What would happen if there is no OHL season? (Part 2)
- Thread starter EON
- Start date
I would agree with you on this. I will say though you could probably negotiate something on how many roster spots can be taken up by 00's and 01's. 5 or 6 roster spots taken up by 00's and 01's is a non starter. If they can go 3 total 00's and 01's I think they could make that work. A clause should be put it though that 00's are not eligible to be traded.
OHLTG
Registered User
Let's be honest - there's probably a lot being discussed that... a) wouldn't normally... and b) few of us will agree with. They're not doing due diligence if they don't.
Generalsupdates
@GeneralsUpdates on Twitter
- Sep 4, 2017
- 7,303
- 4,371
Yeah I can't see it happening. Sucks for the OA's but the OHL isn't going to
1) miss out on a bunch of rookie so older guys who don't have pro offers can play junior again
2) potentially have young guys get hurt
The season is finally officially cancelled. Hopefully with all this time spent focusing on trying to get this season going they've also explored to some degree what they can do to be ready next season, provided things have improved health wise for all and in general hopefully they've been looking towards future improvements for the league.
The basic structures have to remain in terms of having the draft, import draft and U18 draft but some changes can be made now to improve and some can be set up for future implementation.
The current draft has to remain intact. While I agree that it should only be 10 rounds that's a change that can't be made for four or five years. The league would simply have to take the furthest pick dealt in rounds 11 to 15 and freeze any trades beyond that draft year. With the changes that were made a few years ago it can't be more than four years out now, 2024 draft so it could easily be implemented as soon as the 2025 draft. While it may be tough having 16 and 17 year old rookies coming in together it's going to happen one way or another be it this year or next year so get it over with. I have other suggestions that would help to address this coming in this post.
The U18 draft could be expanded for a year or two to offset any players missed in this and next year's draft. However this draft as of now has not been very productive and as long as the priority selection remains at 15 rounds it will never be a significant source of talent. I know the idea is to get more kids to stay in minor hockey and hopefully find some late bloomers who weren't ready in their draft year but with a large chunk of talent removed when these kids head into major midget there's not a lot of talent to help them excel. If the priority selection were reduced to 10 rounds then more talent remains in major midget thus improving the level of play and while I would imagine more kids currently drafted in the late rounds make the OHL than they do from the U18 draft keeping a higher level of talent in major midget would likely improve the level of talent in the U18 and help even the kids who are currently late round picks have a better shot at making the OHL than they currently do as late round picks. It takes more than a draft to help these kids, it would/should take initiatives from the OHL as well to work with those teams to improve their development opportunities. If the priority selection were to remain at 15 rounds then two years down the road it's time to eliminate this draft. It's basically selling the kids a false bill of goods.
The import draft and import players. First off, lift the restrictions on how many import players a team can carry. Second, allow trading of import picks again. It's an asset that currently has no value if a team already has two returning import players or are waiting to hear about NHL drafted import players and then having to trade or release other players. If it is feasible, expand the import draft to 3 rounds, the same as the U18 draft.
Work with the Tier 2/JR. B leagues to open more space to 16 year olds this year and in the future. If the OHL is going to be hurting for talent with more vets moving on than usual they'll have to fill roster spots and a lot of those kids are going to come from the lower development leagues. While some of those leagues will see an influx of 20 year olds that won't have a home in the OHL their 18 and 19 year olds will likely be very thin as more of those players will be playing major junior. If they can encourage them to take double the number of 16 year olds those leagues could actually become true development leagues for the OHL. Make those changes if they were to happen permanent. It would pay off in the long run for the OHL and those leagues as well.
With the possibility of the NHL having some serious demands for the next agreement the OHL/CHL needs to find ways to expand their talent pool. With this season in particular, a flat cap for the next couple of seasons the OHL/CHL have to maintain and improve their relevance. Any OHL/CHL kids who have played pro in Europe or the AHL this year and did well there's going to be pressure to allow them to move up. While the OHL/CHL could refuse based on the current agreement the next agreement will cost them a lot from the NHL in terms of expectations and future support.
How to maintain and improve development this year, next year and beyond?
