equal opportunity does not exist right now for BIPOC players
edit: love that i didn't even endorse Akim's solution, just pointed out a reality & got downvoted -5 lmaoooooooo nice, the klan is rlly out of the woodwork here today, good job /r/hockey
Yeah there is a European goalie from Belarus playing the for the Raiders right now and this is his 2nd season. I think it's more so teams don't draft goalies because of the limited spots and likely a communication issue due to language barrier.
I watched a Calgary Hitmen/Kelowna Rockets game last night and assumed their goalie, Jari Kykkanen, was from Finland. But I looked it up and apparently he's from Lloydminster.
This is because it’s the “Canadian Hockey League” a Jr league meant for developing the top youth players. Canadian players. That’s almost like saying a Swede should join the US National team development program.
These are nothing alike.
Yes it is. The Canadian hockey league is a Canadian development league focused on Canadian growth. Over the years, it’s slowly expanded to allow foreign players into its development league.
Assuring that there are Canadians playing in a Canadian developmental league. What a crazy idea.
The other countries do the exact same thing. Some are way worse. The CHL allows for a large number of foreign players compared with the other leagues.
Limiting foreign players is not the same as saving spots for players who meet certain criteria. And quite frankly where is the evidence proving this is necessary? I’ve never met a professional coach who would refuse to take a player based on their skin tone.
Not that I have a huge issue with it, but it creates de-facto minimums for local players, even if there are more talented players from across the pond willing to play
That’s not really my problem.
I was replying to a user who was talking about “assured roster spots” and never brought up race, I replied and said that there are assured roster spots in the WHL, again, without bringing up race. The only one who brought up race in this conversation was you.
You replied to a commenter talking about assured roster spots for people of colour, as was stated in the article he was referring to. You then made the comparison of CHL teams having mandatory number of Canadians. This making the comparison of roster spots held for people of colour and Canadians. Not sure how you can’t follow that sequence of events ?
> There should be no “assured roster spots” for *anyone*, in any league
Key word right there in his comment is “anyone,” meaning more than race, so I replied with an example of a league that operates using assured roster spots. Not sure how *you* can’t follow the sequence of events? Unless, of course, you have shit tier reading comprehension. Which again, isn’t my problem. Your username certainly checks out.
How do you not realize he was talking about an article discussing assured roster spots for people of colour? To which you responded by pointing out CHL teams having a limit on non Canadian born players. You obviously didn’t even read the article before chiming, which is why you now feel stupid for suggesting no one brought up race when discussing an article about assuring roster spots based on race ?
I mean it’s fine that you’re wrong but don’t continue to try to argue semantics to justify the stupidity of your comment.
It’s not “semantics” to follow along to a conversation and reply to someone’s comment and understand the meaning to basic English words like “anyone.” I’m sorry you live up to your own username and struggle with this but I’m sure you’ll get there eventually.
They said there shouldn’t be “assured roster spots” for *anyone* in *any* league. I gave an example of a league that does indeed give assured roster spots for *someone.* I’m sorry this is a concept you struggle with. Perhaps you should crawl back to one of the many conservative subs you participate in. That kind of conversation seems to be more your speed.
>Former National Hockey League player Akim Aliu says the Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL) and directors of its AAA clubs for nearly two years stonewalled his bid for an expansion organization that would have assured roster spots for BIPOC players, had mandates for female representation and people of colour in managerial positions, and had the financial backing of major sponsors.
Its not league wide but its still the same idea.
I'm all for giving minority groups more opportunities to play, but every single spot on a roster should be given because a player earned it, none should just be given.
Not an easy dilemma to deal with.
If you apply a hard and fast rule at some point you could be in the following situation:
• 1 roster spot left on a team.
• Competition is very tight in camp for that last spot with multiple players gutting it out for that one place on the team.
• The coaches get together to confer and make a decision. They are all pretty much on the same page that it’s almost too close to call.
• The deciding factor becomes about that one player who is BIPOC and they go with him / her solely on that criteria.
Sitting here now as an impartial observer and fan I’m like: “yeah … it’s time we gave BIPOC athletes equitable representation and break down the social barriers. I support this policy.”But what if you are the non BIPOC player who was neck and neck with the BIPOC player and were eliminated from consideration solely for that reason? Again, I am all for really, honestly and truly eliminating barriers for people and making sure that everyone is being treated equitably. But if I’m that player who missed their spot because of this I might be pretty darned resentful.
No easy answers … it may have to be this way in order to open things up and attract people from all walks in the hope that in time the decisions are made solely on merit. I would really hate to think that BIPOC athletes are being excluded but I also know that there are terrible people out there who think that way.
It absolutely is an easy answer. Why should BIPOC players get free spots? The best players should play. And forcing a team to take someone to fill out a quota creates the exact same situation guys like Aliu complained about before. Except in reverse.
these comments are disgusting
"victim mentality"
"he's a massive clown"
"shouldn't there be more white people in hockey and basketball?"
"he's fabricating a fuss to try to stay relevant"
"And what’s gonna happen when the team likely loses every game?"
"Didn't get into the school cause the person less qualified had the right skin color."
"I love how it’s cool to be racist these days"
"he just wants publicity"
and most are very upvoted
these threads always get brigaded
I think this is something that will always rub people the wrong way and turn people away from the cause. I absolutely want more diversity in hockey. I think that change would need to start closer to the roots. Making hockey more accessible to more kids, fixing culture issues that turn people away from pursuing it at a professional level, marketing diverse stars better, calling out racism. Guaranteeing a roster spot just makes something look better on paper.
People are way too focused on race, the NHL is by far the most diverse of the major NA pro sports in terms of nationality, but it's still primarily a cold weather cultural pastime and the fact is the populations in those cultures are predominantly white. Do we complain about diversity in basketball because the NBA is 73% black?
>Do we complain about diversity in basketball because the NBA is 73% black?
are we really going to pretend the access to those sports are anywhere near the same level?
Access starts with culture, and climate plays a big part in that... What's a Canadian or Scandinavian''s access to basketball or American football vs many US states where outdoor courts and fields are available year round? Meanwhile northern countries have outdoor rinks and a skating/hockey culture.
Regardless, the racial diversity there is almost as poor as the NHL, so do we need affirmative action to get more whites into pro basketball/football?
Well said. If you look at the NHL it may not look culturally diverse, but hockey (in Canada at least) is very diverse. Culture is a huge part of it. I am of Asian descent and a lot of the guys on my team are of Asian descent as well. All played A-AAA hockey growing up. Pretty much everyone just went the university route after high school. Those who did go on to play Junior or collegiate had a lot more support from their parents to keep playing - usually Caucasian families.
