GDT: New Jersey Devils @ Chicago Blackhawks - 7:00pm EST / 6:00pm CT

[Hawkaholic]

Yeah but if you're a phenom you can just play USHL and graduate early like Macklin and play NCAA at 17. Its zero downside. Tying yourself to some BS CHL, NHL agreement is f***ed.

If Macklin somehow struggles he can go to the AHL, unlike Wright.

There is a downside, some kids don't want to go too far away from home. Playing a couple hours down the road is better for them than a few hour plane ride away.

 

[Kevin Musto]

Yeah but if you're a phenom you can just play USHL and graduate early like Macklin and play NCAA at 17. Its zero downside. Tying yourself to some BS CHL, NHL agreement is f***ed.

For most Canadian families, they're more comfortable having their kids stay in Canada. They also trust the "tried and true" CHL model.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Ice time is also important. The NCAA plays 30ish games a year, the CHL plays 70ish.

I'm a fan of college hockey, but if I were a prospect with meaningfully realistic NHL hopes, I'd go the CHL route.

 

[TLEH]

Ice time is also important. The NCAA plays 30ish games a year, the CHL plays 70ish.

I'm a fan of college hockey, but if I were a prospect with meaningfully realistic NHL hopes, I'd go the CHL route.

Didn't seem to affect the hundreds of hockey players that went NCAA to NHL. I don't buy that argument at all.

If anything its a positive as you have less wear and tear on your body before it matters.

There is a downside, some kids don't want to go too far away from home. Playing a couple hours down the road is better for them than a few hour plane ride away.

Like being from North Van and going to Regina.. a cool 17 hours away. Maybe the OHL.. sure.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Who? lol You don't just get to pick another great player to take their spot.

I mean, what do you think happens when say, Macklin Celebrini doesn't play in the WHL because he goes the USHL/NCAA route? Someone else plays there in the spot he would have taken, the league keeps spinning. It would be a nice draw if he was there, but he's not, and life goes on.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I'm not saying that the NCAA is a dead end by any means. But the CHL produces higher and deeper prospect pools almost every year for a number of reasons, not to mention it being more heavily scouted.

 

[TLEH]

I'm not saying that the NCAA is a dead end by any means. But the CHL produces higher and deeper prospect pools almost every year for a number of reasons, not to mention it being more heavily scouted.

Wasn't really even the argument though. CHL is the more tried and true model. Its produced the best players for a long time.

The argument is that the CHL, NHL agreement is bogus and that if I was an agent advising players today, I would strongly recommend BCHL, USHL to NCAA to have a better control over your development.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Sure, but that mostly seems to be the kicker. If you want a more tangental direction to hopefully pro hockey millions, CHL. NCAA seems like a good option if you're willing to admit that the NHL is a longer shot.

Major caveat, admittedly. Being stuck in a bad junior team based on a draft is clearly worse than going the NCAA route, though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I'm not saying that the NCAA is a dead end by any means. But the CHL produces higher and deeper prospect pools almost every year for a number of reasons, not to mention it being more heavily scouted.

The reason being it's the traditional path.

Here's the 1977 Draft.

1977 NHL Amateur Draft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Entire 1st round is the Major Junior leagues (or their predecessors more precisely), get to the late 2nd and there's a guy drafted from the WHA (previously played Canadian Juniors) and the last two picks of the 2nd round are when you get to college players (including future 2X Norris winner, Rod Langway).

Just because something is how it's always done doesn't make it "better".

At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter, great players will be great regardless. Things like the NHL-CHL Transfer Agreement is a marginal thing.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I'm not saying that the NCAA is a dead end by any means. But the CHL produces higher and deeper prospect pools almost every year for a number of reasons, not to mention it being more heavily scouted.

The gap has closed significantly over the past decade, and these points don't really ring true anymore.

In 2023, 69 NCAA players were drafted, and 80 CHL players, out of 224 players drafted. It's 36% CHL and 31% NCAA D1.

 

[WarriorofTime]

NCAA seems like a good option if you're willing to admit that the NHL is a longer shot.

This is just blatantly untrue though, because a top prospect that goes to a top team like Michigan, Minnesota, BU, etc. that produces oodles and oodles of future NHL players. It's not like they get randomly distributed to a team like Lake Superior State or whatever that never produces any NHL caliber player.

Ever since the NHL Draft got rid of the rule that players had to be a year older to get drafted out of the NCAA, there's really been no detriment to going to the NHL for a player that is reasonably on the radar or that it's in any way a "longer shot".

Too much backwards facing logic, imo.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Sure, but that mostly seems to be the kicker. If you want a more tangental direction to hopefully pro hockey millions, CHL. NCAA seems like a good option if you're willing to admit that the NHL is a longer shot.

