Major Junior vs. College
- Thread starter tisting9
- Start date
Even as a CHL fan it seems to me obvious that the top NCAA teams would likely beat the top CHL teams. The NCAA teams have a lot of talented 21/22 year olds on the teams.
However, this is the same reason why the CHL is a better developmental league. A decent 18/19 year old would play CHL but would be sitting on the bench in the NCAA. You can argue about practise time, learning from the older guys all you want but nothing develops a player like ice time in important situations.
I've never bought the argument that the only reason the CHL is responsible for pretty much half of all the NHL talent is because Canada has the deepest talent pool. I think one of the main reasons Canada has such a deep talent pool is because of our junior program.
However, this is the same reason why the CHL is a better developmental league. A decent 18/19 year old would play CHL but would be sitting on the bench in the NCAA. You can argue about practise time, learning from the older guys all you want but nothing develops a player like ice time in important situations.
I've never bought the argument that the only reason the CHL is responsible for pretty much half of all the NHL talent is because Canada has the deepest talent pool. I think one of the main reasons Canada has such a deep talent pool is because of our junior program.
I don't think many people are arguing that the CHL is a poor developmental league. I for one think it's a tremendous developmental system. What I object to are claims that it is a vastly superior system than the NCAA. As many have said: differant strokes for differant folks. NCAA guys tend to get brought along slower (usually going highschool to ushl/Jr A to NCAA) and once they get to college they play fewer games. The CHL goes with the "into the fire" mentality. Both systems have they're merrits, and it really depends on the personality of the player.
At the same time, while I think the CHL is a fine developmental system, it's hard to argue that canada doesn't have the deepest pool of hockey talent in the world. It's the only hockey nations where hockey is the clear #1 sport and the choice of most top athletes. The amount of options for athletes in the US is well documneted, and Soccer is still king in the majority of european nations (I can't speak for euro's, but the swedes and the Czechs that I've spoken to have told me that hockey, while popular, is still a bit behind football. I don't really know how it works with Russia, Finland and Slovakia.)
If you look at the top ten WCHA points per game producers, you will find that 6 of them would still be elligible to play in the CHL.
Well you know that if the games were in September, the CHL clubs were often missing their better players. In the late 90's the NTDP did play 6 exhibition games against OHL clubs, where they went 3-0-3. The NTDP really marketed these results in an effort to lure top players but the real story behind the scenes was that the NTDP was paying each OHL club 15k to play the game and the OHL teams were by and large using alot of affiliated players. It was a nice snow job.
A few years back, the Whalers assistant coach (whose name escapes me right now) had previously worked with the NTDP and had close ties with the team. He floated the idea of a friendly "practice -scrimmage" game between the U-18 and the Whalers. It was to be a real hush hush affair - a good buddy of mine who works with the Wolverines let me in on it - and much like posters like 5MnMajor, he really thought that the U-18's would school the Whalers. Big shock to him when the result was the exact opposite and it was really sweet for me cause I got a nice stake dinner at Outbacks because of it
So half the talent? Even that number drops off as you go further into the top 20. Add that to the zero CHL eligible hobey baker finalists and the zero CHL eligible national scoring leaders...and there isn't much there that would work in the CHL.
I still don't know how this explains Nigel Williams finding his game in the OHL...when he couldn't find the ice at Wisconsin. Your NHL Russia references are nice...but you could use NCAA track/CHL track facts...there are many available and they are relevant.
The more the facts get on the table, the clearer it is...21-22 yo NCAA hockey with higher judged talent coming will be stronger than 19 yo CHL hockey. You still haven't produced meaningful stats to the contrary.
So you are saying that offensive jugernaughts like Erik Ehn and James Sexsmith clearly give the edge to the NCAA? Are the top 21-23 year old NCAA players that much better than the top 18-20 CHL players? I don't think so.
Seeing that the CHL as a whole possesses more talent than the NCAA, its safe to assume that the leading CHL scorers would also be the leading NCAA scorers...or are you going to tell me that a player like Jay Barriball, currently seventh overall in the WCHA is a cut above the best that the CHL has to offer?
Was Williams really given a chance at Wisconsin? Have you ever seen Williams play? His Defense still needs a little bit of work but his is a legit pro prospect.
Age makes a HUGE difference. If it doesn't, please explain how mediocre players (probably future ECHLers) like Tyler Donoti, Thomas Beauregard, Brent Aubin, David Desharnais, Danick Bouchard, Ryan Menei, Aaron Gagnon, etc. can currently be so dominant in the CHL. 2 words: they're overragers (1986 born).
The NCAA still has a lot of '84, '85 and even some '83. And a lot of those are still legitimate NHL prospects. This is why teams like SCSU can defeat younger star-studded squads like N. Dakota, Minnesota....they're older. This isn't rocket science.
I agree, but it does nothing to disprove the notion that the top NCAA schools are a lot better. The talent is the CHL is more spread out.
Seriously, look at Minnesota's, North Dakota's, Michigan's roster. They simply have more talented players than any single CHL team. Plus, a lot of them are older too.
