Major Junior vs. College

Ti-girl

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
7,913
1
Merida, Mexico
Well I think what it comes down to is whether or not, at the age of 15, kids are ready to make hockey their full time career.

Look at Paul Kariya. He went the NCAA route and it doesn't to appear to have hurt his playing at all, AND he was able to keep his Olympic eligability. He said in an interview in his days at Maine was that at 15 kids had already made their decision to become pro hockey players. He wanted to keep his options open.

Sure, there is the CIS education fund which I think is a great thing to have, but most of the players that use it are not the ones who are going to play in the NHL. They played hockey to get an education, just like athletes in the NCAA play hockey to get an edcuation.

I do not think that one is right and one is wrong, but you the CHL does seem to be able to spit out more NHL ready athletes.

I attended a sports specific school in high school and it was very apparent that that type of training and education was beneficial to my athletics. I did the same type of schooling as the CHL athletes, 4 practices a day, work my school around it.

This is coming from personal experience.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Well lets turn this into a USA vs. Canada's youngsters thread....CHL kids ...who yes, are mostly Canucks ...tend to enter the NHL sooner...NCAA guys are almost never in the NHL while still U20 age..& yet...sans our best...we generally spank ur Yank boyz at the WJC's...U give me a Best on Best U20's...Wherein the Staals and Crosby's... ie the Dream Teams get to play...and our Best Canuck U20's.... which mostly come out of the CHL ...will whip those prissy NCAA Prima Donnas any time :).

Let's not.
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
::sigh:: you've completely missed my point. We all know that Canada has a deeper talent pool than the US, that doesn't prove that the CHL is a better developmental system. Do you think Crosby wouldn't still be Crosby if he had gone to college? I don't know why this has to turn nationalistic, it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

alright, sorry TU, no more posts on this subject...although, for the record, I don't think that I've said anything inflamatory.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
alright, sorry TU, no more posts on this subject...although, for the record, I don't think that I've said anything inflamatory.

I never said you did. Plus, how could I get mad at a Cornellian. :D

But I think you know as well as I do where the thread would have gone had that topic continued...:help:
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
I never said you did. Plus, how could I get mad at a Cornellian. :D

But I think you know as well as I do where the thread would have gone had that topic continued...:help:

I get mad at fellow cornellians all the time, usually when they're: showing up late for hockey games, dropping they're gpa's in casual conversation, and popping they're collars whiile standing outside Johnny O's at 1:30 in the morning. ;)

I guess it's just one particular sect, though a highly populated one, of cornell students that set me off.

And yes, I realize where the thread was going, but it was hard to resist sneaking in one more post to get my point across.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
I get mad at fellow cornellians all the time, usually when they're: showing up late for hockey games, dropping they're gpa's in casual conversation, and popping they're collars whiile standing outside Johnny O's at 1:30 in the morning. ;)

I guess it's just one particular sect, though a highly populated one, of cornell students that set me off.

Point taken. I hated them too. :biglaugh:

And yes, I realize where the thread was going, but it was hard to resist sneaking in one more post to get my point across.

Fair enough.
 

toastman344*

Guest
It wasn't my intention to disparage the US junior development system...its a very good development system...But some people think the NCAA is better than the CHL ...if u compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges...that's just not the case...The CHL is second to none...In a Best on Best scenario...That's just the truth !
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
But some people think the NCAA is better than the CHL ...if u compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges...that's just not the case...The CHL is second to none...In a Best on Best scenario...That's just the truth !

Sorry, WCHA teams on average would simply smoke CHL teams.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
all this proves is that canada has a larger and better pool of hockey talent than the US, which we all knew, it says nothing about the developmental systems.

And Canada doesn't win this year's tourney without Jonathan Toews, who was an NCAA product, last time I checked. We'll take him off your hands if you want. ;)

Yes, because if Toews played in the WHL he would suck...we can thank the NCAA for making him a wicked player. :sarcasm:

It doesnt matter where you play...if youre good enough youll make it. Toews could have played JR A hockey up till now, he would still be a good player.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
Well I think what it comes down to is whether or not, at the age of 15, kids are ready to make hockey their full time career.

Look at Paul Kariya. He went the NCAA route and it doesn't to appear to have hurt his playing at all, AND he was able to keep his Olympic eligability. He said in an interview in his days at Maine was that at 15 kids had already made their decision to become pro hockey players. He wanted to keep his options open.

