"Watered Down" OHL

[dirty12]

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.

As I stated, imo this high bar set by the ‘67s began with the hiring of one of the very best coaches in the OHL. Training for hockey was made a thing by Gary Roberts and since adopted by AAA bantam teams, not just the ‘67s. The difference in ‘dedication’ may be the perceived difference in amenities $ can make. Really, coaching and level of dedication of the players is most important

 

[Otto]

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.

You made a comment that most of the teams fall short on training...

It's a simple question.. which ones?

 

[OMG67]

As I stated, imo this high bar set by the ‘67s began with the hiring of one of the very best coaches in the OHL. Training for hockey was made a thing by Gary Roberts and since adopted by AAA bantam teams, not just the ‘67s. The difference in ‘dedication’ may be the perceived difference in amenities $ can make. Really, coaching and level of dedication of the players is most important

That’s the point. This is why if the league had a designed program, it wouldn’t simply be up to the coaches, it would be a standard that the league adopts. It should not be up to individual franchises or rest solely on individual coaches that come and go. It should be a standard program instituted by the league.

 

[OMG67]

You made a comment that most of the teams fall short on training...

It's a simple question.. which ones?

I meant in comparison to what Ottawa is now doing. You cannot compare directly because I am sure other teams may be doing things that would benefit Ottawa and Ottawa is doing things that would benefit others. How do you measure exactly what is better? It depends on what you use as measurement.

That is the point of getting together and putting a league wide program in...

1> What are teams currently doing that has benefitted them?
2> What programs can be duplicated throughout all teams?
3> Can the league oversee the implementation of these programs?
4> What is the cost of these programs and can those costs be reduced through league wide marketing and advertising initiatives, or better yet, CHL wide?

For example, Hockey Canada instituted the Program of excellence. Part of that program is to develop coaches as well as players and put together an all encompassing program to elevate the team Canada Program.

EVERY team would benefit from this type of program including the ones currently leading the pack because they’d learn from the other teams successes. It isn’t about singling out certain franchises that may be lagging behind the curve.

 

[dirty12]

That’s the point. This is why if the league had a designed program, it wouldn’t simply be up to the coaches, it would be a standard that the league adopts. It should not be up to individual franchises or rest solely on individual coaches that come and go. It should be a standard program instituted by the league.

not at all my point though. An accepted good practice made rule will not have an equal effect for all. A coach with superior ability to understand the physics, and communicate/coach it to players with complete faith in the coach/program and willing/wanting to 100% participate will have the greatest result...like Hunter or Tourigny or Saban @Alabama or Meyer when at Florida or Ohio St. the location/program does not matter as much as the coach/results

 

[OMG67]

not at all my point though. An accepted good practice made rule will not have an equal effect for all. A coach with superior ability to understand the physics, and communicate/coach it to players with complete faith in the coach/program and willing/wanting to 100% participate will have the greatest result...like Hunter or Tourigny or Saban @Alabama or Meyer when @florida or Ohio St. the location/program does not matter as much as the coach/results

Of course there will need to be a buy in from the players. Even on the 67’s there are undoubtedly players that commit more than others. We see that in professional sports as well. Some players play video games all day and never lift weights let alone do any other high level development.

But, if it is at least available AND part of the program, those that want to get the most out of the development can participate. It is better than nothing and individual players would not be able to complain about one franchise having access to advanced training and another not.

 

[dirty12]

Of course there will need to be a buy in from the players. Even on the 67’s there are undoubtedly players that commit more than others. We see that in professional sports as well. Some players play video games all day and never lift weights let alone do any other high level development.

But, if it is at least available AND part of the program, those that want to get the most out of the development can participate. It is better than nothing and individual players would not be able to complain about one franchise having access to advanced training and another not.

agree and disagree. The ‘program’ was not at all invented by the ‘67s, and it’s use not at all limited to a few teams. Elite coaches like Tourigny & Saban ‘steal’ from all programs then simply coach it better to players that have 100% faith in their coach regardless of the amenities. I’ll go as far as saying hand over NB’s current collection of accumulated young talent and surplus picks to any of Hunter, Keefe, McFarland, Tourigny then make Timmins their home, and that team would contend and supply high picks to the NHL in short order

 

[Otto]

I meant in comparison to what Ottawa is now doing. You cannot compare directly because I am sure other teams may be doing things that would benefit Ottawa and Ottawa is doing things that would benefit others. How do you measure exactly what is better? It depends on what you use as measurement.