With the potential to lose more 02s due to NHL pressure, if it happens along with a loss of 01s that would have been expected but after a season without the league will become even more noticeable the quickest influx of talent could come through the import changes I suggested. If they could every team up to four or five imports this season it is a big influx of talent that could offset some of the loss of talent the league will see. This is an area where they could go to the NHL, if not for financial support then at least for public support to help encourage recently drafted imports to come over as well as draft eligible players. While there would be a lot of rookies going into this season with two draft classes coming in as rookies adding the extra talent of more imports while not fighting the NHL on keeping some of the 19 year olds in the AHL, with certain conditions could go a long ways towards the next agreement. Any 19 year olds that would leave that would normally have been back would suck for the individual teams and the league as a whole they need the goodwill for the next agreement. The lack of hockey in the OHL/CHL overall this season would mean they need to have some form of veteran or older leadership going forward the next couple of seasons to help acclimate the double rookie class.
There is no way to justify changing this year's draft, postponing it simply because it will affect someone this year, next year or the year after. It has to be dealt with at some point and with this likely being a tough year get it out of the way. Depending on what happens with a number of the 19 year olds, if they graduate early and what kind of agreements they can work out with Tier 2/JR. B teams if they do nothing else such as adding imports I would say this would be the year to experiment with allowing more 16 year olds, not less to their rosters. If nothing else it exposes more kids to the experience, it improves the product for the next couple of years with more veteran leadership and it may even give a few kids a chance they might not normally get.
Whatever they are going to do they need to do it fast. The draft needs to be announced soon. If they are going to make changes to any of the rules, permanent or temporary they need to announce them soon. I would not agree with allowing OAs for the coming season an extra year, it would take the focus of the kids and I would not agree with delaying any draft years. Once either of those two things happen I think they risk becoming permanent changes and there're not the type of changes that should become permanent.
The basic structures have to remain in terms of having the draft, import draft and U18 draft but some changes can be made now to improve and some can be set up for future implementation.
The current draft has to remain intact. While I agree that it should only be 10 rounds that's a change that can't be made for four or five years. The league would simply have to take the furthest pick dealt in rounds 11 to 15 and freeze any trades beyond that draft year. With the changes that were made a few years ago it can't be more than four years out now, 2024 draft so it could easily be implemented as soon as the 2025 draft. While it may be tough having 16 and 17 year old rookies coming in together it's going to happen one way or another be it this year or next year so get it over with. I have other suggestions that would help to address this coming in this post.
The U18 draft could be expanded for a year or two to offset any players missed in this and next year's draft. However this draft as of now has not been very productive and as long as the priority selection remains at 15 rounds it will never be a significant source of talent. I know the idea is to get more kids to stay in minor hockey and hopefully find some late bloomers who weren't ready in their draft year but with a large chunk of talent removed when these kids head into major midget there's not a lot of talent to help them excel. If the priority selection were reduced to 10 rounds then more talent remains in major midget thus improving the level of play and while I would imagine more kids currently drafted in the late rounds make the OHL than they do from the U18 draft keeping a higher level of talent in major midget would likely improve the level of talent in the U18 and help even the kids who are currently late round picks have a better shot at making the OHL than they currently do as late round picks. It takes more than a draft to help these kids, it would/should take initiatives from the OHL as well to work with those teams to improve their development opportunities. If the priority selection were to remain at 15 rounds then two years down the road it's time to eliminate this draft. It's basically selling the kids a false bill of goods.
The import draft and import players. First off, lift the restrictions on how many import players a team can carry. Second, allow trading of import picks again. It's an asset that currently has no value if a team already has two returning import players or are waiting to hear about NHL drafted import players and then having to trade or release other players. If it is feasible, expand the import draft to 3 rounds, the same as the U18 draft.
Work with the Tier 2/JR. B leagues to open more space to 16 year olds this year and in the future. If the OHL is going to be hurting for talent with more vets moving on than usual they'll have to fill roster spots and a lot of those kids are going to come from the lower development leagues. While some of those leagues will see an influx of 20 year olds that won't have a home in the OHL their 18 and 19 year olds will likely be very thin as more of those players will be playing major junior. If they can encourage them to take double the number of 16 year olds those leagues could actually become true development leagues for the OHL. Make those changes if they were to happen permanent. It would pay off in the long run for the OHL and those leagues as well.
