This question was asked of me about a month ago by a member of the Board of Govenors Executive Comittee.

I'd be very interested in the thoughts of the contributors of this forum.

What do you feel needs to be done to improve the "on ice" product of the OJHL?

To avoid a tired, old debate, let's avoid contraction because that's not going to happen.

As tired and old as it may be, contraction IS the answer, however I will follow your guideline.



Make it clear to players, both current and future, that dirty, cheap shots will no longer be tolerated.

Enforce/improve the penalties regarding player injury.

The following penalties should be dealt with severely.
5 mins/GM/1g suspension(doubled with each offence)
-Checking From Behind
-Slew-footing
-Spearing


Stick Infractions such as Slashing, High Sticking, CrossChecking, become 4 min penalties.











Support Our Troops !


Go Leafs(but not too well, we want the #1 pick) !
Go Jays !
Go Raptors !
Go Argos !
Go TFC !


WEXDOG is a Cowboys Fan ! 5-4 = trouble
09,11,01
Lest We Forget
11,11,11

A couple suggestions if contraction isn't to be considered because that is ultimately what will make the on ice product better. With that said here are some:

1)Bring in a fight rule that is simillar to the OHL. This would eliminate bad stick penalties because players would know they couldn't pull that stuff. Now they can pull it and very few players will do anything because they get ejected if they do.

2)Go back to 1 referee. Many of the rinks are already crowded on the ice with 12 guys plus 3 officials. The extra just clogs things up even more. I have also noticed that it can take away from any flow the game may have had.

3)Call more dives/embellishments. I also think that if there is a diving penalty called then there shouldn't be an original one because if there is an original foul then there wasn't a dive. To me they contradict one another.

Kev

One way is to get rid of some of the OWNERS!!!!

1. Bring in the two fight rule.

2. A stiff fine to teams that are PAYING players to sign and to play.

You will never get around player's being paid. It has gone on for years, and always will. Sometimes you get what you pay for!!! Meaning CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Kev, the one thing I think the clubs should concentrate on to improve their 'on ice' performance is to work with the goalies more. Now I do not attend any practices and I don't know how many teams have a goaltending coach or if they even have the budget for one. I wonder if it would be possible for a roving goalie coach(es) paid for by the League to travel from team to team to help them. I really think it might make a difference in the performances we see. Are the goalies too often left to their own devices at this level?

The two-referee system is a contentious issue. The first few games I saw with the extra ref. on the ice were awful as everything was being called and there was absolutely no flow to the games. In more recent contests this seems to have got much better as perhaps the officials are realizing that we do not want to see a continual parade to the penalty box for borderline offences. It is a contact sport, sometimes the over-zealous refs seem to forget that.

1) bring in a player draft for all players wanting to play in the league.this would give all the teams a chance to be competative (they will still screw it up).
2)i agree with the 2 fight rule but an instigator/agressor penalty should be an ejection. also an instigator/agressor penalty in the last 5 minutes of a game should have a penalty to the coach (fine/suspension) like the nhl.
3)go to a 17 player and 2 goalie roster for games like the central division.
4)too many times refs are giving players a "break" on hit from behinds and calling it boarding,crosschecking etc. a minor penalty should be called like a head check and only carry a 10 minute misconduct instead of a game ejection. this way the refs might call it more.

review the rules that need to be enforced and make sure all refs call them with consistency so that its not a different standard every night.

also to improve the flow of games have linesmen wave off icings when a player is within a stick length of the puck, or when players turn away from the puck.

Craig;
"also to improve the flow of games have linesmen wave off icings when a player is within a stick length of the puck,"

Yes I like this idea.



" or when players turn away from the puck."

YES !!! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes !
This one has been a pet peeve of mine for a while.
Come to think of it, it was the proverbial thorn in Pepsihead's side as well.











Support Our Troops !


Go Leafs(but not too well, we want the #1 pick) !
Go Jays !
Go Raptors !
Go Argos !
Go TFC !


WEXDOG is a Cowboys Fan ! 5-4 = trouble
09,11,01
Lest We Forget
11,11,11

just something i am continually seeing game after game and linesmen continue to ignore it.