That is the point of getting together and putting a league wide program in...

1> What are teams currently doing that has benefitted them?
2> What programs can be duplicated throughout all teams?
3> Can the league oversee the implementation of these programs?
4> What is the cost of these programs and can those costs be reduced through league wide marketing and advertising initiatives, or better yet, CHL wide?

For example, Hockey Canada instituted the Program of excellence. Part of that program is to develop coaches as well as players and put together an all encompassing program to elevate the team Canada Program.

EVERY team would benefit from this type of program including the ones currently leading the pack because they’d learn from the other teams successes. It isn’t about singling out certain franchises that may be lagging behind the curve.

And yet 3 of the teams talked about being contracted in this thread all have an equal to or better average standing than Ottawa over the last 5 years ( Erie, Kingston, Sarnia) Ao maybe Ottawa isn't the be all and end all here.

You might as well take the coaching out of the game. IMO what you are proposing would take away the uniqueness and creativity each coach brings to the game and would ruin the league.

I still don't understand the reasons behind you suggesting this

 

[Buttsy]

Oops .....

 

[Buttsy]

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?

In my opinion if I was a player of High to Mid Level talent I would prefer to be drafted while a player on a USNDT or NCAA roster so that as a 19 year old (post draft) I could play in the AHL to further my development and collect a pay check. If I was on a CHL roster I have to be on an NHL roster (only the elite really do right now) or returned to Junior which in some cases is not what’s best for me the player. So IMO the restrictive nature of the agreement hinders the CHL teams when they are trying to recruit a 16 - 17 year old player. Because of this I believe it hurts the CHL, costs them many mid level talent players who want to maintain their flexibility. Unless they are brain dead any NCAA or USNDT scout should be clarifying this as a major feature of why a player needs to avoid the CHL?

OMG you are correct there are 2 sides to it but overall seasons spent when recruited as a 16-17 year old vs a post drafted player are far greater when securing them young. IMO anyways ..... and multiply this by the fact the NHL Cap is driving more young players onto the rosters so again any delay in reaching the NHL or its feeder league (AHL) is a negative in my mind.

 

[Otto]

In my opinion if I was a player of High to Mid Level talent I would prefer to be drafted while a player on a USNDT or NCAA roster so that as a 19 year old (post draft) I could play in the AHL to further my development and collect a pay check. If I was on a CHL roster I have to be on an NHL roster (only the elite really do right now) or returned to Junior which in some cases is not what’s best for me the player. So IMO the restrictive nature of the agreement hinders the CHL teams when they are trying to recruit a 16 - 17 year old player. Because of this I believe it hurts the CHL, costs them many mid level talent players who want to maintain their flexibility. Unless they are brain dead any NCAA or USNDT scout should be clarifying this as a major feature of why a player needs to avoid the CHL?

OMG you are correct there are 2 sides to it but overall seasons spent when recruited as a 16-17 year old vs a post drafted player are far greater when securing them young. IMO anyways ..... and multiply this by the fact the NHL Cap is driving more young players onto the rosters so again any delay in reaching the NHL or its feeder league (AHL) is a negative in my mind.

So you would add mid level talent, but your higher end talent would leave the league early thus watering down the overall talent of the league

 

[OMG67]

agree and disagree. The ‘program’ was not at all invented by the ‘67s, and it’s use not at all limited to a few teams. Elite coaches like Tourigny & Saban ‘steal’ from all programs then simply coach it better to players that have 100% faith in their coach regardless of the amenities. I’ll go as far as saying hand over NB’s current collection of accumulated young talent and surplus picks to any of Hunter, Keefe, McFarland, Tourigny then make Timmins their home, and that team would contend and supply high picks to the NHL in short order

I think we are on the same page.

I just separate two things:

1 - Coaching. This is preparing the players and executing the plan. This is where talented and experienced coaches make a difference with on ice product.
2 - Training. This is a coach/GM strategically implementing a training program and bring in the qualified personnel to conduct the training. Most coaches, Tourigny included, can really only do so much. They need to rely on the professionals to actually execute the individual programs.

