Tuesday, October 16, 2007

What is the Rush? Is 16 too young to play in the OHL?

Thank you very much to the person who submitted this excellent article. I'd also like to thank you for the hard work and the time you put into this research. It is definitely a MUST read for all!

What is the Rush? Is 16 too young to play in the OHL?

Numbers show vast majority encounter being traded or outright cut

We have all heard it - come to the OHL when you are a 16 year-old, grade 11 student and it will be the fast track to the NHL. It is repeated so often, and has been for so long that players and parents make life altering decisions believing these words are facts.

Technology and the Internet now allow us to examine these words commonly used by OHL recruiters, scouts, general managers and coaches. Guess what? The words and promises are nothing more then a myth!

NHL summary of OHL underage players 1986-1989 birth years

  • 289 played at least 1 OHL game as a grade 11, 16 year-old underage
  • 1 player played full time in the NHL as a 20 year-old or younger (Jordan Staal)
  • 1 player played full time in the NHL as a 20 year-old (Wotjek Wolski)
  • 1 player played 1 game in the NHL as 20 year-old or younger (Ryan Parent)
  • 7 players played a handful of games in the NHL as a 21 year-old (Bryan Bickell-3, David Bolland-1, Patrick Keleta-7, Rob Schremp 1, Bryan Young-15, Michael Blunden-9) All of the 7, including Ryan Parent, began the 2007-2008 season out of the NHL in the AHL.
  • It should also be noted that Bryan Little, Marc Staal and Bobby Ryan are 1986 20 year-olds starting the year in the NHL in 2007-2008.
  • At the beginning of the 2007-2008 season, only 5 of the 289 OHL 16 year-old 1986-1989 underages were in the NHL.

There is a possibility that a few more players who were OHL underagers in the 1986-89 age range may play some games in the NHL as some are still 18-20, however history suggests if there are any, the number will be nominal.

For those thinking Patrick Kane and Sam Gagner should be included here, it is important to note that neither player played their 16 year-old development year in the OHL.

Summary of 1986-89 OHL underage players traded, cut and/or waived

Are 16 year-old, grade 11 underage players ready to play in the OHL. The numbers suggest not.

  • 289 played at least 1 OHL game as a grade 11, 16 year-old underage
  • 73 (or 25.255%) of the 289 had be cut or waived out of the OHL before they were 19
  • 140 (or 48.44%) of the 289 had be traded at least once while playing in the OHL.
  • There is the likelihood that several of the 1988 or 1989 birth years will be traded or cut either this year or next.

Therefore, we looked at just the 1986 and 1987 birth year players who played as underagers in the OHL to get an indication of what the overall numbers will be once the 1988’s and 1989’s graduate through the OHL.

Traded or Cut/Waived 1986 and 1987’s Underages

  • 141 1986 or 1987’s played at last 1 OHL game as a grade 11, 16 year-old underage
  • 37 (or 26.24%) of the 141 had been cut or waived out of the OHL before they were 19
  • 83 or ( or 58.9%) of the 141 had been traded at least once while playing in the OHL

85% were either cut or traded while in the OHL.

Further statistics revealed the following:

  • The 269 players who were forwards or defencemen combined for a plus minus of -705 in their underage year in the OHL
  • Only 8 of the 269 players who were forwards or defencemen scored 20 or more goals in their underage year in the OHL
  • Not 1 goalie had played a game in the NHL before he was 20

So why doesn’t the OHL change back to a 16 year-old draft?

It is safe to say that the OHL, like all forms of junior hockey, is dominated by 18, 19 and 20 year-old players because they are older and stronger. Yes there are exceptions, but they are few and far between, as displayed by the research in this study. Doesn’t it make sense that if a player is going to start making a real impact in his 17thor 18th year that it would be easier for the OHL to predict and draft what players will make that impact if they draft them at 16 which is only 3 months away from when they start their 17th year or 15 months away from their 18th year rather then drafting them at 15 which is 15 and 27 months away from their 17th and 18th year?

Many might not know that prior to 1990 the OHL had a 16 year-old draft. Why did the OHL go to a younger 15 year-old draft in 1990? An educated guess is the OHL switched to a lower 15 year-old draft to “get to” players in grade 10, giving the OHL the jump on the NCAA colleges who were and still are competing for the same elite players. Knowing NCAA rules prohibited the NCAA teams from initiating contact with a player or his parent at 15 meant the OHL could recruit and draft 15 year-olds before the NCAA could recruit the players and then play them in OHL games at 16 which would then bust the players eligibility to play NCAA hockey under the NCAA amateurism rules.

So why don’t players wait until 17 until they go the OHL?

Given the raw numbers, why do parents allow their sons to enter into an environment as a 16 year-old underage in the OHL, which is clearly is lopsided towards failure over success? Why not wait until 17 when a player is in grade 12 and now physically and mentally mature enough to handle playing at the OHL level? Why don’t players explore the other option of the NCAA as well?

The answer is two fold.

First, NCAA hockey has clearly done a poor job in explaining to 15 year-old players and parents why players should keep their NCAA/OHL options open until at least the beginning of their 17 year-old, grade 12 year. If the elite 15 year-old player and his parents are being recruited and courted by the OHL and being ignored or not informed by the NCAA, it is only natural to go where one is feeling wanted. So the NCAA has to do a better job of identifying and educating the elite players about the NCAA option when they are 15. At the very least, if the NCAA educated players and parents at 15, players would be informed and maybe put off rushing into a life decision for their 16th year.

Secondly, parents and players can be na├»ve, usually never having gone through this experience before. Further, parents and players vanity and pride get in the way of reality. Add in the peer pressure of hearing a friend rated highly in the OHL draft and willing to go the OHL and it’s easy to see why players don’t want to be left behind. It is not an accident when an OHL coach or scout comes up to a parent and player and says “you are really good, we want to draft you at 15 and you are going to be a big part of our team’s future.” It is hard for parents and players to keep their feet on the ground because everyone likes to be complimented.

If parents knew that the university graduation rate of OHL/CHL players was only 16% compared to 84% in the NCAA would it make them look closer at rushing into a decision?

Parents need to keep their feet on the ground, get past the compliments, and ask themselves what is best not only for their son’s hockey career but also his social and emotional well-being, not to mention his continuing formal education. Parents have to do this because it is so difficult for inexperienced 15 year-old to do so.

Some final thoughts

As players are competing during their 15 year-old year they and their parents should maybe ask the following questions:

  1. Why are player agents chasing after 14 and 15 year-olds when these same players can’t cash an NHL paycheck until they are 18, and most of the few who do cash an NHL paycheck won’t until they turn 22?
  2. Why is the OHL asking you to make a commitment at 15 for your 16 year-old year, when they know the success rate of 16 year-olds in the OHL is very poor?
  3. Is your son ready to leave home at 16 and enter an environment with 17-20 year-olds, away from your parental supervision, enter a new school and live with a new billet family?
  4. Have you asked others who have played in the OHL/CHL at 16 who are now through the junior system to gain their insight?
  5. Contrary to what any agent or scout will tell you there are no guarantees. Keeping one’s opportunities open longer allows for a more mature decision.

One last thought

The Ontario Hockey League is going to be there when a player turns 17 or 18. The OHL would have preferred to have great players like Sam Gagner and Patrick Kane at 16 but the players decided to go to the OHL at 17 and 18 on their timetable. (Kane and Gagner in particular negotiated much sweeter financial deals to go to the OHL when they played elsewhere at 16 and 17 respectfully.) It could be argued that their development was enhanced by not making the jump to the OHL at 16. Going to the OHL can be the right decision for some players, but every player who decides to go to the OHL should do it on their timetable when they are physically, emotionally and mentally ready and for most that age is 17 or 18 and not 16.

So what is the rush?

The next article will examine the educational impact of playing in the OHL and CHL compared to the NCAA.

Explanation of research spreadsheet

On the bottom left part of the spreadsheet there are two tabs.

The first tab is titled "Underage 16 study 86-89". It simply looks at the history of every player the OHL talked into playing in the OHL as a grade 11 sixteen year-old. Of the 289 players 213 have either been cut out of the league or traded.

