Major Junior vs. College
- Thread starter tisting9
- Start date
LeClair, Drury, St. Louis, Weight, Tkachuk, Guerin, Gionta, Cole, the Suter's, Chelios. The list goes on. Some kids develop better on on league or the other. Just depends on the kid.
Would you call Chris Chelios good? He spent some time at Wisconsin you know.
Very few players who are drafted after the first round make the NHL, and even first rounders are not always successful. Most of the players don't last long enough or earn enough to keep them the rest of their lives.
Just like the rest of us, some college is better than no college, and a degree is the best.
Player development is physical maturity and learning the game. That can be achieved either way.
Very few players who are drafted after the first round make the NHL, and even first rounders are not always successful. Most of the players don't last long enough or earn enough to keep them the rest of their lives.
Just like the rest of us, some college is better than no college, and a degree is the best.
Player development is physical maturity and learning the game. That can be achieved either way.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
More and more top prospects are chosing college now. Guys like Turris going there will only help the college program.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,647
- 29,852
it depends i think, the top top cream of the crop seem to be in MJ, but the NCAA is better at producing all around good players
AVSfan2daMAX
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2006
- 4,742
- 5,312
Major Junior is the route fequented more often. Personally I think it's a better route. But again that depends on the person. Every player has different aspirations in life and each family has different needs/wants.
Certainly there's some advantages to both and some cons to both too.
I think both routes are good, just depends for who..
Certainly there's some advantages to both and some cons to both too.
I think both routes are good, just depends for who..
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
I'd send my kid the NCAA route. But really, I think they both work, some better for one kid than the other, but many of the kids who will ultimately pan out would do so regardless of which route they took.
This is just me, but I see the NCAA being a better source of immediate-impact players going forward. I primarily follow the OHL, with just a scattering of viewings of other junior leagues on TV, and a scattering of college games on TV, mostly CCHA games this year. But I have to say, the pace, coaching/systems, the level of play in the NCAA games is light years ahead of the OHL this year. Hence, if this trend carries forward, I think more and more OHL players will have to spend longer apprenticeships in the AHL to round out their games and adapt to the higher speed than players coming from the top NCAA programs will.
This is just me, but I see the NCAA being a better source of immediate-impact players going forward. I primarily follow the OHL, with just a scattering of viewings of other junior leagues on TV, and a scattering of college games on TV, mostly CCHA games this year. But I have to say, the pace, coaching/systems, the level of play in the NCAA games is light years ahead of the OHL this year. Hence, if this trend carries forward, I think more and more OHL players will have to spend longer apprenticeships in the AHL to round out their games and adapt to the higher speed than players coming from the top NCAA programs will.
The CHL is probably the best route if a kid has reasonable chance of becoming a professional player.Most parents these days don't mind their kids playing with CHL teams because the CHL teams have guaranteed and rich educational programmes for those who decide at the end of their junior careers to go to University or earn a real life trade. The WHL in particular has a very demanding schedule and kids on the whole have to be pretty well disciplined both academically and athletically.
The NCAA is fine for kids who might be late bloomers who turned into great players at 18 or a little older.18 might seem old to the rest of the world but with CHL teams there just aren't many 18 or 19 year old rookies.
If a kid is really good enough to migrate to the NHL most likely the scouts will find him regardless of where he plays. It is mostly an age issue with younger CHL prospects getting fast tracked to the pro ranks first.
The NCAA is fine for kids who might be late bloomers who turned into great players at 18 or a little older.18 might seem old to the rest of the world but with CHL teams there just aren't many 18 or 19 year old rookies.
If a kid is really good enough to migrate to the NHL most likely the scouts will find him regardless of where he plays. It is mostly an age issue with younger CHL prospects getting fast tracked to the pro ranks first.
I think that the NCAA is the way to go unless you are a superstar. You are able to play really good hockey at the same time as getting a world class education. If you go to the CHL, you will lose your education package if you decide to go pro. This means that a player can't try out the pro ranks for a few years if he wants to take advantage of his education package.
there was an artical from hfboards saying how alot of american players are chosing the CHL route because its better developement for hockey. School is great too, if u dont plan on playing pro hockey. Need a degree in law or business? not planning on playing pro hockey? Take NCAA route. A. J Thelin is a great example of a player bailing out of the NCAA for a better developement leauge.