Icing is always waved off in the following situations:

The team committing the icing is shorthanded.
The linesman believes a player on the opposing team (other than the goalkeeper) could have played the puck before it crossed the goal line.

this is from the icing rule. so i guess they are supposed to wave it off but players seem to lose lots of speed and hussle when it comes to icing.

Honestly, the worst thing to happen in a long time (other than the #&%@ing central division) is the two ref system. It works out especially terribly when you get not one brutal ref that everybody hates, but TWO. The players get mad, the coaches get mad, the fans get mad, and eight year old kids in the stands are yelling at them for phantom calls and non-calls. If an eight year old can do it, they surely do not need two refs calling games.

The other thing with the officials is the inconsistency. I find the city refs call games a lot different than non-city refs. Especially in places that are a bit of a crap-shoot as to what you're going to get, like Bowmanville for example, you never know what's going to happen - and not in a good way.

Driving all over hell's half acre all the time, I've been to jr C, sr AAA, jr A, and university hockey in the last month. I see a lot of the same refs. The worst thing is, though, you know who is brutal and who is good, and on a bad day, you show up to the rink and the two worst refs in the area are doing your team's game and you think "oh boy, this is going to get ugly."

There needs to be some sort of standard across the board. Some refs put away the whistle in the third, some don't. some like to call a lot of coinciding penalties, some don't. each ref shouldn't get his own "style" - they all wear the same uniform. I'd like to be able to watch a game in ANY arena in the league and have the same standard of officiating.

The other thing I think would help is make it manditory for the players to attend school or work. With high school now ending after gr 12, many players graduate in their early years of junior. Sitting around doing nothing all day surely isn't helping their on-ice performance. I'm sure someone will argue with that, but it has irked me since my very early days watching this league.

*I can see your five hole*

Ok I hope this subject garners a lot of posts, and Im sure that if it does there will be a great deal said about what the league needs to do to improve overall, and I have a great many ideas and thoughts on what the league needs to do to improve overall, However the question that Kev has ask is what do you feel needs to be done to improve the on ice product of the OJHL.So I will try and stick to the question.

1. No 16 year olds (There are not many 16 year olds that are skilled enough to play at this
level so leave them in Midget hockey for one more year to develop)It would be better to play regularly in midget than to sit on the bench in junior. (unless of course your dad owns the team)

2. Make the offensive zones larger, even if it means a very small neutral zone. With no center ice offside anymore the neutral zone doesnt serve much use.

3. Reduce the roster size to 18 (with one exception that I will explain in number 4)

4. Have every team form a formal association with a junior B,C,or D and one major midget team within their territory. A team would be permitted to call up two players per game from an associated team to fill their roster to 20. No call up player can play more than 4 games per season and a call up would not be permitted to play more than one game in a row. Policing this would be the same as policing the suspensions, each team would be reasonable for policing themselves. All call ups must be in their 17th year or older and no 20 year old call ups.

5. Move the nets up 18 inches. This would give the more skilled players more room to work behind the net.

6. Reduce the number of cards to 30, with a minimum of 4 cards to be reserved for goaltenders. This would encourage organizations make wiser choses when deciding who to sign, not just use up their cards because they have them, only to release players that they had no intention of keeping anyway.

Now Im going to stray off the question for a moment and talk about something that you and I have talked about before Kev, and thats the two fight rule. I believe that this would deter the less skilled players from taking liberties with the more skilled players. If the less skilled player knows that they may have to fight the same tough guy twice in the same game, he may not be as interested in taking liberties with the skilled player.

I have a number of other ideas that I believe would improve this league and the game overall at this level. Im sure we will see each other around the rink sometime Kev. So if you want to discuss any of the ideas that I have posted here or any of my other thoughts please feel free to seek me out at the rink or give me a call (you have my number).

Re: Don't ya just love it? (teehee) ..... Ask me anything you want except for the thing that needs changing the most! (rotflmfao)

Now this ISN'T any slight on Kev because we all know that he is far too well informed NOT to believe that this IS the root of the problem! I sense that Kev realizes (as most of us do) that the leagues "brass" has their heads shoved so far up their asses that they refuse address the very issue which is the cause of their grief to begin with!! And why you may ask? ...... The age old problem of .... MONEY!

