What would happen if there is no OHL season?

Status
Not open for further replies.

member 71782

Guest
Bringing a USHL powerhouse like Chicago into the league doesn't mean they'll be a powerhouse when they get here.

First of all any kids still looking at going to school would not be coming with them.

Second any OHL drafted kids or kids drafted by the Q and W would no longer be part of their roster since their OHL/CHL rights would be owned by other teams.

That likely clears out half their roster if not more.

They would simply be another expansion team.

Any kids they draft in the future would have to make the same decision as any other kid currently drafted, do they want to go NCAA or CHL and if they want to go NCAA Chicago would no longer be an option for them so they'll be dealing with the same issues as any other CHL team. Maybe their reputation helps them to attract some kids that won't report to other OHL teams but probably not much if a kid is determined to go NCAA.

If people want to look at how to improve the OHL after this pandemic then the pandemic provides the opportunity to make some of the tough changes they need to make. To attract better talent or more top tier talent the league has to become more competitive. It's currently watered down and until they centralize the talent a bit more it will continue to go downhill since it's reputation will continue to become that of a more mediocre league. The selling point was always the quickest way to the NHL was through the CHL. As more and more kids are choosing education the level of talent available to the league continues to diminish. Contraction that allows for more high end talent ion fewer teams provides increased competition. Remove the limitations on imports that can play on each team and increasing the import draft back to 2 rounds, maybe even 3 rounds combined with a higher level of talent on each team increases the talent level further. Removing the restrictions on the trading of 1st round picks along with allowing draft day trading of picks including future considerations to include players still playing during the playoffs, or move the draft back to after the Memorial Cup to allow trading players on draft day. Cutting the draft back to 10 rounds, combined with contraction would limit the number of spots available making those spaces more valuable giving the league a more "elite" feel again for those being drafted. Allow for trading of import picks again.

No one will like most of what I suggest but in the end the league has to consider to they want to maintain a failing product and lose the entire league or potentially be faced with a competing league or do they want to improve the product and regain their reputation as the top JR league in the world. I don't think things can be restored under this same business model that has been struggling for quite a while now. They've shown they are having trouble keeping up with the competition and every year they are losing ground so it's time for tough decisions to be made.
 

member 71782

Guest
Fantili would be a great example for your point. I don’t think anyone trades away an attraction such as Tavares, McDavid, Wright that had agreed to report wherever they are drafted.
The problem with trading 1sts prior to the draft imo, is the loss of the defect rule which I believe to be the great equalizer

There can still be defective player rule, it would simply need to be modified.

First thing would be to eliminate the current compensation rule if the team is able to trade the defected player. It should not be on the league to compensate teams for their inability to get players to report while they still benefit from a trading the rights to a player.

Second give the team a year to sign or trade the player. If the player is insistent on not reporting then the league compensates the team that drafted the player with a pick at the end of the 1st round and the player becomes ineligible for future drafts. In doing so the team must relinquish the player's rights thus allowing the player to become a FA. To prevent any backroom deals between another team and the player that prevents the original drafting team from benefitting from dealing the player if another team signs the player as a FA and the league has compensated the original team the team signing the player forfeits their next 2 1st round picks, hopefully limiting any behind the scenes shenanigans that could take place and ensuring at least a look of fairness.

With the ability to deal 1st round picks there's likely to be fewer defective players, the returns on them would likely be better with 1st round picks being tradable although the sheer number of picks would likely decrease but the market would decide that and the ability to eliminate teams taking advantage of players as FAs later instead of dealing the with the team that orginally held their rights would face consequences.

As a Windsor fan I'll use them as an example even though the rules were different back then. Cam Fowler wouldn't report to Kitchener, who subsequently relinquished his rights and Windsor drafted him the following year. Kitchener received no compensation for him from Windsor. Using what I proposed Kitchener would have been able to negotiate a deal and if there was no deal to be had they would have relinquished his rights and been compensated by the league, he would have been ineligible to be redrafted and if Windsor had signed him Windsor would have relinquished 2x 1st round picks since they likely would have been negotiating in bad faith with Kitchener or tampering behind the scenes without Kitchener's permission.