Sure, there is the CIS education fund which I think is a great thing to have, but most of the players that use it are not the ones who are going to play in the NHL. They played hockey to get an education, just like athletes in the NCAA play hockey to get an edcuation.

I do not think that one is right and one is wrong, but you the CHL does seem to be able to spit out more NHL ready athletes.

Your first line is really where the difference between the 2 routes exists: Where are you going to play in your 16 and 17 year old seasons?
If you are a top notch hockey talent, are you going to play Midget, Prep, HS, or JrA, (where you will likely dominate) until you graduate from high school and can go to University, or are you going to jump into Major Junior at 16 where the calibre of play will be higher.


PS: I'm not sure what you mean about the Olympics, CHL players were always eligible (Lindros in 92)
 

Ti-girl

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
7,913
1
Merida, Mexico
PS: I'm not sure what you mean about the Olympics, CHL players were always eligible (Lindros in 92)

True, but Kariya played in the 94 games because he was still in college. Had he not been at the UofMaine he would have been playing in the NHL therefore rendering him illegeable.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
Your first line is really where the difference between the 2 routes exists: Where are you going to play in your 16 and 17 year old seasons?
If you are a top notch hockey talent, are you going to play Midget, Prep, HS, or JrA, (where you will likely dominate) until you graduate from high school and can go to University, or are you going to jump into Major Junior at 16 where the calibre of play will be higher.


PS: I'm not sure what you mean about the Olympics, CHL players were always eligible (Lindros in 92)

You hit the nail on the head here with this dilemma.

I think for a 17y.o. top talent player, the NCAA is the best route (see Toews and Kessel last year)....the competition is just better than it is in the CHL. Its VERY difficult for an u-18 year old to succeed in the NCAA; only the best of the best have proven they can do it.
However, that not only brings up the problem of accelerated schooling, but also where will that player play at 16y.o. Like you said, if someone's a top level 16y.o. most aren't gonna get a lot out of Jr. A, Midget, Prep or HS hockey......especially if you're Canadian. However, the NTDP offers a good alternative for US players.
 

Dream Big

Registered User
Jun 10, 2005
5,337
35
Axis Mundi
For Oilers Chick

http://www.chl.ca/CHLCIS/home.html

Not an exact answer to Q about %'s but gives you a bit more information about CHL education.

What I do know about education in the CHL is that once the players graduate high school the ones who continue to post secondary education is much like the general population. Those who aspire for more education do attend and continue to attend. Whether still playing in the CHL or once they age out.

While playing in the CHL the education advisors arrange tutors, work out logistics for exams if the players are travelling -make arrangements for the exams to be taken in another province if necessary.

Should players wish to take advance placement courses in the off season the cost of courses and books are reimbursed. Correspondence courses are paid for if that is the route chosen for a particular course.

My take on the whole NCAA or Major Junior choice is that NCAA scholarship is for players that can't afford school or don't have the top grades but can get in with a combination of grades and athletic ability. Or they are physically imature. Or they want to experience the college atmosphere.

To get into Major Junior it is based strictly on athletic ability. If you happen to also be a top scholar that is a bonus. Post secondary education is there if you choose. An option not an obligation.

The other difference is a 72 game regular season vs 36.

So there is something for everyone. No right or wrong-or better/worse. What suits the individual.

The true beauty of democracy.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Sorry, WCHA teams on average would simply smoke CHL teams.

And when has this happened before? When have WCHA teams smoked CHL ones?

You and I have discussed this before Major and I've always found your smug attitude on this issue amusing.

The vast majority of people and scouts that I talk with say that the CHL and NCAA are very comparable....and that re-enforces what I see as well.
 

MikeC44

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
454
0
Moncton, NB
Visit site
True, but Kariya played in the 94 games because he was still in college. Had he not been at the UofMaine he would have been playing in the NHL therefore rendering him illegeable.

Not necessarily. If he had not gone to Maine, he would still have been eligible to play junior (19 year old season).
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
And when has this happened before? When have WCHA teams smoked CHL ones?

You and I have discussed this before Major and I've always found your smug attitude on this issue amusing.

The vast majority of people and scouts that I talk with say that the CHL and NCAA are very comparable....and that re-enforces what I see as well.

Your right in terms of the NCAA as a whole - but the WCHA (particularly the top end teams) could beat CHL squads pretty handedly.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Your right in terms of the NCAA as a whole - but the WCHA (particularly the top end teams) could beat CHL squads pretty handedly.

