NCAA vs CHL

Weast

Registered User
May 16, 2011
3,109
1,393
I was having a debate with my roommates about which league is harder/leads to a higher chance at NHL success and I was wondering what you all thought?
Basically if you were a youngin and you had the chance at going to the CHL or committing to a college team what would you choose assuming you main goal was to be an NHLer (so don't factor in the education aspect of going to college)?
 

McFlyingV

Registered User
Feb 22, 2013
22,442
12,859
Edmonton, Alberta
NCAA is a better league by virtue of the league average age being higher. When you have players aged 18-24 vs. 16-21 you're going to see a major difference in skill. As for those looking to make the NHL it depends big time. If you're too skilled for leagues like USHL/BCHL/AJHL at the age of 16 then the CHL is your best bet to face better competition at a young age. If you're a late bloomer who's not a standout in the leagues listed above at the ages of 16-18 then NCAA is probably your best bet because you get more development time before making the jump to pro hockey (I.e. you can make the jump to the AHL at 22 or 23 going the NCAA route vs. 21 going the CHL route).
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,663
I always find these comparisons odd because the CHL and NCAA are not directly comparable. The NCAA (usually) is for players 18 and older, while the CHL is for players 16 and older. The consideration is USHL (or BCHL or something along those lines) plus NCAA vs CHL. If I could only choose one league as a serious prospect it would be the CHL since the NCAA starts somewhat late in development terms. If including the USHL then the two routes seem quite comparable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUAIOMRN

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,902
Toronto
Each have their positives. If you are an elite player who is viewed as a likely first rounder, the CHL is probably the best route. The positives of the CHL include this (in purely hockey terms). More games, fewer restrictions on practice times, and no grade obligations, it also tends to offer higher level competition from 16-18 than the traditions NCAA paths. NCAA has benefits. You get to choose your team, I feel this is a big positive for the NCAA. While CHL guys can somewhat force there way to teams or out of bad developmental systems, in the NCAA you outright choose who you want to play for. Secondly, it tends to offer better facilities for physical off-ice training. Finally, it gives you more time to prove you are pro-ready for late-bloomers.

So, I'd say this, if you are viewed as a legitimate top 60 pick, I'd probably go CHL, but past that, NCAA is the way to go. I'd also lean NCAA for almost all goaltenders. D is a mixed bag but possibly an NCAA lean, highly skilled forwards I would lean CHL.

The other issue you get into is not all CHL leagues are equal in developmental quality or lifestyle. The WHL is a hell of a grind for a 16 year old, and the QMJHL has lowered in quality over the years. While not all NCAA conferences are equal, as pointed out earlier, as a top talent you choose what program and division you go to.
 

Skinnyjimmy08

WorldTraveler
Mar 30, 2012
22,483
11,943
This again??!!

Impossible to compare. Positives for both routes and every player is different.

The one thing i dislike about NCAA(and i guess it doesnt technically have to do with NCAA) is the fact that some of these higher level players that decide to go NCAA arent really pushed too hard at 16 and 17 years old playing Junior A...Here in BC, guys like Jost and Fabbro and others over the years were already the better players in the league at 16 and then totally dominated at 17 and werent really pushed. You almost wish they could have played CHL at 16 and 17 and then go off to NCAA... But obviously that cant happen lol
 
Last edited:

jasonr90

Registered User
Jun 11, 2014
228
49
Maine, USA
Each have their positives. If you are an elite player who is viewed as a likely first rounder, the CHL is probably the best route. The positives of the CHL include this (in purely hockey terms). More games, fewer restrictions on practice times, and no grade obligations, it also tends to offer higher level competition from 16-18 than the traditions NCAA paths. NCAA has benefits. You get to choose your team, I feel this is a big positive for the NCAA. While CHL guys can somewhat force there way to teams or out of bad developmental systems, in the NCAA you outright choose who you want to play for. Secondly, it tends to offer better facilities for physical off-ice training. Finally, it gives you more time to prove you are pro-ready for late-bloomers.