With the possibility of the NHL having some serious demands for the next agreement the OHL/CHL needs to find ways to expand their talent pool. With this season in particular, a flat cap for the next couple of seasons the OHL/CHL have to maintain and improve their relevance. Any OHL/CHL kids who have played pro in Europe or the AHL this year and did well there's going to be pressure to allow them to move up. While the OHL/CHL could refuse based on the current agreement the next agreement will cost them a lot from the NHL in terms of expectations and future support.
How to maintain and improve development this year, next year and beyond?
With the potential to lose more 02s due to NHL pressure, if it happens along with a loss of 01s that would have been expected but after a season without the league will become even more noticeable the quickest influx of talent could come through the import changes I suggested. If they could every team up to four or five imports this season it is a big influx of talent that could offset some of the loss of talent the league will see. This is an area where they could go to the NHL, if not for financial support then at least for public support to help encourage recently drafted imports to come over as well as draft eligible players. While there would be a lot of rookies going into this season with two draft classes coming in as rookies adding the extra talent of more imports while not fighting the NHL on keeping some of the 19 year olds in the AHL, with certain conditions could go a long ways towards the next agreement. Any 19 year olds that would leave that would normally have been back would suck for the individual teams and the league as a whole they need the goodwill for the next agreement. The lack of hockey in the OHL/CHL overall this season would mean they need to have some form of veteran or older leadership going forward the next couple of seasons to help acclimate the double rookie class.
There is no way to justify changing this year's draft, postponing it simply because it will affect someone this year, next year or the year after. It has to be dealt with at some point and with this likely being a tough year get it out of the way. Depending on what happens with a number of the 19 year olds, if they graduate early and what kind of agreements they can work out with Tier 2/JR. B teams if they do nothing else such as adding imports I would say this would be the year to experiment with allowing more 16 year olds, not less to their rosters. If nothing else it exposes more kids to the experience, it improves the product for the next couple of years with more veteran leadership and it may even give a few kids a chance they might not normally get.
Whatever they are going to do they need to do it fast. The draft needs to be announced soon. If they are going to make changes to any of the rules, permanent or temporary they need to announce them soon. I would not agree with allowing OAs for the coming season an extra year, it would take the focus of the kids and I would not agree with delaying any draft years. Once either of those two things happen I think they risk becoming permanent changes and there're not the type of changes that should become permanent.
unreal feedback and insight as always.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
And yet he really isn't all that far off based on the past 12 months....
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
Based on some of the comments, I still don't think there is good enough reason to have more than 3 rounds for the OHL draft. First, it's not like 16 year olds picked outside the 3rd round would be quality enough to end up in the USHL (other than the US players with College commitments that wouldn't report to OHL and were picked as gambles). Second, with a full class of rookie 17 year olds that need ice, I doubt teams would give meaningful minutes to their 4th or 5th rostered 16 year old. Third, neither OHL teams nor players picked outside the 3d round will sign standard player agreements without some form of guarantee of playing this year. At least not enough to worry about it anyway. Strategically speaking, it wouldn't make much sense for either side to do so. Players can keep options open and teams shouldn't offer contracts without truly knowing the players are good enough. It would be a gamble at best considering scouting opportu ities combined with development was limited. Fourth, I highly doubt a player picked past the 4th round will garner serious interest from NCAA schools handing out full ride scholarships especillay considering they hardly played meaningful games as 15 year olds and opportunities for scouting them on behalf of the Colleges was even possible to any serious degree.
Based on that, I stand by my recommendation. Either delay the draft until next year and do a 10 round under-18 draft combined with a 10 round under-17 draft OR do a 2 or 3 round OHL draft with a 5 round under -18 draft next year with a full 15 round under-17 draft.
If they do a 3 round draft, the more bonafide players considered serious OHL players would get an opportu ity. This wopuld be somewhat similar to how the draft used to work where only the top 3 round picks were eligible to play as underage players. The rest would come in as 17 year olds. Difference being they delay the rest of the draft one year.
I also feel allowing each team a total of four overage players is reasonable while extending the age to 21. I would suggest eligibility criteria would need to be the players had not signed PTO's for the AHL nor signed in europe and played 10 or lmore games to be eligible to play as a 21 year old. Players that played 10 games professionally don't need exposure.
