Major Junior vs. College

[Oilers Chick]

Upon signing an NHL contract players choose not to accept the bursary given by the CHL the same way an NCAA player loses their full-ride scholarship.

First off Alpine, I want to thank you for being the first person here that has actually answered this question (and explained it) that I've been posing a long time.

In reply to the above quoted comment you made, it goes against virtually everything that I've read and heard about CHL players where getting scholarships is concerned because I've read and have been told by several people that these scholarships are guaranteed even after 20 or 30 years, maybe even longer AFTER they have left the CHL. So if that is indeed the case, it begs the question of why more players aren't taking advantage of them. After all, pro hockey careers for most players average between 10-20 years. Why not pick up that scholarship when your hockey career is about to end (or has ended) and get an education to perhaps bone up on skills for another job/career? Just because your playing days are over and you have a family doesn't necessarily mean that you have to completely give up on the idea (or wish) to go to college/university.

Now having said all of that and it is YOU my friend, who is correct then I'd like to know why the pro-CHL folks here who are talking up these scholarships (the ones who have) are giving me misleading information? Is it because I'm touching on something that few know the whole scoop on and/or maybe feel that a CIS scholarship is somehow better than an NCAA scholarship? My feeling is that a scholarship is a scholarship. If you're lucky enough to get one (athletically or otherwise), it's something to be proud of no matter to what institution it is to on EITHER side of the border. I think the idea of CHL players being able to get scholarships is wonderful, it's just a pity that many more of them choose not to use them.

I guess I don't know what you're getting at with the question, maybe... "if the scholarships are so great and guaranteed"... what, are you questioning that they're great or guaranteed?

Both actually

seeing as most ECAC teams play competitively with the three conferances that you mentioned, I think lumbing them in with the dregs of NCAA hockey (CHA, AHA) is pretty unfair.

xander, you calling the CHA and AHA the "dregs of college hockey" is pretty unfair too. How much do you actually know about the teams in those conferences? Holy Cross pulls off arguably the biggest upset in NCAA hckey history and they are dregs? How about Mercyhurst nearly upsetting Boston College two years ago in the NCAA Tournament and Bemidji State doing likewise to Denver that same year? Fact of the matter is, while the AHA and CHA may not have the prestige oe recognition that the other four conferences do doesn't make them dregs. These teams have produced some very good players, a handful of whom have actually seen time in the NHL. Furthermore, the teams in these conferences are making great progress as far as bettering their programs and recruiting efforts. Well, it's not likely that Army is going to be taking away recruits from Minnesota anytime in the foreseeable future but then again most Black Knights players aren't pursuing immediate pro hockey careers either.

 

[Seph]

In general it seems like Major Juniors prepares kids for the NHL better, as they get used to playing more games in a season and it more closely resembles the professional environment. It seems as though on average players out of the CHL are ready for the NHL younger than players from the NCAA (or anywhere else, really). But NCAA players seem to come in more complete.

 

[The Exiled One]

This simple question from a n00b has really turned into quite a thread! To me, the question seems simple to answer... it depends on the player.

For example, the CHL is a league (primarily) of 16-20 year olds. So, if you're bound to be an NHL phenom at 18 years old, this is the league(s) for you!

The NCAA is a league (primarily) of 18-24 year olds. So, if you're going to be NHL ready at 21, this is the league for you!

To sum up, the NHL caliber guys that are coming straight from the CHL or the NCAA usually won't age out (or graduate). So, it all depends on the learning curve of the player... earlier for the CHL, later for the NCAA.

The Americans will trend to the NCAA. The Canadians will trend to the CHL.

Everybody else will need some AHL time and will most likely be a role player anyway, so which league you come from means a lot less.

Of course, there are exceptions to every guideline, but in those cases I really believe the player would have been better served going the other route.

 

[Blind Gardien]

In reply to the above quoted comment you made, it goes against virtually everything that I've read and heard about CHL players where getting scholarships is concerned because I've read and have been told by several people that these scholarships are guaranteed even after 20 or 30 years, maybe even longer AFTER they have left the CHL. So if that is indeed the case, it begs the question of why more players aren't taking advantage of them. After all, pro hockey careers for most players average between 10-20 years. Why not pick up that scholarship when your hockey career is about to end (or has ended) and get an education to perhaps bone up on skills for another job/career? Just because your playing days are over and you have a family doesn't necessarily mean that you have to completely give up on the idea (or wish) to go to college/university.