So, I'd say this, if you are viewed as a legitimate top 60 pick, I'd probably go CHL, but past that, NCAA is the way to go. I'd also lean NCAA for almost all goaltenders. D is a mixed bag but possibly an NCAA lean, highly skilled forwards I would lean CHL.

The other issue you get into is not all CHL leagues are equal in developmental quality or lifestyle. The WHL is a hell of a grind for a 16 year old, and the QMJHL has lowered in quality over the years. While not all NCAA conferences are equal, as pointed out earlier, as a top talent you choose what program and division you go to.

Well said. You pretty much mentioned it but also in the NCAA they only play two games on the weekends so there's a lot more gym time, which is very important for these age groups.

There's a lot of advantaged to both and both have proven to be very successful

Players that have chosen the NCAA route have mentioned this as a deciding factor in the past
 

Fixed to Ruin

Come wit it now!
Feb 28, 2007
23,521
25,073
Grande Prairie, AB
I think it depends what kind of prospect you are...

If you are an elite prospect (ie. McDavid, Crosby, Toews) I don't think it really matters.

However, if you are a prospect with a longer development timeframe (not a 1st or 2nd round pick in most cases) then I've come to the opinion that the NCAA is the way to go. The reason has more to do with the AHL than the CHL/NCAA in itself. Most CHL prospects, (not all but most) aren't ready for pro hockey at 20 years old. Once they reach the minors they struggle for playing time and flame out quickly when they could have been better off playing NCAA hockey as a key member of their team at 21 or 22 years old rather than barely getting into the lineup in the AHL because the coaches would rather play a washed up 35 year old NHLer who makes less defensive mistakes than a young 21 year old who is still learning the ropes of professional hockey.

If I'm 21 or 22 I'd rather be playing in all key situations on my college team than sitting in the stands playing 50% of the games at the AHL level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex76

Breakers

Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Aug 5, 2014
21,373
19,714
Denver Colorado
The NCAA right now is developing better d-man hands down because the NCAA physicality and ability to put on weight with training facilities and cafeterias means they are better prepared to handle the rigors of the defensive zone.

But for forwards I would go with the CHL
 

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,902
Toronto
The NCAA right now is developing better d-man hands down because the NCAA physicality and ability to put on weight with training facilities and cafeterias means they are better prepared to handle the rigors of the defensive zone.

But for forwards I would go with the CHL
I'd say its still pretty debatable for defenders. The new wave of Slavin, Hanifin, Werenski, Trouba, and McAvoy looks good, but a bunch of the current top defenders in the league are CHL guys in Doughty, Pietrangelo, Subban, Burns, etc. Of established top D, the only NCAA guys to finish top 10 in Norris voting last year were Keith (who split both leagues), Suter (finished 5th), and Schultz (10th) while the CHL had Burns (win), Weber, Doughty, Giordano and Hamilton in the top 10. I think Norris voting is far from perfect, I wouldn't put Hamilton or Schultz in my top 20, but it is somewhat reflective.

CHL has its own wave of promising young defenders, anchored by Seth Jones who in my opinion is probably currently the best of those young NCAA guys, plus Provorov, Morrisey, Ekblad, Rielly, Chychrun, and Sergachev.

It's a pretty split bag. The NCAA has gained ground in regards to defenders but I don't think they have decisively passed. Goalies are the only area I think they have an edge.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,538
The NCAA right now is developing better d-man hands down because the NCAA physicality and ability to put on weight with training facilities and cafeterias means they are better prepared to handle the rigors of the defensive zone.

But for forwards I would go with the CHL

Maybe that's the USA in general is developing more good Dmen.. and some of those guys go the NCAA route
 

TeddyBare

Registered User
Jul 28, 2016
4,226
3,149
Mississauga, Ontario
The NCAA right now is developing better d-man hands down because the NCAA physicality and ability to put on weight with training facilities and cafeterias means they are better prepared to handle the rigors of the defensive zone.