You can still have a defective rule in place but take the league compensation out unless the player won't report anywhere else in the league then the team is compensated for taking one for the league so to speak.
 

member 71782

Guest
I don't see there being major changes to the roster rules or contraction. If anything you will see a temporary revenue sharing program to keep the teams hardest hit afloat.

I agree that something like that is likely to happen but I don't see how it helps them going forward. Their struggles go beyond the current events of the day and while what you suggest is more likely to happen it doesn't address the issues that the league has without the current events. It maintains the status quo and eventually instead of a couple of teams struggling to get back to normal when this is done you will eventually see some teams relying on this as a crutch and others joining their ranks as the money starts to come from fewer and fewer sources.

Let's face it, selling a team in the future will become more difficult if it doesn't make any money and relies on revenue sharing and two you're buying a franchise that's having to support other teams staying in business as revenue sources are drying up.

A quick fix to get things running again but not a solution to what are becoming systemic problems.
 

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
There can still be defective player rule, it would simply need to be modified.

First thing would be to eliminate the current compensation rule if the team is able to trade the defected player. It should not be on the league to compensate teams for their inability to get players to report while they still benefit from a trading the rights to a player.

Second give the team a year to sign or trade the player. If the player is insistent on not reporting then the league compensates the team that drafted the player with a pick at the end of the 1st round and the player becomes ineligible for future drafts. In doing so the team must relinquish the player's rights thus allowing the player to become a FA. To prevent any backroom deals between another team and the player that prevents the original drafting team from benefitting from dealing the player if another team signs the player as a FA and the league has compensated the original team the team signing the player forfeits their next 2 1st round picks, hopefully limiting any behind the scenes shenanigans that could take place and ensuring at least a look of fairness.

With the ability to deal 1st round picks there's likely to be fewer defective players, the returns on them would likely be better with 1st round picks being tradable although the sheer number of picks would likely decrease but the market would decide that and the ability to eliminate teams taking advantage of players as FAs later instead of dealing the with the team that orginally held their rights would face consequences.

As a Windsor fan I'll use them as an example even though the rules were different back then. Cam Fowler wouldn't report to Kitchener, who subsequently relinquished his rights and Windsor drafted him the following year. Kitchener received no compensation for him from Windsor. Using what I proposed Kitchener would have been able to negotiate a deal and if there was no deal to be had they would have relinquished his rights and been compensated by the league, he would have been ineligible to be redrafted and if Windsor had signed him Windsor would have relinquished 2x 1st round picks since they likely would have been negotiating in bad faith with Kitchener or tampering behind the scenes without Kitchener's permission.

You can still have a defective rule in place but take the league compensation out unless the player won't report anywhere else in the league then the team is compensated for taking one for the league so to speak.

there is just no way I can agree that trading 1sts can equal the value of defect rule. (If Fantili had not stated he will not report to any team first year), Niagara could have traded him for a min. 3(2nds & 3rds); plus, comp 5th OA, end of 2nd round, & end of 3rd round comp picks.
 

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I agree that something like that is likely to happen but I don't see how it helps them going forward. Their struggles go beyond the current events of the day and while what you suggest is more likely to happen it doesn't address the issues that the league has without the current events. It maintains the status quo and eventually instead of a couple of teams struggling to get back to normal when this is done you will eventually see some teams relying on this as a crutch and others joining their ranks as the money starts to come from fewer and fewer sources.

Let's face it, selling a team in the future will become more difficult if it doesn't make any money and relies on revenue sharing and two you're buying a franchise that's having to support other teams staying in business as revenue sources are drying up.

A quick fix to get things running again but not a solution to what are becoming systemic problems.

There will not be a shortage of buyers. The next guy always thinks he can do better than the previous guy.

