"Watered Down" OHL

[Otto]

I've seen this comment come up numerous times... Can someone explain to me how exactly the OHL is "watered down"?

Click to read more...

 

[OMG67]

I've seen this comment come up numerous times... Can someone explain to me how exactly the OHL is "watered down"?

I think the perception many are referring to is the poor star quality rate of late first rounders. In addition, we see a lot of top Canadians looking more seriously at NCAA. As little as 10 years ago, it was more about which Americans the OHL teams can sign.

I haven’t done the research but I do believe more American kids are playing int he OHL now that there are four teams located in the USA so it probably evens out.

The Euro programs coupled with the solid KHL program has led many more top Imports to stay and continue developing in Europe. There is less of an advantage now to develop in North American Junior. The pro programs are pretty solid compared to 10+ years ago.

Also, less kids are playing hockey in Canada. Enrolment is down. Costs for competitive hockey is getting out of control. The barriers are tough for many families. So, the local supply is lessening.

IMO, if not for the growth in the game in the USA, I doubt we’d be able to properly fill 20 teams adequately. The actual growth in the USA may be the catalyst to maintaining the CHL in the long term.

I do think there are other balancing agents outside the Canadian Supply of players. The question is whether they will remain or not.

 

[saska sault]

I dont think the OHL is water downed at all. If you look at anything statistically sure, but someone who watches junior hockey often would likely disagree. The quality of play and amount of skill has gone up substantially. Yes its a different game, but overall the kids are faster and more skilled overall than say the 90s. There was some tremendous teams and still tons of skill but its almost a different game today especially in junior hockey.

 

[Otto]

I dont think the OHL is water downed at all. If you look at anything statistically sure, but someone who watches junior hockey often would likely disagree. The quality of play and amount of skill has gone up substantially. Yes its a different game, but overall the kids are faster and more skilled overall than say the 90s. There was some tremendous teams and still tons of skill but its almost a different game today especially in junior hockey.

I agree with you 100%. I think that people can't accept change and just want to criticize it. It's a far better game today than it was 15 years ago

 

[OMG67]

I agree with you 100%. I think that people can't accept change and just want to criticize it. It's a far better game today than it was 15 years ago

I wouldn’t say “better.” I would say the game is very different and in many cases the changes have allowed smaller, more skilled players to have much success compared to 25 years ago.

IMO, as long as the OHL stays ahead of the curve, they will be fine. As of right now, they are fine. There are some cracks but a lot of that is less to do with player talent and much more to do with weak franchises.

The question is whether the franchise is weak (management/coaching) or whether the host location is too depressed to not meet the financial requirements to maintain a successful franchise.

I think the perception is there are some teams that may not have the ability to generate the type of revenue required to operate at the same level as other franchises. Some teams can afford to pay a Coach and GM a combined $1mil+ per year and others have a tough time making it to $300k.

I think hat has a lot more to do with the perception of the league being watered down.

 

[OHLTG]

This begs the question - watered down in terms of players or franchises?

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

I don't think the league is watered down at all. Training has come so far in this sport and rookies come into the league so much better than they used to. It makes for better competition. There will never be 180 point seasons again, and I understand how some may think that means the league is watered down, but it goes to show how much better the rest of the league is. The ceiling of players is the same, if not better IMO, and the floor is so much higher

 

[OMG67]

This begs the question - watered down in terms of players or franchises?

Franchises.

The OHL needs an injection of viable cities. I think they mostly have viable owners but not so much viable buildings to generate the type of revenue to compete for the top staff.

 

[deleteme2468]

There doesn’t seem to be as much top talent in the league as there was years ago which is why I think the term watered down gets thrown around a bit.

Also, there are people that are not enthused with the rising cost of tickets with a flattening or at the very least non improving product. However, that is probably just inflation. Don’t know.

There are elements that I like about major junior. I like the fact that good teams win the championship. If you go look back at the last 5-6 seasons, usually a division winner or a team who did not win their division but played in a strong division wins the championship. And it’s relatively competitive beginning in round 2 and onward.

