PGT: USA - Gold, Canada - Silver, Russia - Bronze

[Xokkeu]

I really don't think so. IMO, if Canada had the same system he wouldn't have been on the U18 team either. USA picks 40 kids at 15, invites them to tryout for NTDP and say 22 or 23 make it. Those kids make up almost all future international tournaments that the USA plays in while they are eligible. The WJC is just about the first time other kids can slip in and look who they picked--Ahcan: plays for head coach in college; Foley: plays for assistant coach in college; Harper: didn't see ice in Final.

Sure, its possible that a player like Chabot would have been picked. But let's just look at the numbers. Suppose Canada picked a team of 22 players at 15 from the "top" 40 players at that age. That's less than 1 first round player per team from the CHL. If Canada then funneled as much resources for 2 years as the USA does per player those players would become a pretty strong team. Players not picked wouldn't develop any chemistry with the selected players making it pretty hard in any future tryout for an international team for them to really shine (e.g., Debrincat--It was amazing he made last year's team but wasn't surprising that he didn't fit in as well as clearly lesser players who have played together. This year US didn't make same mistake of picking a 1st line player who had never played with his linemates before.).

What you have now reminds me of the old Canadian NHL All-Star teams playing the Red Army. Its ironic that the US adopted the Soviet model when they had the only amateur team that ever beat it--of course it did so by rejecting the "All-Star" mentality and picking a team of players to fill roles. If your goal is to win international tournaments at early ages, that probably is a better way than the Canadian way. Of course if winning international junior level tournaments isn't the sole focus, and producing the highest level pro players is, then the Soviet model, which picks early winners and ignores potential stars like Thomas Chabot, should likely be avoided. The US's success in many international youth tournaments (including WJC) and Canada's success in the World Championships and Olympics, is sort of a predictable outcome of the two different development models.

I think it's a huge stretch to directly correlate the NDTP and USA results at the world championships considering the myriad of factors. And the USA has been one of the top teams at three of the last four Olympics only losing by slim margins to Canada. So saying the US is successful at the youth levels but not senior level is just cherry picking small sample sizes and can't really be blamed on the NDTP program.

 

[MuckOG]

I really don't think so. IMO, if Canada had the same system he wouldn't have been on the U18 team either. USA picks 40 kids at 15, invites them to tryout for NTDP and say 22 or 23 make it. Those kids make up almost all future international tournaments that the USA plays in while they are eligible. The WJC is just about the first time other kids can slip in and look who they picked--Ahcan: plays for head coach in college; Foley: plays for assistant coach in college; Harper: didn't see ice in Final.

Sure, its possible that a player like Chabot would have been picked. But let's just look at the numbers. Suppose Canada picked a team of 22 players at 15 from the "top" 40 players at that age. That's less than 1 first round player per team from the CHL. If Canada then funneled as much resources for 2 years as the USA does per player those players would become a pretty strong team. Players not picked wouldn't develop any chemistry with the selected players making it pretty hard in any future tryout for an international team for them to really shine (e.g., Debrincat--It was amazing he made last year's team but wasn't surprising that he didn't fit in as well as clearly lesser players who have played together. This year US didn't make same mistake of picking a 1st line player who had never played with his linemates before.).

What you have now reminds me of the old Canadian NHL All-Star teams playing the Red Army. Its ironic that the US adopted the Soviet model when they had the only amateur team that ever beat it--of course it did so by rejecting the "All-Star" mentality and picking a team of players to fill roles. If your goal is to win international tournaments at early ages, that probably is a better way than the Canadian way. Of course if winning international junior level tournaments isn't the sole focus, and producing the highest level pro players is, then the Soviet model, which picks early winners and ignores potential stars like Thomas Chabot, should likely be avoided. The US's success in many international youth tournaments (including WJC) and Canada's success in the World Championships and Olympics, is sort of a predictable outcome of the two different development models.

USA Hockey is not all about the NTDP. They have done a great job at the grass roots levels developing young players in the non-traditional markets. The evidence for this is the huge spike in American-born players in the NHL.

In 2000, the percentage of Americans in the NHL was 15%, 15 years later it rose to 25%. This percentage will only continue to grow and USA Hockey has a lot to do with it.

 

[Even Strength]

USA Hockey is not all about the NTDP. They have done a great job at the grass roots levels developing young players in the non-traditional markets. The evidence for this is the huge spike in American-born players in the NHL.