The OHL continues to be the top producer for NHL talent. Any issues are that of the business owner and not of the league, despite what some fans want to think. 3-4 years after rinks are allowed to be at full capacity the league will be in as good of shape or better than they were pre-pandemic
 

Saggy

Registered User
Apr 24, 2019
761
341
Players get one semester of school for playing a game before Christmas. They get a second semester paid for when they play a game after New Years. So, players have already lost a semester for no games played in first half. If they don't play in the second half, they don't get the scholarship at all this year.

Don't forget that many players get 4 years of school once they play one game. You don't always have to earn the year's per semester or season. Teams will still be on the hook for those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirty12

MatthewsMoustache

Registered User
Jul 2, 2018
2,819
2,274
Don't forget that many players get 4 years of school once they play one game. You don't always have to earn the year's per semester or season. Teams will still be on the hook for those.

I believe when the Ice Dogs were cheating they released how many of those packages a team can give out. I forget the number but I’m pretty sure it’s mostly 1st round picks and then the remaining are used as negotiation tools for American/NCAA commits. so probably around 6 or 7 per team.
 

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
I believe when the Ice Dogs were cheating they released how many of those packages a team can give out. I forget the number but I’m pretty sure it’s mostly 1st round picks and then the remaining are used as negotiation tools for American/NCAA commits. so probably around 6 or 7 per team.

I think it’s 7 (gold packages) at any given time. Standard packages are negotiable though. It can be a game played per semester, per year, or even four years for an exhibition game
 
  • Like
Reactions: MatthewsMoustache

member 71782

Guest
there is just no way I can agree that trading 1sts can equal the value of defect rule. (If Fantili had not stated he will not report to any team first year), Niagara could have traded him for a min. 3(2nds & 3rds); plus, comp 5th OA, end of 2nd round, & end of 3rd round comp picks.

My response was based on what I was suggesting in my earlier post to answer what you asked.

If you can trade 1sts what was the value to Niagara to trade that pick to another team that wanted to take a chance on Fantilli?

The current compensation by the league is only as good as where the player is drafted. If he doesn't report to Saginaw they'll only get the compensation 1st from the league, meanwhile Niagara wasn't willing to take a chance on the best player in the draft because they didn't think he would report so the compensation from a trade lacked any relevance. If they could deal 1sts and potentially future considerations. Did Niagara get all they could in this past draft by not drafting Fantilli and not being able to trade their 1st? I would argue they didn't.

Now if a player will report, just not to the team drafting them then under the current rules it would seem they could have got more but my issue with the current rules is they are double dipping. I don't like the idea currently of a league compensating a team for a player not reporting as well as another team providing even more benefits through a trade. Compensation by the league for a player that won't report to the league I can understand. A team is taking a risk that could benefit the entire league if it pans out but if another team is willing to pay the price the entire league should not be compensating a team a second time, potentially with multiple picks. Every team is paying the price for league compensation and there's always the possibility two teams may have a deal in place behind the scenes to get Team A to take a specific player for Team B which precludes any other team from taking that risk. Collusion.

North Bay passed on him, Windsor could have gotten on the phone with Niagara and made a deal to get them to take him, declare him a defected player and Niagara would have made out like bandits while North Bay would have lost out and every other team before Windsor would have as well. The current compensation available allows for too much potential for teams to collude. If that compensation wasn't there how much could North Bay, picking before Niagara have gotten for the 1st overall pick from another team with the changes I suggested? A later 1st in that draft and with some of Fantilli's ability probably another 1st in another draft plus a 2nd or a couple or a player they may have interest in? They could have maximized their value for the pick while not having to pass on the player without more immediate compensation.