Which top end teams from the WCHA are you refering to and what CHL teams will they beat pretty handedly??? And what makes you so sure?

There are some of you who vastly under-estimate the quality of the CHL.
 

Zine

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
11,958
1,774
Rostov-on-Don
Which top end teams from the WCHA are you refering to and what CHL teams will they beat pretty handedly??? And what makes you so sure?

There are some of you who vastly under-estimate the quality of the CHL.

I don’t underestimate the CHL at all. Player for player, it’s the most talented junior league in the world….bar none.

However, most of the top talent in college is concentrated in a handful of schools (Michigan, Minnesota, UND, etc). Look at their rosters; they’d make pretty competitive WJC teams. No single CHL team can compete with them in terms of drafted players and top end talent (1st round picks). Despite this, other schools can be just as good because of the age difference thing. Like many have said, it’s really not fair to compare 16-19y.o. with 18-24y.o.

I don’t want to get too off topic so I’ll leave it at that.;)
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
Which top end teams from the WCHA are you refering to and what CHL teams will they beat pretty handedly??? And what makes you so sure?

There are some of you who vastly under-estimate the quality of the CHL.

The CHL quality of play is more comparable to junior US NTDP U18 team in all respects including age, etc. Unlike the NTDP, the CHL includes players down to 15 yo.

Last year the U18 team average age was bday of '88 (in the range of many CHL teams) and the crew included Erik Johnson, Pat Kane, Billy Sweatt, Jimmy OBrien and Blake Geoffrion (ok...quality per player is better than pretty much all CHL teams).

Last years NTDP team went 6 wins and 13 losses against NCAA teams. And the last 2 years, the U18 NTDP team has gone 0 wins and 6 loses to the wcha.

Frankly, there is plenty of fact based evidence of an elite NCAA advantage strickly regarding quality of play...including a sudden jump in performance of a signifcant amount of players transferring from the NCAA route to the CHL route, the quality of draft picks in the average WCHA vs. the average CHL team, WCHA favorable comparisons in recent WJC play and the huge positive impact age plays on NCAA play...which is unavailable to the CHL.

The CHL route is the best development option for many players...but the quality of play is not nearly what it is in the WCHA or similar top tier schools.
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
The CHL quality of play is more comparable to junior US NTDP U18 team in all respects including age, etc. Unlike the NTDP, the CHL includes players down to 15 yo.

Last year the U18 team average age was bday of '88 (in the range of many CHL teams) and the crew included Erik Johnson, Pat Kane, Billy Sweatt, Jimmy OBrien and Blake Geoffrion (ok...quality per player is better than pretty much all CHL teams).

Last years NTDP team went 6 wins and 13 losses against NCAA teams. And the last 2 years, the U18 NTDP team has gone 0 wins and 6 loses to the wcha.

Frankly, there is plenty of fact based evidence of an elite NCAA advantage strickly regarding quality of play...including a sudden jump in performance of a signifcant amount of players transferring from the NCAA route to the CHL route, the quality of draft picks in the average WCHA vs. the average CHL team, WCHA favorable comparisons in recent WJC play and the huge positive impact age plays on NCAA play...which is unavailable to the CHL.

The CHL route is the best development option for many players...but the quality of play is not nearly what it is in the WCHA or similar top tier schools.

There are some errors in your post.

The average CHL age is closer to 19 than 18...so to compare the US NTDP U18 to the CHL age is a falicy.

Also the level of play isnt even close. CHL > NTDP U18

Plus you have to remember the US U18 team is an all-star team of the best 17 year olds in the USA...where as Canada's best 17 year olds are spread over 59 CHL teams and many Junior A teams and a couple NCAA teams.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
The CHL quality of play is more comparable to junior US NTDP U18 team in all respects including age, etc. Unlike the NTDP, the CHL includes players down to 15 yo.
.

There are no 15 year olds in the OHL and Q and very very few in the dub, and those that are can only play a maximum of 5 games. In all actuality, the U.S. U-18 team is much younger than your typical CHL team. This year's NTDP has an average age of 17.4, compared to say the Plymouth Whalers whose average age is 19.

This year's NTDP beat pretty good programs like MSU and lost to the so called elite schools like Michigan and North Dokata in O.T. (meaning they were very close games) and clearly showed that they can play with the best of them.