Has there been any mention yet of how many players are taking up the CHL scholarships? How can we wonder why there aren't "more", if we don't even have a handle on how many are doing it?

That said, a couple of notes/qutestions which may or may not be obvious, and which may or may not factor into this:

I think it would take a pretty special level of commitment for an ex-player to go back to university after 10-20 years... I work in a Canadian university. I don't find it to be particularly common for middle-aged men with families to do that. Not unknown by any stretch, of course, but still, if you were paring down the stats, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find shockingly few ex-players doing this. You still have to be able to be admitted by the school to do it too... and I imagine for a lot of these guys coming from somewhat spotty academic backgrounds, that's not necessarily an easy task.

That said, you do hear stories about players doing it... there was a piece on LeafsTV recently about Jeff Jackson, he went back and did law (at Queen's I think) after he finished playing and is in the Leafs front office now after various stints as an agent and rep. I don't know if he did it on a CHL scholarship or not, he mentioned something, but I wasn't paying close attention. But he was an NHL player too, so I don't know how that fits with what Alpine said.

I don't know how long the program has been in place either. For middle-aged ex-players to be going back, well, it'd have to have been around for a reasonably long time, or have been grand-fathered in.

Anyway, supposedly there are 350 players on the deal in the CIS right now. That's a pretty good number, I'd say. I would imagine the prime value to these scholarships is being able to use them pretty quickly like that, straight out of junior or after only a very brief period of trying in the low minors. Anything beyond that, well great if it's there, but I don't see how it's that much of a selling point... and maybe that's another disconnect: tuition in Canada is dramatically lower than in the States, so if we're talking $5000 per year, it's not something that's likely to be too far out of reach for anybody who wants to go that route anyway.

Now having said all of that and it is YOU my friend, who is correct then I'd like to know why the pro-CHL folks here who are talking up these scholarships (the ones who have) are giving me misleading information? Is it because I'm touching on something that few know the whole scoop on and/or maybe feel that a CIS scholarship is somehow better than an NCAA scholarship? My feeling is that a scholarship is a scholarship. If you're lucky enough to get one (athletically or otherwise), it's something to be proud of no matter to what institution it is to on EITHER side of the border. I think the idea of CHL players being able to get scholarships is wonderful, it's just a pity that many more of them choose not to use them.

Well again, I don't know that it's so much a matter of "choice" in all cases. Getting into university is not automatic, and in fact is probably out of reach for many of the ex-players. But if there are 350 right now today using them at university, that's a pretty good number (surprising even, to me). Presumably there will be a bunch more not really playing that level of CIS hockey too, just studying a trade, perhaps in community colleges, wherever they can gain admittance if university is inaccessible for them.

I don't know that anybody has ever said it's better than an NCAA scholarship, though? It's just a nice bonus for those who choose to go the CHL route to know that hey, if school was ever a consideration for them, the CHL has a program to help there too. But nobody is going to say you pick the CHL program if education is your #1 priority.

Anyway, I thought somebody here or on one of the junior forums already basically quoted chapter and verse of the CHL education program guidelines in one of the previous incarnations of this debate. I obviously didn't commit it to memory, but I think it's out there.

 

[Oilers Chick]

Has there been any mention yet of how many players are taking up the CHL scholarships? How can we wonder why there aren't "more", if we don't even have a handle on how many are doing it?

That said, a couple of notes/qutestions which may or may not be obvious, and which may or may not factor into this:

I think it would take a pretty special level of commitment for an ex-player to go back to university after 10-20 years... I work in a Canadian university. I don't find it to be particularly common for middle-aged men with families to do that. Not unknown by any stretch, of course, but still, if you were paring down the stats, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find shockingly few ex-players doing this. You still have to be able to be admitted by the school to do it too... and I imagine for a lot of these guys coming from somewhat spotty academic backgrounds, that's not necessarily an easy task.