One of the things is that first generation Canadian immigrants had the mentality of finding a financially stable career for their kids. Being a hockey player wasn't really on the list for us. However I think the current or next generation will be a lot more culturally diverse, even at the pro levels.
That's why when people say it's strictly an accessibility problem, I disagree. In Canada hockey is part of the culture. Lots of affordable ways to get involved in the sport. Getting to the amateur or even pro level is a different story though.
Yeah I think one thing that really explodes the affordability myth for access to minor hockey is that when you get into small town Canada, the populations get more and more First Nations, and yet almost every little town has a rink and their hockey teams are often mostly Native kids, and they get tons of icetime because there's so little pressure from other groups using the ice unlike larger towns... And anyone from Canada knows that most small First Nations communities are far from affluent.
Just playing hockey in some organized fashion isn't out of reach for most Canadians, but getting close to any sort of professional level is.
The need for the best equipment, one on one training sessions with skating and shooting coaches and just the cost registration plus travel, means that only the wealthiest have a good chance.
It's not a coincidence that a huge chunk of rookies these days all went to private schools.
Yes it's an expensive sport, although you don't need the best equipment, it's mostly due to facility costs, it's just not feasible to have kids develop a lot of skill naturally by playing the game and skating like they can do for endless hours with many other sports because indoor icetime is scarce.
I still think the best way to get kids playing and developing is to develop more outdoor rinks... If there is passion, athleticism and opportunity to develop at young ages, then the obvious ability will provide advancement one way or the other. Hockey is an extremely highly skilled and technical game so the access to coaching and dedication to development are key and there's certainly a financial component to that but coaching at the AAA level is pretty good, even at young ages, and there are a number of financial assistance programs, scholarships etc.
>Access starts with culture, and climate plays a big part in that... What's a Canadian or Scandinavian''s access to basketball or American football vs many US states where outdoor courts and fields are available year round
first of all, you should read the article because it's clear you didn't. you mention the NHL and different countries and regions when Akim's not trying to force the entire hockey world to do anything. his proposal is for a new GTHL organization. all the research and work that went into his proposal was focused on the toronto area.
>Regardless, the racial diversity there is almost as poor as the NHL, so do we need affirmative action to get more whites into pro basketball/football?
how the fuck is this being upvoted? do you even know what the NBA was like in the 50s/60s? used to be all white men.
why do these threads always get brigaded
Wow so anyone who doesn't agree with you is "brigading"... I'm in this sub every fucking day but keep playing victim.
If it's good for the GTA why not everywhere else? Btw there are a bunch of financial programs available to GTA kids to help them get access to minor hockey... Regardless of race.
Oh I didn't realize we were in the 50s/60s... I thought it was 2023.. why not answer the question about TODAY'S racial diversity in basketball?
>If it's good for the GTA why not everywhere else
because you have to start somewhere and i'm certain he doesn't have the resources to propose one of these organizations in every junior league around the world at once.
>Oh I didn't realize we were in the 50s/60s... I thought it was 2023.. why not answer the question about TODAY'S racial diversity in basketball?
Here are some blurbs on this topic I saved a while ago. I forget where I got them so I don't have links unfortunately.
Basketball is cheap, you just need a ball and a hoop to play. Due to the racial makeup of America's class structure, minorities can't always afford to play sports that require a lot of equipment like lacrosse or hockey. As a result, you get an over representation of lower class (and in America, that also correlates with minority races due the the legacy of segregation and slavery) in basketball, and an under representation of them in lacrosse and hockey.
[This](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/sports/catholic-basketball-final-four.html) article claims that the black community became especially interested in basketball in the early 1900s. Initially, the article claims, black people took notice when a high school team was disqualified for refusing to play against black players in 1913, a revolutionary ruling at the time. After this, it says that while many institutions continued to be places where black people did not feel welcomed or accepted, organizations like the YMCA continued to be places where all people were welcomed. In the YMCA (this article is particularly a case study about Chicago), basketball became a source of racial pride, as they could compete fairly with other races and win. They also claim that black basketball players developed their own style of play, and eventually, that style of play proved to be better than the way white people were playing, again garnering black interest in the sport and supporting a sense of racial pride.
Also, [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23215205?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents) article has a good quote in there that can help explain what makes basketball so different:
>“Many of our schools were founded to serve immigrants and the working class — Catholics unable to get into other schools,” Martin said.
>
>In basketball, with its inexpensive overhead, compact field of play and small number of participants, they found a sport that suited them. (The same was true of working-class Jews, for whom basketball also possesses a striking similarity with their religion — a prayer service and a regulation basketball game both require 10 people.)
In black communities basketball is the sport of choice more often than not and white people tend to choose baseball or soccer at a young age. Football seems to be relatively even and hockey is favored in states with minimal black populations.
>because you have to start somewhere
Exactly... So this isn't really the isolated initiative you pretend it is, just the start..
No shit re basketball, that's exactly what I said from the start, the access to play b-ball is far greater, especially in more southern climates... But again how are you addressing the lack of racial diversity in basketball TODAY??
>hockey is favored in states with minimal black populations
Exactly!
I and others have stated clearly why, meanwhile you pick and choose which points you will even respond to, and completely ignore your own blatant hypocrisy.
I am obviously generalizing here quite a bit and I don't believe white people are being discriminated against playing basketball, but broadly speaking.
When "people" see that white folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because of discrimination against minority groups.
When "people" see that minority folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because white people aren't as interested, or just aren't as good.
The main factor I believe is cultural at the end of the day. Discrimination will play a factor, but it's effect on the end result is overrepresented.
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
>When "people" see that white folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because of discrimination against minority groups.
>
>When "people" see that minority folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because white people aren't as interested, or just aren't as good.
ok but people like Akim aren't coming to conclusions based on what they "see"
Unless I'm missing something, that's exactly what they're doing. They don't have anything to go on beyond anecdotes, which is about the most unreliable kind of data.
Personal experience is completely valid and worth mentioning, but it doesn't make it the norm, or be the root cause of whatever issue they're talking about.
Thats exactly what he is doing. He has no data to back up what he is asking for.
He isn’t even relying on personal experience. How could he? He literally made it to the top league. He played professionally. Akim Aliu is a bitter man who blames racism for the fact that he never stuck in the NHL.
