"Watered Down" OHL

[Otto]

Windsor's always been the off-and-on city with attendance. I remember going to Windsor Arena with 1600 fans on a Sunday afternoon. I also remember packing that Barn with 4,100 some nights. It had nothing to do with ownership; Riolo wasn't a great owner but the team was entertaining. Mind you, this was 20+ years ago, so mentalities have changed a bit now. It's currently more "show me the wins, I'll show you the money."

They have been off for the last decade. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe over the last 10 seasons they have declined in attendance year over year in every season except 1.

 

[windsor7]

They have been off for the last decade. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe over the last 10 seasons they have declined in attendance year over year in every season except 1.

Sad but true

 

[OHLTG]

People shouldnt have to fork over money for average or below average product...

Then stay home and complain about it all on here while the rest of us actually enjoy some live hockey...

They have been off for the last decade. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I believe over the last 10 seasons they have declined in attendance year over year in every season except 1.

I'm talking more over the last 25-30 years. It comes in waves.

 

[windsor7]

Then stay home and complain about it all on here while the rest of us actually enjoy some live

U must have tons of money to burn.
If the product is bad why pay for it?

 

[windsor7]

I'm talking more over the last 25-30 years. It comes in waves.[/QUOTE]

Small smalll waves.....

 

[OHLTG]

U must have tons of money to burn.
If the product is bad why pay for it?

"Bad" is a relative term. Again, if you don't like it, stay home and complain on here. I'll be at the rink when it opens to the public.

 

[windsor7]

"Bad" is a relative term. Again, if you don't like it, stay home and complain on here. I'll be at the rink when it opens to the public.

Should i say terrible play?
Less than average play?
Money to burn.....

 

[member 71782]

I'm still not understanding your point... Windsor management sucks.. so because of that 4 other teams should fold and teams should lose revenue be eliminating a home game and an entire round of the playoffs?

I think the easier solution is to just move the Spits. It's not like the citizens of Windsor want a team anyway

Again.. reading this the Spitfires should be the first to go.. you've already talked about their lack of ability to develop talent and lack of organizational stability.. their attendance keeps falling

Actually if Windsor is bottoming out in terms of organizational ability, performance and fan support why would or should they be excluded?

If the worst four were to go and they were one of them then so be it if it improves the league.

Would I be upset as a fan? Yes.

Do I want to see a deteriorating product that shows no sign of turning around except maybe getting out of the first round once every decade or so? No.

An organization that expects support but isn't willing to invest in their product doesn't deserve to own the franchise, or fan support.

At the same time while individual skill has gone up it's been spread thinner and thinner across the league making the overall product one of lower quality.

What does the average fan get to see most nights?

About a quarter of the games, high level opponents.

About half the games, mid level opponents.

The remaining quarter of the games, lower level opponents.

So three quarters of the season is mid level or lower opponents.

That's not a great product and depending on the quality of a fan's team the quality of a product can be better or worse.

 

[OMG67]

Going by the criteria laid out by cfaub I don't see how anyone could make a case for Windsor staying in a scenario of 4 team contraction. Trash ownership ( according to the fans) perpetually poor performance and the largest decrease in attendance over their 10 year average in the league.

I would suggest that if Windsor were to be contracted, teams in rough shape arena wise would be lined up for an opportunity to relocate there so their "contraction" wouldn't last long.

 

[Otto]

Actually if Windsor is bottoming out in terms of organizational ability, performance and fan support why would or should they be excluded?

If the worst four were to go and they were one of them then so be it if it improves the league.

Would I be upset as a fan? Yes.

Do I want to see a deteriorating product that shows no sign of turning around except maybe getting out of the first round once every decade or so? No.

An organization that expects support but isn't willing to invest in their product doesn't deserve to own the franchise, or fan support.

At the same time while individual skill has gone up it's been spread thinner and thinner across the league making the overall product one of lower quality.

What does the average fan get to see most nights?

About a quarter of the games, high level opponents.

About half the games, mid level opponents.

The remaining quarter of the games, lower level opponents.

So three quarters of the season is mid level or lower opponents.

That's not a great product and depending on the quality of a fan's team the quality of a product can be better or worse.

It's a matter of opinion that the talent pool is diluted. I don't happen to share that opinion and the fact that we have seen the amount of different teams in the finals over the last 5-10 seasons I think backs that up.

But I could see how being a Spitfires fan could lead you to believe the talent pool is watered down. However you blame management for being inept but if the talent is as bad as you say it is can it really be their fault?

