Dosent the same thing happen in D1 High School and Prep?

Yes but if your kid is a bottom six forward on HS or prep then you wouldn't be asking about the USHL.

Have you ever even SEEN a USHL game? No? Then got to the website and look at the stats before you talk out of your ass.

The league average for 2016/17 was 3.8 PPOP per game. Now, some of those will be shorter, if a second penalty is committed, meaning the original PP will be less than 2:00 and then providing a short one the other way. Some could be majors. But, for argument's sake, let;s just call each PPOP 2 minutes. That's 7.6 minutes of special teams per game. Ignoring OT, that's 12.6%. Double that, since it's per team, and you get 25.2%. Put anohter way, and 75% of the games are played at even strength.

1/3 to 1/2? "JUUUST a bit outside."

1/3 is not far off with majors but point stands, if your kid is not playing special teams, it's seems like an eternity, especially when the line rotations might start over from the top. But hey, if that's good development for your kid, go for it.

You REALLY need to learn the game before offering your opinion on how Junior hockey works.

Fighting majors rarely result in a PP. And, since you've never been to a USHL game, you won't know that fighting is way down, anyway.

You think there are that many egregiously bad high sticks and checks on the numbers at that level that non-fighting majors will dent that statistic at all?

So, 10 skaters are sharing 7.5 minutes of PP time, 8 of those are sharing an additional 7.5 minutes of PK time, 15 skaters are sharing the other 45 minutes reasonably equally, and the 4th line (usually 17/18 year olds) is getting 7 minutes a game, each. That means that 15 of the 18 are getting a lot of ice, and the other three will get their turn.

If my kid gets a chance to go, he's going. I'll take my chances on his being top 4 D.

Well hurray for you.

Your kid, Top 4 D????? Cmon Man.

Whether its 25% or 33% or 50%, we all know special teams is a big part of the game and if your kids not out there, it also means he's not out there in the last 5 minutes of the third period so it's a bad spot to be in.

So if your kid is not a top 6 or top 4 then its not worth the experience? Your out of your mind!

I think his point is wait until he is ready to compete for time. At 15 or 16 your kid is better off playing Tier 1 or Prep school until ready. If he is older and not playing, than maybe he overshot a little. BCHL, NAHL, NCDC might be a better fit. Does not mean he is not good enough or will not be good enough.

USHL is the gold standard but there are far more future d1 players than there are roster spots in the USHL.

My kid was invited to an NHL development camp this summer, but I think I'm going to skip it since I don't know that he will be on the PP or PK his first year with the team.

Playing in a three day long ( for free) with an NHL team as a high school or college player, is a lot different than sending your underage kid out to the midwest to sit on the bench during his prime development years.

The kid going to the NHL camp has already chosen his path; College or Jr A's. Nothing to lose, Everything to gain. Has a poor showing, so what. Next season his play will dictate what NHL Dev Camp invites he gets.

One is an " either or" the other is an "add on"

Not sure why I bother with these false narratives you moron's create during your union 15. Get back to sleep slappy.

Easy to be a dink on the dboard but most who have gone through it get it. To each is how and pick your own path but they all have pitfalls. Lots of kids go to USHL too soon and never develop. Now had they waited would they have been better off? Who knows, maybe they just reached their peak and would have faded away no matter what path.

Same goes at other levels. Some kids leave college early and never pan out. Some are told to leave, but stay in and make it to the NHL.

Everyone peaks, just at different times. Don't have numbers but there seems to be more NCAA/Undrafted players now in the NHL than ever. It just highlights the issue of rushing kids when they are still growing and not giving them a chance to pan out.

Bottom line is there are no do-overs.

As luck would have it, I actually saw those stats, courtesy of the NHL< and posted on Twitter @collegehockey. 314 NCAA alumni in the NHL, 32% of players, the most ever. 85 were undrafted. Now, I believe that includes players that played one game as a call-up.

Would you include 20 year olds that have left college early, like JFK and CW, in your "issue of rushing kids when they are still growing and not giving them a chance to pan out?"

Yes highlighting exceptions and applying their path it to any kid is a great way to prove your point. Bravo Beavis.

If a kid is good enough then the next step becomes more obvious. That happens for very few.

Really numbnuts? You know JFK and CW are "NHL ready?" Based on what? Their coaches and GMs don't know that, but you do?

My point was that rushing kids at any level can have a negative impact on their chances of success. I chose those two as examples, not exceptions. It's a risk, one that makes sense for some, not for others.

Was there anyone out there saying these guys were anything but automatic for the NHL? Why else would they have left school skippy? Playing college, world juniors is a heck of a lot closer in level and a much more reliable predictor than new england hs or prep to the ushl. If they weren't close, they would have been told to stay.

I'm sure all the scouts following your kid are telling you he is ready for the USHL so you go for it.

Already said it, I'll say it again. Their coaches and GMs both have said they aren't sure they are ready. But, now that KH and JV have blown the lid off of the NCAA-to-the-team-that-drafted-you-four-years-ago game, the ice has tilted.

If you watched them play, and I did, they both would benefit from some time in the A. The concern is you get buried there for a few years, then all of a sudden you're 24 and a 4A player. So their agents negotiated NHL time into their deals. Whether they're ready or not.

Yeah ok your right. It really is the same as predicting a HS kids ability in the USHL.

Man, you're dense. The parallel is, isn't it decreasing the probability of success to rush a kid at any level, in any sport?

You can go backwards too, and look at kids like JE or CW that were playing U16 at a very high level at 13, or NH, who was playing top Prep against 20 year olds as a true 8th grader. It ended up fine, but that's because we know they made it. What about the cases where it didn't end up fine?

It's a risk, a calculated risk, and one that has to be considered for each kid independently, whether at the youth, HS or Pro level.

Did I make the point clearly enough for you now?

Wow I bet your nickname as a kid was wingnut and you could never understand why.

Pretty sure none of those guys went into the next level based upon an email invitation their dip**** dad got but you go for it. I'm sure the email you got was meant differently than the 100's of others sent out.

Lighten up, Francis. It's a beautiful Friday in May.

And the OP didn't ask if he should send his kid for the season. He asked if he should attend a camp. It's a long way between attending a camp and actually sending your kid to Omaha. Which is why the parallels you are drawing are not apt.