Will USA seriously challenge Canada in the future?

[SovietWings 0]

The charts here show how the NHL nationality mix has changed throughout league history.

What especially strikes me with those charts is the trend that appears to be just emerging for U.S players. It looks like during the past 3-4 season U.S players have rapidly increased their share in the NHL rosters. Considering the potential that USA has for growth in hockey popularity, and all the marketing NHL is doing in the States, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next 20 years US will produce more NHL players than Canada.

Can you see this happening? Hockey will never become the national sport in the USA as it is in Canada, but it doesn’t have to, the potential for growth is so big. I know one can’t extrapolate 20 years to the future based on few years of data, but I think it could happen.

[joshy207 156]

No, I don't see that happening.

The number of youth hockey players in the US has been declining for the past 5-10 years. Hockey has become far too expensive for many families to afford, and the youth hockey season is too long and demanding for some people's tastes. Competitive players with aspirations of playing junior, college, or pro hockey are on the ice 4-5 times a week minimum, for at least 9-10 months per year. Lots of kids get burned out, and plenty of families are scared away from the time and financial commitments required.

The increase in US-born NHL players can be attributed to the National Team Development Program in Ann Arbor, MI. USA Hockey takes most of the top 16- and 17-year-old players and moves them to Ann Arbor where they basically eat, breathe, and sleep hockey, playing games against junior and college teams as well as in international competitions. (They do go to high school, too.) These kids are being fast-tracked to college hockey and the NHL and are also being groomed to represent the US in World Juniors, World Championships, and the Olympics. Other talented Americans are making the NHL from outside this system, but the majority of the increase comes from here.

[lfd250 1]

Not when the ref core is 90% Canadian

[grsbmd 0]

Maybe in the distant future, like 25+ years. The way it is, there are about 25-30 players cut from team Canada every year that we'd love to have play for team USA. We have a lot of high-end talent at all the positions, but not enough depth to hope to compete at this point.

[Guest Shoreline]

There was some promising years, some half decade or so ago, but it looks like there's just not enough emphasis on hockey in the US, and I can see why, and can't really argue with it. Not the climate or the culture here throughout most of the country for hockey, and for Canada the effort and support of hockey is (and has been) enveloping the entire nation, something that no US sport has. That being said, does the US really need to be Canada's equal? I don't think so. Russia is really the only country that has been consistently near Canada skillwise over the years. Sweden has shown some promise recently. The Czech Republic and Slovakia (maybe better off combined again) are kinda fading off like the US has been in recent years. I'm perfectly happy with team USA being underdogs and having low expectations given hockey is not a top US sport and has nowhere even close to the support Canada does for it, and never will. USA hockey will, however, keep churning out decent players, just nowhere in the same number.

I'm absolutely hoping for some upsets though in the WC's/Oly's since it IS kinda boring to watch the same team win over and over again (kinda euphemism for the NHL ain't it?).

Edited April 25, 2009 by Shoreline

[StevieY'sguy 1]

Challenging Canada number-wise i don't think will happen, but on a talent basis we certainly have it in us to compete in the Olymipcs and WCs, etc. The next Olympics will be rough but only because USA is on a down cycle, the players that have been the mainstays of team USA (Weight, Modano, Chelios, Hull, etc.) are either retired or almost there and the new crops of guys like Kessel, Kane, etc aren't in their primes yet. Agter all, we did win the 1996 World Cup and the 2002 silver medal so it is not out of the question.... The NTDP in Ann Arbor is a phenomenal program, a former teammate of my brother's, Jack Campbell, started the year out as the starting goalie of the U-17 national team but got pulled up to the U-18 team for the U-18 worlds championships last week and he got the start as the U.S. beat Canada in the semi-finals and then he shutout the Russians in the finals to win the world championship. Jack was always a great goalie but he has raised his level of play so much since joining the NTDP, that program will continue to produce studs and should float Team USA for many years to come.

[BeeRYCE 2]

There is a slight possibility that 2 of the top 10 forwards in the NHL in the near future will be American... Parise and Kane. E. Johnson, J. Johnson, and Bogosian COULD top the best defensemen in the league... So, I don't know, the USA does have a better crop of players coming and it's very possible for them to challenge Canada.

[SovietWings 0]

No, I don't see that happening.

The number of youth hockey players in the US has been declining for the past 5-10 years. Hockey has become far too expensive for many families to afford, and the youth hockey season is too long and demanding for some people's tastes. Competitive players with aspirations of playing junior, college, or pro hockey are on the ice 4-5 times a week minimum, for at least 9-10 months per year. Lots of kids get burned out, and plenty of families are scared away from the time and financial commitments required.

