HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Hockey Canada Registrations (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1519261)

BraveCanadian 10-18-2013 12:19 PM

Hockey Canada Registrations
 
This is a for reference post.

I started researching Hockey Canada registrations to try and determine how the feed of Canadian hockey players has been over time.

I just don't have a lot of time to continue at the moment so I wanted to put this out there in case someone else wants to pursue or use it for whatever reason.

SeasonMFTotal
1934-35  20,427
1942-43  17,167
1943-44  27,271
1944-45  28,091
1952-53  44,496
1956-57  81,500
1957-58  85,840
1959-60  122,427
1960-61  129,425
1961-62  143,000
1963-64  187,030
1964-65  221,846
1968-69  264,000
1970-71  432,373
1971-72  540,837
1972-73  600,271
1974-75  600,000
1980-81  500,053
1992  430,000
1997-98489,98229,031519,013
1998-99470,66637,748508,414
1999-00461,94643,421505,367
2000-01469,54651,105520,651
2001-02477,87254,563532,435
2002-03476,97561,177538,152
2003-04489,40961,012550,421
2004-05488,40563,021551,426
2005-06478,37365,951544,324
2006-07482,48269,557552,039
2007-08487,43072,021559,451
2008-09499,37185,308584,679
2009-10491,45385,624577,077
2010-11486,58485,827572,411
2011-12530,43286,675617,107
2012-13537,25186,897624,148

Links:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6289,5505150
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2133,5743327
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6946,3851381
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1023,2069922
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=4672,3305089
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3881,3986162
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2921,2083654
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1372,4728954
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1327,1509702
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6893,4206095
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3598,2621682
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6708,3519591
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3669,2785169
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=7159,5162755
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...pg=4956,726808
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2292,3595201
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2796,4885132
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...pg=6565,888455
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=4646,3856273
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2320,4669282
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/d...etting%20cagey
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hard...sport-1.801983

Hopefully I got all these links right.

Canadiens1958 10-18-2013 01:11 PM

Great Contribution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72834443)
This is a for reference post.

I started researching Hockey Canada registrations to try and determine how the feed of Canadian hockey players has been over time.

I just don't have a lot of time to continue at the moment so I wanted to put this out there in case someone else wants to pursue or use it for whatever reason.

SeasonMFTotal
1934-35  20,427
1942-43  17,167
1943-44  27,271
1944-45  28,091
1952-53  44,496
1956-57  81,500
1957-58  85,840
1959-60  122,427
1960-61  129,425
1961-62  143,000
1963-64  187,030
1964-65  221,846
1968-69  264,000
1970-71  432,373
1971-72  540,837
1972-73  600,271
1974-75  600,000
1980-81  500,053
1992  430,000
1997-98489,98229,031519,013
1998-99470,66637,748508,414
1999-00461,94643,421505,367
2000-01469,54651,105520,651
2001-02477,87254,563532,435
2002-03476,97561,177538,152
2003-04489,40961,012550,421
2004-05488,40563,021551,426
2005-06478,37365,951544,324
2006-07482,48269,557552,039
2007-08487,43072,021559,451
2008-09499,37185,308584,679
2009-10491,45385,624577,077
2010-11486,58485,827572,411
2011-12530,43286,675617,107
2012-13537,25186,897624,148

Links:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6289,5505150
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2133,5743327
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6946,3851381
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1023,2069922
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=4672,3305089
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3881,3986162
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2921,2083654
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1372,4728954
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=1327,1509702
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6893,4206095
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3598,2621682
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=6708,3519591
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3669,2785169
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=7159,5162755
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...pg=4956,726808
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2292,3595201
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2796,4885132
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...pg=6565,888455
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=4646,3856273
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=2320,4669282
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/d...etting%20cagey
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hard...sport-1.801983

Hopefully I got all these links right.

Great contribution.

A few comments.

Pre 1970 there were multiple federations and not all regions of the country were covered hence the spike in numbers. Also pre bantam counts were not made in most regions pre 1960.Pre WWII the schools and parish hockey drove youth hockey. With few exceptions, even today, the school hockey players are/were not counted in Hockey Canada or previously the C.A.H.A. TOTALS.

Thank you for the dedicated effort.

Analyzer* 10-18-2013 01:20 PM

I'm surprised numbers continue to grow. From the time I started around 2000 until 2006, or 07, the cost just to register went up every year. I remember between registration and equipment it cost my mom almost a thousand dollars. That's most of my stuff used and registration being only 150ish. Financially, maybe it's a good thing they didn't let me become a goalie.