Bang for your buck is still okay but not what it used to be for major junior IMO. Still beats spending hundreds on an NHL game to watch a bunch of random things happen on the ice culminating in a team winning because of a lucky bounce. Over and over and over again.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

There doesn’t seem to be as much top talent in the league as there was years ago which is why I think the term watered down gets thrown around a bit.

Also, there are people that are not enthused with the rising cost of tickets with a flattening or at the very least non improving product. However, that is probably just inflation. Don’t know.

There are elements that I like about major junior. I like the fact that good teams win the championship. If you go look back at the last 5-6 seasons, usually a division winner or a team who did not win their division but played in a strong division wins the championship. And it’s relatively competitive beginning in round 2 and onward.

Bang for your buck is still okay but not what it used to be for major junior IMO. Still beats spending hundreds on an NHL game to watch a bunch of random things happen on the ice culminating in a team winning because of a lucky bounce. Over and over and over again.

Not as much top talent in the league? I count 7 first round picks in the NHL just this year, 4 last year in a down year & at least 1 top 5 pick in each of the next 2 NHL drafts.

I referred to this in an earlier post on this thread, I believe that the floor for OHL players is much higher than it’s ever been. More and more rookies are coming in and being major producers. The competition level has gone up and gone are the days of players putting up 150 points, but that is (IMO) due to better competition, and not the league being watered down.

 

[djscooter]

Not as much top talent in the league? I count 7 first round picks in the NHL just this year, 4 last year in a down year & at least 1 top 5 pick in each of the next 2 NHL drafts.

I referred to this in an earlier post on this thread, I believe that the floor for OHL players is much higher than it’s ever been. More and more rookies are coming in and being major producers. The competition level has gone up and gone are the days of players putting up 150 points, but that is (IMO) due to better competition, and not the league being watered down.

The same people who complain about the OHL being watered down yearn for the years where they could buy a Ty Bilcke jersey, or a Marco Caprara jersey.

 

[OMG67]

Not as much top talent in the league? I count 7 first round picks in the NHL just this year, 4 last year in a down year & at least 1 top 5 pick in each of the next 2 NHL drafts.

I referred to this in an earlier post on this thread, I believe that the floor for OHL players is much higher than it’s ever been. More and more rookies are coming in and being major producers. The competition level has gone up and gone are the days of players putting up 150 points, but that is (IMO) due to better competition, and not the league being watered down.

I think the drop in points has more to do with advanced systems than it does a disparity in talent.

We went through an expansion period where there was some disparity while organizations found their footing.

The most negative issue in the OHL right now is the disparity on income generation and the inability of some teams being able to afford the types of skills development required in today's game. This has presented itself for quite some time now and the OHL has developed rules and compensation elements to help bridge that gap. Unfortunately, many of the weaker franchises remaiin weak or at best have a 1 in 5 year competitive cycle.

Teams like London and Ottawa have additional revenue to cover performance coaching, additional specialized full and part time coaches, dieticians and nutritionists as well as other professional athletic services and consultants that maximize player development.

Some franchises simply cannot compete at that level and it is affecting their ability to recruit the best talent, whether that be through the draft, Imports or trades.

It seems to me that some teams are simply place holders for no other reason than revenue generation.

I am not sure what the answer to this is. First, the teams need a building that has the potential to generate revenue. Second, teams need access to a fan base that will embrace the product. Third, the teams need to properly invest in elements suggested above. Unfortunately, some franchises don't have the ability because they are handcuffed.

All that said, some teams, like Sarnia, have a building and a fanbase as evidenced in the sold out games in their first few seasons, but aren't able to bring in the management team to achieve the results. That is on them.

 

[Otto]

I think the drop in points has more to do with advanced systems than it does a disparity in talent.

We went through an expansion period where there was some disparity while organizations found their footing.

The most negative issue in the OHL right now is the disparity on income generation and the inability of some teams being able to afford the types of skills development required in today's game. This has presented itself for quite some time now and the OHL has developed rules and compensation elements to help bridge that gap. Unfortunately, many of the weaker franchises remaiin weak or at best have a 1 in 5 year competitive cycle.