You seem to be the only one arguing otherwise.
edit: I do agree, however, that the CHL is by and large the best developmental league.
Last edited:
Zine, the premise put forward by 5MnMajor is that the quality of play in the WCHA is significantly higher than the CHL. I am arguing otherwise. I am not saying that the CHL is better than the WCHA but you are severely underestimating the quality of the CHL if you really believe that WCHA teams will put a spanking on them.
As for Donati, expect to see him in the AHL next season, not the ECHL. Ditto for players like Evan Brophey and the like. I refuse to believe that players such as Ryan Duncan are better than players like Bobby Ryan, Steve Downie or Byran Little...the fact is he is not.
And when was the last time SCSU won a national title? Or how about Michigan Tech? Yes those teams can compete but they rarely go far. Last year a young team with an average age of 20, B.C., made it to the final and gave Wisconsin a heck of a game. Alaska is the oldest team in the CCHA, yet they are in 11th place out of a 12 team conference.
Age certainly matters but players develop at different rates. Yes a 22 year old Steve Downie would be better than a 19 year old one but a 19 year old Downie is every bit as good as a 22 year old Scott Parse.
As for Donati, expect to see him in the AHL next season, not the ECHL. Ditto for players like Evan Brophey and the like. I refuse to believe that players such as Ryan Duncan are better than players like Bobby Ryan, Steve Downie or Byran Little...the fact is he is not.
And when was the last time SCSU won a national title? Or how about Michigan Tech? Yes those teams can compete but they rarely go far. Last year a young team with an average age of 20, B.C., made it to the final and gave Wisconsin a heck of a game. Alaska is the oldest team in the CCHA, yet they are in 11th place out of a 12 team conference.
Age certainly matters but players develop at different rates. Yes a 22 year old Steve Downie would be better than a 19 year old one but a 19 year old Downie is every bit as good as a 22 year old Scott Parse.
i would like to know the different type of scholarships that are provided by the NCAA. i am doubting every kid gets a 4 year full ride. partials probably include tuition, books for one year and year by year after that. am i wrong? do the kids (very few) really develop at 17 -18 in there draft year as well as major junior? well the elite play in USNTDP and have developed some good players. but then the elite players might 1 or 2 years of NCAA before signing pro contracts. do you think if kris chucko was developing well the flames would have pulled him. the chl is simple 2 years after finish playing you get full scholarship for the amount of years you play in the league. and when you sign a pro deal the education contract is void. but nothing prevents the player from attending a local college or university to take courses while there are playing and not count against the chl education contract.
Are you kidding?! Even the best US college teams would be hard pressed to beat an average CIS squad.
Again, your opinion only. Has this year's current NTDP played any CHL teams? How are you to say how they would fare?
Currently the NTDP is 5 - 8 -2 against NCAA competition. 5 of those losses were in O.T by the way. Not bad for a bunch of 17 year old kids on a team that will have no more than 2 first round picks.
So it sounds like we agree...CHL is equivalent to U18 team. And the U18 team would be the doormat of the WCHA.
Toews doesn't make top 5 in his conference...Gagner is in the top 5 in the whole OHL...no Gagner would not be top 5 in any of the top NCAA conferences. I have yet to see a coach who would trade Toews for Gagner. EJ was called the best defenseman at the WJCs (better than all CHL D)...and EJ is only the 3rd (arguably the 4th) best defenseman on his own single NCAA team. I can pull actual facts all day long saying that top tier NCAA is superior play to that of CHL.
Last edited:
I'd agree if I believed the NTDP was on par with the CHL but I do not. Sure they might take a team like Saginaw to O.T. like they did North Dokata or Michigan but top teams like Plymouth would handle them.
Toews has the 2nd highest ppg in the entire WCHA, not bad for an 18 year old and E.Johnson averages about 28 minutes a game plus the WJC is a notch above the NCAA. There is no doubt in my mind that if Kane were playing in the WCHA, he'd be doing at least as well as Toews, probably better in the offensive categories.
More "facts" please.
Every year, college teams from the states come up and play CIS teams. This is before the US College teams have started playing and is sort of a tune up. IIRC, the college teams from the states usually win.
it is fairly close but chl produces better players and is WAY WAY WAY more exciting. college hockey is clutch and grab chippy hockey that i cant stand. entertainment factor easily goes to the CHL.
College hockey has hasn't been clutch and grab since the days that all of North American Hockey was clutch and grab (up until the lockout.) When the NHL came with an obstruction crack down so did in the NCAA. I actually think the CCHA did it a year earlier than the NHL did.
I don't think it would be a stretch to say that there's a bit more defensive consitency and responcibility than in juniors on acount of the age differance. But this does not make clutch and grab hockey, and most NCAA hockey is not.
Look at it this way........considering the CHL limits the # of overragers to 2 per team (if I'm correct), there seems to be a disproportionate amount of overragers in the upper scoring brackets of the CHL. What would happen if the CHL allowed teams to have as many overragers as they'd like (including '84s and '85s)? Yep, that's right, the overall level of play would skyrocket.