That said, you do hear stories about players doing it... there was a piece on LeafsTV recently about Jeff Jackson, he went back and did law (at Queen's I think) after he finished playing and is in the Leafs front office now after various stints as an agent and rep. I don't know if he did it on a CHL scholarship or not, he mentioned something, but I wasn't paying close attention. But he was an NHL player too, so I don't know how that fits with what Alpine said.

I don't know how long the program has been in place either. For middle-aged ex-players to be going back, well, it'd have to have been around for a reasonably long time, or have been grand-fathered in.

Anyway, supposedly there are 350 players on the deal in the CIS right now. That's a pretty good number, I'd say. I would imagine the prime value to these scholarships is being able to use them pretty quickly like that, straight out of junior or after only a very brief period of trying in the low minors. Anything beyond that, well great if it's there, but I don't see how it's that much of a selling point... and maybe that's another disconnect: tuition in Canada is dramatically lower than in the States, so if we're talking $5000 per year, it's not something that's likely to be too far out of reach for anybody who wants to go that route anyway.

Well again, I don't know that it's so much a matter of "choice" in all cases. Getting into university is not automatic, and in fact is probably out of reach for many of the ex-players. But if there are 350 right now today using them at university, that's a pretty good number (surprising even, to me). Presumably there will be a bunch more not really playing that level of CIS hockey too, just studying a trade, perhaps in community colleges, wherever they can gain admittance if university is inaccessible for them.

I don't know that anybody has ever said it's better than an NCAA scholarship, though? It's just a nice bonus for those who choose to go the CHL route to know that hey, if school was ever a consideration for them, the CHL has a program to help there too. But nobody is going to say you pick the CHL program if education is your #1 priority.

Anyway, I thought somebody here or on one of the junior forums already basically quoted chapter and verse of the CHL education program guidelines in one of the previous incarnations of this debate. I obviously didn't commit it to memory, but I think it's out there.

Your points are well taken.

From what I've been able to gather (and I do not have exact numbers here), the percentage of former CHL players taking advantage of these scholarships is relatively low and virtually non-existent amongst the elite. If that is the case, then it begs the question of why even bother offering/giving it to players that will NEVER use them?! I think the monies can be better spent elsewhere, such as team equipment, employee salaries, etc. Why earmark money for a college education that your players aren't going to use anyway?

Also, what benefit is there of these scholarships to the players that won't take advantage of them? I hear and read about how wonderful, beneficial, etc. these scholarships are to CHL players all the time only to find out that few players actually take advantage of them. Instead of just giving it away outright, why not just offer it to those that DO want to take advantage of them? Don't you think that makes more sense?

 

[RUSqueelin*]

Has there been any mention yet of how many players are taking up the CHL scholarships? How can we wonder why there aren't "more", if we don't even have a handle on how many are doing it?

Anyway, supposedly there are 350 players on the deal in the CIS right now. That's a pretty good number, I'd say. I would imagine the prime value to these scholarships is being able to use them pretty quickly like that, straight out of junior or after only a very brief period of trying in the low minors. Anything beyond that, well great if it's there, but I don't see how it's that much of a selling point... and maybe that's another disconnect: tuition in Canada is dramatically lower than in the States, so if we're talking $5000 per year, it's not something that's likely to be too far out of reach for anybody who wants to go that route anyway.

:

Your points are well taken.

From what I've been able to gather (and I do not have exact numbers here), the percentage of former CHL players taking advantage of these scholarships is relatively low and virtually non-existent amongst the elite. If that is the case, then it begs the question of why even bother offering/giving it to players that will NEVER use them?! I think the monies can be better spent elsewhere, such as team equipment, employee salaries, etc. Why earmark money for a college education that your players aren't going to use anyway?

Also, what benefit is there of these scholarships to the players that won't take advantage of them? I hear and read about how wonderful, beneficial, etc. these scholarships are to CHL players all the time only to find out that few players actually take advantage of them. Instead of just giving it away outright, why not just offer it to those that DO want to take advantage of them? Don't you think that makes more sense?