 

[OMG67]

The league needs to get on board with a professional approach to development.

When Tourigny came in a few seasons ago, the team made some changes. They started treating the players like professionals and approached their training utilizing the same types of training and development techniques the NHL uses. They brought in multiple consultants as skills development coaches. They incorporated proper nutrition programs. They have left nothing to chance off ice with respect to development.

In return, the players are asked to approach their time in Ottawa like professionals and embrace the opportunity they have to work with the varied people that are contracted by the organization.

I believe this makes a significant difference in performance as well as skill development. Not all franchises have incorporated even 50% of what the 67’s now do. Most franchises wouldn’t have the resources to cover those types of expenses.

My overall point is, hard work wins a lot of games. Hard work and talent win playoff series. I believe if you want to be in a position to win Championships, you can either have a development program that continues to acquire skill through the draft and has the ability to develop it OR you can run a 4-5 year cycle and throw all your available assets towards trades in one “bust a nut” year.

I don’t think you can consistently acquire top skill in a draft (and get them to report or talk them out of NCAA) unless you demonstrate you can raise their ceiling and make them confident your program is better suited to positioning them to achieve their goals.

I think a good half of the league is not positioned well in that regard. As such, they aren’t positioned well in luring those players to the OHL. As much as many hate the Knights for doing just that, you really have to admire their ability to demonstrate success in positioning players to meet their career goals.

To me, the league needs to do better in this regard. They have to cumulatively find a way to raise the bar if they want to attract the best talent. If they don’t, players will continue to consider USHL and NCAA as a better option for not only their hockey career but education.

The one saving grace is the heavier influx of American talent. I believe that cohort will continue to grow in the OHL.

 

[member 71782]

It's a matter of opinion that the talent pool is diluted. I don't happen to share that opinion and the fact that we have seen the amount of different teams in the finals over the last 5-10 seasons I think backs that up.

But I could see how being a Spitfires fan could lead you to believe the talent pool is watered down. However you blame management for being inept but if the talent is as bad as you say it is can it really be their fault?

Of course it's a matter of opinion and we disagree, no problem.

While the number of teams who have had some success over the past 5 to 10 seasons paints one picture looking at a larger data set, how have teams fared over that same time frame in terms of overall or sustainable success? One good season every four to six years shows me that the talent level across the entire league is lacking, spread too thin.

Windsor first of all have self inflicted issues. Rychel trying to manipulate the draft with his kid, the self inflicted sanctions, the constant focus on building around his son, the current group in control now apparently not willing to invest in the product. Windsor has created their own problems and the fans have responded accordingly. The issue goes beyond that. Watching a few good teams every year while most of the league are a few steps behind makes for a lower quality product on the whole. Any two teams can provide a good game on any given night but are all teams, or at least the majority capable of of providing a good game on almost every night? No.

We can disagree but in the end the league itself needs to find a way to improve the overall level of competitiveness across the entire league. There will always be a team or two that struggles every year but when it's the same teams most years and much of the league most seasons has no realistic chance at doing anything more than a first round playoff appearance in a league where 80% of the teams make the playoffs there's a lack of talent in the league.

 

[member 71782]

The league needs to get on board with a professional approach to development.

When Tourigny came in a few seasons ago, the team made some changes. They started treating the players like professionals and approached their training utilizing the same types of training and development techniques the NHL uses. They brought in multiple consultants as skills development coaches. They incorporated proper nutrition programs. They have left nothing to chance off ice with respect to development.

In return, the players are asked to approach their time in Ottawa like professionals and embrace the opportunity they have to work with the varied people that are contracted by the organization.

I believe this makes a significant difference in performance as well as skill development. Not all franchises have incorporated even 50% of what the 67’s now do. Most franchises wouldn’t have the resources to cover those types of expenses.

My overall point is, hard work wins a lot of games. Hard work and talent win playoff series. I believe if you want to be in a position to win Championships, you can either have a development program that continues to acquire skill through the draft and has the ability to develop it OR you can run a 4-5 year cycle and throw all your available assets towards trades in one “bust a nut” year.

I don’t think you can consistently acquire top skill in a draft (and get them to report or talk them out of NCAA) unless you demonstrate you can raise their ceiling and make them confident your program is better suited to positioning them to achieve their goals.

I think a good half of the league is not positioned well in that regard. As such, they aren’t positioned well in luring those players to the OHL. As much as many hate the Knights for doing just that, you really have to admire their ability to demonstrate success in positioning players to meet their career goals.