Hockeyismylife you missed something in your statement. CHL teams offer every one of their players on year of scholarship funding guaranteed for every one year played at the CHL level. That is guaranteed, the NCAA does not guarantee every kid the same thing. World class education? North Dakota might be an ok school, but kids going there are going there to play hockey on a scholarship first. Canadian Universities are every bit as good as anything most of the USA can produce.The CHL scholarship program works in favour of ALL the kids who choose to play CHL. A CHL grad doesn't even have to play University level hockey at all and still gets a scholarship after he has finished his CHL career.
Last edited:
A.J. Thelen was kicked off of Michigan State's team. Not exactly a great example.
I'd say the NCAA offers a higher level of play (certainly the upper echelon schools do), but the CHL game is more NHL-style oriented. In addition they play more games in the CHL.
It really comes down to each individual's preference and circumstance.
It really comes down to each individual's preference and circumstance.
Oilers Chick
Registered User
A question that I've asked over and over and over again and have NEVER/U] gotten a straight answer on is this. If the CHL scholarship fund is so great and guaranteed then why aren't more of players, namely the elite ones not taking advantage of it....ever?!
If you want world class education, you'd be hard pressed to find schools as academically prestigious as Harvard (or any of the Ivies for that matter) and even non-Ivy schools such as Michigan and Notre Dame.
Also, if you're talking scholarships as far as NCAA goes, then you need to do some homework too. The Ivies and US Military Academies do not offer athletic scholarships, they aren't allow to. The schools who do offer athletic scholarships have a cap of 18 per year under NCAA rules. Although some schools offer fewer scholarships, while others, such as Union College do not offer any because they choose not to do so.
One of the biggest misconceptions about NCAA athletic scholarships (as far as Men's Ice Hockey is concerned) is that every player who gets a scholarship, gets one that is a full ride. The truth of the matter is, very few players (even the elite ones) get full-ride scholarships. Full rides FYI are scholarships that pay for pretty much everything. Most players get partial scholarships, such as those that pay for room and board only.
Finally, I hope that we can keep this thread's discussion civil. I don't want this one to degenerate into endless hate-filled tirades like all of the previous ones have. Let's try and get along, even if you have a preference of one over the other.
Oilers Chick
Registered User
Well aside from ones already listed, here's some more former NCAA players (both graduates and non-graduates, and drafted players and non-drafted players) currently playing in the NHL:
Ryan Miller, Shawn Horcoff, Joe Pavelski, Marty Turco, Phil Kessel, Thomas Vanek, Zach Parise, Rick DiPietro, Rob Blake, Rod Brind'Amour, Dustin Penner, Chris Kunitz, Lee Stempniak, Tom Preissing, Bret Hedican, Brendan Morrison, Ryan Kesler, Mike Komissarek, Dwayne Roloson, Ed Belfour, Kevyn Adams, Mike Grier, Mike Knuble, Jim Slater, Fernando Pisani, Chris Higgins, Brian Rolston, Paul Stastny, Patrick Eaves, Tony Amonte, Craig Conroy, Matt Greene, Kevin Bieksa, Jeff Halpern, Andy MacDonald, Keith Carney
shall I go on?
montreal
Go Habs Go
It's impossible to say who offers a higher level of play imo. The problem is that your talking about different age groups. The CHL is made up mostly of 16-20 year olds since you can only have 3 overagers per team. The NCAA will range from 18-24+ but it seems as though less kids are jumping in right from high school, so more freshmen seem to be 19 then 18. The thing with the NCAA is that your getting slightly older players on average but the difference in age is key as in the CHL your older player are facing 16-17 year olds who aren't phsically mature yet, vs the NCAA who's older players are usually around 21-24ish playing against 18-20 year olds.
The question should be phrased:
Major junior + ECHL/AHL
or
NCAA
because kids out of major junior almost always need a longer apprentiseship in the minors before they can think about making the NHL. I talk to a lot of players turning pro, and the guys out of major junior have a tougher adjustment physically and mentally -- mostly because they are younger.
Major junior + ECHL/AHL
or
NCAA
because kids out of major junior almost always need a longer apprentiseship in the minors before they can think about making the NHL. I talk to a lot of players turning pro, and the guys out of major junior have a tougher adjustment physically and mentally -- mostly because they are younger.
Alpine
Registered User
I believe the reason elite players don't take advantage is because of the same reason elite NCAA players leave college at 19 or 20 years of age. Because they have the ability to sign NHL contracts. If a player decides to keep taking courses whilst they play pro that is their option. CHL players take courses whist playing too.
But most kids who play either CHL or NCAA will take the NHL contract and make more in one year than most 19's or 20's will in 10 years of working.