Teams like London and Ottawa have additional revenue to cover performance coaching, additional specialized full and part time coaches, dieticians and nutritionists as well as other professional athletic services and consultants that maximize player development.

Some franchises simply cannot compete at that level and it is affecting their ability to recruit the best talent, whether that be through the draft, Imports or trades.

It seems to me that some teams are simply place holders for no other reason than revenue generation.

I am not sure what the answer to this is. First, the teams need a building that has the potential to generate revenue. Second, teams need access to a fan base that will embrace the product. Third, the teams need to properly invest in elements suggested above. Unfortunately, some franchises don't have the ability because they are handcuffed.

All that said, some teams, like Sarnia, have a building and a fanbase as evidenced in the sold out games in their first few seasons, but aren't able to bring in the management team to achieve the results. That is on them.

That's different than "watered down" though. The comments I have seen regarding the league being watered-down speak more towards the overall talent in the league.. and as demonstrated by MatthewsMoustache it's really not an issue.

You're speaking more in terms of haves and have-nots and parity. I've said this many times however, parity in the OHL is not an issue 9 different teams in the finals in the last 5 years.. with Erie being the only repeat team.. and they are considered a have-not. The previous 5 years also 9 different teams with London being the only repeat

 

[OHLTG]

The last 15 OHL champions...

London x4
Windsor x2
Guelph x2
Peterborough
Plymouth
Kitchener
Owen Sound
Oshawa
Erie
Hamilton

In the last five years, five different champions.

The runners up:

Ottawa 2x
Barrie 2x
Niagara 2x
Sudbury
Belleville
Brampton
Mississauga
SSM
Erie
North Bay
London
Old Mississauga (now Niagara)

In the last seven seasons, seven different runners up.

(I think my totals are correct)

This leaves - Kingston, Sarnia, and Saginaw as the only teams who haven't made it to that round... and we know Saginaw has been seriously competitive. I don't think parity is an issue.

 

[member 71782]

I would say the OHL is watered down, as has been obvious by my past posts.

Yes, it starts with franchises but if the franchises are watered down then those franchises that struggle to attract talent for many reasons also lead to watered down talent. There's a group of teams that regularly finish in the top half of their conference, a group that regularly finishes in the bottom half and a group that is usually in the middle of the pack. Obviously there's exceptions but in a league that relies on a four year cycle you have teams that go six years without being in a position to contend. A team making it to the league final once every ten years doesn't make the league one with parity. Relying on a four year cycle isn't parity either. nearly every team being in a position to compete year in and year out would be parity. You can't have 20 winners every year, of course but for fans to be able to pick the top four and bottom two in each conference most years when you average out their picks and those teams don't change a whole lot year after year there's not really any parity.

How many teams have gotten out of the first round only once over a ten year time frame? How many have never gotten out of the first round?

Changes that would make sense

- 16 team league divided into 4 divisions/2 conferences.
- 66 game schedule. Play every team 4 times, 60 games then play your division opponents 2 more times each, 6 more games.
- Top team from each division makes the playoffs then the 3rd and 4th place teams in the conference make the playoffs. 8 teams total, 4 per conference.
- Allow trading of first round picks allowing teams who feel that if the BPA won't report they can maximize their pick through a trade. Eliminate compensation picks except where the player won't report to the league, see the other thread for the conditions surrounding it.
- Expand the Import Draft to at least two rounds, three rounds would be better and eliminate the rule limiting the number of imports a team can carry as well as allowing those picks to be traded again. Maximizes the asset/picks and eliminates the need to trade an import player who may be an integral part of their roster while trying to acquire another import player. The more top talent from around the world the league can attract the higher the level of competition across the league and the higher the level of development across the league thus making the entire league a more attractive place to play.
- Decrease the number of rounds in the draft to 10 rounds. Across 16 teams that decreases the number of draft spots from 300 to 160. If they increase the level of talent across all teams they reduce the chances of players refusing to report. Of course there will always be the odd one here or there but trading first round picks can help compensate for those times this could happen. Fewer spots mean fewer opportunities making those spots more valuable to both the teams and the players. Currently if a team that struggles to get players to report can take BPA one year, get a comp pick the next year but then they get to draft two players that will report with neither of them potentially being BPA so how much does it help when they still have to settle on who they pick because they can't get a comp pick two years in a row?
- Eliminate the U18 draft, it hasn't produced many players. Those few who would have been late round picks that cracked a line up after a year or two would help to increase the level of competition in major midget and still be looked at as FAs. As FAs they would also have expanded opportunities instead of being forgotten picks within some organizations that they may never get a chance to fulfill. There's always FAs that get a shot while never being drafted and there's always drafted players that never get a shot because of organizational depth that you never know if they'll make it or not. Leave their options open as FAs instead of tying up their rights.