My last year it was over 300.

Great work, OP!

BraveCanadian 10-18-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 (Post 72836877)
Great contribution.

A few comments.

Pre 1970 there were multiple federations and not all regions of the country were covered hence the spike in numbers. Also pre bantam counts were not made in most regions pre 1960.Pre WWII the schools and parish hockey drove youth hockey. With few exceptions, even today, the school hockey players are/were not counted in Hockey Canada or previously the C.A.H.A. TOTALS.

Thank you for the dedicated effort.

Right. Particularly early on, a lot of players either aren't registered at all or aren't registered with an affiliate of CAHA.

For example, one of the articles the late 50s had the CAHA registrations at 81,500 but mentioned an estimated 150,000 players playing under "properly supervised conditions".

I think the trend is that the closer to present you get the more CAHA/Hockey Canada captures the number of players more fully.

Canadiens1958 10-18-2013 02:24 PM

School Hockey and Off Season Hockey
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72837909)
Right. Particularly early on, a lot of players either aren't registered at all or aren't registered with an affiliate of CAHA.

For example, one of the articles the late 50s had the CAHA registrations at 81,500 but mentioned an estimated 150,000 players playing under "properly supervised conditions".

I think the trend is that the closer to present you get the more CAHA/Hockey Canada captures the number of players more fully.

Recently there is a strong movement back to school hockey, public and private. In the province of Quebec, regions where there are strong school programs, Hockey Quebec under the Hockey Canada umbrella shows decreases of upwards of 25% at the PW/Bantam/Midget levels yet arena usage for youngsters is up significantly in the same areas. This is excluding the private school arenas that do not contribute data.

Another factor that has arisen during the last generation is the rise of non federated off season, hockey school, indy and tournament youth organizations that effectively allows willing participants the opportunity to play hockey year round.

This changes the annual hours of ice time per player significantly.

Will look at the numbers closely when I have more time starting at the end of the month.

BraveCanadian 10-19-2013 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 (Post 72840353)
Recently there is a strong movement back to school hockey, public and private. In the province of Quebec, regions where there are strong school programs, Hockey Quebec under the Hockey Canada umbrella shows decreases of upwards of 25% at the PW/Bantam/Midget levels yet arena usage for youngsters is up significantly in the same areas. This is excluding the private school arenas that do not contribute data.

Another factor that has arisen during the last generation is the rise of non federated off season, hockey school, indy and tournament youth organizations that effectively allows willing participants the opportunity to play hockey year round.

This changes the annual hours of ice time per player significantly.

Will look at the numbers closely when I have more time starting at the end of the month.

Good points. The opposite appears to be happening around where I live.. ice time rates are being cut because the demand isn't there etc.

Interestingly even if we assume that 25% fall through the cracks across the whole board.. we still are in the same range of male registrations in Canada as in the 70s but we have more teams to fill.

I think this, combined with the KHL and increased hockey influence in the States (as well as a whole host of other factors), is why American depth players are picking up so much slack in the NHL right now.

Canadiens1958 10-19-2013 06:31 PM

Depth Players
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72872131)
Good points. The opposite appears to be happening around where I live.. ice time rates are being cut because the demand isn't there etc.

Interestingly even if we assume that 25% fall through the cracks across the whole board.. we still are in the same range of male registrations in Canada as in the 70s but we have more teams to fill.

I think this, combined with the KHL and increased hockey influence in the States (as well as a whole host of other factors), is why American depth players are picking up so much slack in the NHL right now.

Depth players. Interesting detail. 1992 Canadian registration was rather low 430,000. Canadian depth player today, aged 25-29 would have been starting at the intro, novice level.Go back 20 more years and you will see the results of the late sixties,early seventies registrations in terms of 1992-93 Canadian depth players.

Compare the quality of Canadian depth players from the two periods.

BraveCanadian 10-20-2013 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 (Post 72898483)
Depth players. Interesting detail. 1992 Canadian registration was rather low 430,000. Canadian depth player today, aged 25-29 would have been starting at the intro, novice level.Go back 20 more years and you will see the results of the late sixties,early seventies registrations in terms of 1992-93 Canadian depth players.

Compare the quality of Canadian depth players from the two periods.