I'm not sold on the concept of 16 year olds and 21 year olds makes enough of a difference compared to 20 year olds provided there are reasonable restrictions on the 21 year olds. There may be a talent mismatch but I don't think it is a hill to die on.
Based on that, I stand by my recommendation. Either delay the draft until next year and do a 10 round under-18 draft combined with a 10 round under-17 draft OR do a 2 or 3 round OHL draft with a 5 round under -18 draft next year with a full 15 round under-17 draft.
If they do a 3 round draft, the more bonafide players considered serious OHL players would get an opportu ity. This wopuld be somewhat similar to how the draft used to work where only the top 3 round picks were eligible to play as underage players. The rest would come in as 17 year olds. Difference being they delay the rest of the draft one year.
I also feel allowing each team a total of four overage players is reasonable while extending the age to 21. I would suggest eligibility criteria would need to be the players had not signed PTO's for the AHL nor signed in europe and played 10 or lmore games to be eligible to play as a 21 year old. Players that played 10 games professionally don't need exposure.
I'm not sold on the concept of 16 year olds and 21 year olds makes enough of a difference compared to 20 year olds provided there are reasonable restrictions on the 21 year olds. There may be a talent mismatch but I don't think it is a hill to die on.
OHLTG
Registered User
The league plans were finalized. The can has been picked up and tossed in the bin. Discussing 2000s coming in next season isn't kicking anything down the road at this point. It's literally an idea to talk about. Now, if they say "we'll have a decision by August" and THEN say "we're not sure yet".....
That being said, if they did something like "you're allowed three 2000-born and three 2001-born", I'd be okay with that. You're still going to get plenty of 2002-2005 borns who could fill in the rest of the rosters.
I don't think it's a great idea for the league. For me it has nothing to do with the talent/age gap, as OMG67 the difference between playing a 20 year old and a 21 year old can't be that huge. If they were that much better they would be in the AHL.
I think the OHL's biggest focus needs to be getting the 2004s and 2005s in the league and playing. Teams can only sign 4 16 year olds, so there are going to be probably a couple of 2004s being added to each team that they couldn't sign this year, as well as the ones they had already signed for this year and up to 4 2005s. Allowing 3 2000s to come back takes away 3 spots from 2004s/2005s who have for the most part not played any real games since March of 2020. After watching everything unfold this year, I would be hesitant to sign in the OHL for 2021-22 as is. If you told me I'm going to be the 15th forward because they are allowing the 2000s to come back for a year, I'm all the way out.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
It would come down to how they define it. I truly cannot see more than one 2000 born player per team on average. Most of the decent 2000 born players played some Pro this year. Mitch Hoelscher was unsigned by the Devils and was poised to be a top 10 OA forward in the league. He got 5 games in for the Belleville Sens as a free agent and he signed pretty late. I’m not sure a guy like that will be the type of player the league will want to have return and will make some rules to kill that type of roster add. I can’t see the league allowing all 2000’s indiscriminately. It wouldn’t make sense. That is why I say expand OA’s from 3 to 4 and allow a max 2 being 2000 born players. Three plus three would be just plain silly. A team looking to challenge for a championship would have six stud OA’s rolling over all the other teams. Bad competitive balance for sure.
Teams focus needs to be on getting their 2004’s in the lineup as 17 year olds. Typically they would have four of them as 16 year olds with only two of them playing much in their first season. They’ll then need to add the depth 17 year olds as well and prioritize ice for them too. The average is about 5 players each draft that play as 17 year olds and this year all of those guys will be rookies. I really can’t see teams prioritizing 2005 born players outside of their top 2. That would be 7 rookies as is on starting lineups. Expand that to four 16 year olds? Ouch. 9 rookies? That’s a lot, even if 2 of them sit in the press box eating popcorn.
I think keeping it to three rounds is more than reasonable. It is also rational.
Average team breakdown on an age balanced roster:
2000 - 2
2001 - 2
2002 - 5
2003 - 5
2004 - 5
2005 - 3
That’s 22 players and matches the common number of roster players held. Two of the rookies sit as usual. No sense requiring more rounds in this draft and having more players signed to sit, especially when teams aren’t confident in their scouting/picks past the 3rd round. Heck, it can be a bit of a crap shoot in the best of years past the 3rd round. This year will probably be a crap shoot outside the top 10 picks, let alone 3 or more rounds.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
Naw. I was just sticking up for Windsor7. The league did make a lot of “kick the can” decisions to date. They finally squashed the can but I can see why Windsor7 would be skeptical about Branch’s comments regarding training camps for Labour Day weekend with no other real information. It does sound a lot like what we heard through last summer.