Upon signing an NHL contract players choose not to accept the bursary given by the CHL the same way an NCAA player loses their full-ride scholarship.
The elite player in either will go as far as his ability will take him and after a few years can pay for their education many times over.
CHL bursaries are in place because with 59 teams obviously all players will not play pro and need a fall back. In fact many CIS players were drafted by the NHL (from CHL) in late rounds and bursaries sometimes afford players the chance to play minor pro for one year (individual negotiated, bursaries) and then claim their bursary if they choose. CIS has quite a few players who tried ECHL for a year and ECHL has players that got their degree at a CIS school before giving the minors a shot.
The CHL bursary programme doesn't have to be used at a University. Community College or any type of education the former player chooses that fits his needs and wants. We need plumbers, firemen and computer programmers too.
Giving hockey a shot to see if you're good enough, and if not being able to go pre-paid to "world-class" schools like McGill, Dalhousie, U of T or UBC, etc. isn't a bad option.
What's best is up the individual, but either route is no better or no worse than the other. Both allow the elite player to turn pro at 19 or 20 and both provide something for those over 20 to continue their education.
What's best to me are the teams I can put down my cash to go see, be it Q, MJAHL or AUS. What's best to you will most likely be NCAA.
So to sum up, I'll repeat the reason elite CHL players don't use their bursaries is because they turn pro. The same reason elite NCAA players leave school.
Didn't we go through all this last season
Last edited:
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
The elite ones make their living playing pro hockey. As for non-elite ones... well the CIS teams are formed with many players who graduated from the CHL ranks. The better teams have a majority of their players taking advantage of those scholarships. Weaker teams have to draw more from second tier leagues, however.
Anyway, I imagine you know more hockey players than most of us do. But in my experience, a university education was probably not an option to begin with for the better part of the kids who I see in junior. What percentage of the general population goes to university these days in Canada? I actually have no idea. If I was tossing out a number as a random guess, maybe 25%? Certainly not 50%. And while there are arguments to be made on either side of whether hockey players tend to come from more affluent families (statistically correlated in general to being more likely to have kids going on to university) vs. the drain on their educations from playing high level hockey through their formative years... at best I think that all comes out in the wash, and CHLers are no more likely to be university candidates than the general population. So if my wild-ass guess that only 25% of them are university candidates to begin with, and if you shave the elite off the top who are off on the pro track, well, that doesn't leave huge numbers remaining.
I guess I don't know what you're getting at with the question, maybe... "if the scholarships are so great and guaranteed"... what, are you questioning that they're great or guaranteed?
Their existence is factual. Reasons as to why players are or are not using them is really the only area up for discussion.I still think the NCAA is the better route, mind you. But that's just me. If my son said he wanted to play in the CHL, and look dad -- they'll pay for my degree too, well, I couldn't really argue against it. It's there.
But an NCAA player has already completed 2-3 years of college courses when they give up their remaining years of eligibility, whereas the CHL player hasn't completed anything. The statistics show a person that completes 2 or 3 years of college is way more likely to come back and complete a degree than a person that doesn't even start college, or just takes one year of classes.
EatSleepJeep
Registered User
Look at the 2006 draft top 10:
1: Erik Johnson UofMN
2: Jordan Staal OHL
3: Jonathon Toews UND
4: Nicklas Backstrom Swedish Elite
5: Phil Kessel UofMN
6: Derick Brassard QMJHL
7: Kyle Okposo: UofMN
8: Peter Mueller WHL
9: James Shepard QMJHL
10: Michael Frolik Czech
Of the 8 North American players selected in the top 10, four were or are in the NCAA pipeline. One of those NCAA players is currently in the NHL. They may not spend all four years in College, but the degree is there if they want it. To be eligible to play, they have to do coursework and pass. I think it makes for a better rounded individual. The days of the Canadian Majors being a dominant NHL feeder aren't over, but the value of the NCAA player is obvious.
As a side note, take note of the U of M Gopher dominance...
1: Erik Johnson UofMN
2: Jordan Staal OHL
3: Jonathon Toews UND
4: Nicklas Backstrom Swedish Elite
5: Phil Kessel UofMN
6: Derick Brassard QMJHL
7: Kyle Okposo: UofMN
8: Peter Mueller WHL
9: James Shepard QMJHL
10: Michael Frolik Czech
Of the 8 North American players selected in the top 10, four were or are in the NCAA pipeline. One of those NCAA players is currently in the NHL. They may not spend all four years in College, but the degree is there if they want it. To be eligible to play, they have to do coursework and pass. I think it makes for a better rounded individual. The days of the Canadian Majors being a dominant NHL feeder aren't over, but the value of the NCAA player is obvious.