Any deal in these situations is of course speculative and values will change based on the specific players involved or available to be drafted. At the same time it would put the responsibility for taking the risk on the GM of that team instead of the league giving them a bonus or two to probably make a deal with another team before the draft even takes place.
 

dirty12

Registered User
Mar 6, 2015
8,965
3,636
I think you missed the point(s).
Niagara has gone out of it’s way to draft players that would not report to them to benefit from the defect rule. I believe they would have drafted Fantili if he would report to OHL teams other than Niagara.
I doubt (very, very much) a trade of that pick would equal 3(2nds & 3rds) plus comp 5th OA, and comp 2nd & 3rd.
Management’s ability only matters on a level playing field. Without revenue sharing and a hard cap, NYJ would pay a roster $400M while GB could not go over $100M. The defect rule is not for Windsor’s benefit, it is because Windsor has proved to have the resources to trade for these defects and even have resources to go beyond the rules to recruit players. The difference between Niagara management and some other have teams is it’s willingness to exploit the defect for all it’s worth.
 

member 71782

Guest
There will not be a shortage of buyers. The next guy always thinks he can do better than the previous guy.

The OHL continues to be the top producer for NHL talent. Any issues are that of the business owner and not of the league, despite what some fans want to think. 3-4 years after rinks are allowed to be at full capacity the league will be in as good of shape or better than they were pre-pandemic

Are they still the top provider of talent to the NHL? The OHL/CHL may provide the most players to the draft but when it comes to top tier talent are they still consistently producing the most players? Certainly there will be anomalies in any given year as to where top players come from but overall the amount of top tier talent from the OHL/CHL, at least on the surface seems to be diminishing.

The league itself faces tougher competition for top tier talent, that's not a bad thing unless they don't respond. After all that's gone on it will be interesting to see if Europe becomes a similar factor to the NCAA creating an even bigger drain on high end talent that will report. More options are great for players and for the pro game but not so much for the OHL/CHL as it is currently run.

Revenue sharing would help in the short term but if there's too many teams that need that help and not enough teams who can contribute enough will it happen and will it last? Two or three teams can't carry a 20 team league for very long and if the perception amongst owners is there's not enough who will be able carry things for a couple of years then that will lead to problems. The other issue with that is a lot of owners don't want to reach into their pockets to invest in their own teams at the moment, how many will do that for other teams that they may not consider viable?
 

member 71782

Guest
I think you missed the point(s).
Niagara has gone out of it’s way to draft players that would not report to them to benefit from the defect rule. I believe they would have drafted Fantili if he would report to OHL teams other than Niagara.
I doubt (very, very much) a trade of that pick would equal 3(2nds & 3rds) plus comp 5th OA, and comp 2nd & 3rd.
Management’s ability only matters on a level playing field. Without revenue sharing and a hard cap, NYJ would pay a roster $400M while GB could not go over $100M. The defect rule is not for Windsor’s benefit, it is because Windsor has proved to have the resources to trade for these defects and even have resources to go beyond the rules to recruit players. The difference between Niagara management and some other have teams is it’s willingness to exploit the defect for all it’s worth.

I understand what you're saying which is why I take the position I do. Some teams will go out of their way to exploit the current situation beyond the spirit of the rule while others will go out of their way to look at options that aren't meant to exist.

I was just making a suggestion based on your question about the current defected player rules. I'm surprised in a league where GMs were willing to deal draft picks a decade out a couple of years ago that more haven't exploited this and that we've never had more than two players declared defected in a single year. If that ever happened it would have a huge negative impact on the value of draft picks in the first couple of rounds the following year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirty12

Otto

Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Are they still the top provider of talent to the NHL? The OHL/CHL may provide the most players to the draft but when it comes to top tier talent are they still consistently producing the most players? Certainly there will be anomalies in any given year as to where top players come from but overall the amount of top tier talent from the OHL/CHL, at least on the surface seems to be diminishing.

The league itself faces tougher competition for top tier talent, that's not a bad thing unless they don't respond. After all that's gone on it will be interesting to see if Europe becomes a similar factor to the NCAA creating an even bigger drain on high end talent that will report. More options are great for players and for the pro game but not so much for the OHL/CHL as it is currently run.