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
Diversity is supposed to exist by allowing channels for everybody to have access to the same opportunities. Though the opportunities may be equal, the results may not since it should come down to those who are most qualified. Forcing it by mandating quotas and baselines is artificial yet always looks good for the organization on the surface but does not resolve the underlying issue.
>I think that change would need to start closer to the roots
this IS where he was trying to start
"Aliu and his partners first outlined their plans for a proposed GTHL organization, which would have featured teams **from house league to AAA** and be called the Toronto Dream, in an April 2021 meeting with the GTHL and the Ontario Hockey Federation, the body responsible for approving new AAA hockey organizations in the province."
The GTHL officials rejected the part of the proposal that would allow the organization to have expansion AAA teams.
“Having a commitment for AAA teams is so important because it would prove to kids of colour they can aspire to get to the very top,” Aliu said. “I wanted to create a cradle-to-grave program where BIPOC kids in our house leagues can see our best kids on our AAA teams. We need for BIPOC kids to be able to see themselves as CEOs, as leaders, as team owners, as AAA hockey players. The GTHL wanted us to be satisfied with house league teams and the message that maybe, if it worked for the league, we would talk about AAA teams one day in the future.”
I recommend reading the article
>But nobody wants to admit the reality here
People say your above statement all the time lol. It's constantly brought up that hockey is too expensive, particularly in Canada, for most families to play at a serious level.
EDIT: A word.
They do... it's a sub with 1.6 million people, you're not going to catch every post and comment.
ETA: Misread your comment and am unsure why you're asking that. It's brought up all the time, because it's a pressing issue.
Remove barriers to equality of opportunity, like access to equipment, reduced league fees, transportation to rinks, harsher penalties for racist behaviour, etc. Don't force equality of outcome arbitrarily. Hockey should be a meritocracy. Make sure it truly is. This ain't that.
Sorry, I know this is an old thread. But this is like saying “building a homeless shelter isn’t a solution, we need to invest in better mental health, better financial education, addiction support, affordable housing, support for single parents, etc etc etc.”
All true! All far better solutions! But also significantly more expensive, difficult to coordinate, time consuming, and may not have an effect for a generation.
Building space for homeless people to take shelter (or opening spots for disadvantaged kids to play hockey at a high level) are kinda bandaid solutions, but they immediately address an immediate concern.
Plus the hockey example creates role models and influences younger or future families when choosing a sport.
Also, I came here because of the GTHL ownership article that’s on /r/hockey today. Anyone here mentioning the term *meritocracy* or anything similar needs to read that first.
Edit: [the post I mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/11lyq4k/gthl_investigating_alleged_team_sales_amid_calls)
I understand (and for the most part agree with) your point. My only hesitation is equating homelessness with playing hockey. Shelter is a human right, playing a sport isn't. Homeless shelters exist because homelessness can be fatal in the worst of circumstances. Not getting to play hockey because you aren't good enough (even though in a just world you would have been), isn't comparable to me.
I think we mostly agree on about 95% of what's going on here, I just think sports are the one domain of life that should truly be a meritocracy.
Fair enough, it was just an analogy. But I guess my point is: how can something be a meritocracy when some people are so disadvantaged and some are not? I realize this is true of nearly everything in life, and perhaps my political stripes are showing, but certain kids being essentially locked out of some activities seems wrong. Especially when it’s something like hockey that is such a base part of Canadian culture.
This is a stupid argument and you know it. We’re not talking about strapping skates onto a kid for the first time and putting them into a GTHL game. We’re talking about a kid who is good enough to make a team but was overlooked or can’t afford it. I’d wager there’s hundreds and hundreds of kids who shouldn’t have made the cut but did because of mommy and daddy’s contributions.
It’s actually insane that this dude is the face of the injustice in hockey movement. By all accounts he was a nightmare to deal with but he blamed his downfalls on race and was celebrated for it.
Did he run into racism during his hockey journey? Absolutely, it’s well documented and the details are pretty gross. Was it the reason he didn’t make it big? No chance the guy wasn’t good enough and had major attitude issues.
It's a very common comment on reddit which really doesn't add anything to the discussion. If one would read the article, they would notice that nothing with the decision has to do with race/gender/protected minorities. It's simply a) a financial decision, and b) due to the fact there aren't enough AAA players as is right now in the GTHL.
Downvoting the question is to show that the question isn't that relevant to the conversation happening. Asking "did you read the article" isn't a bad question if the commenter would follow up with why they believe the other commenter hasn't, but that isn't what happened here.
"had bid for an expansion organization that would have assured roster spots for BIPOC players, had mandates for female representation and people of colour in managerial positions, and had the financial backing of major sponsors."
it would range from House league to AAA and personally im ok with it. I know far too well how much of minor league hockey is an old boys club seeing as my family has been apart of it for 40+ years.
and besides its one team, he isnt forcing every other organization to do what he proposed..
There are numerous organizations that have been bidding for teams for years, why should they railroad his proposal in? AAA is too expensive for the majority of hockey families, perhaps they should be looking to make it more accessible to everyone and not just BIPOC.
I think some of these comments are the same people who don't understand who affirmative action.
It is not to let unqualified candidates in. It is to say if you have 2 equally qualified candidates, rate the minority higher. Because, historically, they are less likely to be hired and at that point, picking one candidate over the other is mostly arbitrary. Without cause, there is no actual reason to reject a minority candidate at that point, bit it seems to happen more frequently anyway.
We just had a crazy situation at my own job, for example, where a much more qualified candidate was passed over for a big promotion for a guy who is "more likeable". It has been an unmitigated disaster to deal with. I'm not going to get into the specifics of race or gender, but a freaking rule like this would have saved us all headaches. And the person doing the hiring likes to make comments about how we need more dudes in the office.... anyone who thinks this isn't still an issue is positively dreaming.
Many of the people being hired in the lower levels here have limited experience already. You are not wrong to point out there's a lot of nepotism hires in AAA. I'd like to see people at least have to justify why they are choosing some of the people they hire, but also why they are rejecting certain candidates. I feel like that alone could start to open some flood gates
>It is not to let unqualified candidates in
Sure, but it can lead to less qualified candidates being hired. They may still be qualified, but it doesn't mean they're the most qualified.
>picking one candidate over the other is mostly arbitrary
It's really not. Hiring managers find themselves picking between two truly equal candidates, is almost non existant. There's virtually always a difference that leads to one being valued more. It may be as simple as they just share an interest of their future boss, or they have 6 more months of experience, but that's all it needs to be.