The second tab is titled "Under 22's in the NHL". It shows all the U 22's in the NHL this year (whether they were CHL underages or not). What it really shows though is how it’s almost impossible to get to the NHL before you should have your NCAA college degree.

This research is the basis for the article.

Spreadsheet can be found here.


Anonymous said...

Ryan,Staal,Little are all 1987 DOB. Not 86.

Anonymous said...

Your Right What's The Rush.

You too could be the next Jordan Tibbet and play in the Ushl at 16. Get traded Omaha to Des Moines. Lose your Scholarship To Michigan State. And get Cut the next season (Des Moines).

"What is the Rush? Is 16 to young to play in the USHL?"

Anonymous said...

yes it is..

Anonymous said...

But even if you aren't successful in the USHL you haven't just ended your college career. That's the difference.

Anonymous said...

Yet the USHL had 212 player movements last year, and I didn't count it as 2 when a player was traded to another team. Nor did I included players placed on IR. And Ohio had 47 players travel through it's revolving door.


Much more secure for parents eh?

blah blah blah said...

Despite the lovely bit of insecurity on the OHL and pro-MJers that surf blogs looking for slights to their system, I have a reason why the OHL did: Competitive advantage.

I don't think they did this to make their league better at all. They did it to try to get more talent sooner so as to eliminate the NCAA or any MJ that has an older draft date (for OHL eligible players) and marginalize the USHL (and other Tier I and II leagues) to places those young players can go if they don't work out in the OHL.

It is all part of Hockey Canada's influence to try to keep Canadian players in Canada and perhaps try to steal the top Americans too.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
But even if you aren't successful in the USHL you haven't just ended your college career. That's the difference.

10/16/07 6:59 AM

Do u really think a Un-successful Ushl player will get any money from an NCAA school?

Or is a Ushl team going to pay for his schooling.

Let's see Un-successful Ushl. "Keeping opportunities open"

Player gets $0.00 for school from Ushl team.
1. play D3 and player pays FULL amount.
2. Club Hockey and player pays FULL amount.

Un-successful CHL player.

Player gets anywhere from 3,000 to 20,000 a yr for every year played in CHL. And EVERY players school is paid for by the CHL team while in the CHL.

So who pays more for school? Ushl? or CHL?

P.S. The study should be CHL/Ushl and another study should be CIS/NCAA.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
But even if you aren't successful in the USHL you haven't just ended your college career. That's the difference.

10/16/07 6:59 AM

You should look into CIS. They have about 500 or so unsuccessful CHL players playing college hockey and going to school.

Anonymous said...

blah, blah, blah

The CHL has had their rules in place over 10 years. The USHL just changed their strategies and Tier 1 status about 5 years ago. The USHL and the colleges have made the most changes in that time to prevent the OHL from taking the best players. But it still isn't working!

The bottom line to me as a parent is, the USHL moves more players around via trades and drops that the CHL despite this article. I would rather be traded after 1, 2, or 3 years than during the school year. If you look at the original USHL protected lists from June, and look at their current rosters, how many are the same? Not many, I've looked. The USHL can SPIN it any way they want, but parents can see the answers themselves.

Anonymous said...

Also interesting is the breakdown of ages of players in the NHL this year.

1 - 89
8 - 88's
16 - 87's
8 - 86's
36 - 85

Wouldn't you think that there would be more 86 born players than 87's?

Anonymous said...

To all of it I say, "Welcome to junior hockey." Unless you truly are a top American prospect, go the Tier I and Tier II route. Even then, you can be traded or waived. This isn't midgets or high school, sorry.

There's really no reason for a Canadian not to go the major junior route unless he really is set on playing NCAA. Eric Gryba did this and Patrick Wiercioch is doing it this season, and I think it's a smart decision if you know you're not real far in your development curve or feel you have a lot of physical maturing to do and want to stay on the NHL radar more or give an NHL team the peace of mind that you'll be at a good NCAA program. (And NCAA DI is better than CIS, but not by incredible leaps and bounds.)

Anyway, if you don't go pro immediately out of major juniors, there is CIS hockey is not bad hockey and if you perform in CIS hockey you can get noticed, as there are many in the minor pro ranks and we've seen a few come through the NHL. I suppose Steve Rucchin was the highest caliber (although I probably forgot somebody).

Now, for an American, it's different. How much does it cost for an American to go to a CIS school? How many Americans play CIS hockey? I do know how much it can cost a Canadian to go to an American university, be it to play DIII or a high-level ACHA school. If the reverse is anywhere near true, that's going to be expensive unless you have a full ride to a CIS school. And what CIS school is going to give a full ride to an American player? Please tell me if there is one.

That said, you can get an impressive amount of financial aid from a DIII school if you have the academics. So, not playing DI is not death. It's death for one's NHL hopes (Guy Hebert notwithstanding), but many DIIIers play minor pro.

How many American players have we seen go to major juniors only to get dropped and now suddenly have to prove themselves for minor pro duty after juniors. Ben Van Lare certainly comes to mind (although I think he may be able to crack a Central Hockey League team after he's done in Texas this year). Pierre-Paul Lamoureux also comes to mind, and he's not quite as good as Van Lare in my mind. Aaron Rock anyone? Maybe none of these guys wanted to play college hockey, but I sure hope their hockey careers don't end after this year when they could have perhaps played NCAA on a scholarship. Getting your education for free, or nearly free, is SUCH an advantage in life, assuming you complete your degree.

An American going to major juniors to be a third, fourth, or depth line player is misguided. You're a dime a dozen in Canada. Now, if your academics aren't so good and you have no hope of getting a scholarship because you probably can't even get into St. Cloud State (no offense to the Huskies hockey program, but the admissions standard of the school certainly aren't Ivy League), then try major juniors.

To me, the issue is more whether a young American player should consider the major junior route so young or wait until they're older. As for a Canadian, the penalty isn't THAT high.

Anonymous said...

This article was done by "Prospects USHL Central Scouting"

Do you think they have a bias??

No Mention of OHL players playing in the AHL?? I guess that isn't a pro league

Turow doesn't care about kids, he cares about his Tournaments

Anonymous said...

To play in the CHL and then go to school for free in the CIS is a great opportunity.

Don't be fooled to believe that CIS is not a good level of hockey and it is a great education or degree to obtain.

University of New Brunswick defeats University of New Hampshire Wildcats

October 13, 2007 (DURHAM, NH) -

UNB 4, New Hamshire 3 - Boxscore

In an exhibition game last evening, the UNB Varsity Reds, defending CIS National Champions, defeated University of New Hampshire Wildcats by a score of 4-3 at the Whittemore Center at the University of New Hampshire. The Wildcats were picked to finish tied for first with Boston College in the Hockey East preseason Coaches’ Poll.
The V-Reds struck first at 4:42 in the first period when Rob Hennigar (Jordon, Ont.) rushed in and fired a shot on net that UNH goaltender Kevin Regan swept away to his right. Hunter Tremblay (Timmins, Ont), who was trailing the play, scooped up the rebound and put the puck past Regan on his right side to give UNB a 1-0 lead.
The Varsity Reds padded their lead 12 seconds into the second period when Hennigar recorded his second assist after he set up a John Scott Dickson (Barrie, Ont.) goal off the face off.
The Reds widened their advantage with just over five minutes remaining in the second frame on a Kevin Henderson (Toronto, Ont.) goal to make it 3-0.
The Wildcats got on the board a minute later when vanRiemsdyk took a centering pass from fellow freshman Matt Campanale and found the back of the net, beating New Brunswick goaltender Michael Ouzas over his left shoulder.
The Wildcats cut into the two-goal deficit at 7:32 in the third period when sophomore Nick Krates fed junior Thomas Fortney, who snapped a wrist shot from the left circle that snuck just inside the left post. Kevin Kapstad was also credited with an assist on the play.
New Brunswick regained its two-goal cushion just over a minute later when Dustin Friesen, (Waldheim, Sask.) slid the puck underneath a diving Brian Foster who replaced Regan midway through the second period.
The’Cats capped the scoring with one-tenth of a second remaining on the clock when senior Mike Radja slid the puck across the ice from the left circle on a 2-on-1 to vanRiemsdyk, who then beat Ouzas who could not slide back to the right in time to make the save.
The game was played in front of a crowd of 4,087.
The Varsity Reds will play the University of Mass-Lowell this evening at 5pm atlantic at the Chelmsford Forum.
by Maureen Sparks, UNB Sports Information

Anonymous said...