I think that would be why there has been a large increase in American depth players more recently.

Hardyvan123 10-20-2013 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 (Post 72898483)
Depth players. Interesting detail. 1992 Canadian registration was rather low 430,000. Canadian depth player today, aged 25-29 would have been starting at the intro, novice level.Go back 20 more years and you will see the results of the late sixties,early seventies registrations in terms of 1992-93 Canadian depth players.

Compare the quality of Canadian depth players from the two periods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72940853)
I think that would be why there has been a large increase in American depth players more recently.

it's hard to draw too many conclusions to the maount of deopth players from the states by looking at Canadian hockey regristration numbers IMO.

There are lots of other factors going on.

1) The huge influx of players from Europe from the early 90's onward, both in terms of quality and quantity.

2) the growth of the game in the United States, especially outside of traditional markets such as Minnesota and Massachusetts. this extends to areas in Canada which have had more recent booms in providing the NHL with players and talent, most namely an increase from the maritimes and BC.

3) The role of elite programs. I know that a lot of the talent growth in BC and the states has come via these routes , not as sure as to what is going on in the rest of Canada but there was a renewed effort on elite development after the WJHC fiasco in the late 80's as well.

the reregistration numbers are interesting but it's hard to draw too many conclusions in isolation just by strictly looking at them.

BraveCanadian 10-21-2013 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 72972539)
it's hard to draw too many conclusions to the maount of deopth players from the states by looking at Canadian hockey regristration numbers IMO.

No one is.. as we pointed out up thread, early on there wasn't a Canada wide body and more recently there are other kids not being captured by the number (participating outside of Hockey Canada).

It is a decent indicator. When I also checked the statscan info, I found that there is not a significantly different number of males available to the pool in Canada now compared to 20 years ago.

Quote:

There are lots of other factors going on.

1) The huge influx of players from Europe from the early 90's onward, both in terms of quality and quantity.
This is always the fall back argument of the bigger better talent pool argument.

It isn't true.

In the NHL (which is what we care about at the end of the day) in comparison to ~2000:

Russians are down.
Czechs are down.
Slovaks are down.
Scandinavian countries are up some.
USA is way up.

In part this is probably because of the KHL (Kovalchuk etc.) but regardless of the reason.. the NHL doesn't have a higher number of these players from across the pond in comparison to the turn of the century.

So either they aren't producing them or they aren't coming. Either way the NHL isn't better off compared to a generation ago -- at least not for the reason you argue.

Quote:

2) the growth of the game in the United States, especially outside of traditional markets such as Minnesota and Massachusetts. this extends to areas in Canada which have had more recent booms in providing the NHL with players and talent, most namely an increase from the maritimes and BC.
The USA has had a large increase in hockey registrations but as tarheel pointed out in a general board thread.. the top end isn't really any better than a generation ago and most of the growth in number of NHL players is in the cheap depth players of a salary cap era.

Here is the post: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=742

As for Canada, I already pointed out the registrations now to Hockey Canada are only returning to a 1970s level, and even if you want to rely on the fact that there are more hockey schools etc. outside of Hockey Canada... the demographics don't back you up at all there either.

There are roughly the same number of Canadian males of hockey development age as there were a generation ago.

Quote:

3) The role of elite programs. I know that a lot of the talent growth in BC and the states has come via these routes , not as sure as to what is going on in the rest of Canada but there was a renewed effort on elite development after the WJHC fiasco in the late 80's as well.

the reregistration numbers are interesting but it's hard to draw too many conclusions in isolation just by strictly looking at them.
My opinion is that the talent available at the NHL level has been relatively stagnant or declining slightly since it hit a peak in the mid-late 90s.

BraveCanadian 10-21-2013 09:09 AM

For reference here is the difference between the late 90s (I believe the peak was somewhere 93 to ~2000) and last year:

Country2012-20131998-99Difference
Canada484551-67
USA220146+74
Sweden6341+21
Czech Republic4451-7
Russia2958-29
Finland3017+13
Slovakia1213-1

I don't see evidence here of a global talent pool that is increasing in time in quality and quantity.

I see here that Canadians and Russians are being replaced by Swedes and primarily by Americans.

Based on tarheels comparison I know these are mostly depth players that are the difference between now and the last generation of American players.

Hardyvan123 10-21-2013 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72940853)
I think that would be why there has been a large increase in American depth players more recently.