Tourigny has the prior knowledge that he can bring to the 67s for sure. However, if it were a league wide program, you wouldn't need someone like Tourigny to initiate the program and put it together. The blueprint would be provided by the league. It would then be up to the teams to source the personnel to implement and execute the program.

 

[OMG67]

And yet 3 of the teams talked about being contracted in this thread all have an equal to or better average standing than Ottawa over the last 5 years ( Erie, Kingston, Sarnia) Ao maybe Ottawa isn't the be all and end all here.

You might as well take the coaching out of the game. IMO what you are proposing would take away the uniqueness and creativity each coach brings to the game and would ruin the league.

I still don't understand the reasons behind you suggesting this

First, I wasn't using standings performance to make a "hypothetical" contraction list. I used their individual ability to generate revenue as the means of contraction. As I mentioned previously, I am not in favour of contraction. Then I proposed a potential way to level the playing field a little so players have less of a reason to jockey for certain teams and-or go to a US based program as an alternative.

There is a difference between coaching and training. The challenge is acquiring 20 coaches experienced enough to put together an advanced training program for athletic development. However, if the league were to develop the training program, teams would be able to follow that blueprint and coaches that are simply more geared towards on ice player development can still thrive in that area while taking advantage of a more highly athletic group of players that "may" be able to have a higher level of endurance, strength and overall athletic ability.

What coach wouldn't want stronger and more athletic group of players with a higher level of endurance to work with? I think that answer is zero.

Every team would benefit but most of all the players that do want to elevate their game in preparation for a pro career would more likely be motivated to sign with team that can demonsatrate success in that regard.

 

[Otto]

First, I wasn't using standings performance to make a "hypothetical" contraction list. I used their individual ability to generate revenue as the means of contraction. As I mentioned previously, I am not in favour of contraction. Then I proposed a potential way to level the playing field a little so players have less of a reason to jockey for certain teams and-or go to a US based program as an alternative.

There is a difference between coaching and training. The challenge is acquiring 20 coaches experienced enough to put together an advanced training program for athletic development. However, if the league were to develop the training program, teams would be able to follow that blueprint and coaches that are simply more geared towards on ice player development can still thrive in that area while taking advantage of a more highly athletic group of players that "may" be able to have a higher level of endurance, strength and overall athletic ability.

What coach wouldn't want stronger and more athletic group of players with a higher level of endurance to work with? I think that answer is zero.

Every team would benefit but most of all the players that do want to elevate their game in preparation for a pro career would more likely be motivated to sign with team that can demonsatrate success in that regard.

I'd be shocked if any coach at this level would want training taken out of their hands.

 

[OMG67]

I'd be shocked if any coach at this level would want training taken out of their hands.

Typically, the trading staff or “team trainer” works with the players for their off ice training. The Head Coach and/or GM may also provide instruction to the Training staff with respect to the program. Most players have their own specialized training program as well in an effort to isolate areas they need to work on.

In my proposal, the training staff is expanded to include specialists. Players would work with a wide range of trainers over the course of the season. The Head Trainer coordinates the training and the Head Coach is in the loop so to speak.

If a Head Coach doesn’t see the value in advanced training to create a better athlete, maybe that coach should move on. They certainly won’t be moving up to the NHL with that sort of attitude. They’d have reached their career peak.

 

[Otto]

Typically, the trading staff or “team trainer” works with the players for their off ice training. The Head Coach and/or GM may also provide instruction to the Training staff with respect to the program. Most players have their own specialized training program as well in an effort to isolate areas they need to work on.

In my proposal, the training staff is expanded to include specialists. Players would work with a wide range of trainers over the course of the season. The Head Trainer coordinates the training and the Head Coach is in the loop so to speak.

If a Head Coach doesn’t see the value in advanced training to create a better athlete, maybe that coach should move on. They certainly won’t be moving up to the NHL with that sort of attitude. They’d have reached their career peak.

I'm thinking teams are doing more than you are giving them credit for.

I still don't understand why you feel this needs to be done? Unless you think that the end result would be someone turning down Yale in order to go to Lambton College?

 

[OMG67]

I'm thinking teams are doing more than you are giving them credit for.

I still don't understand why you feel this needs to be done? Unless you think that the end result would be someone turning down Yale in order to go to Lambton College?

