Team was made up of under 20 year old players who mostly played in the CHL, what's the difference if it is a all-star team or a regular CHL team since you stated above that playing against men 4 years older than them they wouldn't have a chance....."its pretty obvious".
Is this a serious question? The difference is that it's an all-star team of the best players in the CHL and not a regular CHL team where the best 2 or 3 players get drafted and the rest have no hope of playing in the NHL. It's also made up of almost exclusively 18 to 20 year old players, unlike a regular CHL team where a third to half of the roster are still high schoolers. Not to mention the lockout meant that a half dozen NHL level players had to stay in the CHL in 2004-05 and played in the WJC.
I just don't get this argument, nobody is disputing that the level of talent is higher in the CHL and that more NHLers come from the CHL but that doesn't mean the CHL is a higher level of play. Age is a huge difference, just comparing St. Cloud State to Acadie-Bathurst, St. Cloud only had three teenagers including two draftees (Hrenak and Poehling) and only one player under
19 (Poehling). They had 7 guys that would be CHL overagers, and 14 guys that would be too old for the CHL. In comparison, Acadie-Bathurst had 12 regulars that were under 19. Talent only goes so far when we're talking about 17 and 18 year olds playing a team of 20-23 year olds.
It's just a weird argument to me, it isn't remotely controversial to say that the NCAA is a higher level of play and it's widely held to be true by people that follow prospects and amateur hockey. I also don't even know if a World Junior team in a non-lockout year is such a slam dunk to beat top NCAA teams, the World Juniors teams play Canadian U Sports all-star teams before the tournament every year and they don't dominate and often lose. Mitch Marner would be fine in the NCAA but that doesn't mean the London Knights would.