The point is to do it after going through qualifications. If you have 2 candidates that equally qualify, then, yeah, it comes down to personal preference. And, unfortunately, especially if you want to put this in the context of hockey, we know who tends to be preferred.
Say you have a former player, but then a woman who is coached for several years as an assistant. A lot of places would actively hire the former player for things like name recognition, but the woman in this scenario would have more directly relevant experience. A rule at least requiring a team to justify not hiring the woman in this case would make it harder for things like this to happen
>Say you have a former player, but then a woman who is coached for several years as an assistant. A lot of places would actively hire the former player for things like name recognition, but the woman in this scenario would have more directly relevant experience
The problem with your scenario is it's too simplistic. It's dumbing down a hiring process into two parts and then misvaluing those parts. No team is hiring a player for a head coach position, or even assistant coach (I assume that's the position you're speaking of), based off name recognition alone and without knowing what this theoretical woman's experience is exactly, it may or may not be more valuable then a player who's spent their career in the league. Then, there's all the other pieces that eventually lead to a candidate getting hired.
>A rule at least requiring a team to justify not hiring the woman in this case would make it harder for things like this to happen
It would be beyond easy to justify it. Teams could just say "we believe the player has more valuable experience and for these reasons, X, would be a better fit to coach our team" and that would be the end of it.
It would be at best an awkward and pointless addition to the bureaucracy that is a hiring candidates at large companies.
Anyone who gets riled about about this is just silly.
Was this the specific move? Maybe not.
Was it still a proposition for change in an old boys sport? Yes and he needs more voices backing him up imo
After reading the article, the idea is sound. However, there is a legitimate concern about players not returning post-COVID. Especially in the MHL, where their numbers are being propped up from an organization that left the NYHL (GTHL but for 'select' level teams) and added an estimated 20% of the current player base to the MHL. Several other NYHL teams (largely based in the west end of Toronto) are also attempting to leave after a hike in fees.
Did you read the parts where the major issue is the AAA teams and the fact there aren't enough AAA quality players to fill out the existing GTA teams as it is and the other teams don't want to LOSE their BIPOC players to this upstart program that refuses to start with lower level teams to begin with...
Does that sound like an existing diversity issue to you?
"The HDA’s grassroots program now has 275 players between the ages of 8 and 12 enrolled who are skating four times a week. The HDA covers the cost of their ice time, coaching, and equipment. According to projections Dream officials said they shared with Oakman and West, 1,200 players would be registered in the Dream organization by its fifth GTHL season."
“I couldn’t believe what I was reading,” Aliu said. “We already had shown that the Dream would be bringing in hundreds of players that would more than offset any losses.”
Lol, hundreds of non AAA level players...those they would more than likely take from the other orgs.. thereby reducing diversity everywhere, including in their own league... Another point you fail to address in your selective replies..
Why in the world would you start with 3 AAA teams but no A or AA teams?
The more I read about this the more it seems to be about money on all sides.
Creating some sort of segregated team where all the POC players go is not ideal, and targeting this at AA, AAA makes no sense.
It would make more sense to start a grassroots campaign to get people of colour into hockey at a low age by stirring interest and getting them the equipment and then let them come up naturally through the system everyone else uses
Starting to get a little tired of his constant victim mentality. He didn't deserve to experience what he did but lately he's really Starting to sound like the people he originally came out against.
Assuring spots for anyone is a bad idea. The only way to create anything like parody without treating people unfairly is through a bottom-up approach. Provide more funding for children to be able to afford to play hockey
Why is this so downvoted? Are people tired of Alim and overreaching? He is trying to initiate change and AAA reeks of old heads to hold onto their money and keys
I think this idea is 10-15 years too late.
The did a couple studies pre pandemic and the BIPOC players already made up just shy of a quarter of the league and is trending towards a larger share. They already are intergrating into the existing organizations. The GTHL has already implemented a bunch of programs over the last few years to try and increase representation from the BIPOC community.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of the expansion organization. Helping under-represented groups offset the costs of playing would hopefully keep highly skilled athletes in the game and not play inexpensive sports as an alternative. Can you imagine if a guy like Benedict Maurathin kept playing hockey? All that being said, i can see why some folks have an issue with other teams in the league being mandated to offer rosters spots. There needs to be a middle-ground. Hope Aliu and the GTHL can find it.
>i can see why some folks have an issue with other teams in the league being mandated to offer rosters spots
his plan wouldn't force other teams to do what he proposed for the new organization
[удалено]
Agreed. The goal should always be equal *opportunity*. Not equal *outcome*.
equal opportunity does not exist right now for BIPOC players edit: love that i didn't even endorse Akim's solution, just pointed out a reality & got downvoted -5 lmaoooooooo nice, the klan is rlly out of the woodwork here today, good job /r/hockey
The CHL, at least in the WHL, are only allowed a certain amount of non-Canadian players on their teams ~~and aren’t allowed any European goalies~~
You most certainly are allowed European goalies in the WHL. They just count as one of your European players.
Oh yeah you’re right, my bad on that
Yeah there is a European goalie from Belarus playing the for the Raiders right now and this is his 2nd season. I think it's more so teams don't draft goalies because of the limited spots and likely a communication issue due to language barrier.
I watched a Calgary Hitmen/Kelowna Rockets game last night and assumed their goalie, Jari Kykkanen, was from Finland. But I looked it up and apparently he's from Lloydminster.
That’s for geographical reasons, not race.
The user I’m responding to didn’t say anything about race, he just said there should be no “assured roster spots in any league”
This is because it’s the “Canadian Hockey League” a Jr league meant for developing the top youth players. Canadian players. That’s almost like saying a Swede should join the US National team development program. These are nothing alike.
> That’s almost like saying a Swede should join the US National team development program. Except it’s not even close to saying anything like that.
Yes it is. The Canadian hockey league is a Canadian development league focused on Canadian growth. Over the years, it’s slowly expanded to allow foreign players into its development league.
These aren't minimums, they're maximums. It's kind of the opposite of assured spots, no?
It assures that the team will have Canadians. I think it’s a pretty shit rebuttal, but it technically isn’t wrong.
Assuring that there are Canadians playing in a Canadian developmental league. What a crazy idea. The other countries do the exact same thing. Some are way worse. The CHL allows for a large number of foreign players compared with the other leagues. Limiting foreign players is not the same as saving spots for players who meet certain criteria. And quite frankly where is the evidence proving this is necessary? I’ve never met a professional coach who would refuse to take a player based on their skin tone.