The increase in US-born NHL players can be attributed to the National Team Development Program in Ann Arbor, MI. USA Hockey takes most of the top 16- and 17-year-old players and moves them to Ann Arbor where they basically eat, breathe, and sleep hockey, playing games against junior and college teams as well as in international competitions. (They do go to high school, too.) These kids are being fast-tracked to college hockey and the NHL and are also being groomed to represent the US in World Juniors, World Championships, and the Olympics. Other talented Americans are making the NHL from outside this system, but the majority of the increase comes from here.

A fantastic post! Thanks so much for providing the insight.

Its disappointing to hear that hockey is losing its appeal with the US youth (or the parents more likely). It is an expensive sport to pay for, especially when there is no chance for outdoor ice during the winter. Considering that the current economic crisis is still underway, the situation is unlikely to improve in the next few years.

If you don't mind, I would like to pick your brain with a few more questions. Do you know how many players graduate annually from Ann Arbour? Is it just one team or do they have several? Do you know how long this program has been in place?

The reason I'm asking is that another page on the same website charts the US players by their birth state. The chart also shows a line for the total number of US born players since 1970. Looking at the chart, the number of US born players has increased by an estimated 60 players in the last four years. Would you contribute that increase to the Ann Arbour hockey program?

[Reds4Life 51]

Canada has much better players and more of them too. No one can really compete with Canada's best possible lineup, well maybe Russia, but that's it.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Reds4Life

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

Canada has much better players and more of them too. No one can really compete with Canada's best possible lineup, well maybe Russia, but that's it.

This is due to hockey being THE sport up there. In Canada, kids can play in a recreational league for less than 50 bucks.

In America, most leagues cost at least a few hundred dollars. Cost is the main reason for the drop in U.S. players.

Someone is more likely to play baseball or basketball.

[cboth686 0]

No. Sweden or Russia have a far better chance.

And no, kids up here don't play for less than $50, whoever told you that is...well...not paying for hockey.

For a season, you're looking at minimum $600 + equiptment, etc. For the upper tier leagues (AA, AAA, etc) They usually run about $750+ a year. I would know I played in both for over 15 years.

I now play in what you refer to as a rec, mens league/beer league, and we pay $600 each for 30 ice times a year. They are only 1 hour and 15 mins long too. They aren't prime time ice either, our earliest game this past winter was 10:30pm, our latest 11:45pm. Needless to say, hockey is just as expensive up North as it is down south.

Yes more Canadians play than Americans % wise. But, the reason we're so good is because our development system is essentially the best in the world, and far better than the American one. Much in the same way our basketball players don't receive nearly as professional coaching and instruction compared to the American players.

Simply put, having a strong draft year is great and everything, but until the structure is changed from the ground up, the USA isn't going to start blossoming more players than Canada.

Edited April 26, 2009 by cboth686

[cboth686 0]

http://www.fromtherink.com/2008/11/26/6736...-nationality-52

Looks like I was wrong about Russia and Sweden, but they still produce higher quality players than the US. Interesting site, Canada still has a large number. It's like 52% Canada to 19% USA. That's quite a large gap to make up, something drastic would have to happen.

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

No. Sweden or Russia have a far better chance.

And no, kids up here don't play for less than $50, whoever told you that is...well...not paying for hockey.

For a season, you're looking at minimum $600 + equiptment, etc. For the upper tier leagues (AA, AAA, etc) They usually run about $750+ a year. I would know I played in both for over 15 years.

I now play in what you refer to as a rec, mens league/beer league, and we pay $600 each for 30 ice times a year. They are only 1 hour and 15 mins long too. They aren't prime time ice either, our earliest game this past winter was 10:30pm, our latest 11:45pm. Needless to say, hockey is just as expensive up North as it is down south.

Yes more Canadians play than Americans % wise. But, the reason we're so good is because our development system is essentially the best in the world, and far better than the American one. Much in the same way our basketball players don't receive nearly as professional coaching and instruction compared to the American players.

Simply put, having a strong draft year is great and everything, but until the structure is changed from the ground up, the USA isn't going to start blossoming more players than Canada.

I have friends that have kids in rec leagues and they pay less than $50 each in Ontario. Granted the ice rink isn't the greatest, but it's cheap. A travel down here in W. Michigan costs more than $1500 (US).

The US just cares more about football, baseball, basketball (in that order) than hockey. Which is why the international tournaments are NEVER on. In Canada, almost every game is on. Priorities are just different

[Dabura 12,232]

For a season, you're looking at minimum $600 + equiptment, etc. For the upper tier leagues (AA, AAA, etc) They usually run about $750+ a year. I would know I played in both for over 15 years.

Truth. Though I remember it being even more than 750.

[joshy207 156]

A fantastic post! Thanks so much for providing the insight.