In 2000, the percentage of Americans in the NHL was 15%, 15 years later it rose to 25%. This percentage will only continue to grow and USA Hockey has a lot to do with it.

True, but in international competitions it is ALL about the NTDP. That is its SOLE purpose.

 

[MuckOG]

True, but in international competitions it is ALL about the NTDP. That is its SOLE purpose.

Yes, for the junior-age tournaments I agree. I think that's why it's called the National Team Development Program. But it doesn't have as much influence on the selection of the Olympic teams.

 

[Even Strength]

I think it's a huge stretch to directly correlate the NDTP and USA results at the world championships considering the myriad of factors. And the USA has been one of the top teams at three of the last four Olympics only losing by slim margins to Canada. So saying the US is successful at the youth levels but not senior level is just cherry picking small sample sizes and can't really be blamed on the NDTP program.

It seems to me that, the further the players get away from their years at the NTDP, the less the NTDP effect will be. Not saying that American hockey players are not good, just that the benefits that are derived from playing together and living together as a team are real and still have an impact in the WJCs as the players, many of whom still play together in college, still have better chemistry from playing together so long than the Canadian players do. That the US succeeds so often at the WJC level (and below) but not at the higher levels (although they have, admittedly, been close recently) indicates to me that there is some merit in this observation.

 

[Even Strength]

Yes, for the junior-age tournaments I agree. I think that's why it's called the National Team Development Program. But it doesn't have as much influence on the selection of the Olympic teams.

Yes, and the USA hasn't won gold in the Olympics since 1980.

 

[MuckOG]

Yes, and the USA hasn't won gold in the Olympics since 1980.

We'll get there as the pool of skilled American players gets larger each year.

 

[Xokkeu]

It seems to me that, the further the players get away from their years at the NTDP, the less the NTDP effect will be. Not saying that American hockey players are not good, just that the benefits that are derived from playing together and living together as a team are real and still have an impact in the WJCs as the players, many of whom still play together in college, still have better chemistry from playing together so long than the Canadian players do. That the US succeeds so often at the WJC level (and below) but not at the higher levels (although they have, admittedly, been close recently) indicates to me that there is some merit in this observation.

US results at the Olympics is about equal to u20 results. For one thing there's less Olympics results. If you take only US world junior wins in Olympic years they'd only have 2010. The US is regularly one of the top medal favorites at the Olympics. Canada has simple edged them the three times they've met. Just like Canada has beaten the US a lot at the u20s. However if you had an Olympic style tournament every year I'm sure the US would find a way to win a few games against Canada.

The worlds don't really matter since they are more a measure of pool depth and the US sends a pretty mediocre bunch each year.

So yea having NDTP and u18 familiarity helps the US team at the u20s I agree. But I don't think it has much relevance on senior team results as the sample size is small and The US team been just about as good anyway.

 

[wishywashy19]

Especially at the pro levels. Recent Mens World Championships show it too. The NTDP isn't just built for junior aged tournament's, it's bettering these kids for the pro's also. If you look at our olympic rosters, and men's world championships it's a heavy NTDP presence.

A question you may know off the top but is the U20 team captain usually or most always a member of your NtDP program?

 

[Xokkeu]

A question you may know off the top but is the U20 team captain usually or most always a member of your NtDP program?

Most of the team is NTDP alumni so the Captain is usually NTDP alumni.

Kunin, McCabe, Werenski, Zucker, Ramage


Derek Stepan was the last non alumni captain in 2010.

 

[xxxx]

• I don't think there is a worse way to lose, than on home soil, in Montreal, against the US, and in shootouts, while you managed to be twice in two-goal lead (2-0 and 4-2) and had plenty of chances to win.
  
  It definitely stinks, but it's just a game, and since the US are my second favourite team, I'm glad that if any other team should win, it's them. I feel definitely very sorry for the players though. Even though it's just a game, it must feel horrible. The Americans were pretty good though and the title is in good hands.
  
  It was an amzing game, amazing overtime, but what I'm not that much happy about are are the shootouts. These should never ever happen in the gold-medal game in my opinion, and I would say the same if I was an american. I must admit, I felt some excitement about that, because it was the first time ever I saw something like that in the gold-medal game, but I think it's cruel for both teams and when we have the opportunity to play the never-ending OT in hockey, why not do that? This is not like soccer, where there is no real possibility for that, we actually see this regularly in the NHL and it's absolutely doable for players, especially when it's the gold-medal game. Since the tournaments are organised under the IIHF, I seriously doubt a change will come anytime soon, but I think people who are eligible to make the change should at least really think about it.
  