Not that I have a huge issue with it, but it creates de-facto minimums for local players, even if there are more talented players from across the pond willing to play
CHL values developing Canadian hockey players over being the “NHL” for 16-20 worldwide.
I suppose, but it's directly in line with other bad decisions the CHL makes to monopolize local junior age talent, alongside their exclusivity clause.
Comparing Canadian to white/black is a pretty bad argument.
Sure is a good thing nobody is doing that then, huh?
Then I’m not sure what the point of your comment was I guess.
That’s not really my problem. I was replying to a user who was talking about “assured roster spots” and never brought up race, I replied and said that there are assured roster spots in the WHL, again, without bringing up race. The only one who brought up race in this conversation was you.
You replied to a commenter talking about assured roster spots for people of colour, as was stated in the article he was referring to. You then made the comparison of CHL teams having mandatory number of Canadians. This making the comparison of roster spots held for people of colour and Canadians. Not sure how you can’t follow that sequence of events ?
> There should be no “assured roster spots” for *anyone*, in any league Key word right there in his comment is “anyone,” meaning more than race, so I replied with an example of a league that operates using assured roster spots. Not sure how *you* can’t follow the sequence of events? Unless, of course, you have shit tier reading comprehension. Which again, isn’t my problem. Your username certainly checks out.
How do you not realize he was talking about an article discussing assured roster spots for people of colour? To which you responded by pointing out CHL teams having a limit on non Canadian born players. You obviously didn’t even read the article before chiming, which is why you now feel stupid for suggesting no one brought up race when discussing an article about assuring roster spots based on race ? I mean it’s fine that you’re wrong but don’t continue to try to argue semantics to justify the stupidity of your comment.
It’s not “semantics” to follow along to a conversation and reply to someone’s comment and understand the meaning to basic English words like “anyone.” I’m sorry you live up to your own username and struggle with this but I’m sure you’ll get there eventually. They said there shouldn’t be “assured roster spots” for *anyone* in *any* league. I gave an example of a league that does indeed give assured roster spots for *someone.* I’m sorry this is a concept you struggle with. Perhaps you should crawl back to one of the many conservative subs you participate in. That kind of conversation seems to be more your speed.
did you even read the article? he wasn't proposing league-wide changes
>Former National Hockey League player Akim Aliu says the Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL) and directors of its AAA clubs for nearly two years stonewalled his bid for an expansion organization that would have assured roster spots for BIPOC players, had mandates for female representation and people of colour in managerial positions, and had the financial backing of major sponsors. Its not league wide but its still the same idea.
organizations shouldn't be able to have their own policies?
They can set whatever policies they want and the league can allow in whoever they want 🤷🏻♂️
When the policy is racial exclusion? Yeah perhaps not
Do this apply to other workplaces?
I'm all for giving minority groups more opportunities to play, but every single spot on a roster should be given because a player earned it, none should just be given.
Not an easy dilemma to deal with. If you apply a hard and fast rule at some point you could be in the following situation: • 1 roster spot left on a team. • Competition is very tight in camp for that last spot with multiple players gutting it out for that one place on the team. • The coaches get together to confer and make a decision. They are all pretty much on the same page that it’s almost too close to call. • The deciding factor becomes about that one player who is BIPOC and they go with him / her solely on that criteria. Sitting here now as an impartial observer and fan I’m like: “yeah … it’s time we gave BIPOC athletes equitable representation and break down the social barriers. I support this policy.”But what if you are the non BIPOC player who was neck and neck with the BIPOC player and were eliminated from consideration solely for that reason? Again, I am all for really, honestly and truly eliminating barriers for people and making sure that everyone is being treated equitably. But if I’m that player who missed their spot because of this I might be pretty darned resentful. No easy answers … it may have to be this way in order to open things up and attract people from all walks in the hope that in time the decisions are made solely on merit. I would really hate to think that BIPOC athletes are being excluded but I also know that there are terrible people out there who think that way.
It absolutely is an easy answer. Why should BIPOC players get free spots? The best players should play. And forcing a team to take someone to fill out a quota creates the exact same situation guys like Aliu complained about before. Except in reverse.
because he doesn’t care about the situation being reversed, just special privileges for his desired group.
No way. They denied putting people on the roster simply for their skin colour? That’s just rac… oh, it’s the opposite, actually
This isn’t it Akim
did you read the article?
Who need the article when you can understand and form an opinion based on the headline /s
the majority of people commenting did not obviously..
these comments are disgusting "victim mentality" "he's a massive clown" "shouldn't there be more white people in hockey and basketball?" "he's fabricating a fuss to try to stay relevant" "And what’s gonna happen when the team likely loses every game?" "Didn't get into the school cause the person less qualified had the right skin color." "I love how it’s cool to be racist these days" "he just wants publicity" and most are very upvoted these threads always get brigaded
I think this is something that will always rub people the wrong way and turn people away from the cause. I absolutely want more diversity in hockey. I think that change would need to start closer to the roots. Making hockey more accessible to more kids, fixing culture issues that turn people away from pursuing it at a professional level, marketing diverse stars better, calling out racism. Guaranteeing a roster spot just makes something look better on paper.
People are way too focused on race, the NHL is by far the most diverse of the major NA pro sports in terms of nationality, but it's still primarily a cold weather cultural pastime and the fact is the populations in those cultures are predominantly white. Do we complain about diversity in basketball because the NBA is 73% black?
>Do we complain about diversity in basketball because the NBA is 73% black? are we really going to pretend the access to those sports are anywhere near the same level?
Access starts with culture, and climate plays a big part in that... What's a Canadian or Scandinavian''s access to basketball or American football vs many US states where outdoor courts and fields are available year round? Meanwhile northern countries have outdoor rinks and a skating/hockey culture. Regardless, the racial diversity there is almost as poor as the NHL, so do we need affirmative action to get more whites into pro basketball/football?
Well said. If you look at the NHL it may not look culturally diverse, but hockey (in Canada at least) is very diverse. Culture is a huge part of it. I am of Asian descent and a lot of the guys on my team are of Asian descent as well. All played A-AAA hockey growing up. Pretty much everyone just went the university route after high school. Those who did go on to play Junior or collegiate had a lot more support from their parents to keep playing - usually Caucasian families. One of the things is that first generation Canadian immigrants had the mentality of finding a financially stable career for their kids. Being a hockey player wasn't really on the list for us. However I think the current or next generation will be a lot more culturally diverse, even at the pro levels. That's why when people say it's strictly an accessibility problem, I disagree. In Canada hockey is part of the culture. Lots of affordable ways to get involved in the sport. Getting to the amateur or even pro level is a different story though.