To me, the league needs to do better in this regard. They have to cumulatively find a way to raise the bar if they want to attract the best talent. If they don’t, players will continue to consider USHL and NCAA as a better option for not only their hockey career but education.

The one saving grace is the heavier influx of American talent. I believe that cohort will continue to grow in the OHL.

The Knights, Oshawa, Ottawa and a couple of others have done this and done it well, particularly the last four or five seasons. The problem is if not every team is willing or able to do this then the ability to attract talent becomes more difficult across the league. Organizations not wiling to invest shouldn't have a franchise but if organizations don't have and are never likely to have the resources then should those organizations exist?

It's one thing to say the league should be more involved in skills development, and there is a role for them but if owners aren't willing to pay for their own organizations needs, or unable to then why would that change when they have to help foot the bill for league wide skills development?

More Americans reporting is one thing but with more Canadians choosing the NCAA path you have to wonder if one is not offsetting the other. More Americans is great but if it's not the top tier talent would it not be possible that some of these Americans now reporting are simply seeing their NCAA spot disappear and there looking for another avenue that they now need?

 

[Otto]

More Americans reporting is one thing but with more Canadians choosing the NCAA path you have to wonder if one is not offsetting the other. More Americans is great but if it's not the top tier talent would it not be possible that some of these Americans now reporting are simply seeing their NCAA spot disappear and there looking for another avenue that they now need?

Can you give some examples? I just checked the Big 10 rosters for 2019/20 and there was a grand total of 15 Canadians spread out among the 7 teams and not one of them was leading their team in scoring.

 

[rangersblues]

Possibly the level of the elite players isn't what it was even a few years ago. When McDavid was in the league it was special. Throw in Strome and Debricat. Also watching the Marner, Dvorak, Tkachuk line. They were magical. Last year Byfield was the 2nd overall pick. He will likely be a great NHL player. The level of excitement he produced just isn't comparable imo.

It's just a cycle.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Possibly the level of the elite players isn't what it was even a few years ago. When McDavid was in the league it was special. Throw in Strome and Debricat. Also watching the Marner, Dvorak, Tkachuk line. They were magical. Last year Byfield was the 2nd overall pick. He will likely be a great NHL player. The level of excitement he produced just isn't comparable imo.

It's just a cycle.

I am not necessarily sure it's a "cycle" the guys that you mentioned for instance before Byfield. They played their last game in the OHL back in 2017. I like Byfield but I am not sure I would put him in that group. I think he will be a much better NHL player than OHL player but that doesn't help the OHL much at all. Yes it sucks that you won't really see Shane Wright this year but they got an exceptional status year out of him as it was. I think we are headed for tough times minor hockey enrollment is plummeting and we are already having a discussion if the product is watered down. I can't imagine it will get better in a few years from now.

 

[OMG67]

I am not necessarily sure it's a "cycle" the guys that you mentioned for instance before Byfield. They played their last game in the OHL back in 2017. I like Byfield but I am not sure I would put him in that group. I think he will be a much better NHL player than OHL player but that doesn't help the OHL much at all. Yes it sucks that you won't really see Shane Wright this year but they got an exceptional status year out of him as it was. I think we are headed for tough times minor hockey enrollment is plummeting and we are already having a discussion if the product is watered down. I can't imagine it will get better in a few years from now.

Yes, Minor hockey registration is on a significant decline. But it is on a significant incline in the USA. I think there is a balance there to be found. Like I said in an earlier post, we can allow 3 Imports or add another OA if we find the league is lacking access to talent. There are options.

 

[OMG67]

The Knights, Oshawa, Ottawa and a couple of others have done this and done it well, particularly the last four or five seasons. The problem is if not every team is willing or able to do this then the ability to attract talent becomes more difficult across the league. Organizations not wiling to invest shouldn't have a franchise but if organizations don't have and are never likely to have the resources then should those organizations exist?

It's one thing to say the league should be more involved in skills development, and there is a role for them but if owners aren't willing to pay for their own organizations needs, or unable to then why would that change when they have to help foot the bill for league wide skills development?

More Americans reporting is one thing but with more Canadians choosing the NCAA path you have to wonder if one is not offsetting the other. More Americans is great but if it's not the top tier talent would it not be possible that some of these Americans now reporting are simply seeing their NCAA spot disappear and there looking for another avenue that they now need?

That’s sort of the point I am making. I believe the league, where possible, should be negotiating league wide contracts. Where it isn’t possible, the league should mandate teams participate in certain development and nutrition programs. Look at it like a franchise program. Each outlet needs to participate otherwise it faces sanctions.