Another obvious reason there would be more depth players from the US, is just the plain fact that there are now 30 teams and more jobs than in the early 90's and the roles of the 3rd and 4th lines were also really transformed in the 90's and beyond.

As for the US peaking in talent in the early 90's there is very little evidence of this, the US took Canada to overtime in the 10 Olympics and continually have top talent in the NHL.

BraveCanadian 10-21-2013 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 72985485)
Another obvious reason there would be more depth players from the US, is just the plain fact that there are now 30 teams and more jobs than in the early 90's and the roles of the 3rd and 4th lines were also really transformed in the 90's and beyond.

The NHL was at 28 teams in 98-99 and the same trend holds true from 00-01 with 30 teams until now as well.


Quote:

As for the US peaking in talent in the early 90's there is very little evidence of this, the US took Canada to overtime in the 10 Olympics and continually have top talent in the NHL.
Seriously?

The result of an international best on best single elimination tournament has absolutely nothing to do with the talent in the day to day NHL.

If it did I would just point out the 1996 World Cup winners as more proof that I'm correct and you're wrong. ;)

Hardyvan123 10-21-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 72986381)
The NHL was at 28 teams in 98-99 and the same trend holds true from 00-01 with 30 teams until now as well.

The original reference to depth players and more of from the US was from the 92-93 season (C1958 post and your response) so the 99 reference now is a bit confusing.




Quote:

Seriously?

The result of an international best on best single elimination tournament has absolutely nothing to do with the talent in the day to day NHL.

If it did I would just point out the 1996 World Cup winners as more proof that I'm correct and you're wrong. ;)
Really two countries playing head to head on a best on best has absolutely nothing to do with the talent in the day to day NHL.

Uh, I don't think so.

It's not the US performed way over their heads in 80 or anything, they had a very strong team in that tournament.

Kane is as talented as any American late 80's early 90's US player IMO.

BraveCanadian 10-21-2013 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 72996001)
The original reference to depth players and more of from the US was from the 92-93 season (C1958 post and your response) so the 99 reference now is a bit confusing.

A lull at that time would not show up until later.

Quote:

Really two countries playing head to head on a best on best has absolutely nothing to do with the talent in the day to day NHL.

Uh, I don't think so.

It's not the US performed way over their heads in 80 or anything, they had a very strong team in that tournament.

Kane is as talented as any American late 80's early 90's US player IMO.
I really don't know what you're driving at here with exceptional cases.

Based on the comparison tarheel did I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the previous generation of top US players is in the same ballpark as the current.

Therefore the rest of the large increase in US players are depth players.

And therefore what Team USA did in 2010 doesn't really have a lot of bearing.. the top basically washes out and then we're left with depth players filling the 30 teams in the day to day NHL.

Hardyvan123 10-23-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 73010311)
A lull at that time would not show up until later.



I really don't know what you're driving at here with exceptional cases.

Based on the comparison tarheel did I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the previous generation of top US players is in the same ballpark as the current.

Therefore the rest of the large increase in US players are depth players.

And therefore what Team USA did in 2010 doesn't really have a lot of bearing.. the top basically washes out and then we're left with depth players filling the 30 teams in the day to day NHL.

You are still being unclear here, tarheel's example was in the early 90 and later with more teams it wouldn't be out of place to have more US born role or depth players.

Exactly what 2 time periods are you comparing and how the number of Canadian hockey registrations come into play, if at all?

habsfanatics* 10-23-2013 05:34 PM

I think the US will eventually start producing more top end talent, but the growth in US hockey has still not shown in upper tier players at the NHL level, it will eventually imo, but top notch players of today aren't any better than previous generations, in fact, defensively they look to be worse, but make it up a bit in net. Offensively, no change imo, Brett Hull/Chelios being the best of both groups imo. Actually I would probably take Chelios/Leetch/Howe over all the US dman from today.

Hardyvan123 10-23-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by habsfanatics (Post 73113085)
I think the US will eventually start producing more top end talent, but the growth in US hockey has still not shown in upper tier players at the NHL level, it will eventually imo, but top notch players of today aren't any better than previous generations, in fact, defensively they look to be worse, but make it up a bit in net. Offensively, no change imo, Brett Hull/Chelios being the best of both groups imo. Actually I would probably take Chelios/Leetch/Howe over all the US dman from today.