As a side note, take note of the U of M Gopher dominance...
Regarding development...a couple thoughts...
The big difference between MJ and the NCAA is that they focus on different ages. MJ has kids from the ages of 15 through 20...while the NCAA has kids from pretty much 18 to 23. So when some kids in the states are playing in the USHL or the US NTDP...in Canada they could play in the CHL or MJ hockey. That period of time for kids who are say 16ish (Gagners age) is very good in MJ because they can get mentored by 19-20 yos. But if a kid goes NCAA at 18 (or accellerates and goes NCAA when they're 17 similar to Kane)...then they have an advantage in the NCAAs as they're playing with and against much more mature kids than in the CHL.
So it looks like the emerging understanding is that the best USHL team would be in the bottom half of the CHL (although the USHL's rep is quickly improving). The CHL aligns with a very desirable age...because it lines up well with the draft. The CHL does well in the draft for a variety of reasons including the fact that its based in Canada. Even so, the NCAA has rich and poor teams. The rich teams in the WCHA are filled by far more draft picks than CHL teams. And lastly overall the NCAA has arguably the best level of play. There are a couple of pieces of logic to show this.
First, the NCAA's 9 out of top 10 scorers last year were upperclassmen which signifies that the older age only found in NCAA hockey is a driver of great hockey. Those 9 would have been too old to be allowed in the CHL.
Second, Gagner, Swystun, Auffrey and Williams are just a few who have appeared to elevate their play in the CHL significantly after not performing at the same level in the USHL/NCAA path.
Having said that, the play in the two leagues is probably somewhat competitive in development. So it depends where a kid is at in his development and what his preferences are as to what the best development option is for him.
The big difference between MJ and the NCAA is that they focus on different ages. MJ has kids from the ages of 15 through 20...while the NCAA has kids from pretty much 18 to 23. So when some kids in the states are playing in the USHL or the US NTDP...in Canada they could play in the CHL or MJ hockey. That period of time for kids who are say 16ish (Gagners age) is very good in MJ because they can get mentored by 19-20 yos. But if a kid goes NCAA at 18 (or accellerates and goes NCAA when they're 17 similar to Kane)...then they have an advantage in the NCAAs as they're playing with and against much more mature kids than in the CHL.
So it looks like the emerging understanding is that the best USHL team would be in the bottom half of the CHL (although the USHL's rep is quickly improving). The CHL aligns with a very desirable age...because it lines up well with the draft. The CHL does well in the draft for a variety of reasons including the fact that its based in Canada. Even so, the NCAA has rich and poor teams. The rich teams in the WCHA are filled by far more draft picks than CHL teams. And lastly overall the NCAA has arguably the best level of play. There are a couple of pieces of logic to show this.
First, the NCAA's 9 out of top 10 scorers last year were upperclassmen which signifies that the older age only found in NCAA hockey is a driver of great hockey. Those 9 would have been too old to be allowed in the CHL.
Second, Gagner, Swystun, Auffrey and Williams are just a few who have appeared to elevate their play in the CHL significantly after not performing at the same level in the USHL/NCAA path.
Having said that, the play in the two leagues is probably somewhat competitive in development. So it depends where a kid is at in his development and what his preferences are as to what the best development option is for him.
Regarding level of play...IMO...
NAHL/OPJHL/MN HS<
BCHL/MN HS Elite league<
USHL/Shattuck<
CHL/NCAA (not top 3 conferences)/NTDP<
NCAA (WCHA, HE, CCHA)
NAHL/OPJHL/MN HS<
BCHL/MN HS Elite league<
USHL/Shattuck<
CHL/NCAA (not top 3 conferences)/NTDP<
NCAA (WCHA, HE, CCHA)
seeing as most ECAC teams play competitively with the three conferances that you mentioned, I think lumbing them in with the dregs of NCAA hockey (CHA, AHA) is pretty unfair. The differance between your average ECAC team and your average CCHA team is pretty minimal. I will admit that there is probably a gap between the CCHA and ECAC and the WCHA and Hockey east, but ECAC teams have beaten schools in both those conferances over the last few years. And from watching the Cornell/USNTDP game last year, I laugh at any notion that the development program is on the ECAC's level.
EatSleepJeep
Registered User
Fixed that right up for ya' there.
2006 Wisconsin
2005 Denver
2004 Denver
2003 Minnesota
2002 Minnesota