To answer a few questions:

Direct from the WHL site: since 1993 they've given out over 2,300 scholorships or about $8million. 260 players recieve financial support each year.

So this is only the WHL. It's reasonable to assume that this number can be multipled by 3 for the whole CHL. You have to remember that that player doesn't have to play hockey at university - so there are a lot more then the CIS hockey players to count.

As far as the elite players not using them. Well, why would they? They are playing professional hockey - for big bucks - just like the elite college players who leave early. If they do just to go back to uni later - well, they should have more then enough money to pay their way considering NHL players make minimum of $450,000/year. The general attitude is - we'll give an a great education or help you get a great career (pro hockey player).

And as already pointed out, university is not for everyone. Some don't want to, some aren't smart enough, some don't need too etc. It's a life choice for some. One thing I like about the Canadian sports system as opposed the US. Everyone always says the US is a great system cause sports and sport are combined. I look at it from a different perspective - why should an athlete be forced to go to university just to continue their athletic persute? Yes, its a GREAT option for those that want to go to university but what about those athletes that are not smart enough, don't want to etc? It can make the scholorship process a farce (I know it's select instances, and is a whole other topic and I'm getting a little of topic) I like the way competetive sports and schools can be seperated in Canada such as hockey.


And Oilers Chick, to answer you question about wasting scholorships are players that don't use them. I think you are a bit confused. The teams don't just issue scholorships and say here you go, good luck. For instance, in the OHL, the player completes a term or year or whatever, then the team rememburses that player for the cost of going to school upon successful completion ie not flunking.

 

[xander]

xander, you calling the CHA and AHA the "dregs of college hockey" is pretty unfair too. How much do you actually know about the teams in those conferences? Holy Cross pulls off arguably the biggest upset in NCAA hckey history and they are dregs? How about Mercyhurst nearly upsetting Boston College two years ago in the NCAA Tournament and Bemidji State doing likewise to Denver that same year? Fact of the matter is, while the AHA and CHA may not have the prestige oe recognition that the other four conferences do doesn't make them dregs. These teams have produced some very good players, a handful of whom have actually seen time in the NHL. Furthermore, the teams in these conferences are making great progress as far as bettering their programs and recruiting efforts. Well, it's not likely that Army is going to be taking away recruits from Minnesota anytime in the foreseeable future but then again most Black Knights players aren't pursuing immediate pro hockey careers either.

alright, you got me. Infact, if you wanted to really put a dagger into my argument then you could have pointed out that my big red lost to sacred heart this year (how a team loses to sacred heart a week after taking out New Hampshire is beyond me.) So I will admit that my use of the word "dregs" was inapropriate.

however, I do think that there is a serious demarcation between the CHA and Atlantic Hockey and the other four conferances and it's that the other four conferances routinely send more than one team to the tourney and those two conferances don't.

Looking at college hockey now, one would be remiss not to acknowledge the tremendous amount of talent out west. At the same time, despite what WCHA fans might want to think, those western teams do lose to the other conferances on a fairly routine basis. Anyone can be beaten in the college hockey landscape, but I do think the conferances can be ranked as such:

WCHA
Hockey East
CCHA, ECAC

Atlantic Hockey, CHA

 

[WheatiesHockey]

Sometimes it is a question of how elite is "elite" and there isn't a lot of information to go on unless the elite are playing against each other. The closest barometer out there would be the World Junior tournament held every December. Team Canada is pretty much a CHL show with the bulk of the players being 19 year olds. Team USA (with some CHL exceptions) has drawn heavily from the NCAA and their National Junior development programs. The USA Junior teams in recent years have been quite impressive to be sure, but Team Canada with its CHL players have to get the nod.
Hockey went global a while back, so NHL teams are most likely to get the best available players wherever they can find them whether it be from the CHL, NCAA or former East Bloc countries.

