CHL or the NCAA?

[VoluntaryDom]

chl

 

[WaW]

Both have their pros and cons but as far as pro-prospects go, the downside of the NCAA route are the 16/17 year old years in US Junior hockey. The USHL is well named as it's basically the Ultra Soft Hockey League. The skill level is high but the physicality is lacking and therefore isn't good preparation for the pro game. The CHL has the same high skill level but is more of a physical pro-style game and has a more natural transition for most players to the AHL then NHL.

I can see the merit to both though. The NCAA route seems to work very well for most American players.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

If you were 16 again and good enough to even consider professional hockey as a career choice, would you rather play in the CHL or play in the NCAA?

I said CHL but...it's complicated.
One question I have is what US school is offering the NCAA scholarship. If it were one of the NCAA schools that are top tier academically (Michigan comes to mind) and my family couldn't otherwise afford for me to attend...I might consider the NCAA route.
"consider professional hockey as a career choice" is a bit loaded. Am I considering it because I'm likely to go in the first round of the NHL draft? Or am I considering professional hockey because I might end up in the AHL for a few years?

 

[Machinehead]

Depends on the type of player I am.

Seems like the CHL is better at producing stars and the NCAA is better at producing solid NHL players.

There's also the factor of: if I'm a star, I don't need the education, but if I'm just ok, I want that to fall back on.

 

[Future GOAT]

CHL pretty easily.

 

[Jetcetera]

CHL has a higher level of skill and better prepares you for the pros as far as schedule goes.

 

[BlueBaron]

Only reason to go NCAA is in case you don't make it at least you have a degree. The talent levels are vastly different but you do have older guys in college.

 

[LeProspector]

If I was a Guy like Crosby/McDavid/Stamkos I’m going CHL but if I’m not, I’m playing it safe and having my degree as a fall back option. But hey, we don’t really think like that when we’re 15-16 though.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

USDP or CHL?

 

[A4T1L6]

NCAA would be a better experience, plus college girls

 

[wasup]

Only reason to go NCAA is in case you don't make it at least you have a degree. The talent levels are vastly different but you do have older guys in college.

You are looking in the past not the present and the way things are heading . Minnesota 13 draft picks BU 12 draft picks BC 12 draft picks Providence 12 draft picks and only Providence was ranked in the top 16 of the NCAA . Times have changed in the past 5-7 years and you are just sticking your head in the sand and things are passing you by .
Sweden Finland Russia USA etc now all do a great job developing , thinking the CHL is the only way or the best way is short sighted .
Just look how the draft has changed the last 5 years , look who gets nominated for the Calder last few years . There are many great development leagues and CHL and NCAA are just two of them .

 

[Menzinger]

Depends on the type of player I am.

Seems like the CHL is better at producing stars and the NCAA is better at producing solid NHL players.

There's also the factor of: if I'm a star, I don't need the education, but if I'm just ok, I want that to fall back on.

Though how much credit should the chl get for actually “developing” those players? Like if Marner or day McDavid went to another league I doubt they’d be any worse for it

They get the bulk of Canadian talent because of geography, and with a large group of players there will always be a cream of the crop.

 

[Pyrophorus]

You can always play 4yrs in the CHL, and have 4 years of CIS paid for.

 

[canucks4ever]

NCAA is the better option if your goal is to make the nhl as a 22/23 year old. With the chl route, if you dont make the AHL as a 20/21 year old, you are basically done.

 

[hcg]

CHL. I went to school in Canada anyway.

 

[thething]

Though how much credit should the chl get for actually “developing” those players? Like if Marner or day McDavid went to another league I doubt they’d be any worse for it

This statement is pretty ridiculous. Since it could be applied any team/league when discussing elite players.

Like how much credit should the USDP get for actually "developing" their players? All the players on the USDP teams were considered among the best of the best from the US prior to joining the team.

Same when discussing the NCAA. Marner and Mcdavid both spent 3 seasons in the OHL vs elite NCAA guys like Eichel, Connor, or Larkin who only spent 1 year in the NCAA.

Does that mean the NCAA shouldn't get credit for developing those guys? Or is spending 1 year in the NCAA lead to greater development than 2+ years in the CHL? No, of course not.

 

[roflstomper]

D1 athlete on scholarship at a prestigious school would be pretty great I think.