Results would be a better overall on ice product for the fans and a better development model for the players. For the fans they would get a better, much more consistently competitive product. For the league, with a higher overall level of play they gain a bargaining tool with the NHL to keep returning players for further development instead of potentially facing the threat of the NHL choosing to sign, or have their AHL affiliates sign them and those draftees end up playing elsewhere when they still have eligibility left in junior.

It would suck to lose a team, of course and it's easy to say things are great if you have a team that consistently does well but when the level of hockey is more than a couple of steps below what the top of the league is for much of the league year after year then watching mediocre levels of play becomes very discouraging for much of the fanbase year after year.

A league with true parity should be able to have their teams build through the draft(s), make the odd deal at the deadline and no one should have trouble attracting the top talent with the very rare Lindros type situation coming up. This league isn't even close to that and when it's just as rare for some teams to finish at the bottom of the league as it is for others to finish near the top and everyone is surprised when that happens there is no real parity.

 

[OMG67]

That's different than "watered down" though. The comments I have seen regarding the league being watered-down speak more towards the overall talent in the league.. and as demonstrated by MatthewsMoustache it's really not an issue.

You're speaking more in terms of haves and have-nots and parity. I've said this many times however, parity in the OHL is not an issue 9 different teams in the finals in the last 5 years.. with Erie being the only repeat team.. and they are considered a have-not. The previous 5 years also 9 different teams with London being the only repeat

Like I said, even the poor franchises have some success but their valleys are longer than their peaks. Poor franchises tend to find lightning in a bottle every 5 or 6 years and win a couple rounds. The stronger teams tend to never really fully bottom out and usually fit within the 4 year cycle with two competitive years followed by two retooling years.

So, as OHLTG asked, is it the players or the franchises? I say it is the franchises that are weak financially and it translates into what looks like stagnation. That and the rule changes etc. Of course, there is better overall skill but that doesn’t necessarily translate into excitement. Excitement, or lack of it, is also and area that can be argued as a reason there is a perception of the game being watered down.

The reality is the skill is far more advanced now than 20 years ago. IT isn’t even close. But, there is a perception by many that it is watered down. I think I’ve provided many examples as to why that perception exists.

 

[OMG67]

I would say the OHL is watered down, as has been obvious by my past posts.

Yes, it starts with franchises but if the franchises are watered down then those franchises that struggle to attract talent for many reasons also lead to watered down talent. There's a group of teams that regularly finish in the top half of their conference, a group that regularly finishes in the bottom half and a group that is usually in the middle of the pack. Obviously there's exceptions but in a league that relies on a four year cycle you have teams that go six years without being in a position to contend. A team making it to the league final once every ten years doesn't make the league one with parity. Relying on a four year cycle isn't parity either. nearly every team being in a position to compete year in and year out would be parity. You can't have 20 winners every year, of course but for fans to be able to pick the top four and bottom two in each conference most years when you average out their picks and those teams don't change a whole lot year after year there's not really any parity.

How many teams have gotten out of the first round only once over a ten year time frame? How many have never gotten out of the first round?