1)Universities contact players at 14 and 15 years of age. Go to a AAA Bantam or Minor Midget tournament and for proof.

2)16 year olds are traded and released and learn very tough lessons in the USHL. Some are even treated very poorly as young men, not only as hockey players, by so called reputable coaches in the USHL.

Don't kid yourself, both these options have their own negatives. This is about business, BIG business, and individual player development is secondary.

Anonymous said...

USHL players still in high school cannot be traded without the consent of the player and parent.

They can still be placed on affliated lists and recalled from them, and be released outright, but they can't be traded without approval.

Anonymous said...

Then they are just dropped, if they do not consent

Dan Revelle from Kingston was dropped after school started after the Ice got Matt Hoyle from Toronto and took the import spot.

Both options have thier issues.

Anonymous said...

16 years olds should stay in their own school and wait until 17 to think about juniors. It is a "dog eat dog" business and some kids that age just aren't ready to be eaten up by a junior coach that wants to win games and could care less about develping players!

Anonymous said...

Per the gripe about Dan Revelle. The Indy player was Tim Revell and he had an 88 birth year. I guess he could still be in high school. "Thier" was probably a finger fumble.
Also, Your Right What's The Rush Should be you're (contraction of you are).

Anonymous said...

Why didn't you post who the author was? Bob Turow, Director of USHL Central Scouting?

Like most of his research, it tends to take a pretty biased slant.

Anonymous said...

Apparantly the OHL is really killing Turrow's cash cow, otherwise known as the prospects tournament and he is now resorting to writing this kind of garbage.

Judging by the response on this forumn, it doesn't even look like pro USHL people are even buying his line of crap! LOL!!!!

Anonymous said...

i find it interesting that the author of the piece,fails to mention in his list of Under 22 Nhl players that 24 of 35 are CHLers none are directly from the USHL.

Anonymous said...

Well gee, that would be a little difficult seeing as how they would be in college.

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal...no matter what - you shouldn't play junior's at 16 - wait a little bit and then you can make a better decision.

If you want to go to college - go to the USHL, if you don't care that much - go to the CHL.

It's all the same - if you're good enough - you'll make it, if not - you probably won't.

The only issue is when you think you are good enough and you're not, and then you end up in the low minors without a degree and no future prospects, that is, if that bothers you.

Canadians should stay in Canada, and Americans should stay in America. Only in North America do you see kids leaving their country to go play in a foreigh leauge - that doesn't happen in European hockey.

I'm American and I don't think there should be foreign-based junior leagues in our country. You would hear the Canadians scream to the heavens if the USHL put a team in Ontario or elsewhere.

Unless they are on the NTDP - 16 year old players need to be in better schoolastic and supervisory situations that juniors. (and don't tell me how great some of the junior teams are at either of these areas)

That's my 2 cents. (Now, thanks to GWB - it's also 2 cents Canadian, and .80 Euro)

Anonymous said...

USHL was in Thunder Bay for years. WHL and OHL are in the States. AWHL was in British Columbia.


Anonymous said...

In response to:

"Well gee, that would be a little difficult seeing as how they would be in college."

the author of the article tends to claim the USHL is on par with the CHL

Anonymous said...

As a parent of a son who has had the privilege of choice between the OHL and the USHL by virtue of his possible potential and nothing more, I would respectfully offer the following...it has to be a very talented 16 year old to really "contribute" to the success of an CHL or USHL roster in my humble opinion. Zak Tatrn and Matt Duchene are two very good current examples. There are six or seven 1991's currently in the USHL to the best of my knowledge and school is definitely out on how successful those players will be in their team's overall success in 2007-2008. One of them is my son so I speak from facts not speculation. It is truly a challenge to manage academics, high level hockey, and leaving family and friends to pursue your dream. For my son, the opportunity for higher level practice and game experience far out weighed the fairly certain, safe enviroment of his AAA midget major experience. Time will certainly tell whether he left to early. He is a young man that aspires to play college hockey at the highest level and one who fully understands the risks associated with playing in an older league.

What's The Rush?
Hard to say, but excelling at a higher skill level at an earlier age puts a smile on my son's face every morning. Earning his ice time in a highly competitive enviroment, on a fluid roster has serious appeal to my son. Earning the respect of those older then him as he pays his dues and develops his skills means a lot to him. The personal development off the ice with added responsiblity and expectation of the classroom has helped him already and should be invaluable as he extends his playing career to college and/or pros if that happens.

Could he do all of that at 17, 18, or 19 years of age...absolutely! Would he trade places with any of his old teammates today...not a chance!

CHL versus USHL...
It is impossible to hide talent in this sport. Players can, are, and will continue to develop quite nicely through both of these high end programs! Life is full of choices and that's what makes it great. Do right by your child, as an individual, giving full consideration to all aspects of his ability, maturity both physical and mental.

Never forget to enjoy the journey, because it will go by very quickly! Spend less time worrying about what might happen down the road and focus your energies in supporting your son's present moment in time. You will not be sorry!

Anonymous said...

Half the Mem Cup last year was American teams: Plymouth from the O and Lewiston from the Q.

Anonymous said...

Author is Bob Turow, a person who spews so much crap he has to stay near a sewer. A genuine fake in the business. Got kicked out of the OHL so he has a ax to grind with David Branch, who do you think will win? People will eventually wake up and see what Turow really is a quick buck artist. His tournaments are absolute jokes, he has made no friends in the business going into every city going directly up against other showcases who have been established for years. This USHL Central Scouting is the biggest joke of all, the scouts aren't even paid because its just a fasade to create the image of a scouting agency when there isn;t one to get players into his fake camps. There are so many things wrong with him a novel could be written. Just stay far away from this guy.

To the matter at hand: Every player needs to figure out for himself which is the best way to go, USHL or OHL. Or should I say OHL or NCAA. You will get college paid for in the OHL. The problem with NCAA is many players are not four year scholarship players, many get just one year paid or some only get books paid for, WOW seems worth it right. Don;t forget the verbal commitment, many NCAA schools do not honor verbals if the player does not pan out the way they want. Since nothing was signed they simply say they are going another way and the player is left high and dry. Now if the player went OHL he would have money for school regardless of what happens in hockey. A little known fact is many player, not even high picks are given between 50-300K up front for signing, now this is not made public many times but those of us in the business see it all the time. That kind of money invested correctly will go a long way for the player. Downside is a player can be dropped and left to his own devices in the OHL too. But if you got money up front it makes it a lot easier. Its not USHL vs OHL because they are two different things, the USHL is Tier I in the states on par with Tier II in Canada (AJHL, BCHL), but they are trying to be something they are not, just be the best junior league in the United States. If you are focused on putting players in college then do that, but having a guy like Turow write the crap he did, does not help the USHL in any way. Having him around is a BAD PR move. Each team does a great job of scouting themselves and that is the PR the leagues should stand on, many great coaches are within the USHL, they do not need an outside insect like Turow around.

Anonymous said...

thanks hockeyscouting.com

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:01:

Calling the USHL tier II? I think they represented themselves very well in their 2-1-1 split with the QMJHL...which is major junior hockey last time I checked.

Anonymous said...

Very well put Parent. We too have had to make the choice this year, and I suggest if you are, or soon will be, in the situation of deciding CHL, USHL NCAA, talk to as many others who have gone down the road, and there Parents, personal experiences are very valuable. Also, many 15,16, 17 , 18, and 19 year olds don't really know what they want, they just want to play hockey and have fun, but someday soon will realize that after hockey, they need to supporet themselves,.. soon or eventually probably a wife and then kids of there own hopefully into hockey and they will be in the same decision situation. I thought I saw a study somewhere that listed the many NHL vets putting their boys via the NCAA route??