Reduced the number of teams and you reduce the amount of revenue! Simple huh?

I remember quite vividly (when active in my addiction) asking my wife what would make her happy, a newer home, an updated car, a family vacation, just tell me what it is that you want? Well, as most of you can imagine she would just look at me with that look of disappointment/surrender and say, "Tony all I want is for you to stop drinking, that will make me the happiest woman on earth!".

"Oh, c'mon, anything, anything at all but not that! I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just ENJOYING myself that's all" I'd reply! "Besides, I work hard, provide for you and the kids, I don't smoke do drugs or cheat on you" I'd continue, as if I'm some sort of martyr for half assed commiting to this relationship .... how noble of me! lol

So you see the parallel that I'm drawing upon here? The league, through a member of the Board Of Governors Executive Comittee which has NO interest in improving themselves for one stinking minute wants to know ..... "what needs to be done to improve the "on ice" product of the OJHL"?

The truth hurts doesn't it? And if you can't handle the truth, then my suggestion would be to pack up the tent and call it a day! Fold the league, let the more progressive (not so archaic) visionairies lead the way for junior hockey!

Does anyone else sense that this league is grasping for ANY lifeline possible to save itself from ...... ITSELF, or is it just my twisted perception on things?

One final thought however, if everything was so smooth and things were operating just fine, then why would these questions arise in the first place? Why would the creation of the Central Division and subsequent realignment of the remaining divisions even be necessary? Why the constant rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic? ..... Because the league is FAILING that's why for "C" sakes! ...

....... Don't Even Notice I  Am Lying  ... as far away as their first sh#t!

Here are just a few suggestions I would have to improve the ON ICE product only...

1) An "over and back" rule whereby once a team has gained the offensive zone blueline they can back the puck up as far as the red line without having to gain the blueline onside again. This would create less stoppages, because a lot of those "close" offsides where a defenseman lunges with his stick, and the puck just barely squeaks out over the line, would not be called. It would also open up a whole new realm of creativity in terms of the offensive play of most teams.

2) All stick infractions are an automatic four minutes, or a major if there is injury (almost always interpreted as blood). If the stick infraction is intentional, it is an automatic five and a game, and two game suspension with no buy-back.

3) I like the NHL rule of not allowing a team that ices the puck to change lines. It creates a more tangible penalty for icing than just a faceoff in your own end.

4) Video replay. I know, this is a very, very expensive and unlikely scenario, and in most Jr. A rinks it is not at all practical. But with every team having to videotape the games now anyways, how hard would it really be to have a small monitor in the timekeeper's booth, hard wired to the video camera, on which the referee could view for himself video replay (granted, from a limited angle) of a disputed goal? With the limited view available, it might not make the call right every time, but I'm sure at least some of the time it would help.

Anyways, just my thoughts.

Great suggestions Sharpie, "BUT" these are nothing more than smoke and mirrors for the problems which "REALLY" impact the leagues failings! Some or all of these improvements have been implemented at various other levels of hockey.

The difference is that the talent pool hasn't depleted to the marginal level that exists in the OPJAHL. And as we all know the reason for the depleted talent pool is primarily due to the fact that there just aren't enough Canadian kids being born to warrant the number of teams (38) in the OPJAHL.

As such this depleted/reduced pool of talent is distributed throughout several (OMHA, GTHL, OJHL, GOJHL, COJCHL, EJCHL, GMOHL, NDJCHL, WJCHL, SOJHL) leagues. Reduce the number of teams in th OPJAHL to 24 and then you'd have a product worthy of attracting fans and players alike!

But then who wants to hear THE TRUTH right Sharpie?

 

I agree, contraction would improve the product. But the parameters we were given for the purpose of this discussion were that contraction was not to be mentioned.

I had one more idea I wanted to mention in the previous post, but forgot.

5) Conflict of interest rules which would prevent any direct relative (parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, or cousin) of a carded player from owning any financial stake in the team for which that player plays. PLEASE NOTE: This applies to carded players only, affiliate players would not be affected. The reason being that the direction and use of an affiliate player is not directly controlled by the Jr. A team, but their own team.

Oh, and by the way...

