Ryder Donovan to Wisconsin

[Jeffy95]

What created the glut of supply? I would argue that the use of juniors has expanded the age range of the players and therefore expanded the supply.

A much bigger issue in my eyes is the expansion of hockey into most of the country. When states are turning out 5 Div I players each year those are coming out of the more traditional markets.

I think that the value of college hockey is the problem. For the mid-west, and the east coast, hockey is valued from youth all the way up, but in other parts of the country, South West and West Coast USA, the value of hockey for colleges isn't there yet. Once those schools start to value hockey as the midwest does, then more schools will start programs. That also drags along youth interest as well, and if the country starts to value hockey more, MN will not have quite the same grasp on college recruits as it does now. More kids playing means the average skill level will rise and will dilute our recruitment levels. It's a slippery slope in my mind, as we want hockey to grow across the country so we can gain more recognition for what we are great at, it opens the door for great hockey players to come out of other markets and take our kid's spots on college and junior teams.

I think you're forgetting the reasons why that hasn't already happened. Unless publicly subsidized Arenas and outdoor ice start springing up at an insane rate, Hockey will NEVER be valued in the Southwest and West Coast like it is in the Midwest. Plus, kids look up to Pro Teams a lot more than College teams. They have the pro teams. But the logistics aren't there and most likely never will be.

[That guy for that thing]

A much bigger issue in my eyes is the expansion of hockey into most of the country. When states are turning out 5 Div I players each year those are coming out of the more traditional markets.

I think that the value of college hockey is the problem. For the mid-west, and the east coast, hockey is valued from youth all the way up, but in other parts of the country, South West and West Coast USA, the value of hockey for colleges isn't there yet. Once those schools start to value hockey as the midwest does, then more schools will start programs. That also drags along youth interest as well, and if the country starts to value hockey more, MN will not have quite the same grasp on college recruits as it does now. More kids playing means the average skill level will rise and will dilute our recruitment levels. It's a slippery slope in my mind, as we want hockey to grow across the country so we can gain more recognition for what we are great at, it opens the door for great hockey players to come out of other markets and take our kid's spots on college and junior teams.

I think you're forgetting the reasons why that hasn't already happened. Unless publicly subsidized Arenas and outdoor ice start springing up at an insane rate, Hockey will NEVER be valued in the Southwest and West Coast like it is in the Midwest. Plus, kids look up to Pro Teams a lot more than College teams. They have the pro teams. But the logistics aren't there and most likely never will be.

I get that ice is expensive, and that is why youth hockey elsewhere in the country isn't the same as it is here, but the quality of teams that are coming out of LA, and Dallas and Vegas, is rising. and this totally proves your point of kids looking up to pro more than college, and I did too growing up. The Wild was brand new but it was UMD games that I got to go to more often than pro games. Prices were cheaper, the college student section was fun to cheer with, and the pep band made the environment more exciting than a pro game. So I think that kids may look up to the pro's more, but a good college atmosphere can grow the local youth hockey.

To speak back to arena costs, hockey will never be the same in warm areas, you are spot on. You won't get the casual neighborhood rinks as you get in MN, but you get amazing AAA teams at all levels that compete with the best in MN year in and year out. Those will be the kids beating out our middle 6 players for scholarships and college spots.

[northwoods oldtimer]

I am not saying to disregard these statements, as I agree 100% Juniors then college, and only commit during your senior year or even when you are in Juniors.

But look at CM. He never played Juniors, and only 1 year at the U before he went to Buffalo. Now, look at how he is doing. Every kid with high hopes wants to be the next CM, and some kids may only have the opportunity to commit while they are a step ahead of the rest. If you look at pro players who hate 1-year deals, some kids and parents may see the same thing. You risk possibly losing out on college if you wait to commit. You may get injured, like Donovans old, and soon to be new (again) teammate Luke Lamaster. Numerous knee injuries have sidelined him down in Janesville/Tri-City. If a kid waits until senior year to commit, and he gets injured, the possibility he may not get the chance to move on comes into play.

I believe the new NCAA rules should help mitigate this whole young recruitment atmosphere, and in my opinion, kids are dumb to commit to a school that commits more than they can dress for the following season. Why put yourself in a position to lose your spot and not have anything left to go towards besides club hockey, or trying to walk on elsewhere. If you age out of juniors, show up to the U and then get told, we have too many guys sorry, what are you going to do?

my 2 cents. Commit when you know you have a spot no matter what, and develop as much as you can.

CM is the unique exception.

Ryder is a nice HS player and majority of kids would benefit by at least one year of junior. Best wishes to Ryder.

CM - as talented as they come out of MN and sky is the limit on his future, however, I would argue he could have used another year at the U. Or, more simply put another year of college exp. But understanding the coaching change, a middling team in transition and the contract offer in front of him - I/we get it. But? 19 pts and a -7 in 60 games? Meh. Granted, its only year one for him...but again WHAT IS THE RUSH?

Just ask Brinkman. Talk about a player with a high ceiling, but Im lost on the need to RUSH through HS straight to the U. Tough transition year for him. I do agree that he was developing bad habits at HS level as it seemed he wasn't challenged much but a year of juniors, FT would have served him well. His toughest games last year were vs. Tonka and DE obviously. Huge leap for an 18 yr playing 22, 23 and 24 yr olds. SLOW DOWN. ENJOY your youth. We will see if this 'acceleration plan' actually ends up lowering his '19 draft status.

THIS!!