To me, if the league doesn’t step in and try as much as possible to ensure all franchises are doing their very best to provide development, they cannot call themselves a development league. Yes, there will still be a handful of teams that go above and beyond but the minimum requirements for development are appalling in light of what some teams are now doing.

I think this will go a long way towards improving recruitment.

In addition, I believe there are potential opportunities to modify the scholarship program in a way that allows the players to access their scholarship post-pro hockey. Right now it is an all or nothing proposition. You get 18 months and after that your scholarship is dead. I believe there could be some sort of graduated program where a portion of the scholarship is forfeited. I think all scholarships should be valid for at least the tuition portion for much longer than 18 months.

 

[member 71782]

That’s sort of the point I am making. I believe the league, where possible, should be negotiating league wide contracts. Where it isn’t possible, the league should mandate teams participate in certain development and nutrition programs. Look at it like a franchise program. Each outlet needs to participate otherwise it faces sanctions.

To me, if the league doesn’t step in and try as much as possible to ensure all franchises are doing their very best to provide development, they cannot call themselves a development league. Yes, there will still be a handful of teams that go above and beyond but the minimum requirements for development are appalling in light of what some teams are now doing.

I think this will go a long way towards improving recruitment.

In addition, I believe there are potential opportunities to modify the scholarship program in a way that allows the players to access their scholarship post-pro hockey. Right now it is an all or nothing proposition. You get 18 months and after that your scholarship is dead. I believe there could be some sort of graduated program where a portion of the scholarship is forfeited. I think all scholarships should be valid for at least the tuition portion for much longer than 18 months.

While some things like a contracted league nutritionist wouldn't cost much since having them fill out some basic sports related dietary information and hosting a video conference for 20 teams a couple of times a year. Much of the information could be done OHL/CHL wide along with Hockey Canada and a lot of the information is probably available and the league likely already has similar type programs already in place.

Skills development coaches that would travel around the league to work with the individual staffs of each team would cost a lot more and I could see some teams who already have these programs balking at the idea, why would they pay for it twice while those that don't balking at the idea of being forced to pay for something they currently aren't willing to.

While I would have no issue with improvements to how scholarship money is handed out I'm sure any further increased financial burdens would be fought. Any money not spent is returned or applied to future commitments so asking them to have those financial resources pushed further away s likely to be shut down by most teams.

As for sanctioning teams that aren't willing to support these or other types of initiatives what kind of sanctions could be used that wouldn't worsen the situation?

Fines? If the teams say their budgets can't handle the increased the expenses fines will only force them to make cuts elsewhere.

Take away draft picks? That only makes the matter worse in terms of talent disparity and doesn't address a teams ability to attract talent.

Take away a franchise or force a current owner to sell? That's an option but if the changes negatively affect the value of the franchise I could see litigation that'll cost the remaining owners to back away since the new costs would likely affect the current values of the franchises and those new costs could be deemed excessive and have negatively affected the value of the current owner's investment.

One thing I've suggested in the past to try to attract more top tier talent would be to have all teams come together in the offseason to hold training camps, in the US and Canada. Direct them at kids entering their 14 and 15 year old seasons. Have the teams send coaching staffs or parts of them as well as parts of their training staffs to centralized locations where they can get the top 14/15 year olds to come, by invitation to a week long camp. It introduces the kids at a personal level to the league, run them in a way that the kids know they wouldn't be jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility so the league would cover the cost of the camp but the kids would be paying for their off ice expenses. They would invite enough kids to put together 4 rosters, each would get a morning training session with specialized training, off ice sessions and an afternoon scrimmage. Run it for a week. Do a couple in the US in a couple of regions and a couple in Ontario.

By the time their draft year came around they would have had two seasons to be introduced to the league, updated information on the league and direct introductions to the those involved in the league including each franchise, coaching and training staffs etc. When they're being scouted they will already be familiar with the different organizations and have had two extra off seasons to get more familiar with the league. Many of them would of course already be familiar with the league but having two off seasons of being invited by the league and given all the interaction with those involved would have developed some contacts to help them feel more comfortable.

The problem of course is the cost, especially if it would involve spending money when it may only change a couple of minds.

I understand what your point was, I don't see it how it could be brought in if spending money is already an issue for some then trying to penalize them for not spending would likely create more potential problems.

 

[Otto]

While some things like a contracted league nutritionist wouldn't cost much since having them fill out some basic sports related dietary information and hosting a video conference for 20 teams a couple of times a year. Much of the information could be done OHL/CHL wide along with Hockey Canada and a lot of the information is probably available and the league likely already has similar type programs already in place.

Skills development coaches that would travel around the league to work with the individual staffs of each team would cost a lot more and I could see some teams who already have these programs balking at the idea, why would they pay for it twice while those that don't balking at the idea of being forced to pay for something they currently aren't willing to.

While I would have no issue with improvements to how scholarship money is handed out I'm sure any further increased financial burdens would be fought. Any money not spent is returned or applied to future commitments so asking them to have those financial resources pushed further away s likely to be shut down by most teams.

As for sanctioning teams that aren't willing to support these or other types of initiatives what kind of sanctions could be used that wouldn't worsen the situation?

Fines? If the teams say their budgets can't handle the increased the expenses fines will only force them to make cuts elsewhere.

Take away draft picks? That only makes the matter worse in terms of talent disparity and doesn't address a teams ability to attract talent.

Take away a franchise or force a current owner to sell? That's an option but if the changes negatively affect the value of the franchise I could see litigation that'll cost the remaining owners to back away since the new costs would likely affect the current values of the franchises and those new costs could be deemed excessive and have negatively affected the value of the current owner's investment.

One thing I've suggested in the past to try to attract more top tier talent would be to have all teams come together in the offseason to hold training camps, in the US and Canada. Direct them at kids entering their 14 and 15 year old seasons. Have the teams send coaching staffs or parts of them as well as parts of their training staffs to centralized locations where they can get the top 14/15 year olds to come, by invitation to a week long camp. It introduces the kids at a personal level to the league, run them in a way that the kids know they wouldn't be jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility so the league would cover the cost of the camp but the kids would be paying for their off ice expenses. They would invite enough kids to put together 4 rosters, each would get a morning training session with specialized training, off ice sessions and an afternoon scrimmage. Run it for a week. Do a couple in the US in a couple of regions and a couple in Ontario.

By the time their draft year came around they would have had two seasons to be introduced to the league, updated information on the league and direct introductions to the those involved in the league including each franchise, coaching and training staffs etc. When they're being scouted they will already be familiar with the different organizations and have had two extra off seasons to get more familiar with the league. Many of them would of course already be familiar with the league but having two off seasons of being invited by the league and given all the interaction with those involved would have developed some contacts to help them feel more comfortable.

The problem of course is the cost, especially if it would involve spending money when it may only change a couple of minds.

I understand what your point was, I don't see it how it could be brought in if spending money is already an issue for some then trying to penalize them for not spending would likely create more potential problems.

So... fire the scouts?

 

[OMG67]

While some things like a contracted league nutritionist wouldn't cost much since having them fill out some basic sports related dietary information and hosting a video conference for 20 teams a couple of times a year. Much of the information could be done OHL/CHL wide along with Hockey Canada and a lot of the information is probably available and the league likely already has similar type programs already in place.

Skills development coaches that would travel around the league to work with the individual staffs of each team would cost a lot more and I could see some teams who already have these programs balking at the idea, why would they pay for it twice while those that don't balking at the idea of being forced to pay for something they currently aren't willing to.

While I would have no issue with improvements to how scholarship money is handed out I'm sure any further increased financial burdens would be fought. Any money not spent is returned or applied to future commitments so asking them to have those financial resources pushed further away s likely to be shut down by most teams.

As for sanctioning teams that aren't willing to support these or other types of initiatives what kind of sanctions could be used that wouldn't worsen the situation?

Fines? If the teams say their budgets can't handle the increased the expenses fines will only force them to make cuts elsewhere.

Take away draft picks? That only makes the matter worse in terms of talent disparity and doesn't address a teams ability to attract talent.

Take away a franchise or force a current owner to sell? That's an option but if the changes negatively affect the value of the franchise I could see litigation that'll cost the remaining owners to back away since the new costs would likely affect the current values of the franchises and those new costs could be deemed excessive and have negatively affected the value of the current owner's investment.

One thing I've suggested in the past to try to attract more top tier talent would be to have all teams come together in the offseason to hold training camps, in the US and Canada. Direct them at kids entering their 14 and 15 year old seasons. Have the teams send coaching staffs or parts of them as well as parts of their training staffs to centralized locations where they can get the top 14/15 year olds to come, by invitation to a week long camp. It introduces the kids at a personal level to the league, run them in a way that the kids know they wouldn't be jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility so the league would cover the cost of the camp but the kids would be paying for their off ice expenses. They would invite enough kids to put together 4 rosters, each would get a morning training session with specialized training, off ice sessions and an afternoon scrimmage. Run it for a week. Do a couple in the US in a couple of regions and a couple in Ontario.