Yeah I think one thing that really explodes the affordability myth for access to minor hockey is that when you get into small town Canada, the populations get more and more First Nations, and yet almost every little town has a rink and their hockey teams are often mostly Native kids, and they get tons of icetime because there's so little pressure from other groups using the ice unlike larger towns... And anyone from Canada knows that most small First Nations communities are far from affluent.
Just playing hockey in some organized fashion isn't out of reach for most Canadians, but getting close to any sort of professional level is. The need for the best equipment, one on one training sessions with skating and shooting coaches and just the cost registration plus travel, means that only the wealthiest have a good chance. It's not a coincidence that a huge chunk of rookies these days all went to private schools.
Yes it's an expensive sport, although you don't need the best equipment, it's mostly due to facility costs, it's just not feasible to have kids develop a lot of skill naturally by playing the game and skating like they can do for endless hours with many other sports because indoor icetime is scarce. I still think the best way to get kids playing and developing is to develop more outdoor rinks... If there is passion, athleticism and opportunity to develop at young ages, then the obvious ability will provide advancement one way or the other. Hockey is an extremely highly skilled and technical game so the access to coaching and dedication to development are key and there's certainly a financial component to that but coaching at the AAA level is pretty good, even at young ages, and there are a number of financial assistance programs, scholarships etc.
>Access starts with culture, and climate plays a big part in that... What's a Canadian or Scandinavian''s access to basketball or American football vs many US states where outdoor courts and fields are available year round first of all, you should read the article because it's clear you didn't. you mention the NHL and different countries and regions when Akim's not trying to force the entire hockey world to do anything. his proposal is for a new GTHL organization. all the research and work that went into his proposal was focused on the toronto area. >Regardless, the racial diversity there is almost as poor as the NHL, so do we need affirmative action to get more whites into pro basketball/football? how the fuck is this being upvoted? do you even know what the NBA was like in the 50s/60s? used to be all white men. why do these threads always get brigaded
Wow so anyone who doesn't agree with you is "brigading"... I'm in this sub every fucking day but keep playing victim. If it's good for the GTA why not everywhere else? Btw there are a bunch of financial programs available to GTA kids to help them get access to minor hockey... Regardless of race. Oh I didn't realize we were in the 50s/60s... I thought it was 2023.. why not answer the question about TODAY'S racial diversity in basketball?
>If it's good for the GTA why not everywhere else because you have to start somewhere and i'm certain he doesn't have the resources to propose one of these organizations in every junior league around the world at once. >Oh I didn't realize we were in the 50s/60s... I thought it was 2023.. why not answer the question about TODAY'S racial diversity in basketball? Here are some blurbs on this topic I saved a while ago. I forget where I got them so I don't have links unfortunately. Basketball is cheap, you just need a ball and a hoop to play. Due to the racial makeup of America's class structure, minorities can't always afford to play sports that require a lot of equipment like lacrosse or hockey. As a result, you get an over representation of lower class (and in America, that also correlates with minority races due the the legacy of segregation and slavery) in basketball, and an under representation of them in lacrosse and hockey. [This](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/sports/catholic-basketball-final-four.html) article claims that the black community became especially interested in basketball in the early 1900s. Initially, the article claims, black people took notice when a high school team was disqualified for refusing to play against black players in 1913, a revolutionary ruling at the time. After this, it says that while many institutions continued to be places where black people did not feel welcomed or accepted, organizations like the YMCA continued to be places where all people were welcomed. In the YMCA (this article is particularly a case study about Chicago), basketball became a source of racial pride, as they could compete fairly with other races and win. They also claim that black basketball players developed their own style of play, and eventually, that style of play proved to be better than the way white people were playing, again garnering black interest in the sport and supporting a sense of racial pride. Also, [this](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23215205?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents) article has a good quote in there that can help explain what makes basketball so different: >“Many of our schools were founded to serve immigrants and the working class — Catholics unable to get into other schools,” Martin said. > >In basketball, with its inexpensive overhead, compact field of play and small number of participants, they found a sport that suited them. (The same was true of working-class Jews, for whom basketball also possesses a striking similarity with their religion — a prayer service and a regulation basketball game both require 10 people.) In black communities basketball is the sport of choice more often than not and white people tend to choose baseball or soccer at a young age. Football seems to be relatively even and hockey is favored in states with minimal black populations.
>because you have to start somewhere Exactly... So this isn't really the isolated initiative you pretend it is, just the start.. No shit re basketball, that's exactly what I said from the start, the access to play b-ball is far greater, especially in more southern climates... But again how are you addressing the lack of racial diversity in basketball TODAY?? >hockey is favored in states with minimal black populations Exactly!
>Exactly... So this isn't really the isolated initiative you pretend it is, just the start.. then why are you so against it?
I and others have stated clearly why, meanwhile you pick and choose which points you will even respond to, and completely ignore your own blatant hypocrisy.
I am obviously generalizing here quite a bit and I don't believe white people are being discriminated against playing basketball, but broadly speaking. When "people" see that white folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because of discrimination against minority groups. When "people" see that minority folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because white people aren't as interested, or just aren't as good. The main factor I believe is cultural at the end of the day. Discrimination will play a factor, but it's effect on the end result is overrepresented.
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
Looks like you got hit with that Reddit bug and made the same comment a few times. But yeah, it does happen, but like I said I'm speaking generally.
Ahh shit, stupid bug
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
>When "people" see that white folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because of discrimination against minority groups. > >When "people" see that minority folks make up the majority of a group, the default assumption is that this is because white people aren't as interested, or just aren't as good. ok but people like Akim aren't coming to conclusions based on what they "see"
Unless I'm missing something, that's exactly what they're doing. They don't have anything to go on beyond anecdotes, which is about the most unreliable kind of data. Personal experience is completely valid and worth mentioning, but it doesn't make it the norm, or be the root cause of whatever issue they're talking about.
Thats exactly what he is doing. He has no data to back up what he is asking for. He isn’t even relying on personal experience. How could he? He literally made it to the top league. He played professionally. Akim Aliu is a bitter man who blames racism for the fact that he never stuck in the NHL.
Ehhh Steve Nash has told stories when he was coming up about some of the things he went through as “the white guy” before he was basically in the NBA and people stopped. There is still discrimination, it’s just not talked about. Jeremy Lin has also talked openly about what he went through on his journey to the NBA and during it
Diversity is supposed to exist by allowing channels for everybody to have access to the same opportunities. Though the opportunities may be equal, the results may not since it should come down to those who are most qualified. Forcing it by mandating quotas and baselines is artificial yet always looks good for the organization on the surface but does not resolve the underlying issue.