The way to contraction, for those who truly believe that is the answer, is fairly simple.

What the league needs is to divide into two leagues. And make the split reasonably geographical. For example, Pickering and Ajax would not both be in the same league. The reason being, one would be the "farm team" (Jr. B) for the other, developing younger talent, trying out midget affiliate players, etc. Each Jr. A team would also be required to OWN the affiliate team, so each owner would be needing to shell out even more dough, meaning only the most committed owners would remain.

This would accomplish the goal of making Jr. A the best possible hockey at its level that it can possibly be. It also would not require true contraction, as all existing teams would still exist, even if it was in a different format. The leagues could be OJAHL and OJBHL.

It would also make marketing the teams easier, as fans in Pickering, for example, could go out and watch the future of their team by going out and watching the Attack play, knowing that most of those players would be playing for the Panthers in a year or two (or vice versa), similar to Leafs fans going out to watch the Marlies. Similarly, Wellington fans could go out and watch Trenton games (or vice versa), Cobourg fans watch Peterborough (or vice versa), etc. It would build a larger fan base for both teams by combining the fan base of both, is what I am getting at.

Boy how you have turned around since being hired by ajax!!
you were sure true to your word totally against daddy owners and yet you go and work for the worst of the bunch!

I wonder if you mentioned when you were interviewed by the ajax people that you think they should be the farm team for pickering!!
its amazing how you can totally change your alliegance and your ideals for a few bucks.
maybe your next gig will be with the gmhl and then youl be their mouthpiece spouting the company line!
maybe your real name is darlene not derek as it is a womans perogitive to change their mind!!lol

If you can't contract (and I see a lot of reluctance, even though the Future Prospectus will be all about that if it is to succeed), the key thing is looking at playing roster and active roster sizes and our card system.

Cut the playing roster to 18 from 20, and change the system from the cut-downs we have now to an active roster system where you have a max of 22 (say) and once you sign a 23rd player, another has to go. That deals with the talent pool and it keeps us from having suits in the stands or players stuck with a team. Do that from the top down and through minor hockey.

Re-establish a system where Tier Two teams have lower-level affiliates, rather than a free-for-all that is going to be all about recruiting. You're putting better hockey players into Jr. C and Jr. D, saving that level of hockey, and the trickle down goes right into midget. Allow call-ups for injuries and such.

I agree with the two-fight rule, it would potentially cut out a lot of garbage if fights are justified.

Otherwise, just leave the game alone for a while and let the players get used to today's game. The rules enforcement, the proposed roster sizes, the two-referee system, it's all part-in-parcel.

Sharpie;
"What the league needs is to divide into two leagues. And make the split reasonably geographical. For example, Pickering and Ajax would not both be in the same league. The reason being, one would be the "farm team" (Jr. B) for the other, developing younger talent, trying out midget affiliate players, etc. Each Jr. A team would also be required to OWN the affiliate team, so each owner would be needing to shell out even more dough, meaning only the most committed owners would remain."


Play along if you will.

Sharpie, you are the owner of Pickering.
I am the owner of Ajax.

In your scenario one of us would have to take his team "down a peg".
We both want to be the big club. How is it decided which team becomes the feeder for the other ? Or as you put it, which one of us sells to the other ?
I am willing to buy you out, you are willing to buy me out. Niether one of us wants to sell.











Support Our Troops !


Go Leafs(but not too well, we want the #1 pick) !
Go Jays !
Go Raptors !
Go Argos !
Go TFC !


WEXDOG is a Cowboys Fan ! 5-4 = trouble
09,11,01
Lest We Forget
11,11,11

Well, that is the snag. However, almost every team comes up for sale eventually. The league would need to find buyers for the teams that would commit to purchasing two teams at once. Plus, they would have to give teams a timeline, say no more than 5 years, in which the transition must be made. A grandfather clause, if you will. Within 5 years, I guarantee you that more than 50% of the teams will be sold anyways, so either the teams with solid, long-term ownership would "take over" a team as it comes for sale and turn it into the Jr. B team, or if two teams are for sale simultaneously, then one owner comes in and buys both. I guarantee that within 5 years it could be done.