  If it was up to me, shootouts would stop exist in any international playoff game. Tough to say what could make the IIHF do the change for at least the gold-medal game though.

• Enough of this though. The tournament was good and I'm pretty happy with TC's performance. Chabot absolutely dominated, I know he's a returnee, but he was like Keith out there, in every way. It will be interesting to see Strome and Barzal in the next seasons, since I've always thought that Barzal was drafted ridiculously low, and I still see big potential in Strome, despite him seemingly having some difficulties this year.

• Once again, it has been proven that Canada has the depth to battle for gold anytime at this tournament, despite missing plenty of NHLers and having some injuries. Our 4th line was doing pretty good which only strenghten my belief that we could send two teams over there.

• To mention the attendance - I of course think that it is a bit disappoiting, wherever the problem was, as it would've definitely been nicer to see more people in both Toronto and Montreal, as any tournament over here is promoting and advertising hockey to the world and I think this tournament in Canada is clearly capable of having a very high attendance numbers and being highly profitable to HockeyCanada at the same time. I'm convinced that HC will make the changes needed for next tournaments.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Vancouver is hosting in 18-19. Wondering how much tickets were in Tor/Mont? I would like to go, but it will depend on wether tickets are reasonable or not. I have stopped going to Canuck games because of the ridiculous cost.

 

[Xokkeu]

Vancouver is hosting in 18-19. Wondering how much tickets were in Tor/Mont? I would like to go, but it will depend on wether tickets are reasonable or not. I have stopped going to Canuck games because of the ridiculous cost.

I'm sure stubhub will have reasonably priced tickets to non Canada games.

 

[Rob]

I won't say that it is inevitable but I fully expect the USA to the undisputed number one ranked team within the next two decades. Hockey doesn't even need a big breakthrough in terms of popularity in the US. It just needs to continue at the rate it is now.

 

[xxxx]

I won't say that it is inevitable but I fully expect the USA to the undisputed number one ranked team within the next two decades. Hockey doesn't even need a big breakthrough in terms of popularity in the US. It just needs to continue at the rate it is now.

I respectfully disagree. Canada is clearly ahead of everyone right now and it certainly doesn't seem like the talent level is falling down, just the opposite. No one can see the future, but if the trend continues as it is now, the number one position isn't going to be overtaken by anyone, not even close. However, the United States are making steps to become clearly the # 2 country. They are already better than Sweden up-front and in goal, both in depth and in quality of the best roster, and the distance will only grow from now. The US is, in my opinion, already the second best hockey nation in terms of hockey talent, but it's still not enough to overtake Canada anytime soon. Of course, if someone thinks that US is going to get only better and better, and Canada is going to fall down, then sure, but since the present reality doesn't indicate anything like that, I'm not sure why would anyone think that, outside of wishing for that to happen, and in that case there is nothing wrong with that of course.

 

[AD1066]

I respectfully disagree. Canada is clearly ahead of everyone right now and it certainly doesn't seem like the talent level is falling down, just the opposite. No one can see the future, but if the trend continues as it is now, the number one position isn't going to be overtaken by anyone, not even close. However, the United States are making steps to become clearly the # 2 country. They are already better than Sweden up-front and in goal, both in depth and in quality of the best roster, and the distance will only grow from now. The US is, in my opinion, already the second best hockey nation in terms of hockey talent, but it's still not enough to overtake Canada anytime soon. Of course, if someone thinks that US is going to get only better and better, and Canada is going to fall down, then sure, but since the present reality doesn't indicate anything like that, I'm not sure why would anyone think that, outside of wishing for that to happen, and in that case there is nothing wrong with that of course.

Barring some sort of global political upheaval, the US drawing even with Canada seems more a matter of when than if.

A few decades ago the league was 80-90% Canadian. Today that number has fallen under 50%, and unless the game becomes more affordable for working-class Canadian families, there will be a convergence somewhere down the line as US participation rate continues to increase.

It's easy to look at the current run of international dominance and assume it will continue forever, but we're already seeing gradual changes in the composition of the first round of the draft, the effects of which won't be felt until years down the line.

