New Junior Rules
View Single Post
11-29-2004, 12:48 PM
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Halifax, NS
Originally Posted by
Canadian Junior potential changes:
the organization is recommending that only one American player be permitted on all junior teams, including Major Junior, and that only one non-North American player, instead of two, be allowed on Canadian Hockey League teams.
Players aged 15 remain in midget hockey.
Major Junior and Junior A and B teams be permitted to register only one 16-year-old player, and a system be implemented to monitor that player's level of participation.
Midget players not be recruited from outside their geographic areas to play in Junior C and D leagues.
Major Junior teams be permitted only one non-North American player instead of the two currently allowed.
Negotiate a Canadian scholarship program in co-operation with Canadian universities and colleges.
SOOOO, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? Is there a good chance these rules will be implemented? Will this seriously impact the QMJHL draft for next year?
Not sure how it affects the upcoming draft, but with the one American rule, the Remparts would be screwed for sure.
I can kind of see where they're coming from, as Canada hasn't won a gold in the WJHC in a few years, and the rest of the world is catching up. Why should the Canadian Hockey League be granting roster spots to "out-of-towners"? Shouldn't it go to "good Canadian boys" instead? But it's not the thirteenth forwards and seventh defensemen that are making the national program. Those with a shot at playing internationally are already playing, and the excess of Americans and Europeans is not affecting that.
The European deal is kind of understandable, even though I don't agree with it. The American arguement is just stupid in today's CHL. There are American teams in all three leagues, so why shouldn't American players from those regions allowed to be given the same opportunity as Canadian players in those same regions?
But one sixteen year old? Doesn't that kind of hamper development? Purposely holding them back a level, wherein they may have already proved all they need to prove at that level? That's just stupid. Unless I'm missing the point (keep in mind I'm just ranting; I didn't read the article).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by plaugher