Major caveat, admittedly. Being stuck in a bad junior team based on a draft is clearly worse than going the NCAA route, though.

It's not really a "longer shot" anymore. It definitely used to be, though.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Fair enough, NCAAers are getting drafted at a good tick, and it's a fair statement to point out that the college program of your choice is potentially a better option that a random junior crapstand.

 

[Hawkaholic]

I mean, what do you think happens when say, Macklin Celebrini doesn't play in the WHL because he goes the USHL/NCAA route? Someone else plays there in the spot he would have taken, the league keeps spinning. It would be a nice draw if he was there, but he's not, and life goes on.

It's different when a 16 year old decides not to play in the WHL for a team he has never played for vs all of the sudden not having a couple 19 year olds on a team with playoff aspirations. The league keeps spinning because of teams like the Knights/Rangers having great teams every year and having the best players.

 

[TLEH]

My main argument/thought is I am not so sure that the CHL agreement has the benefits they think it does anymore. I think having a 16, 17, and 18 year old Macklin Celebrini in the league is better for revenue than not having him all together. No one for sure can say why a player went one route or the other, though.

I have my guesses but each situation will be different.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's different when a 16 year old decides not to play in the WHL for a team he has never played for vs all of the sudden not having a couple 19 year olds on a team with playoff aspirations. The league keeps spinning because of teams like the Knights/Rangers having great teams every year and having the best players.

Realistically, teams would have to adjust their plans and expect that a larger pool of players may "graduate" prematurely every year than whatever they are doing right now. NCAA teams have to do this, they don't necessarily know who might declare pro until they do.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Realistically, teams would have to adjust their plans and expect that a larger pool of players may "graduate" prematurely every year than whatever they are doing right now. NCAA teams have to do this, they don't necessarily know who might declare pro until they do.

Yes, they would. But they don't, because it's better for the league if the best players are playing in the league. The league would be far worse off if they didn't have these 19 year olds playing in it, it's not debatable.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Yes, they would. But they don't, because it's better for the league if the best players are playing in the league. The league would be far worse off if they didn't have these 19 year olds playing in it, it's not debatable.

...but it is, it's all marginal and relative

I mean, the CHL could have eligibility go to age 22 with a transfer agreement in accordance. What's the difference? It's all arbitrary anyways.

The CHL wants to cry poverty on this, but there's no reasonable basis for the claim. They just want the rights to as many players as they can get for as long as they can get them. The structure doesn't depend or need it though, which is the whole argument for why this "needs" to be in place every time the discussion comes up on the main boards and it screws over a small number of kids (that are actually legal adults) every year.

The original topic was "survival", not "nice to haves", just like it'd be nice if Duke got 4 years of Zion Williamson, like it was more common back in the day.

 

[Hawkaholic]

...but it is, it's all marginal and relative

I mean, the CHL could have eligibility go to age 22 with a transfer agreement in accordance. What's the difference? It's all arbitrary anyways.

It's not. It's not marginal either. No one in London is going to OHL games if the Knights aren't one of the best teams every year. That's a MAJOR loss for the entire OHL.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's not. It's not marginal either. No one in London is going to OHL games if the Knights aren't one of the best teams every year. That's a MAJOR loss for the entire OHL.

Why can't the Knights still be one of the best teams in the OHL? It's not like they lose 19 year olds while everyone else gets to keep them.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Why can't the Knights still be one of the best teams in the OHL? It's not like they lose 19 year olds while everyone else gets to keep them.

Actually that's more likely to happen than not. Knights and teams like Kitchener/Windsor, always seem to have the best young (17/18 year old) players in the CHL. So other teams would have great (@ CHL level) 19/20 year olds while the Knights would lose their more coveted players at the NHL level, far more frequently.

 

[x Tame Impala]

The solution is simple IMO, each team is allowed one player to grant "exceptional status" to. They can go play in the AHL at 18 years old if deemed fit. Not one player per year, just one in your system at all times. Until that player's ELC expires they are the only one capable of being given that status.

Keeps it a rare and consequential occurrence that neither takes too much away from the CHL nor stifles development of tweener young NHLers

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

The solution is simple IMO, each team is allowed one player to grant "exceptional status" to. They can go play in the AHL at 18 years old if deemed fit. Not one player per year, just one in your system at all times. Until that player's ELC expires they are the only one capable of being given that status.

Keeps it a rare and consequential occurrence that neither takes too much away from the CHL nor stifles development of tweener young NHLers

Just let adults earn a living playing professionally if they're talented enough to do so.

 

[Kevin Musto]

Just let adults earn a living playing professionally if they're talented enough to do so.

Just let teams ruin their prospects by stunting their growth

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Just let teams ruin their prospects by stunting their growth

Blind nationalism.