Also, as some teams transition, and other teams see how well the teams that have transitioned are developing talent, you would see the transition process speed up with others jumping on the bandwagon.

Create 3 tiers of divisions based on performance from the year before. On the ice we will see a more balanced play and competition. Off the ice the value of a team will eventually be based on what divsion it is in and that reflects the effort by the owner.

Make a rule that no bench staff, gm or owner can have a son playing on the team.

I'm not certain the relegation model based on performance would necessarily work in junior hockey unless your goal is to drive teams to be spending to win and stay competitive.

There are still organizations who follow the cycle of building from within (mind you fewer all the time it seems), and you could get a situation where a team graduates everyone then has to buy players if it wants to be at all competitive in the higher rung. Meanwhile, it would take away the chance that a team could build something in one year and pull off upsets.

There have been many great suggestions but those that call for different playing rules are ones I can't agree with. If anything this league and all junior hockey needs to play by the same rules.

That said, one thing I would like to see is that every team be required to play on a regulation ice surface. 200 by 85 feet with appropriately rounded corners. No more square ice surfaces like in North York, no more tiny surfaces like in Wellington. In addition, all nets should be pegged with the plastic tubes that are embedded into the ice rather than those metal pins. Team benches should be side by side with the penalty box either in between or on the facing side. All this is included in Hockey Canada's rules of play.

The idea of affiliating a lower level team as Beaver Sports suggests is a sound one but only if such a team exists in close proximity to the higher level team. It seems to me that this is not always the case so some teams will still have to affiliate at large.

I am not a fan of the reduced roster for the simple reason that there are times when players are not available; either the result of injury, suspension, education obligations etc. If a team doesn't have access to affiliates because of team conflicts or geographic concerns then that team is unnecessarily disadvantaged. Having a 23 man roster enables teams to have access to the players needed to ice a complete squad. It is only 3 players over the number dressed. I agree having players as healthy scratches is not ideal but that pain can be shared. Daily practices help keep players sharp and it is not like in junior C where teams only get one or two practices a week.

I would like to see the two fight rule across the OHA for the simple reason that it keeps everyone accountable. The instigator rule could be toned down a bit and the constant parade of unsportsmanlike conduct calls for dropping an "F-Bomb" could be replaced with a 10 minute misconduct and a warning sent to the bench.

" No 16 year olds (There are not many 16 year olds that are skilled enough to play at this
level so leave them in Midget hockey for one more year to develop)It would be better to play regularly in midget than to sit on the bench in junior. (unless of course your dad owns the team)"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Musicmann...above.

Actually I've been saying this for a while.

If anyone still remembers Junior A Hockey at a time when basically only the best of the graduating Midget AAA players who chose not to play Major, or who tried out for Major and were not quite good enough, made up the majority of the rosters, then you can see why it is that the Junior A of present, really does not stand up to ridicule.

This is now a "next" place to play, as opposed to an honoured place to play.

Players who went through the minor hockey system and came to Junior already prepared, made this extremely entertaining hockey. Now...sorry, not cutting it. I've dozed through several games this year, and sadly, can only say...no way this is Junior.Sorry, it's just not at a level that excites me any more,and I LOVED Junior hockey.

Maybe it's time to refocus, and try to keep Junior an Elite brand of hockey, and not what it has become....

Truth be known, it'll never happen. Minor Midgets will still be rushed through,come in unprepared, with daddy's hopes and dreams of the "Show" as their motivation. Too bad, but these are the times.

Intherace

I don't know if I agree with that or not... Guys that I know who have gone far in hockey played one year of junior when they were in grades 10 or 11 and then moved on.

Now, having watched all my friends go through tier II, and move on to wherever it is they went (I'm talking about guys who finished their overage seasons in Junior A) Many of them dropped out/were kicked out of D3 "scholarships." some are playing low-level pro in the states (Central League, SPHL, whatever the U-haul calls itself now, etc) Some are playing low level pro in Europe.
Some are at University - a very GOOD place for them to be. (If they had played major jr, this university would be FREE. but that's a story for another day.)

And now, watching Senior AAA this season, I'm seeing a lot of other people who fell off the radar. Guys who are 23, 24 years old, have maybe a year of college under their belts (if they're lucky) and are still trying to live the dream. It's sad.