 

[xander]

Sometimes it is a question of how elite is "elite" and there isn't a lot of information to go on unless the elite are playing against each other. The closest barometer out there would be the World Junior tournament held every December. Team Canada is pretty much a CHL show with the bulk of the players being 19 year olds. Team USA (with some CHL exceptions) has drawn heavily from the NCAA and their National Junior development programs. The USA Junior teams in recent years have been quite impressive to be sure, but Team Canada with its CHL players have to get the nod.
Hockey went global a while back, so NHL teams are most likely to get the best available players wherever they can find them whether it be from the CHL, NCAA or former East Bloc countries.

it's not really fair to compare the NCAA and CHL based on the WJC because Canada has a much deeper talent base than the US does. Many NCAA teams are anywhere from 30 to 60% canadian, and this year's canadian goal medal team relied heavily on a NCAA product (Toews.)

 

[Oilers Chick]

To answer a few questions:

Direct from the WHL site: since 1993 they've given out over 2,300 scholorships or about $8million. 260 players recieve financial support each year.

So this is only the WHL. It's reasonable to assume that this number can be multipled by 3 for the whole CHL. You have to remember that that player doesn't have to play hockey at university - so there are a lot more then the CIS hockey players to count.

As far as the elite players not using them. Well, why would they? They are playing professional hockey - for big bucks - just like the elite college players who leave early. If they do just to go back to uni later - well, they should have more then enough money to pay their way considering NHL players make minimum of $450,000/year. The general attitude is - we'll give an a great education or help you get a great career (pro hockey player).

And as already pointed out, university is not for everyone. Some don't want to, some aren't smart enough, some don't need too etc. It's a life choice for some. One thing I like about the Canadian sports system as opposed the US. Everyone always says the US is a great system cause sports and sport are combined. I look at it from a different perspective - why should an athlete be forced to go to university just to continue their athletic persute? Yes, its a GREAT option for those that want to go to university but what about those athletes that are not smart enough, don't want to etc? It can make the scholorship process a farce (I know it's select instances, and is a whole other topic and I'm getting a little of topic) I like the way competetive sports and schools can be seperated in Canada such as hockey.


And Oilers Chick, to answer you question about wasting scholorships are players that don't use them. I think you are a bit confused. The teams don't just issue scholorships and say here you go, good luck. For instance, in the OHL, the player completes a term or year or whatever, then the team rememburses that player for the cost of going to school upon successful completion ie not flunking.

Again, points are well taken and I hate having to keep beating this to the ground but what you and Blind Gardien have said contradicts, to different degrees, what I've read and heard. All I want is the straight and simple story of how the system works...the way it REALLY works. That's not too much to ask is it? I'm just trying to learn something here, especially a topic that I find quite fascinating.

Yes, I do know that college is not every player's cup of tea and that elite players can spend their own dough on their own college education if they choose to do so but that isn't my point nor topic of debate here.

As for former CHLers getting reimbursed for their higher education costs, yes, I know about that too but I also have heard and read that in most cases is in ADDITION to a guaranteed scholarship that is still valid well after the "normal" college age years (18-25), but you are saying that is not the case. So which is the correct one?

 

[RUSqueelin*]

Again, points are well taken and I hate having to keep beating this to the ground but what you and Blind Gardien have said contradicts, to different degrees, what I've read and heard. All I want is the straight and simple story of how the system works...the way it REALLY works. That's not too much to ask is it? I'm just trying to learn something here, especially a topic that I find quite fascinating.

Yes, I do know that college is not every player's cup of tea and that elite players can spend their own dough on their own college education if they choose to do so but that isn't my point nor topic of debate here.

As for former CHLers getting reimbursed for their higher education costs, yes, I know about that too but I also have heard and read that in most cases is in ADDITION to a guaranteed scholarship that is still valid well after the "normal" college age years (18-25), but you are saying that is not the case. So which is the correct one?

Standard education package says that a player can put off school for a year, try hockey or whatever, then use his package - so yes the player has one year to decide whether to use his education package or not.

However, contracts are negotiable. Anything can be crossed out or added when negotiating. So if a player has leverage perhaps he can negotiate better terms. If a player can get a package for 2 or 3 years after the fact they'd be doing something. Teams would never agree to pay for a package 6 years down the road - for a mirade of reasons, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Transported Upstater]

I'd say the NCAA offers a higher level of play (certainly the upper echelon schools do), but the CHL game is more NHL-style oriented. In addition they play more games in the CHL.
It really comes down to each individual's preference and circumstance.