But for forwards I would go with the CHL

I agree
I like the current young crop of NCAA defenders vs the CHL

Werenski, Slavin, Parayko, Ghost, McAvoy, Trouba > CHL counterparts.
That group of defenders is more well rounded in more facets of the game.
A part from Ghost
 
Last edited:

Breakers

Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Aug 5, 2014
21,373
19,714
Denver Colorado
I agree
I like the current crop of NCAA defenders vs the CHL

Werenski, Slavin, Parayko, Werenski, McAvoy > CHL counterparts.
That group of defenders is more well rounded in more facets of the game


Carlina has produced the best young defense core in the league on the back of the NCAA, and they have some of the best defensive numbers in the NHL.
Faulk
Hannifin
Pesce
Slavin

Werenski and McAvoy, I mean forget about it with these 2.
These guys are absolute monsters and averaging 24-26 minutes and they aren't some one trick pony with offensive numbers.
Weresnki and McAvoy are putting up huge defensive numbers.
Current Young NCAA D-man I would take over the CHL guys without a doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeddyBare

93LEAFS

Registered User
Nov 7, 2009
33,841
20,902
Toronto
I agree
I like the current crop of NCAA defenders vs the CHL

Werenski, Slavin, Parayko, Werenski, McAvoy > CHL counterparts.
That group of defenders is more well rounded in more facets of the game
I don't think any of those guys are more well rounded than Seth Jones, who would be one of the counterparts. Young defenders are fairly erratic, and the top defenders in the game are still primarily from either the CHL or Sweden.
 

The Exiled One

Registered User
Sep 1, 2006
1,155
3
State of Hockey
www.dahuskies.com
I was having a debate with my roommates about which league is harder/leads to a higher chance at NHL success and I was wondering what you all thought?
Basically if you were a youngin and you had the chance at going to the CHL or committing to a college team what would you choose assuming you main goal was to be an NHLer (so don't factor in the education aspect of going to college)?
Huge college hockey fan here. Based on the framing of this question, CHL all the way.

It's not that the NCAA will hurt a kid's chance of playing in the NHL, it's just not the purpose of the league. If you want to pursue a hockey career and earn a scholarship, go to the CHL. If you want to pursue an education while maintaining the opportunity to pursue a hockey career, go to the NCAA.

It's like deciding on how you want to get in shape. You'll probably do some combination of eating less and exercising more. If you fail at eating less, you'll at least be stronger. If you fail at exercising more, you'll at least be lighter. The goal is to get in shape, but you still have to decide what your preferred outcome would be in case you fail. The reality is that most of these kids won't have a significant hockey playing career.
 

Dodospice

Registered User
Jan 19, 2012
1,054
476
I don’t think either one is any better than the other. It all comes down to what type of prospect you are. If you’re a truly elite prospect, then I don’t think it matters what league you play in.

If you’re a first round CHL prospect, then I think I’d lean towards the CHL because at 16 years of age you have a general idea of how talented you are and where you stand next to your peers. While no means does this mean you’re guaranteed to be an NHL prospect but it gives you an idea. I wouldn’t burn my eligibility at 15 like some WHL guys do though as that’s way too early in my opinion. This also would depend on what type of player you are and what your skill set exactly is, as well as what team I’m being drafted too. If I’m a smaller skilled guy, the CHL probably fits my game better, if I’m a bigger guy then the NCAA does because it stands to reason I’ll take a little longer for my game to develop.

If I’m anything later than a 1st round prospect then I’m going the NCAA route. Not only does it give me the opportunity to develop my game later into my career before I have to play pro but I can still play in some really quality leagues before I go to school. As a 2nd round pick there’s no guarantee I make the team or even stick, why burn my NCAA chance before that. If I have a big season at 16 in another league and the CHL then seems like a better play for me then I take it.

Overall I don’t think any league is better than the other, it depends on what type of player you are and a bunch of other things. I will say this, unless I’m probably a top 5 pick, I think long and hard about not giving up my NCAA eligibility at 16. Keep that for as long as possible, if you’re that good at 16 then a team has no problem waiting a year to get you. I’d advocate keeping it until at least your draft year when you really know where you stand entering the draft.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->