So, to me, it looks like the 16 year olds are most likely to be the players who actually end up somewhere like the Coast, the AHL or even the NHL.

*I can see your five hole*

Every minute, sound the horn to change lines.

If the parent owners or parent management want to treat the league as Mickey Mouse then lets run it like House League.

They use it as nothing more than a venue to showcase their individual kids at the expense of the rest of their players, other potential players & the integrity of the league & game.

I see this league as a league to develop players & to provide an avenue for ALL players to persue future opportunities in hockey.

There are individuals that use it for that purpose for "their" kid only & will also sabotage any competition to outshine them.

I could probably find a hundred kids that would vastly improve this league that have left it to play elsewhere or to continue on with their life rather than to "bother" play in it.

If the management has no integrity or morals, we can force upon them the opportunity to all kids to display their potential, not just who the management decides.

BINGO....I know of many players who had real potential, that just moved on because of....well we all know what was/is going on.

Please, I know some players are good enough to make the jump. I know Tavares proved it, to a degree. Others as well, but for the overall good of the sport, make ALL players play at least one year of MIDGET, and be required to play that one year AFTER going through the regular graduation procedure.

I realize that every now and then a "phenom" emerges, a real phenom, not daddy's pet, or the owner's pet, or who/what ever.

I've seen players who could skate like the wind, shoot, back check...actually play the game watch lesser players get ice time. Players who should have been back in the minor hockey system.
I've seen goalies who couldn't even do a proper "pop up" without losing their balance get the nod over another who could actually play, because of nepotism.

The game is the loser, but so are players with ability who just say ***K it, and split.

Kev,

If it is truely to be for the players and development of thier skills.

1.Why not cut out the private ownership and turn the teams over to the regions or municipalities.

2.Have the regions responsible for Hiring a CEO type to manage and hire staff under a mandated yearly budget or salary cap if you wish.
2a) make all positions negotiable year to year: IE - GM,DOPP...ect

3.Change the 20 year old rule to a total of 6 players allowed on the roster with no gaolies being allowed over the age of 19.

4.Mandate that 12 of the players must be from the surrounding area of the teams locale and that this area be defined by the league based on population.

5. This is the most important rule, have the tax payers cover any losses that the teams incur at the end of the season.
5a) any generated revenue (season and playoffs) from all the teams in the league be thrown into a pool.
5b) at years end, all generated funds be divided up and split evenly between all teams in the league.

6. Do not allow any player into the league from other provinces unless they have relocated to Ontario

would this not:
1. promote and give kids from each defined area a chance at a good education: IE -a scholarship to a D1 or D3 school.

2. cut out the purchasing of players

3.promote the development of younger players and goaltenders and thier skills while still having the older kids to help with that development.

4. cut out all the "bad apples" that exploit these kids

5. give a reason for people to come out to enjoy Jr hockey as they pay for it anyway,thus improving crowd numbers

Live in each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each

It does't matter what rules we put in place, some teams will find ways to to circumvent them, either with under the table deals or smart lawyers. Its human nature. So lets make fewer rules so there are less to break.
Everybody complains that the talent is to thin, so what do they want to do... fewer 20 year olds and fewer 16 year olds..DUH!!!
I feel 4 16 year olds would benifit both the talent pool and the sixteen year olds. They may not get the ice time but they will have the benifit of JR A coaching and training in thier 16th year.
More than half of the league is in small population towns. The only way they can play JR is in the A div. Junior B only allows 4 imports. You can't put a junior B team in Huntsville, Cobourg,etc. because minor hockey in those centres do not provide enough talent to ice a competitive team. Besides, most of the fan base is in these smaller communities. So unless they change rules all the way down the divisions, its a no go.

I don't think limiting 16 year olds does much if we're talking about developing players for the future. Playing with older players and learning the game is best and that's why we've seen a lot of good 15 and 16 year olds playing junior hockey in the past. If anything, I'd like to see that CDM provision gone.

If they're not good enough, don't take them. Take the kids and play them. Besides, if we don't want to develop them, there are plenty of people like the GMHL who will be ready to step in and build their own program outside of what we've got going. Eventually, it would be hard to say we're for development and mean it if we're holding more and more kids back.

