Today is a different world then just ten, twenty, thirty year ago when it comes to junior hockey. In the old days, you have your country sanctioning body, and they make the rules of play. Pretty much it is all they were to do aside from picking the player to represent the national teams.
Everything change when these body start regulating nearly all hockey in the countries. Everything change when it become more about insurance policy and people in high places having a nice cushy job. Everything change when it all come down to big money, it is really that simple.
Gone are the day when hockey was simply just hockey. If it was good it was good, if it was bad it was bad, but it was just hockey.
I am certainly not against sanctioning bodies. They serve the purpose of training, and putting rules in place. To be sure though I am also in favor of our free market economy where individuals and entrepreneur’s can start a business like a junior hockey team without interference from what would likely be a competitor.
I write this today because I am reading so much of the AAU, and independent teams in Canada and the United States. I read the so called “rules” some people are try to put in place that limit a player choice of where he can play. It is disgusting to think that someone from the other side of the country try to limit what a player may need or want to do without knowing the player circumstance.
Hockey Canada have a rule that player who play a game or more after September 30th, can not go to a Hockey Canada “sanctioned” team until the following season. Why is this?
What if the player want to play for his home town team? What if the player family move to another part of the country during the season? What if the player develop and a higher level team want him before the signing deadline?
You punish the player because of his circumstance? That sound to me to be very short sighted and not in favor of the player. It sound to me like the player be punished because they can not legally punish the team owner. Retaliation is really what that is called. Much like the spoiled child who is finally told “no” by his parent they have the anger fit.
Who is it that first call AAU or independent teams “Outlaw”. I ask who decide who is “Outlaw”. Only the power of the actual “Law” say who is outlaw. To call the player or the team “Outlaw” is slanderous to be sure. It is placing a label on a person or group of people because they exercise freedom of choice. Do that sound fair and just? I think not.
Saturday I watch my first “independent” game. It was not the OHL or USHL, but both team had a few good player. Isn’t a good player still a good player no matter what team he play on, what country he from, or what state he come from? I think he is.
To discriminate against these player who exercise freedom of choice is no different than to discriminate against the African American, the Japanese, or the Russian. People can not help their circumstance any more than they can help their skin color or place of origin. There are law against that type of discrimination.
Of course I understand the argument of having “order” in the sanctioning body. Of course it make sense. But when it come down to it, every league make their own rule and administrate those rule. The sanctioning body only really get involved in league business when there is a problem. So why cant we have 5 or 6 or more sanctioning bodies? It would make people life easier from the sound of things.
The USHL and NAHL show how little they care about sanctioning body or not. They draft AAU player all the time. They draft player from other country all the time. It is not the draft exclusive to USA Hockey player. IF it were exclusive then no player from Michigan High School would be drafted because they do not use USA Hockey.
Do Hockey Canada call Michigan High School hockey “Outlaw” because they are not USA Hockey? Would they not allow a player who graduate early from a Michigan High School in December to sign a BCHL contract? Can they even say that rule is effective when they can not make rules that effect American Citizens?
The whole sanction argument is funny. It make no sense. Good hockey is still good hockey no matter who or where it played. No player should ever be punished for his or her circumstance, choice or changes in those.
It is this kind of iron fist rule making that lead to the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Eventually people get tired and revolt. Perhaps it is time for change and a more understanding way of developing the player we all care so much about.
Coach