Of course the best CHLers would still do very well, but ONLY THEY would be good enough to make up for the difference in age. Your average CHLer would not.
It would be just like it is in the WCHA where only the elite 1987s and 1988s are good enough to be key contributers on their teams. And only if you're something extremely special (ala Toews last year) would you see any ice time as a 1989.
The WCHA has the talent AND, just as important, the age difference which makes the league MUCH better than the CHL.
****Again, if age doesn't matter, why are the overragers I listed (almost all are undrafted) virtually on par with a lot of the best NHL prospects the CHL has to offer; AND why is there is a disproportionate amount of these overragers in the upper brackets of CHL scoring*****
Last edited:
There are three over-agers allowed per team and expansion teams like Chilliwak are allowed up to five I believe. Currently in OHL scoring, only three over-agers are in the top twenty in scoring.
Yes age is important but you have to look at the abilities of the players in question and their rate of progression.
Alpine
Registered User
I gotta mention that the vast majority of players in the Canada Games in Whitehorse come from the CHL. This is a U-17 tourney and every 4 years replaces the U-17 World Challenge. NB takes on Alberta in the quarters.....guess who I'm rooting for 
Other than that after reading through the last few pages I'm not sure if the 142 teams in CJAHL, 59 teams in CHL and 31 teams in CIS should fold because NCAA/USHL is so superior that they are rendered useless or if NCAA/USHL/NAHL should fold for the same reason.
Or.....maybe we should rejoice in the fact that hockey players have a wider choice of developmental hockey than is given to almost any other sport on this continent.
I keep repeating myself on the comparsion thing...but until NCAA/USHL/NAHL plays CJAHL/CHL/CIS teams in meaningfull competion instead of the odd exhibition game where players are sat out and prospects are played to get a look at or any player with a nick or a knock watches from the bleachers. All we're doing is voting for our favourite league.
Anyway, I think it's awesome that our young players have so much choice.
EDIT:
When discussing NHL draftable players we should also remember the differences in the draft rules between players in CHL and NCAA.
CHL drafted players have to be signed in two years although have to be twenty years old before they can sign a minor pro contract. Players who decide to go the CIS route are not protected beyond the two year limit.
NCAA players are protected by the draft untill the end of their senior year. But can opt out and sign minor pro contracts in their ninetenth birth year.
Suttle differences but yet differences.
Other than that after reading through the last few pages I'm not sure if the 142 teams in CJAHL, 59 teams in CHL and 31 teams in CIS should fold because NCAA/USHL is so superior that they are rendered useless or if NCAA/USHL/NAHL should fold for the same reason.
Or.....maybe we should rejoice in the fact that hockey players have a wider choice of developmental hockey than is given to almost any other sport on this continent.
I keep repeating myself on the comparsion thing...but until NCAA/USHL/NAHL plays CJAHL/CHL/CIS teams in meaningfull competion instead of the odd exhibition game where players are sat out and prospects are played to get a look at or any player with a nick or a knock watches from the bleachers. All we're doing is voting for our favourite league.
Anyway, I think it's awesome that our young players have so much choice.
EDIT:
When discussing NHL draftable players we should also remember the differences in the draft rules between players in CHL and NCAA.
CHL drafted players have to be signed in two years although have to be twenty years old before they can sign a minor pro contract. Players who decide to go the CIS route are not protected beyond the two year limit.
NCAA players are protected by the draft untill the end of their senior year. But can opt out and sign minor pro contracts in their ninetenth birth year.
Suttle differences but yet differences.
Last edited:
Blind Gardien
nexus of the crisis
And while we're at it, how's about our Midget AAA's beating USHL squads, and the LNAH putting a beating on any European pro circuit too, eh? As long as the thread is going to degenerate into the same old same old, I guess if you add a truly immense volume of gasoline, we might just succeed in smothering the flames, against any and all odds, eh?
Pretty well what I said on my first post, we cannot definitively say because no NCAA team has ever played a CHL one. I can tell you this, I have watched both leagues for a very long time now and the caliber of play is, in my opinion, every bit as good as what you will find in the NCAA.
Williams was given a chance to earn a spot as much as any other player on the team. Seeing as Wisconsin already had a lot of returning d-men, plus a few recruits, if he thought that he was going to walk in and be handed a starting job because he was a second round pick, well, he got a reality check. And don't say Wisconsin doesn't play freshman, because less-touted freshman d-man Jamie McBain has been a mainstay all season. If Williams put in half the effort in practice as he did complaining to the media, maybe his situation in Wisconsin would have ended up different. I'm not saying he's not a good prospect or anything, but crying in the newspaper about not playing wasn't going to get him off the bench.
No matter how the the NCAA may ever try with its Frozen Four Tourney, nothing the NCAA can ever do will match the fervour of the Memorial Cup in Canada. Period. Same with the World Junior Tourney every December. Both are CHL events and nothing the NCAA could ever generate could match the community spirit one sees in Canadian communities for those tournaments. That kind of spirit is not bought or sold and as long as there is ice in Canada those will be sacred festivals to the Canadian nation.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: