"Watered Down" OHL

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
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.

Heres the deal... Sault Ste. Marie is talked about as a "have not team" their location is considered a distinct disadvantage. Yet , based on the statistics I posted on page 1, they have the highest average division standing over the last 5 years over any team in the OHL, and they are second to London over the last 10 years (2.2 to 2.4) tied with Barrie.

If the Soo can pull off that kind of consistency without league interference then there is no reason for the league to get involved. Eventually teams will either have to change what they are doing or they will bleed so much money that ownership will have to sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soo hound girl

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
Heres the deal... Sault Ste. Marie is talked about as a "have not team" their location is considered a distinct disadvantage. Yet , based on the statistics I posted on page 1, they have the highest average division standing over the last 5 years over any team in the OHL, and they are second to London over the last 10 years (2.2 to 2.4) tied with Barrie.

If the Soo can pull off that kind of consistency without league interference then there is no reason for the league to get involved. Eventually teams will either have to change what they are doing or they will bleed so much money that ownership will have to sell.

SSM has a new building that provides “opportunity” to generate advanced revenue.

When a facility has private boxes and comfortable seating, it is more welcoming and people tend to respond more favourably.

My issue is “ability” to generate the type of revenue required to operate at a high level year in and year out.

Some towns only have 35,000 people. On the surface, that isn’t very much. But, in those towns they are the only entertainment option (other than Cineplex). The goal for those towns is to make it habit forming and part of the culture. Owen Sound has done a tremendous job and so has SSM in that regard.

Teams like Hamilton will struggle because they have virtually no opportunity to create an atmosphere conducive to a great hockey experience. In addition, it is tough to sell Private boxes etc in those types of situations.

Barrie doesn’t have a high seating capacity but has a new building with premium seating and a restaurant etc. They have the ability to generate advanced revenue that makes up for the fact they are unable to sell 4500 tickets per game. Even Owen Sound realized they needed to develop the opportunity for advanced revenue and they did an extensive renovation to accommodate that.

The OHL needs 20 facilities with the ability to generate advanced revenue. Teams cannot live on regular ticket sales alone unless they can sell 4500 consistently. That really needs to be a priority for the league.

There is a big difference between franchises that simply do the best they can and those that squander opportunity. You and I have zero sympathy for those that squander opportunity. I do, however, have sympathy for those that do the best they can and it isn’t good enough.
 

OHLTG

Registered User
Nov 18, 2008
16,432
8,375
behind lens, Ontario
SSM's "disadvantage" in terms of location is very much subjective. A northern Ontario town, access to fantastic outdoor activities, a stone's throw from Michigan, smack dab on the longest highway in Canada... it's kind of an ideal winter hockey setting. That said, the new rink certainly gives it more flexibility with attracting players; there's no way to deny that.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
SSM's "disadvantage" in terms of location is very much subjective. A northern Ontario town, access to fantastic outdoor activities, a stone's throw from Michigan, smack dab on the longest highway in Canada... it's kind of an ideal winter hockey setting. That said, the new rink certainly gives it more flexibility with attracting players; there's no way to deny that.


SSM’s main disadvantage is travel costs.

I have zero issues with 35,000 population or 50,000 regional population. In many ways, that can be better. It is easier to reach your fan base and far less costly as well.

Larger markets struggle in different ways. Ottawa, for example, has a ton of entertainment dollar competition. It is very costly to traditionally advertise.

So, each franchise will have its challenges. However, having the infrastructure to generate revenue conducive to Major Junior Hockey is the foundation every team needs. It they have that, they are half way there. The other half is competent management, scouting and coaching.

If you have a proper facility, competent management etc, and are in a region that is not the GTA, I firmly believe at bare minimum you can compete inside a normal 4-5 year Junior Hockey cycle and probably be a playoff team most every year at minimum. On top of that, you’ll make a few bucks doing it.
 

OHLTG

Registered User
Nov 18, 2008
16,432
8,375
behind lens, Ontario
I have zero issues with 35,000 population or 50,000 regional population. In many ways, that can be better. It is easier to reach your fan base and far less costly as well.

Absolutely. I'd hate to try to market a team in Brampton, Missy, Toronto, etc. If you're able to pull that off, you're working wonders. My point was regarding the earlier comment that SSM's location can be considered a disadvantage by some. I think that's purely subjective because, aside from distance from other OHL towns, they have a TON going for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finster8

RayzorIsDull

Registered User
Nov 16, 2007
14,407
3,209
bp on hfboards
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 would agree with this. I still believe there needs to be more incentive for players to go to lesser teams instead of picking their destination It never made sense to me why every team can offer the same amount of education packages. If you're a bad team you should be able to go above and beyond a better team in the form of an education package. There is very little incentive for great players to accept going to lesser teams. In every sport except the NHL the draft is geared towards players and teams having a larger pool of money to draft the better players. Why can't the OHL do this??
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
SSM has a new building that provides “opportunity” to generate advanced revenue.

When a facility has private boxes and comfortable seating, it is more welcoming and people tend to respond more favourably.

My issue is “ability” to generate the type of revenue required to operate at a high level year in and year out.

Some towns only have 35,000 people. On the surface, that isn’t very much. But, in those towns they are the only entertainment option (other than Cineplex). The goal for those towns is to make it habit forming and part of the culture. Owen Sound has done a tremendous job and so has SSM in that regard.

Teams like Hamilton will struggle because they have virtually no opportunity to create an atmosphere conducive to a great hockey experience. In addition, it is tough to sell Private boxes etc in those types of situations.

Barrie doesn’t have a high seating capacity but has a new building with premium seating and a restaurant etc. They have the ability to generate advanced revenue that makes up for the fact they are unable to sell 4500 tickets per game. Even Owen Sound realized they needed to develop the opportunity for advanced revenue and they did an extensive renovation to accommodate that.

The OHL needs 20 facilities with the ability to generate advanced revenue. Teams cannot live on regular ticket sales alone unless they can sell 4500 consistently. That really needs to be a priority for the league.

There is a big difference between franchises that simply do the best they can and those that squander opportunity. You and I have zero sympathy for those that squander opportunity. I do, however, have sympathy for those that do the best they can and it isn’t good enough.

So now you've gone from league wide nutrition and training programs to everyone needs a suitable building... ok.. it shouldn't be up to the league to do marketing for individual teams. Hamilton has one of the largest populations to draw from and plenty of industry in the area to work with. They have the best opportunity to generate advanced revenue.. if they choose not to act on it that's not the leagues fault.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I would agree with this. I still believe there needs to be more incentive for players to go to lesser teams instead of picking their destination It never made sense to me why every team can offer the same amount of education packages. If you're a bad team you should be able to go above and beyond a better team in the form of an education package. There is very little incentive for great players to accept going to lesser teams. In every sport except the NHL the draft is geared towards players and teams having a larger pool of money to draft the better players. Why can't the OHL do this??

Let's face it.. this is a rarity, yes it happens but it's hardly as widespread as some make it out to be. But when this does happen it's with a player that's in the top end of talent and would generally be on track fro a pro carrier.. offering a higher education package isn't going to do anything.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
So now you've gone from league wide nutrition and training programs to everyone needs a suitable building... ok.. it shouldn't be up to the league to do marketing for individual teams. Hamilton has one of the largest populations to draw from and plenty of industry in the area to work with. They have the best opportunity to generate advanced revenue.. if they choose not to act on it that's not the leagues fault.

Don’t kid yourself, the League does do a heck of a lot of work assisting teams lobbying their local Governments for new buildings where necessary. The League also provides assistance in many ways with marketing. Of course, they don’t market individual teams; however, they do a lot to market the league and that benefits all franchises.

Hamilton doesn’t have the ability to generate advanced revenue. The arena is too big to create an atmosphere suitable for excitement. They do have Private Boxes but again, if there is no atmosphere, why would companies buy boxes? Ottawa experienced the same problem when they moved to Canadian Tire Centre for two seasons while the redeveloped Lansdowne. It took Ottawa 4 years to rebuild their franchise fan base when they returned “home.”

The whole point of this conversation is to lay out reasons why some top players choose to bypass the OHL and play in the US programs. One, of course, is the scholarship program. However, if the OHL were to position itself better across all franchises, I believe more players that look at the NCAA options would look more seriously at the OHL. To be able to position themselves better across all franchises, they need to raise the bar of the weaker franchises. I am providing areas of improvement that can be strategically advanced to help in that regard. This should not just be about attracting the players that are not he fence but about attracting more Ontario players to the OHL.
 
Last edited:

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Don’t kid yourself, the League does do a heck of a lot of work assisting teams lobbying their local Governments for new buildings where necessary. The League also provides assistance in many ways with marketing. Of course, they don’t market individual teams; however, they do a lot to market the league and that benefits all franchises.

Of course.. but again, you're asking for more help.. at some point the teams need to take responsibility for their own fate. In order to gain board approval for the sale I am sure the prospective ownership would need to submit a business plan. if that business plan fails it shouldn't be the leagues responsibility to hold their hand and fix the mess beyond what they are already mandated to do.

OMG67 said:
Hamilton doesn’t have the ability to generate advanced revenue. The arena is too big to create an atmosphere suitable for excitement. They do have Private Boxes but again, if there is no atmosphere, why would companies buy boxes? Ottawa experienced the same problem when they moved to Canadian Tire Centre for two seasons while the redeveloped Lansdowne. It took Ottawa 4 years to rebuild their franchise fan base when they returned “home.”

You cannot compare the Hamilton and Ottawa rinks. The suites in Hamilton are much closer to the action than they are in Ottawa. Ottawa has been discussed ad nauseam on here. They still haven't recovered from where they were attendance-wise. I thought that part of the Hamilton Business plan included plans for a new arena.. which so far hasn't shown signs of happening. Again.. if Hamilton submitted that as part of their plan it's not up to the league to see the plan through, that should be on the team. Hamilton does have the ability to generate advanced revenue, they just haven't found a way to do it yet. Even if the rink is "too big" they have a huge opportunity to build on their attendance and they haven't done it. they have lost fans over the last two years.

I couldn't imagine employing a Marketing team that used the excuse "Sorry.. can't sell because the arena is too big"

OMG67 said:
The whole point of this conversation is to lay out reasons why some top players choose to bypass the OHL and play in the US programs. One, of course, is the scholarship program. However, if the OHL were to position itself better across all franchises, I believe more players that look at the NCAA options would look more seriously at the OHL. To be able to position themselves better across all franchises, they need to raise the bar of the weaker franchises. I am providing areas of improvement that can be strategically advanced to help in that regard. This should not just be about attracting the players that are not he fence but about attracting more Ontario players to the OHL.

I thought the whole point of the conversation was to discuss the perception that the league is watered down.. I still don't see it. And then the topic of "more" OHL eligible players are choosing US college, and nobody has demonstrated that is an actual fact.

In regards to your comment that if the Education packages in the OHL were better than more players would choose the OHL I disagree. When deciding between the NCAA and the OHL I suspect that education plays a higher role in the decision making process than the actual hockey. As such, when choosing NCAA the player has the ability to choose which school they will attend ad they more than likely choose the school that allows them to best follow the future career path they want to follow should a future in pro-hockey not come to fruition. If a player wants to be a Lawyer and they are drafted by a team that doesn't have a major university but have the option to go to Yale or Harvard what do you think they will choose? Doesn't matter what the OHL offers for an education package.. they are choosing the Ivy League school.
 
Last edited:

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
Of course.. but again, you're asking for more help.. at some point the teams need to take responsibility for their own fate. In order to gain board approval for the sale I am sure the prospective ownership would need to submit a business plan. if that business plan fails it shouldn't be the leagues responsibility to hold their hand and fix the mess beyond what they are already mandated to do.



You cannot compare the Hamilton and Ottawa rinks. The suites in Hamilton are much closer to the action than they are in Ottawa. Ottawa has been discussed ad nauseam on here. They still haven't recovered from where they were attendance-wise. I thought that part of the Hamilton Business plan included plans for a new arena.. which so far hasn't shown signs of happening. Again.. if Hamilton submitted that as part of their plan it's not up to the league to see the plan through, that should be on the team. Hamilton does have the ability to generate advanced revenue, they just haven't found a way to do it yet. Even if the rink is "too big" they have a huge opportunity to build on their attendance and they haven't done it. they have lost fans over the last two years.

I couldn't imagine employing a Marketing team that used the excuse "Sorry.. can't sell because the arena is too big"



I thought the whole point of the conversation was to discuss the perception that the league is watered down.. I still don't see it. And then the topic of "more" OHL eligible players are choosing US college, and nobody has demonstrated that is an actual fact.

In regards to your comment that if the Education packages in the OHL were better than more players would choose the OHL I disagree. When deciding between the NCAA and the OHL I suspect that education plays a higher role in the decision making process than the actual hockey. As such, when choosing NCAA the player has the ability to choose which school they will attend ad they more than likely choose the school that allows them to best follow the future career path they want to follow should a future in pro-hockey not come to fruition. If a player wants to be a Lawyer and they are drafted by a team that doesn't have a major university but have the option to go to Yale or Harvard what do you think they will choose? Doesn't matter what the OHL offers for an education package.. they are choosing the Ivy League school.

I think you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not suggesting the league needs to hold the hands of the franchises. I am suggesting the league needs to raise the bar of expectations for their franchises and act as an enforcement tool to ensure the franchises comply with the minimum requirements that the franchises need to afford their players with respect to development.

From where it stands now, each team is afforded an opportunity to develop players in their own way and that may include as little as 4pm practises and games. I am suggesting that is not a good enough minimum requirement.

If it is more feasible for the league to negotiate league wide contracts (to save $$$) then so be it. The league has many partners it deals with for many types of products and services so by extension this may be possible. However, it is not the leagues responsibility to hold the hand of the franchises. IT is the leagues responsibility to slap the hand of the franchises.

EDIT:
With respect to the “watered down” suggestion, I am neither agreeing nor am I disagreeing. I am constructing an argument that is independent of that but would have a positive effect either way.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I think you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not suggesting the league needs to hold the hands of the franchises. I am suggesting the league needs to raise the bar of expectations for their franchises and act as an enforcement tool to ensure the franchises comply with the minimum requirements that the franchises need to afford their players with respect to development.

From where it stands now, each team is afforded an opportunity to develop players in their own way and that may include as little as 4pm practices and games. I am suggesting that is not a good enough minimum requirement.

If it is more feasible for the league to negotiate league wide contracts (to save $$$) then so be it. The league has many partners it deals with for many types of products and services so by extension this may be possible. However, it is not the leagues responsibility to hold the hand of the franchises. IT is the leagues responsibility to slap the hand of the franchises.

EDIT:
With respect to the “watered down” suggestion, I am neither agreeing nor am I disagreeing. I am constructing an argument that is independent of that but would have a positive effect either way.
The minute you start dictating to a business how they should operate is the minute you get fewer people interested in owning a team. Also, if you start mandating longer practices then the magnifying glass turns to the hockey aspect over education moreso than it already is. The league doesn't want that and they certainly don't want to be involved in anything that makes it appear even more as a pro league than it already is. Teams want to control who the hire and fire. If a trainer isn't working out for a team they don't want to have to jump hoops to get them replaced.

Again.. if a team doesn't like losing money that's on them.. eventually they will need to turn it around.
 

Buttsy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2015
2,644
2,224
London
The whole point of this conversation is to lay out reasons why some top players choose to bypass the OHL and play in the US programs.

I know I speak often about it BUT the negotiated player transfer agreement between the NHL and the OHL is flawed. The protectionist attitude of the OHL that requires a player to be either on an NHL roster or be returned to their OHL club is detrimental to high end talent wanting to play in the OHL prior to being drafted by an NHL team. We have seen it recently in London where a top talent stays in the USNDT or NCAA until they are drafted into the NHL. They then report for a season or two to the OHL to develop further but in doing so are able to be assigned to the AHL as per their drafting teams desire. Some players actually go direct from the draft to the AHL and a pay check and the OHL never sees them. Reminds me of the old days of Television Blackouts. Owners thought they would force fans to buy tickets when effectively they were turning fans away from their teams all together. So yes Otto I believe the CHL is in fact watered down as they could attract a much higher level of talent if their own negotiated policies were not so restrictive.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I know I speak often about it BUT the negotiated player transfer agreement between the NHL and the OHL is flawed. The protectionist attitude of the OHL that requires a player to be either on an NHL roster or be returned to their OHL club is detrimental to high end talent wanting to play in the OHL prior to being drafted by an NHL team. We have seen it recently in London where a top talent stays in the USNDT or NCAA until they are drafted into the NHL. They then report for a season or two to the OHL to develop further but in doing so are able to be assigned to the AHL as per their drafting teams desire. Some players actually go direct from the draft to the AHL and a pay check and the OHL never sees them. Reminds me of the old days of Television Blackouts. Owners thought they would force fans to buy tickets when effectively they were turning fans away from their teams all together. So yes Otto I believe the CHL is in fact watered down as they could attract a much higher level of talent if their own negotiated policies were not so restrictive.

Most people want the OHL players to have the ability to play in the AHL at 18 or 19 if they are ready as they feel they have nothing to prove in the OHL at that age. I'm not understanding your comment about the OHL/NHL player agreement being "too restrictive". Are you saying that an 18/19 year old should be able to play in the AHL? If so how does that fix the premise that the league is "watered down"? If anything more talent would be leaving early thus watering down the league even more.

If the rules were changed what makes you think players would leave NCAA early if they were not able to get an early jump on earning a salary?
 
Last edited:

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
The minute you start dictating to a business how they should operate is the minute you get fewer people interested in owning a team. Also, if you start mandating longer practices then the magnifying glass turns to the hockey aspect over education moreso than it already is. The league doesn't want that and they certainly don't want to be involved in anything that makes it appear even more as a pro league than it already is. Teams want to control who the hire and fire. If a trainer isn't working out for a team they don't want to have to jump hoops to get them replaced.

Again.. if a team doesn't like losing money that's on them.. eventually they will need to turn it around.

The teams are "franchises." There are a ton of league regulations in place that dictate most everything.

If the league cannot make demands, the teams would not be bound by anything; therefore, teams would be able to pay players whatever they want, hand out whatever scholarship packages they want or choose not. There would be no standard player agreement. Hell, they wouldn't even need to wait for the draft. They could just sign players at 14 if they wanted.

What I am suggesting is not a significant hardship. It is raising the bar for what would be considered standard player development that all franchises would need to adhere to.

Right now there are a small handful of teams investing in this. Those teams are ahead of the curve. I am sure other franchises will catch up but IMO, I think it would be good for the league to spearhead raising the bar for all franchises. If they don't and some franchises choose to not participate, they will be left behind and will languish in medicority at best.
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
I know I speak often about it BUT the negotiated player transfer agreement between the NHL and the OHL is flawed. The protectionist attitude of the OHL that requires a player to be either on an NHL roster or be returned to their OHL club is detrimental to high end talent wanting to play in the OHL prior to being drafted by an NHL team. We have seen it recently in London where a top talent stays in the USNDT or NCAA until they are drafted into the NHL. They then report for a season or two to the OHL to develop further but in doing so are able to be assigned to the AHL as per their drafting teams desire. Some players actually go direct from the draft to the AHL and a pay check and the OHL never sees them. Reminds me of the old days of Television Blackouts. Owners thought they would force fans to buy tickets when effectively they were turning fans away from their teams all together. So yes Otto I believe the CHL is in fact watered down as they could attract a much higher level of talent if their own negotiated policies were not so restrictive.

There's two sides to that arguement. The unfortunate part would be we'd get the player as a 16 and 17 year old and then they'd be gone anyway under your arguement. Then, on top of that we'd lose a lot of 19 year olds to AHL and ECHL.

I guess I don't see how that solves anything other than maybe we end up with more 16 year olds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudburydinnerjacket

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
There's two sides to that arguement. The unfortunate part would be we'd get the player as a 16 and 17 year old and then they'd be gone anyway under your arguement. Then, on top of that we'd lose a lot of 19 year olds to AHL and ECHL.

I guess I don't see how that solves anything other than maybe we end up with more 16 year olds?

Which would water down the league even more
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMG67

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
The teams are "franchises." There are a ton of league regulations in place that dictate most everything.

If the league cannot make demands, the teams would not be bound by anything; therefore, teams would be able to pay players whatever they want, hand out whatever scholarship packages they want or choose not. There would be no standard player agreement. Hell, they wouldn't even need to wait for the draft. They could just sign players at 14 if they wanted.

What I am suggesting is not a significant hardship. It is raising the bar for what would be considered standard player development that all franchises would need to adhere to.

Right now there are a small handful of teams investing in this. Those teams are ahead of the curve. I am sure other franchises will catch up but IMO, I think it would be good for the league to spearhead raising the bar for all franchises. If they don't and some franchises choose to not participate, they will be left behind and will languish in medicority at best.
"Small handful" You actually know what each team does as far as training goes?

So which teams are intentionally not training their players?
 
Last edited:

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
"Small handful" You actually know what each team does as far as training goes?

So which teams are intentionally not training their players?

Depends on what bar you choose to use as the measure. You are suggesting it is an either/or scenario as if there are teams doing nothing. I’m not sure that helps to further your inquiry.

If you use the new bar set by the Ottawa 67’s with respect to player development then I’d say most teams are below that bar.

The question is where to set the minimum requirements bar. That would determine how many teams are not investing enough resources in development. Keep in mind, resources aren’t necessarily $$$. It is time and effort as well as the way a team can or could structure their coaching staff etc.

Like I said before, there are ways the league can contribute through potential league wide sponsorship agreements. If the league chooses not to look at this sort of opportunity then it would most certainly be up to each individual team to work out their own contracts. My vision would be some form of hybrid of league sponsored contracts combined with regional contracts that could encompass one team or could encompass multiple teams depending on the region and the reach of the service provider.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Depends on what bar you choose to use as the measure. You are suggesting it is an either/or scenario as if there are teams doing nothing. I’m not sure that helps to further your inquiry.

If you use the new bar set by the Ottawa 67’s with respect to player development then I’d say most teams are below that bar.

The question is where to set the minimum requirements bar. That would determine how many teams are not investing enough resources in development. Keep in mind, resources aren’t necessarily $$$. It is time and effort as well as the way a team can or could structure their coaching staff etc.

Like I said before, there are ways the league can contribute through potential league wide sponsorship agreements. If the league chooses not to look at this sort of opportunity then it would most certainly be up to each individual team to work out their own contracts. My vision would be some form of hybrid of league sponsored contracts combined with regional contracts that could encompass one team or could encompass multiple teams depending on the region and the reach of the service provider.
You have stated that a "small handful of teams" are investing in training their players. So which teams are sub par by your standards?
 

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,964
3,636
Depends on what bar you choose to use as the measure. You are suggesting it is an either/or scenario as if there are teams doing nothing. I’m not sure that helps to further your inquiry.

If you use the new bar set by the Ottawa 67’s with respect to player development then I’d say most teams are below that bar.

The question is where to set the minimum requirements bar. That would determine how many teams are not investing enough resources in development. Keep in mind, resources aren’t necessarily $$$. It is time and effort as well as the way a team can or could structure their coaching staff etc.

Like I said before, there are ways the league can contribute through potential league wide sponsorship agreements. If the league chooses not to look at this sort of opportunity then it would most certainly be up to each individual team to work out their own contracts. My vision would be some form of hybrid of league sponsored contracts combined with regional contracts that could encompass one team or could encompass multiple teams depending on the region and the reach of the service provider.

I am of the opinion that the bar set by the ‘67s was the hiring of coach Tourigny. In the half dozen years preceding that, there was significant selling to accumulate extra picks and 1st picks that included 6, 5, 3, 1, and one exactly in the middle.
That is not a whole lot different than the stretch NB has just gone through. The question becomes can NB attract a coach on the level of Tourigny, Hunter, Keefe, McFarland, or Burnett, Richmond. Wellwood...
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
You have stated that a "small handful of teams" are investing in training their players. So which teams are sub par by your standards?

Again, you are trying to paint me into a corner. I’m not playing that game.

My recommendation is not a developed policy so I cannot answer what you ask.

The UNDERLYING. Point is that some teams have taken an advanced approach at training and development. They’ve taken the lead from NHL clubs. What I am suggesting is the OHL adopt the same approach. It is not about blaming specific teams or admonishing them it is about adopting standards and practices in place at the pro level.

To me, there is nothing wrong with raising the bar in the OHL with respect to training and development for all teams across the board. It will help with overall talent development and raise the profile of the league a little more. This is a positive and for some reason you make it out like a negative. I don’t understand what you are nit picking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teflon

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,543
6,748
I am of the opinion that the bar set by the ‘67s was the hiring of coach Tourigny. In the half dozen years preceding that, there was significant selling to accumulate extra picks and 1st picks that included 6, 5, 3, 1, and one exactly in the middle.
That is not a whole lot different than the stretch NB has just gone through. The question becomes can NB attract a coach on the level of Tourigny, Hunter, Keefe, McFarland, or Burnett, Richmond. Wellwood...

Tourigny brought in a new way of approaching fitness and raised the bar for the players with respect to expectations for their development. The 67’s brought in a group of athletic development people (consultants with their own businesses in the field) and has utilized that to create a higher standard of overall athlete. Bigger, stronger, faster so to speak. That has translated into improved results on the ice and has allowed those players that fully embrace it an opportunity to advance more seamlessly to the next level, at least physically.

This isn’t about drafting and trading. Any team can do that.

It is about developing and enhancing motor skills, reaction times, endurance, and strength. Build a better athlete, the better athlete will perform better at his sport. THAT is what the 67’s are doing. They are not leaving anything on the table from an athletic development situation.

I believe what Ottawa is currently doing could have a significant impact on the league and help raise the bar from a talent perspective, irrespective of whether certain players report or not. It means teams that play a lot of 3 in 3’s will have more juice game 3. It means players will spend less time injured. They’ll be able to play period 3 as hard as period 1.

I think this is an important next step for the league. I believe most teams will adopt this organically but it would be good for the League to take the lead on this and if there is a way to standardize it and enforce all teams participating then that would benefit the league.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->