Frankly, there is plenty of fact based evidence of an elite NCAA advantage strickly regarding quality of play...including a sudden jump in performance of a signifcant amount of players transferring from the NCAA route to the CHL route, the quality of draft picks in the average WCHA vs. the average CHL team, WCHA favorable comparisons in recent WJC play and the huge positive impact age plays on NCAA play...which is unavailable to the CHL.

Points per game can be deceiving. Look at many NHL players who went to play in the RSL during the lock out, their ppg average dropped. Does that mean the RSL is superior to the NHL? No, just that there are fewer goals scored in the RSL compared to the NHL.

Players such as former Ohio St Dman Kevin Montgomery or former Michigan's Jason Bailey scored less points in the NCAA but their contribution to their OHL teams is about the same relavent to their positions. Montgomery was a top 4 player at a Ohio and is the same with the Knights while Bailey was a 3rd liner with the Wolverines and now finds himself toiling on the same line with the 67's.

As for draft picks on an average WCHA team such as St Cloud or Minnesota State is the same as the number of draft picks found on an average OHL team like the Sudbury Wolves or the Guelph Storm, although both these OHL teams have much higher end young prospects coming up like Drew DOUGHTY and Akim Aliu.

Yes a few of your high end WCHA teams (and I stress a few) such as Minnesota and North Dokata do have more draft picks than any CHL team but that doesn't mean that they would stomp a team like the Whalers simply because of that.
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
Yes, because if Toews played in the WHL he would suck...we can thank the NCAA for making him a wicked player. :sarcasm:

It doesnt matter where you play...if youre good enough youll make it. Toews could have played JR A hockey up till now, he would still be a good player.

the toes comments aside, which where made tounge in cheek, you and I are making the same point. Top talent will paly well reardless of where it plays. Thus, comparing the elite talent of two countries (WJC) says nothing about they're developmental systems.
 
Last edited:

WheatiesHockey

Registered User
Dec 19, 2006
585
5
Canada and the USA have very different player development systems and structures and comparisons can be extremely difficult. 19 and 20 year old NCAA like Dan Fritsche or Mike Comrie can move to a CHL team but a comparable CHL player at 17 or 18 can not move the NCAA, if he plays so much as one shift in an exhibition game with a CHL team. Kids who have played one game with a CHL team are deemed "pros". As far as Canadians going "pro" means collecting a paycheque as a full time hockey player in a recognised professional league. NCAA teams are thus required to recruit exclusively from the Canadian Junior A ranks and in may respects artifically limit their available talent pool, which in turn limits their recruiting base. NCAA teams can not recruit those players who they themsleves have deemed to have turned pro. None of this is a real problem for winning hockey schools like Michigan and North Dakota. If the ante is a full ride scholarship then the only way to up the ante is to offer a player an opportunity with a proven winning hockey program.Michigan can offer that no problem. With the NCAA its mostly the same teams every year competing for the final 16.
The routes taken have a great deal to do with local hockey cultures. Warroad Minnesota is 6 miles from the Canadian border and as hockey mad as it can get in the USA. Kids there live to play high school hockey, win the state tourney or make the Golden Gophers. The WHL is not even on the radar for most of those kids. Drive 100 miles to Winnipeg and kids play AAA Bantam and want to get drafted by a WHL team. Hockey prospects in Canada seldom play high school hockey or attend prep schools, both of which are the norm in the American Midwest and Northeast, local traditions always prevail. St Mary's Shattuck academy has an amazing array of NHL'ers who are alumni and no Canadian team even the Air Canada Midget Champions who might turn out 4 CHL players (if they are lucky) could even compare.
One has to look at the overall level of play in the respective leagues and how the leagues actually function and factor in local preferences to determine which is the best route NCAA or CHL.
There is no inter league play,there are age differences to factor into the equation plus local hockey traditions and arcane rules.The NCAA rules are an advantage for Junior A leagues in Canada in terms of recruiting. Often times kids will play junior til the age of 20 hoping for a scholarship which might or might not happen. Many 16 and 17 year old CHL prospects will attend CHL camps and refuse to play an exhibition game for fear of giving up their NCAA eligibility. The complexion of the prospect game might change significantly if NCAA teams had even a two year rule for players with less than 2 years of CHL experience being rules eligible to play NCAA. Prior to 1979 kids who played WHL like Troy Murray could go NCAA after having played CHL. Murray played every level of hockey available AJHL, WHL and NCAA and it didn't hurt his career one bit. Prior to the NCAA rules many of the best 16 and 17 year olds played Junior A and migrated to CHL teams as 18 year old rookies and the NHL draft was for 19 year olds.Today in Canada, CHL teams seldom if ever have 18 year old rookies and almost none of the better Junior A prospects go CHL. Some do like Ladd who went BCHL to WHL to NHL or Comrie AJHL(St Albert) to NCAA(Michigan) to WHL(Kootenay) to NHL(Edmonton). By and large the movement is fairly restricted and case specific and always one way.
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
The average CHL age is closer to 19 than 18...so to compare the US NTDP U18 to the CHL age is a falicy.