Anonymous said...

I forgot, how much of the CHL scholarship money goes towards a students room and borad while they are at a CIS school?

Answer: $0

I forgot, how much of the CHL scholarship money does a player get if he signs a tryout contract with Columbus Cottonmouths of the SPHL?

Answer: $0

I forgot, how many CHL players attend a US College or University after they have completed their CHL eligibility?

Answer: 0

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I forgot, how much of the CHL scholarship money goes towards a students room and borad while they are at a CIS school?

Answer: $0

This is false, it can be negotiated, stop taking the Gospel of Bob as TRUTH. Funny thing, he never talks about the positives of the NCAA/USHL, just the negatives of the CHL/OHL. It is all you ever hear.

Anonymous said...

The author seems to believe it's the NCAA's job to educate (mostly Canadian) youngsters on how to keep their options open. How about the USHL does it instead? I'm not talking about these articles and blog entries either. How about you target mail prospective recruits? It could be expensive, but I would think you could cost share with some of the D1 conferences to keep expenses in check. Teams from each conference could also help identify potential targets.

Anonymous said...

i think the whole purpose of this article was to tell players not to jump into the ushl, ohl, whl or qmjhl until they are 17.

the numbers prove that the majority who do end up in a train wreck.

Marc Foster said...

I find it interesting that so many people wish to disparage Bob Turow, but can't say a whole lot about his data.

Perhaps people need to address his data, and do so by means other than simply saying it's wrong. Where/How is it wrong? Bring your own data or stop your complaining.

Anonymous said...


You hit the nail on the head. If Turow is wrong prove it.

If he is right, and I would think it is hard to argue with his spreadsheet because the information comes right from the OHL website, then the OHL should be ashamed of themselves. To ruin that many lives, and to only graduate 16% of their players from college, is nothing more then slave child labor.


Anonymous said...

I would think Turow mentioning that the NCAA graduates 84% of their athletes with collge degrees is a NCAA positive.

I would think that 25% of the players in the NHL are an NCAA positive.

The CHL people say Turow is bashing when he compares 84-16% graduation rates. That's not bashing when its the truth.

Anonymous said...

16% ..... How'd he come up with this number? What website can I go to that tells me who went to school or who finished school?

POOPH!!! 16%

Michael Okrzesik 1985

Played 3 yrs in Guelph-OHL

2 yrs at Guelph Univ. All paid for by the team. 3 yrs at Univ of Arkansas-(Business School). 3 yrs more yrs paid for by Guelph-OHL.

Is he in the 16%

Is his life over after the OHL?

Anonymous said...


3 more yrs

Anonymous said...

University of Michigan had 13 players come in as Freshmen in the 2005-06 season. Only 7 are still on the team at Michigan. Mitrea a 1st rd pick being 1 of them. He could get signed this summer.

Minnesota had Freshmen classes of 9 players in both the 04-05 and 06-07 season's. 04-05 has only 6 left. And 06-07 has 7. With 6 of them NHL drafted. Okposo and Fischer should be the next to leave early.

And how did he come up with a 84% Graduation rate.

Anonymous said...


Anyone can post data but the trick is to back it up. Where does Turrow get his numbers from????

Anonymous said...

Are you serious. Take a look at the spreadsheet he has of the OHL train wreck of 16 yearold underages..........all the facts are right there.

As for his graduation numbers he did a huge presentation last year to show the OHL was lying about their numbers and then did a 10 year study to show their graduation rate was 16%. Even Joe Birch agreed the numbers were correct and said the OHL was trying to improve upon things.

Just face it, the OHL numbers are facts.

Anonymous said...


He didn't count players that didn't use thier education packages and DIDN'T play at a CIS school. His source was HockeyDB. For instance, a player that uses his package at a college(Firefghter, paramedic, Law Foundations) doesn't show up, or a player that goes to university and doesn't play, can't be traced. There is no way he has access to those numbers. Bob Turow is that last person to cast any stones about lying. He lies, he knows he does, and he will have to llok himself in the mirror and deal with it one day. It has already hurt his business, his reputation, and all those groups that wish to partner with him. Ask some NCAA coaches what they think about him, and the way he conducts business. He is the CHL's best recruiter.

Marc Foster said...

He didn't count players that didn't use thier education packages and DIDN'T play at a CIS school. His source was HockeyDB. For instance, a player that uses his package at a college (Firefghter, paramedic, Law Foundations) doesn't show up, or a player that goes to university and doesn't play, can't be traced. There is no way he has access to those numbers.

Since they haven't furthered their playing careers, why would you want to include them in the first place? Isn't that part of the whole point? If my university graduates a doctor and he/she is not in primary care (family medicine, internal medicine, OB/GYN, or pediatrics) and in the state of Texas, we don't get credit for them from the state legislature. They only care about those who stay on the path that is our institution's primary function. The OHL bills itself as the path to the NHL, but Turow is point out that the success rate of that path is not what people seem to think it is.

Here's what the OHL is doing, only I'm going to use a non-hockey example since I am an administrator at a medical school. We don't take kids out of high school. We take kids who have acquired their four-year degrees. Sure, once in a blue moon we could snag a Doogie Howser prodigy and run him through the system, and chances are they'd excel. But as a rule we don't, and we have an attrition rate less than 5% to show for it. Now you have the OHL School of Medicine, and they start grabbing kids straight out of high school and start making them doctors. What do you think the attrition rate will be? Do you think the average prospective medical student is better served by taking this fast track, or going to a four-year college first? Sure, maybe some drop out to go on to other related fields, but they don't stay on the path that was originally intended.

And back to the data again. Turow has compiled the best data available, and is assailed for it. Fact is, he IS doing the OHL's job, because I don't see anyone else BUT Turow tracking OHL alumni. Stop screaming and show me your data.

Anonymous said...

To the doubter,

The OHL sells players and parents at 15 that they can have the best of both worlds. In other words, if the player doesn't make the NHL they will have a university education package to fall back on.

It is easy to find the NHL numbers. I don't even know Turow's numbers, but simple math (which I learned in college for the record) says his 4% of OHL players in the NHL has to be right on.

So where are the other 96%. The OHL has promised them at 15 years of age that they will get them to university, get them their degree, and while they are there they can play wonderful CIS hockey.

The OHL, or any of its supportors don't rebuff Turow's 16% graduation rate because they know its true. If they knew it was wrong don't you think they would be screaming out what the correct numbers were?


Anonymous said...

paramedic, firefighters, clerks?

are you kidding me?

you need a highschool diploma to be a firefighter!

maybe if the "O" includes all those plus the walmart greeters, mac's and wendy's take out window employees and parking meter attendants they can bump their graduation rates up to 30%.

the fact is the numbers are true and now people like yourself keep trying to muddy the waters to blind new recruits so they make poor life decisions.

and hey, can you biggie size my fires please?

Brody Todd said...

Stop bashing the OHL! I got my college money... eventually. I mean hey, it was nothing my lawyers and some negative publicity for the league couldn't fix, right?

Anonymous said...

A 16% university graduation rate for OHL players is simply not acceptable.

The OHL is not living up to their promise and moral responsibility to the kids.

If the 16% number is wrong why have the OHL not responded?

Anonymous said...

That is right.

Go to Major Junior, and you will end up with a McJob.

I guess your right.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, you could verbal to a U.S. college, be promised a full ride, get there and only be offered a 65% ride, take useless classes like basket weaving, international porno studies, general business, don't even graduate, go play minor pro hockey and then end up at a McJob....yeah good deal!

To that idiot Marc Foster...please in your infinite wisdom (only surpassed by your arrogance) can you please collaborate Turrow's 84% NCAA grauduation rate and the 16% CHL rate. I'll bet you real money you can't!

The NCAA is the biggest manipulator and liar of them all. Just ask the SCORES of players who never graduated on time because their coaches demanded that they take the least amount of classes as possible!

Anonymous said...