Its disappointing to hear that hockey is losing its appeal with the US youth (or the parents more likely). It is an expensive sport to pay for, especially when there is no chance for outdoor ice during the winter. Considering that the current economic crisis is still underway, the situation is unlikely to improve in the next few years.

If you don't mind, I would like to pick your brain with a few more questions. Do you know how many players graduate annually from Ann Arbour? Is it just one team or do they have several? Do you know how long this program has been in place?

The reason I'm asking is that another page on the same website charts the US players by their birth state. The chart also shows a line for the total number of US born players since 1970. Looking at the chart, the number of US born players has increased by an estimated 60 players in the last four years. Would you contribute that increase to the Ann Arbour hockey program?

I expect youth hockey numbers in Michigan will take a big hit next year. Some players who were on travel teams (more icetime, more expensive) will drop down to house (recreational) leagues, and kids from all levels will simply drop out because their parents won't be able to pay. Even when the economy improves, we still have some arenas charging $250-300 for an hour of icetime--that cost has to come down one way or another. Equipment costs can be controlled, middle-of-the-line gear is still good quality (kids don't NEED $150 sticks and $350 skates) and used equipment is always an option. But the cost of ice is a killer.

The NTDP has an Under-18 and Under-17 team with (I think) 23 players on each roster. Almost all of the U-17s go on to play for the U-18 team each year, so it's basically 23 players out and 23 in each summer. Most go on to NCAA programs, some to Major Junior in Canada, and in rare instances, a player won't go on to play competitive hockey again. I believe the program started in 1997.

The NTDP is one reason for the increase in American players, probably the biggest single reason. Coaching and training have vastly improved in the last 10-15 years, especially at the elite youth levels, so players are becoming more skilled and better conditioned. Hockey's expansion into non-traditional markets in the 90s has also led to the development of elite players... we're seeing youth teams becoming competitive at the National level from California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, not just the Northeast, Michigan and Minnesota anymore. And kids from those teams are going on to play junior, college, and pro.

[Kwame_Kilpatrick 0]

we have a couple good young players who still have improvement potential:

umberger (scored a beauty against us in game 4 btw)

bobby ryan (god for anaheim)

patrick kane (still has not hit potential)

parise (could he get greater?)

paul stastny - he has kind of dissapeared recently but potential is still there i believe

phil kessel - he is good player on a great team and still so young

ryan kesler - great two way player for canucks, and added offensive skills this year

tim connolly - 47 points in 48 games

tim thomas - probably is a vezina finalist

the main problem for usa is we are not having enough superstars- parise and kane and rafalski is pretty much everything. thomas is pretty good i would consider him a elite goalie but we have too many support players and not enough gods. bobby ryan is good but he hasnt even played a full season for god sake

[BeeRYCE 2]

I fell right out of my chair when I seen kids pay less than 50 to play recreational hockey... Noooo way. I played hockey my whole life, and when I first started it was $350ish, then it gradually went up year by year until it was like $600 to play, and that doesn't even include equipment.

[BeeRYCE 2]

we have a couple good young players who still have improvement potential:

umberger (scored a beauty against us in game 4 btw)

bobby ryan (god for anaheim)

patrick kane (still has not hit potential)

parise (could he get greater?)

paul stastny - he has kind of dissapeared recently but potential is still there i believe

phil kessel - he is good player on a great team and still so young

ryan kesler - great two way player for canucks, and added offensive skills this year

tim connolly - 47 points in 48 games

tim thomas - probably is a vezina finalist

the main problem for usa is we are not having enough superstars- parise and kane and rafalski is pretty much everything. thomas is pretty good i would consider him a elite goalie but we have too many support players and not enough gods. bobby ryan is good but he hasnt even played a full season for god sake

Injury this season, but he'll be back in full form... and HE hasn't even reached potential either.

[SovietWings 0]

I expect youth hockey numbers in Michigan will take a big hit next year. Some players who were on travel teams (more icetime, more expensive) will drop down to house (recreational) leagues, and kids from all levels will simply drop out because their parents won't be able to pay. Even when the economy improves, we still have some arenas charging $250-300 for an hour of icetime--that cost has to come down one way or another. Equipment costs can be controlled, middle-of-the-line gear is still good quality (kids don't NEED $150 sticks and $350 skates) and used equipment is always an option. But the cost of ice is a killer.

The NTDP has an Under-18 and Under-17 team with (I think) 23 players on each roster. Almost all of the U-17s go on to play for the U-18 team each year, so it's basically 23 players out and 23 in each summer. Most go on to NCAA programs, some to Major Junior in Canada, and in rare instances, a player won't go on to play competitive hockey again. I believe the program started in 1997.