Let’s hope they are more transparent this summer leading up to the proposed start of training camps.
People are saying Windsor7 is the greatest poster on this board. I'm not saying it but other people are.
4 OAs with up to 2 2000s sounds intriguing. To your point about players like Hoelscher going pro, I wonder about the flip side. At age 21, how many players who don't have any professional offers decide that they are going to go the school route. I almost wonder if any players will actually come back and play as a 2000. Every day we see 2000s sign with USports schools, so it is clear that they are starting to shift priorities. If you know you are going to be going the school route, what does playing the 2021-22 season serve you unless you haven't played enough years to get all of your schooling covered (note that the OHL said they will be honouring scholarships for this year).
OHLTG
Registered User
I understand the pessimism, but talking about the 2000s coming back isn't "kicking the can down the road." It's a new topic that's going to be discussed over the summer. Now, if they changed the camps to Oct or Nov, like they did this past season, then all bets are off on that.
It has nothing to do with "glory days."
If they said "sorry, 2000s, but you're done", I'd accept that. However, if they allowed two or three 2000s, no issues here. It wouldn't be forced or anything.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
I agree 100% which is why I think a lot will say, “Why bother?” I agree with the option but one or two per team should be the max. Heck, you could say 3 OA’s but you can use a spot on a 2000 and I wouldn’t mind that option. At least it opens the door.
I also agree with those that suggest extra OA’s lessens the opportunity for younger players. I can’t argue with that logic especially considering a 2000 born player needing Major Junior should be the exception.
I also agree that most players should be using their scholarship anyway. Then go Pro after graduation.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
I didn’t interpret it that way. I interpreted it as him commenting on Branch saying they plan on training camps opening on Labour Day weekend. I didn’t consider the 2000 born players in the response.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
I wouldn’t say “greatest” but he sure has been consistent! A lot of copy and paste there!
Why should the 00's take a larger precedent over the 04's who are going into their draft eligible year after not playing a single game in their OHL career?? A lot of these 00's have had 200+ games to build up a body of work for NHL scouts to see them. Meanwhile the 04's are going into their most important year never playing a game?? If an 00 is getting significantly more playing time than an 04 the system is broken and it's no longer a "development league."
OHLTG
Registered User
In either case, it's still not "kicking the can down the road." Labour Day starting 2021-22 is a brand new topic, as is 2000s potentially being allowed for a final season. Now, if things get pushed further back, as they were last year, then that's different. But, for now, it's just copy/paste.
Realistically, each team is going to have a handful of 2004s, regardless. If you're the Spitfires and get told "you can bring back Corcoran, Douglas, and Angle", do you sit there and say "no thanks"? No way. Those three give the club a legit shot to contend and that could be seriously beneficial to any youngsters who play. If the 2000s are brought back, the team finds a way to get them in, plus get the draft eligible players in. You make it work.
BadgerBruce
Registered User
- Aug 8, 2013
- 1,562
- 2,200
Interesting ideas — I don’t philosophically disagree with any of them, though there would be some fairly significant hurdles.
Changing the ages to 17-21: this would mean the 2004 birth year “rookies” (the 17 year-olds) would be graduating from high school at the conclusion of the season and the 2000 birth year “super over-agers” (the 21 year olds) would be fully FOUR YEARS out of high school at the conclusion of the season.
I know the OHL likes to say that 98% of its players graduate from high school on time, but sheesh, a 17-21 year old league would hardly have any high school age players at all. That looks a lot like minor pro or Senior A hockey to me, not a junior league for amateur student athletes.
As well, most people don’t realize that the post-OHL scholarship package is capped at 4 years. To illustrate, take a player who plays all 4 years of regular eligibility and then a 5th year as an over-ager. The scholarship program covers ONE program of full-time study, uninterrupted. If a former player who banked 5 years in the OHL takes a 1-year college certificate program when he leaves the league, that’s it for the scholarship funding. If he takes a 4-year undergraduate program and then decides to take a Master’s program, he does not get a 5th year of scholarship funding because that’s a “new” program of study.