Did a quick random search of HDB website and picked the 2002 Toronto St Mikes team. From that team, 7 players went on to play in the NHL while 11 went on to Canadian Universities.

That's a hell of a record and is there any one USHL team that can match it? Didn't think so!

Anonymous said...

It is humorous to see the OHL guys struggle for answers here.

Over the past 8 years there have been roughly 3500 players in D1 hockey.

Name 20 that have had their scholarship or finacial aid take away.

Turow has already shown you the OHL train wreck. Go ahead and show us the facts like he has.

Anonymous said...

No kidding.

Who are those full time NHL St.Mike's players?

And it is funny you picked St. Mike's. St. Mike's high school is one of the most respected in Ontario academically. What to know how many St. Mike's Major went to the St. Mike's high school last year?

The answer is ZIP, NOTTA, NOBODY.

What to know why? Cause hockey get in the way.

Who are those NHLer's again?

Marc Foster said...

I think the word you are looking for is corroborate, not collaborate... but far be it from me to question the education of someone whose primary argument is to call me an idiot.

The 84% graduation rate comes from a number of media sources, including this one from ESPN, but the NCAA source report and data can be found here...

The 16% figure isn't mine to defend and I've not brought it up in my coments. But since Turow provided all his source data, I suggest you inspect it for yourself.

As for the cherrypicking of data (St. Mike's)... I suppose I could just go "randomly" pick an Ivy League program and see what their graduation rate is, but two data wrongs don't make a right. You have to look at the whole picture.

Anonymous said...

I'm laughing. You picked St. Mike's, well I pick the team that tied with them for first the Barrie Colts

Of their 28 rostered players.

Maybe 1 full time NHL player....Dan Gerardi who has only played 41 game sin the NHL to date and he is 23.

4 players have their university degrees and 2 players may have but it looks like they dropped out.

Of the 4 that do have degrees, 2 were cut from the OHL. which may have saved their lives by sounding off the bell that they should get their education.


Anonymous said...

Funny, when I looked at Barrie's roster for that year, I found 11 players that went on to play in the CIS. Not bad if you ask me?

I agree with the poster who is asking Marc Foster to defend Turrow's numbers.....anyone can blow hot air and it looks like that is what Turrow is doing.

Marc Foster said...

How did I become the whipping boy for Turow's report and data? It must be because I'm the only one around here with the integrity to post under his real name (somehow I don't think that was really Brody Todd that posted earlier).

I gave you the source of the 84% NCAA figure. Took me all of about 30 seconds to find searching google for "NCAA graduation rate". I didn't come up with the 16% figure and it's not mine to defend. Even if I wanted to defend it, there's nothing for me to defend because I don't know what your specific complaint is (hint: calling it "wrong" doesn't cut it). The source data for it is available. If you are going to challenge it, then examine the source data and present your case, OR develop your own data like Turow did. This isn't the Salem Witch Trial, so you can't win your argument by pointing at Turow (or me) and screaming "WIIIIIIIITCH!"

Ryan Hodgson said...

It's sad Turrow is actually manipulating people with this stuff.

It's funny hearing people saying that the "OHL" people are having a hard time "proving" this stuff wrong.

I suppose David Branch needs to come up with a spread sheet of stats showing the percentage of USHL players with Uni degrees and the graduation rate of CIS players. (rolls eyes)

You guys can't possibly be that closed minded to take Turrow's stats as fact and reality.

Between the players
-who turn pro,
-play uni hockey,
-go to uni - HEY - INTERESTING FACT - players don't have to play hockey in uni to get their school paid for so how is Turrow actually keeping track of this,
-and players who don't want to go to uni - yes, uni isn't for everyone,
the system seems to be working working.

But I'd also like to point out. Turrow seems to pick out players who played very limited time in the CHL - play 5 games or 40 games and junior career is over. Then he claims these kids could have played NCAA instead and have gotten an education. HOW CAN A KID WHO ONLY PLAYS 20 GAME IN THE CHL BE GOOD ENOUGH TO PLAY 4 YEARS OF NCAA HOCKEY?

Perhaps some people should take solice in the fact that the CHL doesn't have to slag the USHL or NCAA system, but rather just promote their product. The NCAA is a great route for a young man to in life. Too bad Turrow is giving it a black eye. And you don't have to believe me. Ask players or prospects to whom he preaches. Many players are turned off by his tactics.

Anonymous said...

Turow has brought facts to light.

I just read Turow's "education" article from last year. It starts out saying the OHL publisized that "over 500 CHL graduates" were playing CIS hockey in 2005-06. When Turow counted the actual numbers there was only 449!

Then he discounted the players who had only played a handful of games in the OHL before they were cut that the OHL was counting as graduates and the number shrank to 379.

Why is Turow the bad guy when he points out a blatant lies of the OHL's?

Why is Turow the bad guy when he shows the facts like the CHL's university graduation rate is 16% compared to the NCAA's 84%?

The OHL are the bad guys because they are the ones who lead 15 year-olds who are up for the draft that they have an equal opportunity to get a college degree in the OHL as they do in the NCAA. That is a lie!

The OHL is lying and when it is brought to everyone's attention the OHL tries to make everyone else, in this case Turow, the bad guy.

The OHL needs to get their act together so people like Turow can't point out the OHL shortfalls or out right lies.

Anonymous said...



U R a Witch !!!!!!

Anonymous said...

There are tons of mistakes in this "Study"

Traccitto Reggie 1989 London 5 0 0 0 0 2 Played 5 games at 16 and 4 at 17 then cut

Crawford Corbin 1989 London 9 0 0 0 1 0 Played 9 games at 16 and 13 at 17 then cut

Both players are playing in the league as we speak. That is just on a quick glance, they have played for another year, got another year of Educational money. If they don't play pro, they can then go to university and take advantage of thier packages. I would bet there is more

Anonymous said...


I am asking you to defend Turrow's numbers because you take them at face value.....most of us here are rightly questioning how he came up with his data as he gives no references.

As for the OHL being the bad guys, remember that it is the NCAA who rules these players inelligible and not the CHL.

The OHL is placing siginificant pressure on Turrow and it is bankrupting his sole money making operation, the prospects tournament, so much so that Turrow may have no choice but to capitulate.

Just wait until the OHL unviels its new super AAA midget league and then watch him cry.

Anonymous said...

crawford and reggie were both cut the last two yrs and are now back in the league.

lets see if they last this year?

as for prospects, didn't turow run 7 weekends in toronto and 3 in chicago?

as for mistakes, the study is still onging. shortly the st. louis trio will join the ranks of the cut players.........dehart, bodker and craig all heading out of town.

as for the 16 year old 1st round pick who busts out of the ohl.........maybe if he did not leave home at 16, sit on the end of an ohl bench, go to 3 different high schools in 3 years, live without his parents..........maybe just maybe he would have lived up to his potential that got him drafted high in the ohl and got his 4yrs of college.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah Turrow charged an arm and a leg for his "prospects" tournament but many many parents were upset with the caliber of play. Not surprising since the majority of the top rated players refused to attend Turrow's little circus.

Anonymous said...

Its obvious that the pro NCAA people are running a tad scared lately. Only Turris will represent the NCAA on the Canadian WJC squad this year while there will be a record number of CHL players on the U.S. team.

It seems that the better players are opting for the CHL and this must be driving little people like Turrow mad!

Anonymous said...

This study is a JOKE! So what if players were traded in year 2, 3 or 4? Did that moron ever stop to think that many of those players perhaps wanted to be traded? Does that idiot think that trades only happen in the OHL????

That man(or boy) really needs to get a clue! Trades are a fact of life at all levels of Junior hockey, including the league that Turow scouts for!

Anonymous said...

thanks rob and benny.

Anonymous said...

Boys Boys Boys.

The article was about not going to the OHL at 16. Don't limit your options.

If a kid happens to go to the CHL at 17 then all the power to him.

But based on the education and NHL numbers in my opinion it would almost take an idiot to buy into what the CHL is selling.

The fact that CHL people are even responding to the NCAA or USHL when in years gone by they considered them an after thought or has beens tells me the CHL is worried.

Anonymous said...