I agree that Chelios, Leetch and Howe make up a better group of Dmen than today's group but Brett Hull was a Canadian produced player and Kane and company stack up to Jeremy/LaFontaine quite well.

The original assertion was that the number of Canadian hockey registrations somehow lead to more US born role players today, which hasn't be supported yet.

The original claim was for the early 90's compared to today with 30 NHL teams so obviously more teams would mean more role players right off the get go right?

Canadiens1958 10-24-2013 10:15 PM

USA and Other Countries
 
Somehow USA Hockey and other countries development of players entered the discussion. Not relevant to the Canadian Registration issue but interesting none the less. Brief explanation is in order.

At the start of the 1943-44 season the NHL introduced the "Red Line" for offsides, icing with an impact on forechecking. The C.A.H.A also adopted the "Red Line" and the resulting rule change, while the USA and all the international hockey community did not until the fall of 1969. Result was very few American born players developed in the USA made the NHL during the 1943-1969 stretch. Likewise Europeans.

Once the IIHF adopted the "Red Line" with the aggressive forecheck the number of American and International players increased significantly within five years as the transition to the NHL was much easier since the players had the necessary experience. A key barrier to NHL entry had been lifted.

BadgerBruce 10-25-2013 09:18 AM

The raw registration numbers are interesting, but as several posters have noted, interpreting them is a bigger challenge.

For a fulsome historical account of the many self-proclaimed governing bodies/federations in Canadian ice hockey and amateur sport more broadly, Bruce Kidd's 1996 book, "The Struggle for Canadian Sport," is nearly indispensable. Kidd's attention to detail is exacting.

I can't neatly summarize Kidd's research in one post here, but suffice it to say that youth/minor hockey was not really on the National radar in any wide spread way until the early 1960s. Instead, local "Amateur Athletic Associations" (forerunners of today's minor hockey associations) focused largely on adult amateur hockey at Intermediate, juvenile and Senior levels. Youth hockey was left to the service clubs, churches and schools, few of which had any affiliation with "governing bodies."

Even Bobby Orr, in his new book, speaks of the "fledgling" Parry Sound Minor Hockey Association he joined as a kid, how his Squirt team was likely the first rep-level effort in the area, and that the Bruins' $1000/year sponsorship of the association from 61-64 was crucial to the organization (sorry, Killion, but Orr's personal recollection is that the Bruins sponsored the entire association, not just his team, for those 3 years).

At any rate, CAHA national registration numbers were for a very long time not about "minors" (legal age distinction) but adults in amateur hockey.

Canadiens1958 10-25-2013 10:00 AM

Sponsorship
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBruce (Post 73205461)
The raw registration numbers are interesting, but as several posters have noted, interpreting them is a bigger challenge.

For a fulsome historical account of the many self-proclaimed governing bodies/federations in Canadian ice hockey and amateur sport more broadly, Bruce Kidd's 1996 book, "The Struggle for Canadian Sport," is nearly indispensable. Kidd's attention to detail is exacting.

I can't neatly summarize Kidd's research in one post here, but suffice it to say that youth/minor hockey was not really on the National radar in any wide spread way until the early 1960s. Instead, local "Amateur Athletic Associations" (forerunners of today's minor hockey associations) focused largely on adult amateur hockey at Intermediate, juvenile and Senior levels. Youth hockey was left to the service clubs, churches and schools, few of which had any affiliation with "governing bodies."

Even Bobby Orr, in his new book, speaks of the "fledgling" Parry Sound Minor Hockey Association he joined as a kid, how his Squirt team was likely the first rep-level effort in the area, and that the Bruins' $1000/year sponsorship of the association from 61-64 was crucial to the organization (sorry, Killion, but Orr's personal recollection is that the Bruins sponsored the entire association, not just his team, for those 3 years).

At any rate, CAHA national registration numbers were for a very long time not about "minors" (legal age distinction) but adults in amateur hockey.

The distinction between association and team in such situations was always murky. The reality was that the NHL team would sponsor the "Player", the actual flow of dollars was a function of the non-profit structure at the local level. Sometimes the association was the non-profit entity other times it was the team. Key was getting the dollars into minor or youth hockey.

BadgerBruce 10-25-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 (Post 73206581)
The distinction between association and team in such situations was always murky. The reality was that the NHL team would sponsor the "Player", the actual flow of dollars was a function of the non-profit structure at the local level. Sometimes the association was the non-profit entity other times it was the team. Key was getting the dollars into minor or youth hockey.