Revenue sharing would help in the short term but if there's too many teams that need that help and not enough teams who can contribute enough will it happen and will it last? Two or three teams can't carry a 20 team league for very long and if the perception amongst owners is there's not enough who will be able carry things for a couple of years then that will lead to problems. The other issue with that is a lot of owners don't want to reach into their pockets to invest in their own teams at the moment, how many will do that for other teams that they may not consider viable?

Like any business, it will take time. If ownership wants to invest the time and money then they will eventually bounce back. Once arenas are allowed to have full capacity then revenue will be generated. People have been cooped up way to long and will want to get out.

The difference between a regular business and the OHL is that if an OHL doesn't want to invest the time and money then the league will assist in the sale. There is no shortage of potential owners.

I understand that Windsor is different, because their struggles pre-date to far before the pandemic, but they are the exception not the rule
 

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,551
6,750
Bringing a USHL powerhouse like Chicago into the league doesn't mean they'll be a powerhouse when they get here.

First of all any kids still looking at going to school would not be coming with them.

Second any OHL drafted kids or kids drafted by the Q and W would no longer be part of their roster since their OHL/CHL rights would be owned by other teams.

That likely clears out half their roster if not more.

They would simply be another expansion team.

Any kids they draft in the future would have to make the same decision as any other kid currently drafted, do they want to go NCAA or CHL and if they want to go NCAA Chicago would no longer be an option for them so they'll be dealing with the same issues as any other CHL team. Maybe their reputation helps them to attract some kids that won't report to other OHL teams but probably not much if a kid is determined to go NCAA.

If people want to look at how to improve the OHL after this pandemic then the pandemic provides the opportunity to make some of the tough changes they need to make. To attract better talent or more top tier talent the league has to become more competitive. It's currently watered down and until they centralize the talent a bit more it will continue to go downhill since it's reputation will continue to become that of a more mediocre league. The selling point was always the quickest way to the NHL was through the CHL. As more and more kids are choosing education the level of talent available to the league continues to diminish. Contraction that allows for more high end talent ion fewer teams provides increased competition. Remove the limitations on imports that can play on each team and increasing the import draft back to 2 rounds, maybe even 3 rounds combined with a higher level of talent on each team increases the talent level further. Removing the restrictions on the trading of 1st round picks along with allowing draft day trading of picks including future considerations to include players still playing during the playoffs, or move the draft back to after the Memorial Cup to allow trading players on draft day. Cutting the draft back to 10 rounds, combined with contraction would limit the number of spots available making those spaces more valuable giving the league a more "elite" feel again for those being drafted. Allow for trading of import picks again.

No one will like most of what I suggest but in the end the league has to consider to they want to maintain a failing product and lose the entire league or potentially be faced with a competing league or do they want to improve the product and regain their reputation as the top JR league in the world. I don't think things can be restored under this same business model that has been struggling for quite a while now. They've shown they are having trouble keeping up with the competition and every year they are losing ground so it's time for tough decisions to be made.

Some option you suggest have merit on the surface.

What I don't know is the impact of stability on parents feeling more comfortable. For example, the product on the ice may be better doing what you suggest; however, would parents feel comfortable placing their kids in a league that more closely resembles the NHL meat market?

The sense I am getting is a lot of the stability changes that have watered down the game have been born more out of two things:
1 - Parents concerned their kids will be traded and moved around a lot more. They want more control and stability for their kids
2 - the wide financial gap between the "have's" and "have not's" caused a lot of problems. Many of the stabilizing forces put in place that you want to quash may return to a situation where the weaker franchises are less able to compete.

Personally, I would like the league to go back to 16 teams. Hockey registrations are going down in Canada, not up. Supply is getting more difficult. The CHL is relying more heavily on impact Imports, OA's and American players to remain competitive.