Give the OHL credit. It was only 20 years ago that half of the players didn't get their high school diploma never mind go to college which there were no schoolboy packages for.

A 16% college graduation rate, while pathetic nationally, is an improvement for the OHL.

Anonymous said...

This is to funny.

Frank Grzeszczak, who is the OHL poster boy on their best of both worlds brochure to sell the OHL's education spin to American recruits, was sent home today.

The OHL's poster child is sitting at home.

Come on OHL.........please do better then this.

Anonymous said...

Hey, that's what happens when you break league policies on hazing! Maybe its O.K in the USHL, but as a parent, I am glad the OHL is serious about protecting its players and putting a stop to dangerous practices.

Come on USHL, take a page out of the OHL and DO BETTER!!!!

Ryan Hodgson said...

>>>Why is Turow the bad guy when he shows the facts like the CHL's university graduation rate is 16% compared to the NCAA's 84%?>>>>

I don't mean this as a personal attack....but are you guys that slow???

Of course the NCAA graduation rate is 84%....they are IN UNIVERSITY. I would hope that it was at least that high. CIS would have similar numbers.

Now...why doesn't Turrow use the stats for every player who has played a game in either the USHL, USTP, or NAHL? Hmmm.

That's why people are saying this study is joke.

Anonymous said...


but the ohl is saying a kid can have the best of both worlds. the ohl says "we will get you your university education."

well a 16% OHL college graduation rate is not an 84% NCAA college graduation rate.

the ohl is not even close to the ncaa yet they tell kids they are.

as for turow, he'll sink or swin on his own merits. so far the ncaa and ushl seem to like him alot because he is still there. if he fails he'll be fired. however, just the fact that he has ohl guys like you on the defensive tells me he'll be around the ushl and ncaa for a long time.

Anonymous said...

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — The suspensions of four Colorado College players, which happened prior to the start of the season, were the result of wearing blackface during a team outing in September.

The players were senior captain Scott Thauwald, sophomores Andreas Vlassopoulos and Brian Connelly, and freshman Brett Wysopal.

The players will be on disciplinary probation the rest of the school year.

It was previously unknown what the suspensions were for. A story in the school's student paper broke the details. The suspensions already took place prior to the Tigers' exhibition game. The players are back with the team, and will be there for this weekend's opener against Minnesota.

The players apologized to the campus community, and met with the local branch of the NAACP and Urban League. The players also must take diversity training courses.

Ryan Hodgson said...

anom. 10/23/07 10:18 AM

you've missed the point. I realize Turrow is pimping the NCAA. But in order to take that route, most of the players choose USHL, UDTP, etc. So why doesn't Bob use stats from his league? Because they would mirror the OHL stats (BTW, are inaccurate since he can't keep track of all the players who study at a university)

So, for example, if only 16% of the players who play USHL get an NCAA education..what's the difference? He's using NCAA stats of players who decided College was the best thing for them. Why not use CIS stats of players who decided College was the best thing after the CHL. I'm sure at least 84% of them graduated too.

And I've already talked about not every OHL player going to University in the my first post on this topic. Just because people choose not to, or are not smart enough to go to College doesn't make them a failure. It's a normal and nature life path for them to take.

Anonymous said...

ryan ryan ryan,

lets do some math.....you know, the thing the ohl guys like yourself forgot to do as freshmen in high school.

last year there were 276 players in the ushl all who want to go to college.

172 have already committed to D1 schools.

so, stay with me here, 172/276 = 62% of the USHL is already slated for college.

now add in the first year players that will get commitments this year plus the kids who are not good enough for D1 and play D3 and i would say you can bump the ushl number up to at lest 85% or probably higher that attend collge.

the reason i didn't mention the ushl's numbers (you still with me ryan?) is because it is so obvious how high the percentage is that sane people would never question it.

omg, you need yourself one of those ohl educational consultants.

Anonymous said...


First and foremost, when does comparing NCAA graduation rates with CHL graduation rates consitute a legitimate study?

Basically, Bob Turow has proven that people who are already in University Graduate at a higher rate than those that aren't there yet.

Genious. Shocking.

Comparing USHL graduation rates with CHL graduation rates is apples and apples.

Comparing the graduation rates of CHL graduates playing in the CIS with NCAA D1 hockey graduates is apples and apples.

Perhaps an even better study would be to measure which league between the CHL and the USHL has a higher percentage of players actually enrolled in school? The USHL isn't developing Guitar Hero champions by accident.

You say that a former CHL player who is enrolled in University, but isn't playing hockey shouldn't be included "Since they haven't furthered their playing careers"?

They are furthering their chosen careers. Isn't that the whole point of going to University. In fact, I would consider this a plus of the CHL. A player can use his educational subsidy and concentrate on being a doctor, dentist, whatever he might want to be. If he wants to only go to school that is his choice.

It is all about choice isn't it?

Holes in Turow's research??

He at least fails to tell 'the rest of the story'.

Dan Revelle - Didn't get cut. Suffered concussions and had to retire. Currently going to Carleton University on his educational subsidy, and is an AC with the hockey team.

Traccitto, Crawford, Beljo are still playing in the league.

Scott Fletcher - Cut? Waivers?

From Michigan Jr. Hockey Blogspot

Saginaw Spirit defenseman Scott Fletcher and a seventh round pick in 2007 have been traded to the Mississauga Ice Dogs for a fourth round pick in 2008 and a sixth round pick in 2007.

Brian Soso played to his overage year. Does every kid who doesn't play in the USHL as an OA get credited as 'cut'?

Also, every one of those kids would have received an educational subsidy from the Ontario Hockey League, and they would have been paid to play while they were there. What does the USHL give their cuts?

Instead USHL owners pack their buildings, but, pay nothing back.

CHL owners are taking heat in Canada for running a business where the labour (players) are paid so little.

USHL owners must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Ryan Hodgson.

Ryan Hodgson said...

anom. 10/23/07 11:38 AM

There is no need to get all excited about the USHL's numbers you presented. You actually used a reasonable argument to represent the number of players who go onto NCAA careers from the USHL. Too bad the OHL information isn't represented in the same reasoning.

If you want to compare the two, you either have to use Bob Turrow's reasoning and include ALL players who played at least one game in the USHL etc. and also use some inaccurate info.


You have to accept that the OHL info presented by Bob Turrow has some huge holes in accuracy - in both his current player reports and number of OHL graduates in University.

So either, your 60% USHL figure comes down, or the 16% OHL figures goes up. It doesn't really matter which way you choose, the percentages will be closer then you think.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know how you come up with 16%. Please 1 of the smart Ncaa people let me know which web-site I can find this on.

Hint Hint it's not hockeydb.com

I'll give you 84%. It's on a NCAA study.

But 16% "where are you"

Please help me!!!

Anonymous said...

ryan ryan ryan,

pay attention now.

there are 20 teams in the OHL with 25 players on them. that is 450 players.

in order for the ohl to increase their university graduation rate to a laughable 20% that means you need to find 18 university graduates out of 450 players. You say you have one, revelle.

you want everyone to believe that there are hundreds of revelle's out there when that isn't the case.

i'll bet you i can find 18 kids who got screwed out of their educations packages by the ohl before you find 18 kids who are in the cis using their ohl money and not playing hockey.

remember, turow's research all started when he caught the ohl lying saying their were over 500 chl gaduates playing hockey in the cis when the true number was in the 300's

Anonymous said...

Interesting study. The viewpoint of the author is always skewed to make it seem like the OHL is a harsh place to play - trades, and school and etc.

Let's take Barrie as an example...

Dan Minor - reported 35lbs over weight and was cut but not before having 2 years of school paid for.

Blake Parlett - traded at his request to further his NHL dream, plays 2-3yrs for Windsor and will have 4 years paid for in school.

Oliphant - reported at 142 lbs and was deemed too small - now first line on Sarnia - will have 4 years of school paid for.

Little - 1st round pick - 3 year entry level deal. Played games in NHL.

Tremblay - has four years of school and is getting a free ride to UNB - basically making 20k a year to play and study

Marshall - has four years of school and is attending University out West - again making money to play.