If all teams elevated their programs, it would result in better performaneces and potentially better future reults for players.

That can only be a positive for the OHL.

 

[Otto]

If all teams elevated their programs, it would result in better performaneces and potentially better future reults for players.

That can only be a positive for the OHL.

So you've backtracked again... because a few posts up you were talking about players not going to the USA

 

[OMG67]

So you've backtracked again... because a few posts up you were talking about players not going to the USA

First, to answer the previous question, I highly doubt a kid with a Scholarship offer to Yale would end up at Lambton College. I’d assume they would go to U of T or Queens etc. Depending on the program they wanted to study post-OHL career.

Arguably if the league churns out better developed players, the possibility exists it would also attract more players.

That said, I also suggested the league needed to revamp their scholarship program as well. I think that would have much more impact on enticing players. To recap what I said:

1> At bare minimum, players that play a year get a year tuition paid and there is no time limit other than maybe they have to enrol within a year after their last pro season and maybe some sort of NHL games played minimum etc.
2> For players that sign for more than just tuition, they should have a bit longer in Pro hockey. Or, as an alternative, they lose a little bit each year of the value of their scholarship. Maybe they play 5 years as a Pro in the AHL chasing their dream and instead of a full ride scholarship, they at least get their tuition and some expenses covered.

The one thing I personally always disagreed with was how they handle the scholarships. To me, the players are compensated via a scholarship. At bare minimum they should be afforded an opportunity to cash in on the tuition portion regardless of whether they played Minor Pro for longer than 18 months. Just my opinion.

As you mentioned, some kids are in it solely for the opportunity to get a full ride at an Ivy League school. If I had a kid that played high level hockey and had an opportunity to go to Yale on a full scholarship or play in the OHL, there would be zero doubt which avenue I would nudge him to, that is for sure. In case it isn’t obvious, it would be Yale...

I am not exactly sure how the Standard tuition works for the scholarships but if the kid is US born and resides in Massachusetts, can’t the kid choose to cash in on his scholarship at say, Harvard? OR, does it need to be a State School with normal tuition prices like Boston College? I know the Ontario kids can’t go to a US school. They have to go to school in Ontario.

 

[dirty12]

First, to answer the previous question, I highly doubt a kid with a Scholarship offer to Yale would end up at Lambton College. I’d assume they would go to U of T or Queens etc. Depending on the program they wanted to study post-OHL career.

Arguably if the league churns out better developed players, the possibility exists it would also attract more players.

That said, I also suggested the league needed to revamp their scholarship program as well. I think that would have much more impact on enticing players. To recap what I said:

1> At bare minimum, players that play a year get a year tuition paid and there is no time limit other than maybe they have to enrol within a year after their last pro season and maybe some sort of NHL games played minimum etc.
2> For players that sign for more than just tuition, they should have a bit longer in Pro hockey. Or, as an alternative, they lose a little bit each year of the value of their scholarship. Maybe they play 5 years as a Pro in the AHL chasing their dream and instead of a full ride scholarship, they at least get their tuition and some expenses covered.

The one thing I personally always disagreed with was how they handle the scholarships. To me, the players are compensated via a scholarship. At bare minimum they should be afforded an opportunity to cash in on the tuition portion regardless of whether they played Minor Pro for longer than 18 months. Just my opinion.

As you mentioned, some kids are in it solely for the opportunity to get a full ride at an Ivy League school. If I had a kid that played high level hockey and had an opportunity to go to Yale on a full scholarship or play in the OHL, there would be zero doubt which avenue I would nudge him to, that is for sure. In case it isn’t obvious, it would be Yale...

I am not exactly sure how the Standard tuition works for the scholarships but if the kid is US born and resides in Massachusetts, can’t the kid choose to cash in on his scholarship at say, Harvard? OR, does it need to be a State School with normal tuition prices like Boston College? I know the Ontario kids can’t go to a US school. They have to go to school in Ontario.