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[hockeyismylife]

Hockeyismylife you missed something in your statement. CHL teams offer every one of their players on year of scholarship funding guaranteed for every one year played at the CHL level. That is guaranteed, the NCAA does not guarantee every kid the same thing. World class education? North Dakota might be an ok school, but kids going there are going there to play hockey on a scholarship first. Canadian Universities are every bit as good as anything most of the USA can produce.The CHL scholarship program works in favour of ALL the kids who choose to play CHL. A CHL grad doesn't even have to play University level hockey at all and still gets a scholarship after he has finished his CHL career.

Yes, but IIRC, if that CHL grad wants to play pro hockey, he loses his scholarship. Also, I think there is a time limit that you have to use the scholarship in but I might be wrong. I agree that Canadian universities are just as good as American ones and not every American university is a world-class education.

 

[therealdeal]

Well aside from ones already listed, here's some more former NCAA players (both graduates and non-graduates, and drafted players and non-drafted players) currently playing in the NHL:

Ryan Miller, Shawn Horcoff, Joe Pavelski, Marty Turco, Phil Kessel, Thomas Vanek, Zach Parise, Rick DiPietro, Rob Blake, Rod Brind'Amour, Dustin Penner, Chris Kunitz, Lee Stempniak, Tom Preissing, Bret Hedican, Brendan Morrison, Ryan Kesler, Mike Komissarek, Dwayne Roloson, Ed Belfour, Kevyn Adams, Mike Grier, Mike Knuble, Jim Slater, Fernando Pisani, Chris Higgins, Brian Rolston, Paul Stastny, Patrick Eaves, Tony Amonte, Craig Conroy, Matt Greene, Kevin Bieksa, Jeff Halpern, Andy MacDonald, Keith Carney

shall I go on?

I don't think its unfair to say that none of these are huge stars, lots of good players, but no superstars.

 

[WheatiesHockey]

One of the benefits that I can see with a kid going NCAA is that the kids get a lot more time to prepare for games, practise to game ratios are much higher and more time to learn and reflect on the game of hockey itself. Coaching at the junior level requires a lot of patience as well as the ability to teach the game.
The scheduling and travel of WHL teams is extemely demanding, especially during the playoffs. A seven game series is scheduled to start and finish in about 10 days. It gets pretty intense during the late season, especially factoring in things like injuries, fatigue, travel and little time to prepare for the next game or recover from the last one.
Canada and the USA have very different hockey cultures and that might reflect certain biases toward which route is best. Canadian junior hockey is communitarian in nature, while Americans tend to have an orientation toward hockey programmes built around educational institutions like prep schools and colleges.
I mentioned earlier the WJC tourney earlier being a CHL showcase, but it is many respects it goes way beyond that at times. The CHL prospects that get selected wind up having 30 million Canadians intensely following the training camp and that is merely for who gets to actually wear Team Canada colours. It's certainly a lot of exposure for a kid who has never played a pro game.
An NCAA scholarship might be great for individual kids and they certainly are, the thing is that the large majority Canadians want excellent LOCAL hockey programmes for themselves and that the CHL teams can offer.
It's probably a moot point as to which system will turn out a better NHL'er over the long run.The thing is that local fans can watch CHL teams and say they have watched a Mike Modano, a Sidney Crosby, a Dion Phaneuf and so on at the Junior level. It's big stuff for hockey fans and players in Canada.
Whether or not a kid avails himself of the CHL scholarship guarantee is ultimately his and his parents business. The CHL teams insure that the money is there and that its future educational liabilities are properly funded.

 

[chaachie12]

I don't think its unfair to say that none of these are huge stars, lots of good players, but no superstars.

there are potential future Hall of Famers on that list...

 

[Ban Hammered]

I don't think its unfair to say that none of these are huge stars, lots of good players, but no superstars.

Wow...

 

[Alpine]

Again, points are well taken and I hate having to keep beating this to the ground but what you and Blind Gardien have said contradicts, to different degrees, what I've read and heard. All I want is the straight and simple story of how the system works...the way it REALLY works. That's not too much to ask is it? I'm just trying to learn something here, especially a topic that I find quite fascinating.