By the time their draft year came around they would have had two seasons to be introduced to the league, updated information on the league and direct introductions to the those involved in the league including each franchise, coaching and training staffs etc. When they're being scouted they will already be familiar with the different organizations and have had two extra off seasons to get more familiar with the league. Many of them would of course already be familiar with the league but having two off seasons of being invited by the league and given all the interaction with those involved would have developed some contacts to help them feel more comfortable.

The problem of course is the cost, especially if it would involve spending money when it may only change a couple of minds.

I understand what your point was, I don't see it how it could be brought in if spending money is already an issue for some then trying to penalize them for not spending would likely create more potential problems.

If a franchisee is unwilling to spend on renovations when McDonald’s changes their branding, they lose their franchise. Simple as that.

If the OHL wants to compete, they need to offer more than what the other guy is offering. Very simple concept.

If yours or others perceptions are the OHL is losing players to US Programs, the only way to change that is by offering a better program than the US Programs. To achieve that, the OHL member teams need to collectively up their game.

If teams cannot or will not adhere to new standards for training and development, then revoke the franchise, force a sale and let the next guy do it.

This doesn’t need to happen over night. It is reasonable to put these new measures in place over a reasonable length of time.

It is not helpful that a small handful of franchises are able to offer a significantly higher level of training and development than other franchises. It widens the gap between the haves and have nots.

“Don’t get bitter, get better” is my motto. Franchises that are unwilling to get better need a swift boot out the door. If that isn’t possible, then withhold profit sharing payments. If that doesn’t work then do what they did in Flint and force the League to take over operations and the owner is responsible financially for all the expenses. It is not like the league hasn’t done it before.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things, these types of programs wouldn’t even come close to rivalling the biggest expenses for teams. In many cases, you may even be able to cross market and get a lot of these services for very little in exchange for marketing and advertising trade-offs for those companies/consultants providing the services.

 

[Otto]

If a franchisee is unwilling to spend on renovations when McDonald’s changes their branding, they lose their franchise. Simple as that.

If the OHL wants to compete, they need to offer more than what the other guy is offering. Very simple concept.

If yours or others perceptions are the OHL is losing players to US Programs, the only way to change that is by offering a better program than the US Programs. To achieve that, the OHL member teams need to collectively up their game.

If teams cannot or will not adhere to new standards for training and development, then revoke the franchise, force a sale and let the next guy do it.

This doesn’t need to happen over night. It is reasonable to put these new measures in place over a reasonable length of time.

It is not helpful that a small handful of franchises are able to offer a significantly higher level of training and development than other franchises. It widens the gap between the haves and have nots.

“Don’t get bitter, get better” is my motto. Franchises that are unwilling to get better need a swift boot out the door. If that isn’t possible, then withhold profit sharing payments. If that doesn’t work then do what they did in Flint and force the League to take over operations and the owner is responsible financially for all the expenses. It is not like the league hasn’t done it before.

Besides, in the grand scheme of things, these types of programs wouldn’t even come close to rivalling the biggest expenses for teams. In many cases, you may even be able to cross market and get a lot of these services for very little in exchange for marketing and advertising trade-offs for those companies/consultants providing the services.

I'd still like to see the data that more top talent is actually leaving the OHL... because I don't buy it. I think some people are just lashing out because management won't change how they operate so they want the league to do it for them

 

[OHLTG]

What level of OHL franchise would be considered the acceptable "standard"? Does every team have to become a London, in terms of facilities and development? Is there a team that's so far down in the range that it'll be impossible for them to get to the level they need?

 

[OMG67]

I'd still like to see the data that more top talent is actually leaving the OHL... because I don't buy it. I think some people are just lashing out because management won't change how they operate so they want the league to do it for them

Clearly top talent is going NCAA. That is not in question. The question is whether they are going that route in increasing numbers and what effect does that truly have on the OHL.

 

[OMG67]

What level of OHL franchise would be considered the acceptable "standard"? Does every team have to become a London, in terms of facilities and development? Is there a team that's so far down in the range that it'll be impossible for them to get to the level they need?

There will always be teams ahead of the curve.

You don’t necessarily need to own facilities for high performance training. Clearly, if you have on ice training, you have a rink. If you require off ice training, you can either go to where they offer the training or try to set something up in your own facility if possible.