Also the level of play isnt even close. CHL > NTDP U18

Plus you have to remember the US U18 team is an all-star team of the best 17 year olds in the USA...where as Canada's best 17 year olds are spread over 59 CHL teams and many Junior A teams and a couple NCAA teams.

The goal is not to tout the U18 team as typical of US hockey...but to compare the team's caliber with that of CHL teams.

Although last year's U18 team was a year or so younger (yes, comparable), the U18 team had a vast, vast amount more talent than any CHL team. Last year's U18 team had what most believe will end up being (between this year and last) 2 #1 picks overall, 3 other 1st round picks, and 4 2nd round picks. What does the best CHL team have regarding drafted/expect drafted players? The U18 team went 6 wins and 13 losses vs. the NCAA. As CHL teams would bring less firepower to the rink, the CHL wouldn't bring anything more to the scoreboard.

Players such as former Ohio St Dman Kevin Montgomery or former Michigan's Jason Bailey scored less points in the NCAA but their contribution to their OHL teams is about the same relavent to their positions. Montgomery was a top 4 player at a Ohio and is the same with the Knights while Bailey was a 3rd liner with the Wolverines and now finds himself toiling on the same line with the 67's.

I see no players going from the NCAA route to the CHL route and struggle there...

Matt Auffrey - NCAA: 8pts 25 games CHL: 50pts 59 games
Sam Gagner - USHL: 46pts 56 games CHL: 109pts 46 games
Tyler Swystun - NCAA: 4pts 36 games CHL: 34pts 62 games
and
Nigel Williams - NCAA: bench CHL: 30pts 36 games

As for draft picks on an average WCHA team such as St Cloud or Minnesota State is the same as the number of draft picks found on an average OHL team like the Sudbury Wolves...

Yes a few of your high end WCHA teams (and I stress a few) such as Minnesota and North Dokata do have more draft picks than any CHL team but that doesn't mean that they would stomp a team like the Whalers simply because of that.

The difference in age makes a big difference in the NCAA. The average age of the top 10 scorers in the NCAA is 22 and in the WCHA its 21. Needless to say not many of these top players would be found in the CHL.

Average age on St Cloud is nearly 4 years older than Sudbury...and plays much of its conference schedule against Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Denver all of whom have a significant draft pick and age/experience advantage on CHL teams.

The CHL is an excellent development option...but play is considerably below the WCHA and other top NCAA teams.
 
Last edited:

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Once again, you are basing your arguements on ppg and if we were to use that criteria then one could say that the RSL is superior to the NHL

Case and point Ilya Kovalchuk

2003-04 Atlanta Thrashers NHL 81 41 46 87

2004-05 Kazan Ak-Bars Russia 53 19 22 41

Vincent Lecavalier


2004-05 Kazan Ak-Bars Russia 30 7 8 15

2005-06 Tampa Bay Lightning NHL 80 35 40 75

Tyler Swystun - NCAA: 4pts 36 games CHL: 34pts 62 games

If the NCAA were such a step up then tell me, how does a 17 year old player like Swystun crack the roster of an elite team and play almost every game as a 17 year old??? Should he not be dominating the WHL as an 18 year old since supposedly he played at a much higher level last year?????? 34pts in 63 games is hardly dominating and whose to say that he would not have garnered .5ppg had he stayed at Michigan this year?

Although last year's U18 team was a year or so younger (yes, comparable), the U18 team had a vast, vast amount more talent than any CHL team.

What of this year's team? A team that features less fire power than last year's? How did they manage to beat Michigan State? Why did it take Michigan and North Dokata OT to beat them?

As an aside, a few years back the NTDP had a "friendly" scrimmage game with the Whalers...and it was anything but friendly. The Whalers incedently handled the young boys pretty easily.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->