Martine - has four years of school paid for. And is with London now.

Spade - has four years of school paid for. With Hamilton-OPJHL this year.

In the end we need to educate our prospective players - the reality of the charts and graphs. If they want a shot at pro hockey and guaranteed school packages, then the stats favour the CHL significantly.

I believe its like 70% of all pro players come from the CHL.

Anonymous said...

Your Right What's The Rush.

You too could be the next Jordan Tibbet and play in the Ushl at 16. Get traded Omaha to Des Moines. Lose your Scholarship To Michigan State. And get Cut the next season (Des Moines).

"What is the Rush? Is 16 to young to play in the USHL?"

Anonymous said...


(remember, turow's research all started when he caught the ohl lying saying their were over 500 chl gaduates playing hockey in the cis when the true number was in the 300's)

This all started when Bob was Fired from the Miss Icedogs-OHL. He dosn't care about anything but keeping his tourney's alive.

Anonymous said...

I love the math answers. They totally leave the OHL'ers unarmed.

I will do some simple math for all of you that only uses one of Turow's assumptions. The assumption I will use is the figure of 379 CHL players playing hockey in the CIS. This is easily verifiable so there is no way Turow would fudge that figure.


60 chl teams at 25 on a roster means 1500 potential chl players to go to college

OHL said "over 500" had the best of both worlds and were playing CIS hockey when the actually number of CHL graduates was 379 in the CIS.

379/1500 = 25.66% CHL'ers attended college

If the graduation rate of CHLers in the CIS is 70% then...

25.66% x .7 = 17.68%

I don't need Turow's research. Screw Turow's research. I'm smart enough to do the math to see that the OHL's college graduation rate is pathetic.

And.....it turns out Turow was right.

Anonymous said...

The numbers of CIS players changes from year to year. Also, players that are at school, but not playing hockey are not included. Yes, these player do matter, because they played in the league, and are now having thier education paid for.

Turow is scared that his little empire will keep shrinking, talk to some NCAA coaches, see if they like the work he has done over the last few years, if he represents them?? Just do your homework people. If the USHL is so supportive, why don't they put his "study" on the Official USHL Site?? I wonder why they don't?

Anonymous said...

Why don't we do %'s on the USHL prospects weekends.

200 players x $300 = 60,000

60,000 x 3 weekends = 180,000

600 players = Only 20 players drafted

10 players still in the league ='s what % of players that paid Turow and then a USHL tryout fee and still got cut.

Let's do a Study!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...10/23/07 2:15 PM
"I'm smart enough to do math"

I love your math answers.

(I will do some simple math for you)

60 chl teams at 25 on a roster means 1500 player

1500 is not the right # to use.

Around #'s

1987= 180 (OA's only 3 per team)
1988= 120 ( Say 8 per team/ 8x60=480- next yrs OA= 300-3 players per team to pro hockey ie NHL,AHL,ECHL only= 120)

so say around 300 players each year are moving on to school, minor pro (CHL,IHL,SPHL) or life (Trade school, school w/o hockey).

Lets just say 400 instead of 379 for easy math.

100 new freshmen each yr into CIS+ 120 to NHL,AHL,ECHL

220/300= 73% move on to CIS school or Pro Hockey.

("I don't need Turow's research. Screw Turow's research. I'm smart enough 10/23/07 2:15 PM

Now it's 73%

Just did a new study.....

Anonymous said...

Why do you guys in the OHL always change the subject when it comes to education?

Come on. Live with the fact that you screw alot of kids. Not all of them but alot of them.

Anonymous said...

Around 300 Tier 2 teams (Bchl,Ajhl,Sjhl,Mjhl,Sijhl,Opjhl,Nojhl,Cjhl,Majhl,Que jr,Ont Jr B,Ushl,Nahl,Ejhl,Ajhl)

@ 24 players x 300 teams = 7200

(Some teams have 15 players move on some have 3 players.)

Lets just go with 10 players a yr move on too School/Life.

3000 players a yr looking for D1 money.

59 - WSU = 58 D1 schools

Say ave of 5 freshman a yr per team. = 290

(out of those 5 only an ave of 3 will get $ for school. Ivy's no $ and CHA/AC schools have 11 $ spots per team.= 174)

290/3000 = 9.6% will go D1

174/3000 = 5.8% will get $ for school

So that's the real %%%'s

Bob Turow's #'s he dosn't want you to know.....

Only 5.8% of you will get $$ for school and another 3.8% will walk-on and pay your own way.

Your right (10/23/07 2:15 PM)

Math is Fun!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, I wonder how Turrow came up with his 379 number? Did he forget to count the Q. Take the time and go to H.D.com and see for yourself, there were over 500 former CHL players in the CIS. This of course does not include the 100 or so more at community colleges and the dozens more at trade schools.

Figures that Turrow can't count!

Anonymous said...

Turow is scared that his little empire will keep shrinking, talk to some NCAA coaches, see if they like the work he has done over the last few years, if he represents them?? Just do your homework people. If the USHL is so supportive, why don't they put his "study" on the Official USHL Site?? I wonder why they don't?

They know how ludicrous it is. Instead of talking about the positives of the NCAA/USHL, he attacks the competition, but we know it isn't really a competition anymore

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Bob's numbers are a direct result of him coming to a conclusion before he actually commenced his study.

One way or another, he was going to get the numbers he wanted.

Anonymous said...

This all goes back to the OHL making a decision, that resulted in Scouts not attending his Tournaments. Since then he has had a vendetta against the league. He lies, manipulates, stops at nothing, and still collects money from parents because thier children are on the "USHL Draft List"(which is around 800 players??) That is why Turow gets everyone excited, his constant deluge of BS.

Anonymous said...


I have read all of the posts here. Heard the insults both ways.

Please tell me where the errors are in Turow's research.

Looks like his research of the 289 players was dead on for all but 1.

Posters disputed only 5 of the 289 but he was right about 4 of the 5.

I am sure Turow will correct those like he will all the other trades and cuts that will come over the next two years (Like Martine being traded again this week).

So folks, if you are going to carve Turow let's come up with the facts.

(They disputes are listed below)

Out of 289 players here are the erros that have been pointed out so far:

Traccitto Reggie: person posting said it was an error but reggie was cut last year. He has now been picked up by Niagara and is there for now. So wasn't an error study just has to be updated.

Corbin Crawford: is now back in London after being cut last year. Again, wasn't an error, study just has to be updated.

Jordan Beljo: poster was correct. The study said he was traded in year 2 and cut in year 4 when in fact he was traded in year 2 and year 4.

Scott Fletcher: was cut in year 3 then picked on waivers this year so study must be updated.

Brian Soso: was cut from the league in year 5 and is in Tr II so Turow was correct.

Anonymous said...

Guess that last post pretty much stopped the conversation.

Ryan Hodgson said...

The conversation stopped LONG before that.

(apparently the definition of "CUT" varies. Reggie and Crawford finally improved and found a place to play. Fletcher was never CUT, he had some personally issues and was eventually traded - he's always played in the league. So has Beljo. And Soso GRADUATED.)

Of of the 5, only Boljo might be considered good enough for NCAA, if he even wanted to go to College. But since he has 5 years of free schooling as an option, it's a non issue to begin with.

Anonymous said...

Seriously.....is that the best you can do?.......disputing a definition about whether 3 players were cut..........there were 289 underagers........that's it?......turow was right?

for the record the study is incomplete as more players will get traded and cut as the 89's-87's play out their eligibility.

to bad turow wasn't counting 90's....here is a sad sad story.....brent sullivan from the ottawa valley minor midgets who had a full ride to Clarkson and was CJHL rookie of the year last year just got cut after 3 games in Sarnia

face it.....out of the 289 underages the ohl will hold up a handful of kids who it works for as "poster children" while the rest get thrown to the ohl scrap yard.

Anonymous said...

you shut the ohl up real fast.

after all the OHL smoke and mirrors and shell games, in the end, the truth was in the stats and turow was right again.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

thats a hilarious post. he uses a list of players that are committments.

so, if he was to put, say, matt duchene on that list, a player that would be on that list, but decided to go to the OHL, does he count as a drop out? Nice try.