You are correct, that is typically how the system operated. And I'm just tickling Killion's ribs for playful sport here -- all in good fun.

Bigger picture here is that the distinction between team/player/association sponsorship didn't usually make any significant difference.

I probably shouldn't have referred to Orr here to make my point, since his situation was unique. Rick Thomas's "Early Hockey Years in Parry Sound-- Part II" (The Orr/Crisp Years) offers greater details, as does the Bobby Orr Hall of Fame http://www.bobbyorrhalloffame.com/

Canadiens1958 10-25-2013 11:47 AM

Bobby Orr
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBruce (Post 73208157)
You are correct, that is typically how the system operated. And I'm just tickling Killion's ribs for playful sport here -- all in good fun.

Bigger picture here is that the distinction between team/player/association sponsorship didn't usually make any significant difference.

I probably shouldn't have referred to Orr here to make my point, since his situation was unique. Rick Thomas's "Early Hockey Years in Parry Sound-- Part II" (The Orr/Crisp Years) offers greater details, as does the Bobby Orr Hall of Fame http://www.bobbyorrhalloffame.com/

The Bobby Orr reference is very to the point. The precise details are nice to know but do not change the key elements.

In the mid fifties, Jean Ratelle and Rod Gilbert were the prospects in Montreal East. The Rangers via the Guelph Biltmores, sponsored their team and a number of other teams and associations in the east end of Montreal. Likewise in the early sixties, Bernie Parent in the Rosemount district in Montreal went to the Bruins under similar circumstances. The local organizations were no longer beholden to the Canadiens and Leafs.The early NHL Entry Drafts 1963-1969 reflect this.

The money that the Bruins spent in Parry Sound or elsewhere, the Rangers in east end Montreal or elsewhere was short term. Key was that by spending the money the NHL organizations legitimized local youth hockey down to the youngest levels. Building long term and short term sponsorship arrangements at the local level became much easier. Team, association, tournament sponsorship grew beyond dream levels.

Killion 10-25-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBruce (Post 73205461)
...sorry, Killion, but Orr's personal recollection is that the Bruins sponsored the entire association, not just his team, for those 3 years.

.... ya, that $1000 the Bruins threw at the Parry Sound Minor Hockey Association back in the day with inflation would be about $7500 today so I rather suspected that rather than just Orrs' team it was indeed organizational. The intent as you & C58 have further discussed being to get a leg up on the Leafs & everyone/anyone else taking a run at that particular player.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadgerBruce (Post 73208157)
You are correct, that is typically how the system operated. And I'm just tickling Killion's ribs for playful sport here -- all in good fun.

... ya, kinda figured as much. Funny, but I just bought that book yesterday. Havent read his first hand account of Bostons dealings with Parry Sounds' Minor Hockey Association. Merely looked at the pictures thus far.... licked the back page as is my wont... tasted like grape Kool-Aid. :)

BadgerBruce 10-25-2013 11:51 PM

One valuable area of inquiry this thread skates around is how minor hockey in Canada changed once the sponsorship system and the A/B/C card system ended.

My assumption is that at least some community-based minor hockey associations would have grown accustomed to the NHL sponsorship cash and, in some cases, administrative expertise. After all, while NHL teams wanted rights-control over players, they'd also have a vested interest in various developmental issues at the local level-- coaching staff, style of play, etc. Even the cost and availability of practice ice time would be impacted by sponsorship.

When the "system" ended, I can't help but think that many minor hockey associations were left scrambling in so many ways, not the least of which being philosophical. After all, with what amounted to a forced divorce from NHL affiliation, the Federal government's creation of Hockey Canada and its "international" mission in 1968 (Trudeau's election promise), and then the eventual merging of the CAHA, major junior hockey (now the CHL) and Hockey Canada, the entire youth hockey landscape changed profoundly in a short period of time.

The politics certainly increased. For instance, the very clear drop in registrations in 1992/93 was largely the result of a vicious fight between the OMHA and the new Ontario Hockey Federation, a war so nasty that the OMHA was actually declared an outlaw league across Canada, the US and internationally by the IIHF.

We so seldom view the "history" of hockey through the youth hockey lens. I'm just musing here, but I've a sense that my own understanding of higher levels of hockey would be better contextualized if I spent a bit more time examining the growth, development and change in youth/minor hockey.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:35 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.