How to pick a CHL team to follow?

[Josh Tessler]

One of my contributors, Alex Hobson wrote a guide on how to pick a CHL team to follow if you don't have one.

Check it out!

Hobson's Guide: 5 Ways to Pick a Favourite CHL Team

Click to read more...

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Here's a better idea: don't support an exploitative system that preys upon children and gullible parents.

 

[Otto]

Here's a better idea: don't support an exploitative system that preys upon children and gullible parents.

So... don't watch hockey at all then?

 

[CrazyEddie20]

So... don't watch hockey at all then?

No, just Major Juniors, which is tantamount to indentured servitude.

 

[Otto]

No, just Major Juniors, which is tantamount to indentured servitude.

And NCAA isn't?

 

[CrazyEddie20]

And NCAA isn't?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

While I fully believe that NCAA athletes in revenue sports should be paid in addition to receiving scholarships, NCAA hockey is far less exploitative than Major Juniors.

Start with the terms on the "education package" than CHL teams "provide" to their athletes, who are somehow not considered employees despite CHL organizations being business enterprises. You do realize that not every player gets an "education package," right? That they have to play a full season to get one year of education, that where they can obtain that year of education is strictly limited, and that if they play more than one season of pro hockey at any level (including the SPHL/FHL/low levels in Europe), that promise evaporates?

Did you know that basically everything promised to a player who signs a CHL contract is not guaranteed? That legally, those contracts could be considered adhesive and are borderline unconscionable?

Oh, but they get a stipend, you say? Fifty to 200 dollars a week for more than full-time work is not fair compensation.

Oh, but they're living their dream, you say? Yeah, so am I in my career, but that doesn't mean that my employer won't be held to account if they treat me unfairly. Only in athletics does "but the kids are living their dream" serve as a viable excuse for exploitative behavior.

 

[Otto]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

While I fully believe that NCAA athletes in revenue sports should be paid in addition to receiving scholarships, NCAA hockey is far less exploitative than Major Juniors.

Start with the terms on the "education package" than CHL teams "provide" to their athletes, who are somehow not considered employees despite CHL organizations being business enterprises. You do realize that not every player gets an "education package," right? That they have to play a full season to get one year of education, that where they can obtain that year of education is strictly limited, and that if they play more than one season of pro hockey at any level (including the SPHL/FHL/low levels in Europe), that promise evaporates?

Did you know that basically everything promised to a player who signs a CHL contract is not guaranteed? That legally, those contracts could be considered adhesive and are borderline unconscionable?

Oh, but they get a stipend, you say? Fifty to 200 dollars a week for more than full-time work is not fair compensation.

Oh, but they're living their dream, you say? Yeah, so am I in my career, but that doesn't mean that my employer won't be held to account if they treat me unfairly. Only in athletics does "but the kids are living their dream" serve as a viable excuse for exploitative behavior.

So you are saying that a player at say, Michigan gets paid more than a CHL player? that even if he plays one year on his scholarship he will get 4 years of education, and that the school doesn't make any money off the backs of hockey players?

 

[CrazyEddie20]

So you are saying that a player at say, Michigan gets paid more than a CHL player? that even if he plays one year on his scholarship he will get 4 years of education, and that the school doesn't make any money off the backs of hockey players?

I never said the school doesn't make money off the player's labor or that a player who plays one year will get four years of education.

But I would say that a player who plays a year of college hockey and gets that year of education will come out further ahead both hockey-wise and education-wise than if he spent a year in say, North Bay or Prince Albert.

 

[Otto]

I never said the school doesn't make money off the player's labor or that a player who plays one year will get four years of education.

But I would say that a player who plays a year of college hockey and gets that year of education will come out further ahead both hockey-wise and education-wise than if he spent a year in say, North Bay or Prince Albert.

Depends on the program and depends on the player.... don't think it's really as simple as you make it. One thing is for certain, the CHL is the number one development league for NHL players... if a kid has a dream of playing the NHL, the CHL is is best chance

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Depends on the program and depends on the player.... don't think it's really as simple as you make it. One thing is for certain, the CHL is the number one development league for NHL players... if a kid has a dream of playing the NHL, the CHL is is best chance

And it's losing ground every year because parents and players are realizing that it's exploitative and they get more value both on and off the ice in college. More than 50 percent of NHL players will have developed in college within five years.

Approximately 1 in 25 CHL players plays one game in the NHL. What about the other 24? The vast majority of them never use any of their "education package" and never make a living for more than a couple years playing hockey. When they're done, they can't go back and use that "education package."

The CHL is a fine route for those who can't hack it in the classroom, but for anyone looking at their or their son's life after hockey, it's a bad choice.

 

[Otto]

And it's losing ground every year because parents and players are realizing that it's exploitative and they get more value both on and off the ice in college. More than 50 percent of NHL players will have developed in college within five years.

Approximately 1 in 25 CHL players plays one game in the NHL. What about the other 24? The vast majority of them never use any of their "education package" and never make a living for more than a couple years playing hockey. When they're done, they can't go back and use that "education package."

The CHL is a fine route for those who can't hack it in the classroom, but for anyone looking at their or their son's life after hockey, it's a bad choice.

I don't have a lot of time to dig into this now, but I'd like to see the stats over the last 10 years that back up your trend.

Here's an article, albeit from 2014 that refutes your claim https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...res-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ba4c32f98e01

And to say CHL is a "bad choice" for life after hockey is just flat out wrong CHL Scholarship Program Setting Players Up for Life After Hockey