I think if the league wants to maintain the current level of stability by reducing player transactions, it will be tough to keep the league at 20 teams without the tradeoff of a poorer on ice product for fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayzorIsDull

LDN

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
6,365
5,159
How come they can't do a similar thing to the NHL? Or what about the idea of a bubble? Like get the kids to do a tournament say in London with all 20 teams playing to win the OHL championship. Say make it a 2 month tournament.
 

MatthewsMoustache

Registered User
Jul 2, 2018
2,819
2,274
How come they can't do a similar thing to the NHL? Or what about the idea of a bubble? Like get the kids to do a tournament say in London with all 20 teams playing to win the OHL championship. Say make it a 2 month tournament.

Money. There won't be fans, so they will be occupying multiple hotels and an arena for 2 months without their main revenue stream. The players also don't get paid millions of dollars to do this, so I can't see many being on board with that. I'd bet everyone playing in Europe would stay there rather than coming back for a 2 month bubble.
 

RayzorIsDull

Registered User
Nov 16, 2007
14,407
3,209
bp on hfboards
How come they can't do a similar thing to the NHL? Or what about the idea of a bubble? Like get the kids to do a tournament say in London with all 20 teams playing to win the OHL championship. Say make it a 2 month tournament.

You would need an owner with big pockets or a group of owners to foot the bill. If you wanted that all these franchises would have to foot a hotel bill for weeks and currently without making any money as a franchise that isn't an option. Also they can't foot the cost of rapid testing which you would still need because these players wouldn't be vaccinated in time for this.
 

sbpointer

Registered User
Sep 15, 2014
1,101
1,227
Budweiser Gardens
You would need an owner with big pockets or a group of owners to foot the bill. If you wanted that all these franchises would have to foot a hotel bill for weeks and currently without making any money as a franchise that isn't an option. Also they can't foot the cost of rapid testing which you would still need because these players wouldn't be vaccinated in time for this.
I wonder aloud here if they could get the NHL to fund a portion of it. Sell a streaming package to subsidize some of the other cost. I would pay a couple hundred bucks for a quality HD stream for a couple months of OHL hockey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirius67fan

OMG67

Registered User
Sep 1, 2013
10,551
6,750
I wonder aloud here if they could get the NHL to fund a portion of it. Sell a streaming package to subsidize some of the other cost. I would pay a couple hundred bucks for a quality HD stream for a couple months of OHL hockey.

I think the perfect situation would be an angel investor of some kind putting some money into it. That could be the NHL or it could simply be someone with a non-vested interest.

I do know I saw a quote from McLeod or Ford that suggested the OHL would probably get some funding from the Ministry of Sport that has been set aside specifically for Covid support. I know there hasn’t really been any talk about it yet but I imagine the Province will kick in some $$$ if/when the league launches a schedule and they have a better sense of what the losses will be.

At this point, I wouldn’t worry too much about financial support. I believe there will be enough available to make it work. The challenge right now is the rinks are closed through Feb 10. Teams cannot assemble until after that date. We assume the possibility exists, that lockdown date will get extended.

I’ve stated in a previous thread that the league would need to be participating in regular season scheduled games by the first weekend in March to rationally get a 24 game season and three rounds of playoffs while respecting the current start date of the Memorial Cup. That is a pretty tight timeline considering they won’t have rink access until at least Feb 10.
 

windsor7

Registered User
Nov 29, 2015
9,899
2,965
I wonder aloud here if they could get the NHL to fund a portion of it. Sell a streaming package to subsidize some of the other cost. I would pay a couple hundred bucks for a quality HD stream for a couple months of OHL hockey.

Very unlikely.
 

Naz

Registered User
Nov 25, 2008
1,712
391
Everywhere
It doesn't look like there is going to be any form of a OHL season as the ice is coming out of the Leon centre.
 

windsor7

Registered User
Nov 29, 2015
9,899
2,965
Someone will give a large portion of money to ohl.
They will try to do a 20 to 25 game schedule.
Limited playoffs.
N do a Memorial Cup. Chl needs the Memorial Cup at all costs. People over safety. Just a thought. Though i still think there should be no hockey this season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->