It's still another generation or two away, but greater parity is likely coming.

 

[Even Strength]

Barring some sort of global political upheaval, the US drawing even with Canada seems more a matter of when than if.

A few decades ago the league was 80-90% Canadian. Today that number has fallen under 50%, and unless the game becomes more affordable for working-class Canadian families, there will be a convergence somewhere down the line as US participation rate continues to increase.

It's easy to look at the current run of international dominance and assume it will continue forever, but we're already seeing gradual changes in the composition of the first round of the draft, the effects of which won't be felt until years down the line.

It's still another generation or two away, but greater parity is likely coming.

You can't extrapolate a trend from an outlier year. The USA had 12 first round picks in 2016, which is more than its ever had before. Central Scouting has 3 (!) Americans as 'A' rated players for the 2017 draft.

 

[MuckOG]

You can't extrapolate a trend from an outlier year. The USA had 12 first round picks in 2016, which is more than its ever had before. Central Scouting has 3 (!) Americans as 'A' rated players for the 2017 draft.

In 2000, Americans made up 15% of the NHL. In 2010, it increased to 25%. Would that qualify as a trend?

 

[AD1066]

You can't extrapolate a trend from an outlier year. The USA had 12 first round picks in 2016, which is more than its ever had before. Central Scouting has 3 (!) Americans as 'A' rated players for the 2017 draft.

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php

Here is a large data set indicating a trend.

Canada is still the heavy favorite for the foreseeable future and will continue to produce top-flight talent, so you can rest easy, but there's no sense in denying the composition of the league is changing and will continue to do so.

 

[xxxx]

In the US, the number of registred players got from 500,579 in 2011, to 533,172 in 2015. However, in Canada, the number of registred players got higher much more rapidly - from 572,411 in 2011, to 721,504 in 2015. For some reason though, while the US continued the slow growth in 2016 (to 543,239), Canada got down to 639,500 in the same year.

That, however, doesn't take into consideration anything about the quality of players, the pool of talent, or the depth. The Czech republic was once an elite country, the Slovaks too, despite being very small hockey nations in comparison to Canada or the US.

 

[Even Strength]

IMO the imposition of the salary cap may have something to do with the shift towards US college players who come in later, older more experienced and are MUCH cheaper than a similar age player from pretty much anywhere else would be (e.g., 24 yo, 4 yr graduate of NCAA on 1st year of ELC vs. 24 yo from OHL, Russia, Sweden or Finland on second contract). Perversely, the salary cap has probably squeezed mid-level Canadian players out of the league because the teams can find NCAA graduates that are good enough--on a cost basis--for much less money, leaving them more to pay the stars--a much larges percentage of which come out of the CHL than out of NCAA.

The chart attached by AD1066 above (http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php) shows an increase of American-born players in the NHL from just over 16% the year before the salary cap was instituted to more than 25% now. Before the cap was enacted the number of Americans was pretty steady (14-18%) for 20 years!

 

[Bixby Snyder]

IMO the imposition of the salary cap may have something to do with the shift towards US college players who come in later, older more experienced and are MUCH cheaper than a similar age player from pretty much anywhere else would be (e.g., 24 yo, 4 yr graduate of NCAA on 1st year of ELC vs. 24 yo from OHL, Russia, Sweden or Finland on second contract). Perversely, the salary cap has probably squeezed mid-level Canadian players out of the league because the teams can find NCAA graduates that are good enough--on a cost basis--for much less money, leaving them more to pay the stars--a much larges percentage of which come out of the CHL than out of NCAA.

The chart attached by AD1066 above (http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_PlayerNationalities.php) shows an increase of American-born players in the NHL from just over 16% the year before the salary cap was instituted to more than 25% now. Before the cap was enacted the number of Americans was pretty steady (14-18%) for 20 years!

Even if your premise was correct (which it most definitely isn't), it doesn't explain why the USA has more gold medals in the last 8 years than Canada. 3 golds for the USA vs 1 for Canada. Could it be because the USA has simply been producing better players? Yes I think that's why.

 

[canuck2010]

Even if your premise was correct (which it most definitely isn't), it doesn't explain why the USA has more gold medals in the last 8 years than Canada. 3 golds for the USA vs 1 for Canada. Could it be because the USA has simply been producing better players? Yes I think that's why.

Over the lasy 8 years the USA has hardly produced better players than Canada.