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.