The NTDP is one reason for the increase in American players, probably the biggest single reason. Coaching and training have vastly improved in the last 10-15 years, especially at the elite youth levels, so players are becoming more skilled and better conditioned. Hockey's expansion into non-traditional markets in the 90s has also led to the development of elite players... we're seeing youth teams becoming competitive at the National level from California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, not just the Northeast, Michigan and Minnesota anymore. And kids from those teams are going on to play junior, college, and pro.

Thanks for your input. Considering that the NTDP has been around already for over 10 years, it would seem that it doesn't fully explain the sudden rise in the number of US born players. Then again its impossible to say what exactly has caused the increase. It could be that there has been a gap in the number of retired US players and that has caused the increase, or maybe NTPD has produced a few remarkably outstanding teams in the past few years.

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues, but for now it doesn't look too bad for the US hockey. Just have to hope that the economy doesn't make a too big dent on kids playing hockey.

[joshy207 156]

Thanks for your input. Considering that the NTDP has been around already for over 10 years, it would seem that it doesn't fully explain the sudden rise in the number of US born players. Then again its impossible to say what exactly has caused the increase. It could be that there has been a gap in the number of retired US players and that has caused the increase, or maybe NTPD has produced a few remarkably outstanding teams in the past few years.

It will be interesting to see if the trend continues, but for now it doesn't look too bad for the US hockey. Just have to hope that the economy doesn't make a too big dent on kids playing hockey.

While the NTDP was started in 1997, it really took a few years for it to hit full stride. Lots of players didn't want to leave home at 16 to play for a brand new program, so they didn't get all the top players. (They still don't get all the best ones.) As the program has evolved, it has produced more and better players that have made the NHL. (And so has the rest of the American developmental system.)

You bring up a good point, there are lots more older American players now, which adds to the total. Guys like Modano, Guerin, Roenick, Weight, Tkachuk, Rafalski, Conroy, Jason Blake, Rolston, Schneider, Marchant, etc. are all playing in their mid- to late-30s. Most of them have a couple years AT LEAST left in their tanks.

The US will probably never challenge Canada for sheer numbers of NHL players. Our top 25 is on par with the rest of the elite hockey-playing countries, but we don't have the depth that Canada does. It would be interesting to compare our under-25 players to Canada and the other countries, though...

[The Mule 0]

This man speaks the truth. I have never heard of anyone paying less than $500 dollars to play hockey in Canada.

[Kwame_Kilpatrick 0]

it is really expensive it is 1000 dollars depending on where you play even for some house clubs i believe

[YoungGuns1340 1]

we have a couple good young players who still have improvement potential:

umberger (scored a beauty against us in game 4 btw)

bobby ryan (god for anaheim)

patrick kane (still has not hit potential)

parise (could he get greater?)

paul stastny - he has kind of dissapeared recently but potential is still there i believe

phil kessel - he is good player on a great team and still so young

ryan kesler - great two way player for canucks, and added offensive skills this year

tim connolly - 47 points in 48 games

tim thomas - probably is a vezina finalist

the main problem for usa is we are not having enough superstars- parise and kane and rafalski is pretty much everything. thomas is pretty good i would consider him a elite goalie but we have too many support players and not enough gods. bobby ryan is good but he hasnt even played a full season for god sake

Dustin Brown says hi.

[Kwame_Kilpatrick 0]

i dont say dustin brown because his shooting percentage is too bad. why do a guy with over 250 shots have less than 30 goal? because 8.9 shooting percenta and he plays on a crap club

[SovietWings 0]

While the NTDP was started in 1997, it really took a few years for it to hit full stride. Lots of players didn't want to leave home at 16 to play for a brand new program, so they didn't get all the top players. (They still don't get all the best ones.) As the program has evolved, it has produced more and better players that have made the NHL. (And so has the rest of the American developmental system.)

You bring up a good point, there are lots more older American players now, which adds to the total. Guys like Modano, Guerin, Roenick, Weight, Tkachuk, Rafalski, Conroy, Jason Blake, Rolston, Schneider, Marchant, etc. are all playing in their mid- to late-30s. Most of them have a couple years AT LEAST left in their tanks.

The US will probably never challenge Canada for sheer numbers of NHL players. Our top 25 is on par with the rest of the elite hockey-playing countries, but we don't have the depth that Canada does. It would be interesting to compare our under-25 players to Canada and the other countries, though...

I did some further digging around on the number US players in the league, and looks like the number has increased from 195 to 205 moving from 2007-08 to 2008-09 season. At the same time however, the number of Canadian players has increased even more from 447 to 468. I guess I wouldn't make too much out of this, since it doesn't differentiate between players who may have dressed up for only a single game and those that have played the entire season.