If contraction "isn't going to happen" and it's not a discussion point, then tell the executive there's a 900 lb gorrila in the room. And they're not seeing him.

Also address the Daddy owner issue. This alone is killing credibility faster than anyting else.

So...

Number one...CONTRACTION

Number two...get rid of Daddy.

Russ

Combine the OJHL, GOJHL, CJHL and NOJHL, pick the 20-30 best markets and have super league that incorporates as much of the province as possible. The provinces with the most successful Junior A leagues do this.

I Like this idea,

We can't cut the league down but we can split it up. The central proved this. So lets take the top 20 teams and put them in elite(for lack of a better word) league(2 divisions) @ 2 divisions in the 2nd. league' Lets have a religation where the bottom 2 teams in elit move down and the top 2 teams in the 2nd. move up. We have to throw the second league a bone here. Its been noted that rebuilding years can really skew a teams efforts so lets take into account the totals of 3 years play. This would show an average of the teams resent efforts and whether they deserve to play in the elite level. Because the second league is still considered a Jr, A league a spot for them would have to be opened on the Dudley for its champion team or a playoff round against the elite league champs for a spot in the Dudley. Just some thoughts.

Are the refs trying to take out the pyhsical in Hockey. If so this is going to hurt Canadian Hockey bad. It makes the game very uninteresting. Physical play in hockey is as important as it is in the NFL. A game in Huntsville recently, a Otter took a penalty, which looked like a good hit to every one in the building. When the coach told the ref it was a fair hit the ref answered back"yeah I know but he hit him to hard"?????? On another thread it was noted that a lot of the top penalized players are also top players. I feel that a lot of these players get penalized for their hard work ethic in many cases. The refs are calling a lot of little crap that has little to no bearing on the game and its just frustating players and fans. Some refs are worse than others for this. I know the league sends out its inspectors for the refs, but is anything ever really said to the refs like shape up or ship out or is there no one else who could replace these guys.

I'm relatively new here so I defer to those who are closer to the individual teams when it comes to specifics. But I'll offer my 2 cents worth:
1. Your on ice product will improve if you MARKET the product better. I go to CENTRAL & non-CENTRAL games & have an open mind on the issue. BUT - & I posted it on here at the time, when you have coaches doing interviews regarding the Process that was followed by "everyone" in setting this year's "project" they should be reading from the same book. The YORKREGION.COM articles were posted at the start of the season. They contain some absolute BS quotes from owners(i.e.Newmarket) as if he's speking on behalf of the League.
When you have such a major change YOU need to COMMUNICATE this to your fanbase - even the parents of the players. You need a SPOKESPERSON speaking on behalf of the League , not contradictory statements. It took credibility away from the League because nobody stepped up & atriculated clearly what the League was doing.AND DO NOT REFER PEOPLE TO A WEBSITE FOR INFO -GET YOUR MESSAGE OUT:
Most small town papers will give you lots of coverage if you have a SPOKESPERSON for the League explain what is happening.
2. The DADDY/non-daddy players jerked around issue/the qusetionable people who have access to players:
I don't see how you can mandate a solution to the problem as it seems so entrenched.
What I would like to see is the appointment of an OMBUDSMAN on behalf of the players. Much like the military did - this would be a knowledgeable hockey person; paid by the League; with a clear mandate allowing him/her to operate at arm's length to investigate issues relating to misuse/abuse of players whether it be physical or through lies & manipulation, boken promises etc. The person would have authority to investigate SERIOUS complaint issues - not like amount of icetime. The person would have some legal knowledge so they can determine legitimate issues that must be addressed - i.e. a person in authority on behalf of a team making an offer/promise to a player has entered into the commencement of a "contract" with that player whether it is in writing or not. (Of course its hard to prove but if there are enough complaints you KNOW you have a problem).
The OMBUSMAN would provide each player with a letter at the start of the season explaining to the player what his rights are as a player & what the OMBUDSMAN can do in his role,on behalf of the player. I could go on but ya' get my drift.

Kev, your greatest resources are the athletes themselves. If the League really wants to improve its "on ice" product",start by taking better care the product.
If you build it , they will come.