Patrick King, Sportsnet --- Their arguments make about as much sense as the analogy Hakstol presented. We've heard it all before; a player makes a verbal commitment and must then fulfill his obligations. Should he back out, he is then viewed as a liar and accused of using the NCAA as a bargaining chip to land in whichever CHL destination he desires most.From reading this article, it would appear that some parents of kids that are being recruited by Division I college hockey programs, also take issue with the age which kids are now recruited at. Personally, I do think it's asinine that college hockey programs are getting kids to commit so early to college hockey programs. But I think that this feigned outrage is a bit disingenuous, because the CHL is recruiting kids a very young age as well.
What's never mentioned is the timing the commitments are being made. To get a leg up on the CHL, players are being recruited and giving verbal commitments around the same time as they're attending a Grade 9 math class.
Kenny Ryan's father, K.C., once put it in perspective when his son was being wooed by college programs.
"Here's a kid who is still having sleepovers," he said.
And yet, when a young kid returns from said sleepover, he's supposed to have his college career sorted out well before high school graduation day. Should he change his mind, as teenagers are prone to do and hardly ever chastised for doing with any other decisions, he's suddenly a liar unwilling to see through a commitment.
How come it's not an issue for some that the CHL is recruiting kids when they are 14, 15 and 16 years old as well?
That being said, college hockey programs have to recruit players at a young age to prevent losing the top end recruits to the CHL so it's really a double edged sword. your damned if you do and damned if you don't