My understanding of the wording, is the kids get tuition fees equivalent to the university nearest the families’ principal residence, be it Laurentian or Notre Dame. Since all schools are subsidized, tuition at an ON school would not be equal for ON and Illinois students making it likely less enticing for US players.
I think the education packages offered can be made better if signing an ELC did not cancel transfer fee to the OHL. London produces the most pros, so pay the least fees while collecting the most development fees from the NHL. That is not quite right, imo. (another reason I am not in favour of allowing top teams to trade for the top 1st picks prior to the draft). If all the fees were collected by the league, the unused amounts not paid out to those turned pro could be used to enhance the current packages allotted.
Back to advanced training, ALL the teams have fitness, skills, educational, mental/emotional .... people in place. One team may be able to hire a G.Roberts full time and several may have university students. I’ll say once again that the ‘67s did not invent advanced training and the ‘67s advantage is their elite coach, not the fitness instructor. All things being equal, every player wants to play for D.Hunter or N.Saban. That is the difference between Stranges signing with (‘worlds best coach) London and Power choosing Chicago Steel over Flint.

 

[Otto]

My understanding of the wording, is the kids get tuition fees equivalent to the university nearest the families’ principal residence, be it Laurentian or Notre Dame. Since all schools are subsidized, tuition at an ON school would not be equal for ON and Illinois students making it likely less enticing for US players.
I think the education packages offered can be made better if signing an ELC did not cancel transfer fee to the OHL. London produces the most pros, so pay the least fees while collecting the most development fees from the NHL. That is not quite right, imo. (another reason I am not in favour of allowing top teams to trade for the top 1st picks prior to the draft). If all the fees were collected by the league, the unused amounts not paid out to those turned pro could be used to enhance the current packages allotted.
Back to advanced training, ALL the teams have fitness, skills, educational, mental/emotional .... people in place. One team may be able to hire a G.Roberts full time and several may have university students. I’ll say once again that the ‘67s advantage is their elite coach, not the fitness instructor. All things being equal, every player wants to play for D.Hunter or N.Saban

I thought all teams paid education money to the league based on their player agreements and the league paid out the funds not the teams?

 

[dirty12]

I thought all teams paid education money to the league based on their player agreements and the league paid out the funds not the teams?

they do, but players signing ELC lose education package so the team is not required to pay that amount.
If anything has changed in that regard, I am unaware of it.

 

[Otto]

they do, but players signing ELC lose education package so the team is not required to pay that amount.
If anything has changed in that regard, I am unaware of it.

I think you misunderstood my question.. again I could be wrong, but I thought the team paid into a fund at the league office on an annual basis. So say the player is with London fortwo years, during that time the Knights pay into the fund on behalf of the player. If the player signs an ELC and plays in the NHL and isn't entitled to the education package the money stays in that fund ( earning interest) it doesn't go back to the teams.

If it's not done that way it should be.

 

[Otto]

My understanding of the wording, is the kids get tuition fees equivalent to the university nearest the families’ principal residence, be it Laurentian or Notre Dame. Since all schools are subsidized, tuition at an ON school would not be equal for ON and Illinois students making it likely less enticing for US players.
I think the education packages offered can be made better if signing an ELC did not cancel transfer fee to the OHL. London produces the most pros, so pay the least fees while collecting the most development fees from the NHL. That is not quite right, imo. (another reason I am not in favour of allowing top teams to trade for the top 1st picks prior to the draft). If all the fees were collected by the league, the unused amounts not paid out to those turned pro could be used to enhance the current packages allotted.
Back to advanced training, ALL the teams have fitness, skills, educational, mental/emotional .... people in place. One team may be able to hire a G.Roberts full time and several may have university students. I’ll say once again that the ‘67s did not invent advanced training and the ‘67s advantage is their elite coach, not the fitness instructor. All things being equal, every player wants to play for D.Hunter or N.Saban. That is the difference between Stranges signing with (‘worlds best coach) London and Power choosing Chicago Steel over Flint.

According to this they are already doing everything you want them to do re: training

OHL Prospective Player Information – Ontario Hockey League.

 

[dirty12]

According to this they are already doing everything you want them to do re: training

OHL Prospective Player Information – Ontario Hockey League.

I have read that already, thanks for posting though; all the in addition to education was for OMG67 actually.
The collection of funds is not crystal clear however. I have read that smaller market teams (not producing several pros at a time) are at a distinct disadvantage with regard to education transfers because the fees are not due until players graduate from the OHL. So London for example, would pay less to the fund than a team at the bottom of a cycle not producing pros.