being faced with jail time, this is a major moment of reckoning for Canada and I really don't see a quick recovery from this.

 

 The only ones who think there's nothing wrong with Canadian hockey are the ones who don't actually follow Canadian hockey.  Period.

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

 

This was initially a thread intended to showcase the level of corruption and incompetence across Canadian junior hockey, with a particular comparison to the United States.  From leagues separating from Hockey Canada to abuse/hazing scandals to some of our very best players now being faced with jail time, this is a major moment of reckoning for Canada and I really don't see a quick recovery from this.

 

 The only ones who think there's nothing wrong with Canadian hockey are the ones who don't actually follow Canadian hockey.  Period.

 

There's a dark cloud hanging over Hockey Canada, and Canadian hockey, I don't think that's a bad thing. Sometimes you need have a spotlight shone on the skeletons in the closet for actual change to occur. 

 

All the media covering these stories is a good thing, we need more of it getting out because that's the only way the general public will care about it. If the general public cares there's more pressure on Hockey Canada, government agencies, and so on.