Ok, I am feeling rantish today and I'm in need of some enlightenment from the reader base.
On and on throughout my online fandom, I've read post after post about fans expectations of collegiate players based upon draft status and position. I find this extremely laughable.
Here's my rant:
Draft position, or even the fact they were drafted, is only marginally relevant to the college game. It's not even all that relevant towards junior player-rostered international competition. Why?
The NHL is always trying to draft for "now" talent, but it's not all that often that there are those sitting around beyond, say, the top 5 picks overall, and that's not always the case even so. Those who are good enough for the NHL when they are drafted are usually signed by the NHL right away. There are exceptions, sure, but for the most part, they are drafted based upon potential... or what they're predicted to develop into.
With this in mind, it's amazing on how people can base whether or not a player has done well or is living up to expectations based upon when they were drafted. If they weren't drafted at all, then there is no such expectation. Talk about hypocrisy.
The most recent example is the fact that Finland hung in there with the US WJC team despite the US having more draft picks on the team. What does that have to do with anything?
Sure, the American players have a higher potential towards professional play according to NHL Scouts, but that's hardly what's being graded at the WJC. Remember, Herb Brooks had the option to put even "better" players on his 1980 Olympic team than he did, but he did not. Craig, the goaltender, IIRC, wasn't the best goaltender available to Brooks at the time. BTW, Craig didn't have an altogether stellar pro career either.
Why is draft stock held in so much higher regard towards expectation than the players' current level of development?
I'm reminded of the former Wild GM Risebrough (sp?) who talked about the potential of his team being the key to his system. Yet, year after year, the Wild sucked. Why? Because potential relates directly to the future... a future that isn't guaranteed, just predicted. Teams that want to win NOW sign players who are able to produce NOW. Much like why the Red Wings are so successful as of late. Yeah, they are older than the sky but their potential has been realized and Babcock can better assigned them into roles within the team that should bring the most success.
College Hockey deals almost exclusively in players who have not yet reached their potential. In fact, if they did before they reached DI, they're typically on the watch for being busts... (See Mike Fink, Sioux fans). Yet, if an NCAA player is drafted, especially if it is in the first round, they are expected to be absolute monsters right away. If they're not, or play differently than the expectations the fans build on them, they're usually criticized, more often or not, unfairly so.
It's one of the main challenges of being college fans. We want our players to play fantastic, win it all, etc. We bang our heads against the wall when the NHL takes notice and signs them early. But if the player takes a normal developmental curve, they're open for criticism for not being as good as a player who bolted early.
So what is it? Allow the players to play their game at the current developmental rate and criticize them according to their play or let draft status cloud our judgment and grade them according to what they should be X years down the road today?
It seems rather harsh to me.