I bring this up because a 17-21 year old league would have both 5th AND 6th year players playing for no future benefits at all. One could say, “well, just extend the scholarship program to cover the extra years,” but that doesn’t really work because there are no 5 or 6 year post-secondary programs for scholarships to cover.
Now, having said all this, I’m not in favour of rostering 2005s (16 year olds) in 2021-22. The league will absolutely push forward with a minor midget draft (foolishly, in my view) sometime this year (likely June or July) but I’d like to see them take a page out of the WHL system.
The WHL drafts Bantams, not minor midgets, but then limits them to a maximum of 5 games in their first year, all after Christmas.
So maybe the OHL should do something similar: drafted 2005s are not eligible to play until January, 2022. This would allow them to continue developing outside of the OHL for 1/2 of a season and then they would be eligible.
One last point: minor hockey has been devastated by the pandemic and lots of talented 15 year olds had few opportunities to play games or participate in high end skills training, which is crucial.
One of my sons spent a small fortune last summer to become a Hockey Canada Certified Skills Instructor because that was the only way he could legally rent ice. The restrictions were lengthy and onerous, let’s leave it at that. Today, there’s no ice to rent — my son went from 25 clients to 0. About half of the 25 were players from the OHL or other junior leagues, and the other half were minor midget or major bantam guys. Ungodly expensive for them, btw, and several gave it up because their families couldn’t afford it. In simple terms, the informal on-ice training infrastructure young prospects have relied on for about 25 years now was and remains severely compromised.
In my view, the OHL should not be picking the flowers before the beds have been properly watered. After all, how often do people say, “another year in junior never hurt anybody?” I don’t think another 1/2 year in midget hockey is going to hurt anyone, either.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,784
- 6,941
I
If the League truly wants to do what is best for the players, an outside the box solution is required. As some have mentioned with other comments, the LEague will probably do what is best for the League and I believe we both feel strongly that is not a good approach.
I understand the issues with Scholarship BUT, any OHL level player that wants to go CIS will have an opportunity so staying that extra year to set that up is meaningless. The only reason to stay that extra year is to get a Professional opportunity. I doubt those players primary goal is to protect their scholarship value.
I also feel this may be an opportunity for the OHL to reset the way they draft and acquire players. You bring up some very significant issues with respect to player development. In Ottawa, we’ve seen many issues where the 5th 16 year old ends up being more impactful than the other four that developed in the OHL as 16 year olds. That said, it would need to be an initiative that required a competitive Midget program because right now, the 16 year olds that are quality players not playing OHL usually end up in Tier II Junior A. Jack Quinn is a great example playing Tier II as a 16 year old and two years later goes top 10 in the NHL draft. Pushing kids to Midget may not be as valuable if the Midget leagues are highly competitive.
So, although the League and players could benefit by a delay in starting their OHL career, there are some hurdles that need to be crossed to address the issues with development outside the OHL.
If the League truly wants to do what is best for the players, an outside the box solution is required. As some have mentioned with other comments, the LEague will probably do what is best for the League and I believe we both feel strongly that is not a good approach.
I understand the issues with Scholarship BUT, any OHL level player that wants to go CIS will have an opportunity so staying that extra year to set that up is meaningless. The only reason to stay that extra year is to get a Professional opportunity. I doubt those players primary goal is to protect their scholarship value.
I also feel this may be an opportunity for the OHL to reset the way they draft and acquire players. You bring up some very significant issues with respect to player development. In Ottawa, we’ve seen many issues where the 5th 16 year old ends up being more impactful than the other four that developed in the OHL as 16 year olds. That said, it would need to be an initiative that required a competitive Midget program because right now, the 16 year olds that are quality players not playing OHL usually end up in Tier II Junior A. Jack Quinn is a great example playing Tier II as a 16 year old and two years later goes top 10 in the NHL draft. Pushing kids to Midget may not be as valuable if the Midget leagues are highly competitive.
So, although the League and players could benefit by a delay in starting their OHL career, there are some hurdles that need to be crossed to address the issues with development outside the OHL.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Maybe it's just me, but if a 21 year old can't make it in a pro league or CIS, maybe they should be thinking about hanging up the skates?