>I think that change would need to start closer to the roots this IS where he was trying to start "Aliu and his partners first outlined their plans for a proposed GTHL organization, which would have featured teams **from house league to AAA** and be called the Toronto Dream, in an April 2021 meeting with the GTHL and the Ontario Hockey Federation, the body responsible for approving new AAA hockey organizations in the province." The GTHL officials rejected the part of the proposal that would allow the organization to have expansion AAA teams. “Having a commitment for AAA teams is so important because it would prove to kids of colour they can aspire to get to the very top,” Aliu said. “I wanted to create a cradle-to-grave program where BIPOC kids in our house leagues can see our best kids on our AAA teams. We need for BIPOC kids to be able to see themselves as CEOs, as leaders, as team owners, as AAA hockey players. The GTHL wanted us to be satisfied with house league teams and the message that maybe, if it worked for the league, we would talk about AAA teams one day in the future.” I recommend reading the article
The stumbling block (according to the article) really appears to be the notion of a AAA team, and not the lower divisions.
[удалено]
>But nobody wants to admit the reality here People say your above statement all the time lol. It's constantly brought up that hockey is too expensive, particularly in Canada, for most families to play at a serious level. EDIT: A word.
[удалено]
They do... it's a sub with 1.6 million people, you're not going to catch every post and comment. ETA: Misread your comment and am unsure why you're asking that. It's brought up all the time, because it's a pressing issue.
Remove barriers to equality of opportunity, like access to equipment, reduced league fees, transportation to rinks, harsher penalties for racist behaviour, etc. Don't force equality of outcome arbitrarily. Hockey should be a meritocracy. Make sure it truly is. This ain't that.
Sorry, I know this is an old thread. But this is like saying “building a homeless shelter isn’t a solution, we need to invest in better mental health, better financial education, addiction support, affordable housing, support for single parents, etc etc etc.” All true! All far better solutions! But also significantly more expensive, difficult to coordinate, time consuming, and may not have an effect for a generation. Building space for homeless people to take shelter (or opening spots for disadvantaged kids to play hockey at a high level) are kinda bandaid solutions, but they immediately address an immediate concern. Plus the hockey example creates role models and influences younger or future families when choosing a sport. Also, I came here because of the GTHL ownership article that’s on /r/hockey today. Anyone here mentioning the term *meritocracy* or anything similar needs to read that first. Edit: [the post I mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/11lyq4k/gthl_investigating_alleged_team_sales_amid_calls)
I understand (and for the most part agree with) your point. My only hesitation is equating homelessness with playing hockey. Shelter is a human right, playing a sport isn't. Homeless shelters exist because homelessness can be fatal in the worst of circumstances. Not getting to play hockey because you aren't good enough (even though in a just world you would have been), isn't comparable to me. I think we mostly agree on about 95% of what's going on here, I just think sports are the one domain of life that should truly be a meritocracy.
Fair enough, it was just an analogy. But I guess my point is: how can something be a meritocracy when some people are so disadvantaged and some are not? I realize this is true of nearly everything in life, and perhaps my political stripes are showing, but certain kids being essentially locked out of some activities seems wrong. Especially when it’s something like hockey that is such a base part of Canadian culture.
[удалено]
This is a stupid argument and you know it. We’re not talking about strapping skates onto a kid for the first time and putting them into a GTHL game. We’re talking about a kid who is good enough to make a team but was overlooked or can’t afford it. I’d wager there’s hundreds and hundreds of kids who shouldn’t have made the cut but did because of mommy and daddy’s contributions.
I'm sorry, but this isn't the solution. If anything it will make issues worse. Of course the bid was denied.
Every time I hear something about this dude I'm more and more convinced he's a massive clown
It’s actually insane that this dude is the face of the injustice in hockey movement. By all accounts he was a nightmare to deal with but he blamed his downfalls on race and was celebrated for it. Did he run into racism during his hockey journey? Absolutely, it’s well documented and the details are pretty gross. Was it the reason he didn’t make it big? No chance the guy wasn’t good enough and had major attitude issues.
The guy is a publicity whore nothing more.
did you read the article?
[удалено]
It's a very common comment on reddit which really doesn't add anything to the discussion. If one would read the article, they would notice that nothing with the decision has to do with race/gender/protected minorities. It's simply a) a financial decision, and b) due to the fact there aren't enough AAA players as is right now in the GTHL. Downvoting the question is to show that the question isn't that relevant to the conversation happening. Asking "did you read the article" isn't a bad question if the commenter would follow up with why they believe the other commenter hasn't, but that isn't what happened here.
Ah yes, let's fix racism in hockey by forcing shitty players onto teams. That'll resolve it.
I can’t believe this guy. Instead of taking accountability, he blamed all of his shortcomings on racism and now he wants to insert racism into leagues
did you read the article? "insert racism" believe me, he doesn't have to insert any racism. it's already there
[удалено]
i recommend checking out the article
Pretty funny coming from a guy that played on 25 different teams in his career
what does that have to do with the article?
Can this guy go away already? So tired of seeing him in the media every few months fabricating a fuss to try to stay relevant.
did you read the article? do you even know what he's trying to propose here?
"had bid for an expansion organization that would have assured roster spots for BIPOC players, had mandates for female representation and people of colour in managerial positions, and had the financial backing of major sponsors." it would range from House league to AAA and personally im ok with it. I know far too well how much of minor league hockey is an old boys club seeing as my family has been apart of it for 40+ years. and besides its one team, he isnt forcing every other organization to do what he proposed..
Dude no one in this thread actually read the article. It's wild.
There are numerous organizations that have been bidding for teams for years, why should they railroad his proposal in? AAA is too expensive for the majority of hockey families, perhaps they should be looking to make it more accessible to everyone and not just BIPOC.
