Charlie_Girl49 said:
I think it's a riduculous idea. In addition, all three leagues have US-based teams - how can you possibly tell a team in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, or Maine that they can't have more than 1 or 2 US players?
Some random thoughts:
Well, it's certainly a way to make the Canadian Hockey League strictly Canadian; but destroying much of the interest south of the border.
I think this collection of ideas is plain ridiculous and not thought out.
There are US teams in all three leagues. Limiting the number of Americans may have been possible prior to southward expansion, but in today's CHL, it is simply not feasible. What do you tell a team like the Quebec Remparts (they have seven Americans on their team)? Sorry, we know that you have seven impact players from south of the border, but you're going to have to cut six of them. Sorry for decimating your team. Here, have six Canadian players that were not good enough to crack the CHL.
Two Euros is an adequate amount. I can see fan interest falling off a bit if it is reduced to one player per team. Many of the European imports are among the most exciting players in the league. They draw fans. Replacing a top-line player with a fourth-liner who just happens to be Canadian may seem like a small concern, but that is probably one less player that can attract fans to the rink.
They can say that this is not a business issue, but in today's CHL, you HAVE to look at it as a business issue. Is cutting the number of "skilled imports" good for giving more Canadian kids a chance to play in a higher profile situation? Yes. I suppose. But what is the point of doing dropping the number of "out-of-towners" if attendance will fall a bit - where in some markets, they can't afford to see attendance drop? Probably not.
Limiting teams to one sixteen-year-old will NOT help national development. It will only stagnate it overall. If a player is good enough to play in the league at sixteen, why keep him down a level because of "the rules"?