Changes that would make sense

- 16 team league divided into 4 divisions/2 conferences.
- 66 game schedule. Play every team 4 times, 60 games then play your division opponents 2 more times each, 6 more games.
- Top team from each division makes the playoffs then the 3rd and 4th place teams in the conference make the playoffs. 8 teams total, 4 per conference.
- Allow trading of first round picks allowing teams who feel that if the BPA won't report they can maximize their pick through a trade. Eliminate compensation picks except where the player won't report to the league, see the other thread for the conditions surrounding it.
- Expand the Import Draft to at least two rounds, three rounds would be better and eliminate the rule limiting the number of imports a team can carry as well as allowing those picks to be traded again. Maximizes the asset/picks and eliminates the need to trade an import player who may be an integral part of their roster while trying to acquire another import player. The more top talent from around the world the league can attract the higher the level of competition across the league and the higher the level of development across the league thus making the entire league a more attractive place to play.
- Decrease the number of rounds in the draft to 10 rounds. Across 16 teams that decreases the number of draft spots from 300 to 160. If they increase the level of talent across all teams they reduce the chances of players refusing to report. Of course there will always be the odd one here or there but trading first round picks can help compensate for those times this could happen. Fewer spots mean fewer opportunities making those spots more valuable to both the teams and the players. Currently if a team that struggles to get players to report can take BPA one year, get a comp pick the next year but then they get to draft two players that will report with neither of them potentially being BPA so how much does it help when they still have to settle on who they pick because they can't get a comp pick two years in a row?
- Eliminate the U18 draft, it hasn't produced many players. Those few who would have been late round picks that cracked a line up after a year or two would help to increase the level of competition in major midget and still be looked at as FAs. As FAs they would also have expanded opportunities instead of being forgotten picks within some organizations that they may never get a chance to fulfill. There's always FAs that get a shot while never being drafted and there's always drafted players that never get a shot because of organizational depth that you never know if they'll make it or not. Leave their options open as FAs instead of tying up their rights.

Results would be a better overall on ice product for the fans and a better development model for the players. For the fans they would get a better, much more consistently competitive product. For the league, with a higher overall level of play they gain a bargaining tool with the NHL to keep returning players for further development instead of potentially facing the threat of the NHL choosing to sign, or have their AHL affiliates sign them and those draftees end up playing elsewhere when they still have eligibility left in junior.

It would suck to lose a team, of course and it's easy to say things are great if you have a team that consistently does well but when the level of hockey is more than a couple of steps below what the top of the league is for much of the league year after year then watching mediocre levels of play becomes very discouraging for much of the fanbase year after year.

A league with true parity should be able to have their teams build through the draft(s), make the odd deal at the deadline and no one should have trouble attracting the top talent with the very rare Lindros type situation coming up. This league isn't even close to that and when it's just as rare for some teams to finish at the bottom of the league as it is for others to finish near the top and everyone is surprised when that happens there is no real parity.

I am not saying I agree with your recommendations but for arguments sake, which four teams would be eliminated?

To me, it should be based on ability to generate revenue. My four:
1> Hamilton
2> North Bay
3> Mississauga
4> Erie

Hamilton has a great owner. They just can’t find a suitable building. If they could work out a way to shift the Sarnia or Flint ownership to Andlauer, that might be a solid move.

North Bay is a waste of time. Population of 50k and not a heck of a lot around it. It’s not a strategic location either. They Reno’d the rink but it is still a very basic rink that pretty much only generates revenue from ticket sales

Erie is the same as North Bay with a lot of the same challenges. I like the Otters though and wouldn’t want to see them go. The one potential saving grace is they are in Pennsylvania and it may attract a few extra players to the league.

Mississauga has been a failure as a location since day one. Nice rink with the ability to generate revenue but I doubt they would be able to make a go of it with any significant consequence.

Again, I am not arguing for contraction but if they did, that would be my suggestion.

 

[Otto]

How many have never gotten out of the first round?

Zero....

Teams failure isn't up tot the league to correct.. it's up to the teams..

 

[OHLTG]

North Bay is a waste of time. Population of 50k and not a heck of a lot around it. It’s not a strategic location either. They Reno’d the rink but it is still a very basic rink that pretty much only generates revenue from ticket sales

Would we consider Owen Sound to be a "waste of time"? Nearly half the population, over 100km to their nearest opponent, and an older rink.

The only team I'd seriously look at moving, as they've had long-term issues, is Mississauga.

The point I was making with the "several teams involved in OHL finals" idea was that you never know which team is going to get there. There isn't one team that completely dominates year-in and year-out.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

I am not saying I agree with your recommendations but for arguments sake, which four teams would be eliminated?