Funny though.

Anonymous said...

Nice comprehension skills. The list of players are players who were committed, and actually showed up.

"Total NCAA commitments = 425
(Chris's list shows more, but, to be fair, I only chose players who I can find evidence actually showed up at the school via stats or a roster)"

Quit seeing only what you want to see.

Kids who go to school, and don't finish, they are the drop-outs.

Nice try.
Not really funny.
Your post was actually a non-contribution.

Anonymous said...

For example. Chad Larose has not been used for this. He never showed up at school.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

ok, this is too funny, and i must admit that last poster who complained about comprehension, needs to work on his research skills lol..stop embarrasing yourself dude

a few of your great examples lol..

chuck Kobasew..in the NHL buddy lol

Joe Locallo - Air Force, left because of a tour of duty as did Phil Cohen

Tim Jackman, left for the NHL

Patrick Sharp..ahh..NHL

Mike Komisarek..ahh..NHL lol

Want some more..didn't think you would! More than happy to give you more though....

What I really like are the guys he lists that leave the NCAA for, yes, you guessed it, the CHL, oh, and don't graduate. Example) Carter Trevisani, Jeremy Jackson

Oh wait, what about the guys he lists as leaving NCAA ..oh..and going to another NCAA school but a division 3 school, and yes, graduating lol..lets see...How about Patrick Don, yes, listed here, a player who, according to this genius, dropped out of school, but rather he went to another school and graduated lol

Stop trying to make up things for people to see...facts are facts..and you have none to share

ummm......cya! lol

Anonymous said...

First. NCAA guys are the first to accept that CHL players who go to the NHL don't graduate from University. Apples and apples.

Secondly, once again, seeing what you want to see...

"Only 61% of the players who started, finished their NCAA Div 1 hockey careers. They may or may not have received a degree."

Did Don Patrick (not Patrick Don) finish a NCAA Div 1 Career? No, he played D3 at Oswego. Good for him, but that isn't a D1 scholarship.

I am sure when these guys signed their letter of intent, they were hoping to transfer to a D3 school ASAP.

These guys ended up paying for their school the same as their buddy down the street.

Maybe you can include some guys at North Country Community College as NCAA success stories too.

By your logic, the whole point of playing in the USHL and getting a scholarship is mute and pointless anyhow. Just go D3 and pay your own way.

You are telling me that Patrick Sharp left school to play three games with the Flyers?

No, he left school because he wanted to be a pro. The same thing you slam CHL players for.

Read it.

"“The plan was to stay for four years (at Vermont), but my goal always was to be a hockey player, and that is what I pictured myself doing as a young kid,” Sharp said of the decision to leave the place he called home for the past two years. “Philadelphia made the offer for me to leave school, and have the opportunity to develop here with the Phantoms, opposed to the college route, and I just couldn’t pass that up.”

Bottom line, like it or not, he didn't finish school.

Tim Jackmann "left for the NHL".

He played a full season in the AHL before even getting a sniff in the NHL. In seven pro seasons he has played 32 NHL games over 5 years. Turow wouldn't count him a s a "full time NHL player".

Komisarek had an excellent NHL career, but, he didn't finish school. What did he go for?

Chuck Kobasew. Are you kidding me?
He didn't leave for the NHL. He left for the WHL, and then went to the NHL after playing a season in the WHL.

I don't really care why guys left. They left.

Jeremy Jackson 'left' the NCAA? Was that before or after MSU pulled his scholarship??

College Hockey: MSU Cuts Jackson from Team
Compiled by USCHO Staff

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Michigan State freshman center Jeremy Jackson has been dismissed from the team by head coach Ron Mason due to "accountability issues in the classroom and with the team," according to a school news release.

The Los Angeles native currently ranks tied for fourth on the team with 19 points in 23 games, but had scored just four points in his last 10 contests. He missed four of the Spartans' last five games for disciplinary reasons.

For the time being, Jackson is still attending classes at MSU.

The 5-foot-9-inch Jackson played on the U.S. National Under-18 team, and played his Tier II junior hockey for Chilliwack of the BCJHL before coming to Michigan State. Jackson also played basketball for the high school he attended in Canada.

Trevisani must really be upset. He only played in the Olympics.

By the way, Trevasani did leave the NCAA fo r the CHL. Thanks for pointing that out.

Keep drinking Bobby T's kool aid. Dude.

ummmm...any other points to ponder?

Anonymous said...


That is what turow says is wrong with the CHL, they don't get a degree, they might go to the NHL, or the AHL but they don't get a degree.

Your post shows how obtuse his "study" is.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Final Numbers

1985 born CHL developed players who played in the NHL during the 2006-07 season = 49

1985 born NCAA developed players who played in the NHL during the 2006-07 season = 4

1986 born CHL developed players who played in the NHL during the 2006-07 season = 28

1986 born NCAA developed players who played in the NHL during the 2006-07 season = 1

Anonymous said...

Education program opens new doors for players
Dave Waddell, Windsor Star
Published: Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Windsor Spitfires feel they've upgraded their educational offerings and the University of Windsor Lancers men's hockey team hopes they've opened the pipeline to some graduating major-junior talent with the announcement of a partnership between the two Tuesday.

With University of Windsor president Dr. Ross Paul and several Lancers coaches looking on, former Lancer hockey player and Spitfires co-owner Pete Dobrich completed a personal circle that began 14 years ago when he graduated from the school.

"This is an initiative you're beginning to see in a lot of OHL cities," Dobrich said. "From a parents' perspective, in a lot of the original interviews with players, school was paramount. We've recognized this and this is why we're here today."

View Larger Image
The University of Windsor and the Windsor Spitfires announced a partnership in hockey and education Tuesday. Spitfires governor Peter Dobrich, from left, former Spits Alex White and Scott Todd and university athletic director Gord Grace were on hand for the press conference.
Star photo: Scott Webster

Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****In addition to having a person at the university who'll serve as a liaison with the Spitfires, the junior club will encourage players to meet with Lancers coach Pete Belliveau and school officials to discuss their options.

The two organizations will also do some community events and charitable fundraisers together and will cross-market their clubs.

Windsor athletic director Gord Grace said there have also been discussions about holding the odd doubleheader together.

"Anyway we can cross-market, we'll look at," Grace said. "That may include things like if you buy Spitfires season tickets; you also get some Lancer tickets."

Dobrich said four current Spits are already attending the university.

The program also bolsters the OHL's arsenal of weapons to fend off the arguments from competing NCAA schools offering the attractive option of paid schooling and hockey.

"The benefit I see for us is it takes time to build an organization that encompasses all the things that helps a child or player to develop," Dobrich said. "I've said it many times the best thing I hear in a hockey rink is whether it's for school or hockey, you need to send your kid to the Windsor Spitfires hockey organization because no matter what your son is taken care of."

Grace said the launching of the program this season comes down to timing.

With the highly-respected Belliveau hired in the spring, the plan to move both the men's' and women's programs to Windsor Arena next season along with the availability of scholarship money, all the forces required to make the program work have finally come together.

"The Blue and Gold Scholarships really give us an opportunity we didn't have before," Grace said. "Major junior hockey players knew they could go out west or out east and get some dollars to do so. Now that they've allowed scholarships in Ontario, it gives us an equal opportunity to get players."

The Lancers realize it'll take a few years for the full benefit of the new partnership to really begin to bear fruit.

In the short term, they'll have to make themselves more attractive to potential players by improving the competitiveness of their on-ice product.

That responsibility will fall on the shoulders of Belliveau, who points out how vital a pipeline of talent from the Spits could be.

"You need 15 major-junior players in your line-up to be competitive in the CIS," said Belliveau, who added that someone from the school will attend this year's OHL draft to help answer any draftee's educational questions. "We have nine right now and we need to build on that base.

"If you look at the University of New Brunswick, they won the CIS championship last year and they had four former Windsor Spitfires on that team. We're not going to get them all, but if we can get enough of them it'll help our program tremendously."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.