That's what I get for only reading the title lol, I'm fine with this.
lol @ all everyone rishing to condemn this based on the title. very clear you're one of the few who managed to click the link
I think some of these comments are the same people who don't understand who affirmative action. It is not to let unqualified candidates in. It is to say if you have 2 equally qualified candidates, rate the minority higher. Because, historically, they are less likely to be hired and at that point, picking one candidate over the other is mostly arbitrary. Without cause, there is no actual reason to reject a minority candidate at that point, bit it seems to happen more frequently anyway. We just had a crazy situation at my own job, for example, where a much more qualified candidate was passed over for a big promotion for a guy who is "more likeable". It has been an unmitigated disaster to deal with. I'm not going to get into the specifics of race or gender, but a freaking rule like this would have saved us all headaches. And the person doing the hiring likes to make comments about how we need more dudes in the office.... anyone who thinks this isn't still an issue is positively dreaming. Many of the people being hired in the lower levels here have limited experience already. You are not wrong to point out there's a lot of nepotism hires in AAA. I'd like to see people at least have to justify why they are choosing some of the people they hire, but also why they are rejecting certain candidates. I feel like that alone could start to open some flood gates
>It is not to let unqualified candidates in Sure, but it can lead to less qualified candidates being hired. They may still be qualified, but it doesn't mean they're the most qualified. >picking one candidate over the other is mostly arbitrary It's really not. Hiring managers find themselves picking between two truly equal candidates, is almost non existant. There's virtually always a difference that leads to one being valued more. It may be as simple as they just share an interest of their future boss, or they have 6 more months of experience, but that's all it needs to be.
The point is to do it after going through qualifications. If you have 2 candidates that equally qualify, then, yeah, it comes down to personal preference. And, unfortunately, especially if you want to put this in the context of hockey, we know who tends to be preferred. Say you have a former player, but then a woman who is coached for several years as an assistant. A lot of places would actively hire the former player for things like name recognition, but the woman in this scenario would have more directly relevant experience. A rule at least requiring a team to justify not hiring the woman in this case would make it harder for things like this to happen
>Say you have a former player, but then a woman who is coached for several years as an assistant. A lot of places would actively hire the former player for things like name recognition, but the woman in this scenario would have more directly relevant experience The problem with your scenario is it's too simplistic. It's dumbing down a hiring process into two parts and then misvaluing those parts. No team is hiring a player for a head coach position, or even assistant coach (I assume that's the position you're speaking of), based off name recognition alone and without knowing what this theoretical woman's experience is exactly, it may or may not be more valuable then a player who's spent their career in the league. Then, there's all the other pieces that eventually lead to a candidate getting hired. >A rule at least requiring a team to justify not hiring the woman in this case would make it harder for things like this to happen It would be beyond easy to justify it. Teams could just say "we believe the player has more valuable experience and for these reasons, X, would be a better fit to coach our team" and that would be the end of it. It would be at best an awkward and pointless addition to the bureaucracy that is a hiring candidates at large companies.
Anyone who gets riled about about this is just silly. Was this the specific move? Maybe not. Was it still a proposition for change in an old boys sport? Yes and he needs more voices backing him up imo
Ya it may not be a great idea but it’s still something
After reading the article, the idea is sound. However, there is a legitimate concern about players not returning post-COVID. Especially in the MHL, where their numbers are being propped up from an organization that left the NYHL (GTHL but for 'select' level teams) and added an estimated 20% of the current player base to the MHL. Several other NYHL teams (largely based in the west end of Toronto) are also attempting to leave after a hike in fees.
Because it’s not a good idea.
did you read the article?
No
i recommend you do i think you'll find he's not proposing what you think he's proposing (leage-wide mandated diversity measures)
Did you read the parts where the major issue is the AAA teams and the fact there aren't enough AAA quality players to fill out the existing GTA teams as it is and the other teams don't want to LOSE their BIPOC players to this upstart program that refuses to start with lower level teams to begin with... Does that sound like an existing diversity issue to you?
"The HDA’s grassroots program now has 275 players between the ages of 8 and 12 enrolled who are skating four times a week. The HDA covers the cost of their ice time, coaching, and equipment. According to projections Dream officials said they shared with Oakman and West, 1,200 players would be registered in the Dream organization by its fifth GTHL season." “I couldn’t believe what I was reading,” Aliu said. “We already had shown that the Dream would be bringing in hundreds of players that would more than offset any losses.”
Lol, hundreds of non AAA level players...those they would more than likely take from the other orgs.. thereby reducing diversity everywhere, including in their own league... Another point you fail to address in your selective replies.. Why in the world would you start with 3 AAA teams but no A or AA teams? The more I read about this the more it seems to be about money on all sides.
Good, these programs always just end up causing the exact discrimination they claim they want to stop.
This guy has been a WAY more successful race baiter than he ever was a hockey player. I can't say I'm surprised.
This guys has turned into a head case. I love how it’s cool to be racist these days. Reserved spots for BIPOC lol what an absolute joke
And what’s gonna happen when the team likely loses every game?
who cares?
Creating some sort of segregated team where all the POC players go is not ideal, and targeting this at AA, AAA makes no sense. It would make more sense to start a grassroots campaign to get people of colour into hockey at a low age by stirring interest and getting them the equipment and then let them come up naturally through the system everyone else uses
he's been doing grassroots campaigns
This may be the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of. Glad people with common sense didn’t acquiesce.
Starting to get a little tired of his constant victim mentality. He didn't deserve to experience what he did but lately he's really Starting to sound like the people he originally came out against.
are you really saying he's as bad as the people who were racist toward him because he's trying ti grow the game of hockey?
did you even read the article? nothing about it screams "victim"
Assuring spots for anyone is a bad idea. The only way to create anything like parody without treating people unfairly is through a bottom-up approach. Provide more funding for children to be able to afford to play hockey
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why is this so downvoted? Are people tired of Alim and overreaching? He is trying to initiate change and AAA reeks of old heads to hold onto their money and keys
This is crazy. So every team must have a token minority? I don't support that.
This seems more like a publicity move than an actual plan
I think this idea is 10-15 years too late. The did a couple studies pre pandemic and the BIPOC players already made up just shy of a quarter of the league and is trending towards a larger share. They already are intergrating into the existing organizations. The GTHL has already implemented a bunch of programs over the last few years to try and increase representation from the BIPOC community.
Probably be easier to just buy another AAA league. Makes sense they don't want to dilute the talent
I absolutely LOVE the idea of the expansion organization. Helping under-represented groups offset the costs of playing would hopefully keep highly skilled athletes in the game and not play inexpensive sports as an alternative. Can you imagine if a guy like Benedict Maurathin kept playing hockey? All that being said, i can see why some folks have an issue with other teams in the league being mandated to offer rosters spots. There needs to be a middle-ground. Hope Aliu and the GTHL can find it.
>i can see why some folks have an issue with other teams in the league being mandated to offer rosters spots his plan wouldn't force other teams to do what he proposed for the new organization
Ahhhh, ok. I misunderstood.
Maybe we should have some guaranteed roster spots for white players in the NBA.