To me, it should be based on ability to generate revenue. My four:
1> Hamilton
2> North Bay
3> Mississauga
4> Erie

Hamilton has a great owner. They just can’t find a suitable building. If they could work out a way to shift the Sarnia or Flint ownership to Andlauer, that might be a solid move.

North Bay is a waste of time. Population of 50k and not a heck of a lot around it. It’s not a strategic location either. They Reno’d the rink but it is still a very basic rink that pretty much only generates revenue from ticket sales

Erie is the same as North Bay with a lot of the same challenges. I like the Otters though and wouldn’t want to see them go. The one potential saving grace is they are in Pennsylvania and it may attract a few extra players to the league.

Mississauga has been a failure as a location since day one. Nice rink with the ability to generate revenue but I doubt they would be able to make a go of it with any significant consequence.

Again, I am not arguing for contraction but if they did, that would be my suggestion.

My 4 are:
1> North Bay. You said it perfectly.
2> Mississauga. Ridiculous arena location. There's a million other sports teams in the GTA as well, and they're clearly at the bottom of the totem pole
3> Sudbury. Another bad location. An owner who admittedly knows hardly anything about hockey. 2 good years because of Byfield and Pekka-Luukkonen. They'll be back in the dumpster in no time.
4> Hamilton. Same thing you said. Get Andlauer in Flint somehow.

 

[MatthewsMoustache]

Would we consider Owen Sound to be a "waste of time"? Nearly half the population, over 100km to their nearest opponent, and an older rink.

The only team I'd seriously look at moving, as they've had long-term issues, is Mississauga.

The point I was making with the "several teams involved in OHL finals" idea was that you never know which team is going to get there. There isn't one team that completely dominates year-in and year-out.

Owen Sound has 20,000 people and manages to put around 3,000 in seats every Wednesday night. They have a heck of a fanbase and they are always a tough team to play against, even when they are rebuilding. The same can't be said for North Bay on any of these fronts

 

[OHLTG]

Owen Sound has 20,000 people and manages to put around 3,000 in seats every Wednesday night. They have a heck of a fanbase and they are always a tough team to play against, even when they are rebuilding. The same can't be said for North Bay on any of these fronts

So then your issue is with the team, not the city...

 

[Otto]

Mods.. feel free to shut this one down now.. it's going to a place where we've been before and I sense it won't end well

 

[dirty12]

Battalion play in a small market, but it has a great lease & concession deal as well as a ticket sales guarantee with NB. The team is viable.
I think it was ‘only’ 6-7 years ago that that NB was 3rd in conference for 3 consecutive seasons playing to a league final followed by a conference final in which it lost to the eventual memorial cup winner.
It looks to me like the battalion is set up for another such run soon.

 

[Otto]

Average division finish last 5 seasons (excluding 19/20)

Midwest

London 2.2
Erie 2.6
Owen Sound 3.2
Kitchener 3.4
Guelph 3.8

West

Sault Ste. Marie 1.6
Sarnia 2.6
Windsor 3.2
Saginaw 3.4
Flint 4.5 (4 Seasons)

Central

Niagara 2.4
Barrie 2.6
North Bay 3.0
Mississauga 3.2
Sudbury 3.8

East

Oshawa 2.4
Ottawa 2.8
Kingstson 2.8
Peterborough 3.4
Hamilton 3.5 (4 seasons)

Average division finish last 10 seasons (excluding 19/20)

Midwest

London 2.2
Kitchener 3.0
Owen Sound 3.1
Erie 3.2
Guelph 3.5

West

Sault Ste. Marie 2.4
Plymouth 2.5 (final 6 seasons)
Windsor 3.0
Sarnia 3.2
Saginaw 3.2


Central

Barrie 2.4
Niagara 2.7
North Bay 2.7 (6 seasons, Brampton was 2.7 in their final 4 seasons)
Mississauga 3.4
Sudbury 3.8

East

Oshawa 2.5
Ottawa 2.7
Kingstson 3.0
Belleville 3.3 (final 6 seasons)
Peterborough 3.6