Yes, I do know that college is not every player's cup of tea and that elite players can spend their own dough on their own college education if they choose to do so but that isn't my point nor topic of debate here.

As for former CHLers getting reimbursed for their higher education costs, yes, I know about that too but I also have heard and read that in most cases is in ADDITION to a guaranteed scholarship that is still valid well after the "normal" college age years (18-25), but you are saying that is not the case. So which is the correct one?

I think if you search the OHL/WHL/LHJMQ sites the information you are looking for is there.
http://www.lhjmq.qc.ca/lang_en/index.php
Under the heading schooling.
Just remember that these are league standards. Individual teams are free to negotiate terms over and above these on a player by player basis
From the Q site: paraphrased..........
Each year about 100 players graduate from the Q. aprox. 20 players go directly into the pro ranks (most of these forfiet there bursaries, unless negotiated on an individual basis with specific teams).
Aprox. 50 players use their scholarship/bursary/grant....whatever term you like......immediately. Players have to actually pass the courses to keep their bursaries.
Which leaves about 30 to go back to the family farm, fishing boat, business, just get a job, hitch hike around Europe, or sit at a bar all day
In 2006-2007 the Q is giving out more tham $300,000 in bursaries.
Heck even alot of Junior A teams are offering education packages these days. Moncton Beavers have an education budget this year of over $32,000. But they will not pay for room and board.
There's so much to take into consideration for a young player. Staying close to home, playing a season close to a pro schedule, or experiencing campus life.
I'd never say which is better or worse. It's not my choice.
Like anything else in life the opportunities are there, it's how hard you work and how much desire you have.
All of these programmes are really meant for the non-elite player or maybe injured player. In this day and age I can't see many parents allowing their 16,17, year olds permission to join a junior club with-out some education guarantees.
The elite will follow their dream to the top pro ranks.
EDIT:
Oilers Chick.....
Maybe you're confusing CHL bursaries with what is offered to veteran players by the NHLPA. NHLPA has programmes to help players in the transition to life after hockey.
The only example of what your thinking that I can find is last years CIS player of the year Kevin Baker. The former LA draft pick played 2 years in AHL/ECHL. Then took a three year degree at Acadia and this year has returned to AHL/ECHL. But his agreement would have been guaranteed by his junior club Belleville Bulls to augment his OHL package.
Anywho, I'll stop now. Those that believe in CHL will continue and those in NCAA will also continue.

 

[Midnight]

I don't think its unfair to say that none of these are huge stars, lots of good players, but no superstars.

Yeah, that Ed Belfour guy sure hasn't done much to distinguish himself, has he?

 

[RUSqueelin*]

One of the benefits that I can see with a kid going NCAA is that the kids get a lot more time to prepare for games, practise to game ratios are much higher and more time to learn and reflect on the game of hockey itself.

How many practices do NCAA teams typcially have and how many times are the kids on the ice during a typical week?

 

[Zine]

How many practices do NCAA teams typcially have and how many times are the kids on the ice during a typical week?

They're on the ice every day. 1 1/2 to 2 hour practice is what I've heard.

 

[babybruin]

I read in THN one of the NCAA coaches touting this as a major plus for players going the NCAA route. He said practices outweighing the games was better for the development of players at that stage.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

I read in THN one of the NCAA coaches touting this as a major plus for players going the NCAA route. He said practices outweighing the games was better for the development of players at that stage.

I think this is a falacy. Junior players are on the ice every day too. 2-3 games a week and 4-5 practices. I don't see the big difference in practice time.

 

[TC20]

Not as Simple as i've decided to get a Scholarship

By the way this forum is going it seems as if there's a choice between going CHL or NCAA. Getting a scholarship is not as simple as being a decent player who could play WHL OHl QMJHL. Scholarships aren't handed out like candy to players in i'll say BCJHL sinc eim from BC. Theres many players who play in that league for 4 years who never get an offer to get a scholarship. Alot of these same players who do not get these scholarships are also players who have been drafted into WHL teams but turn down the offer to pursue an NCAA scholarship. This leaves players at 20 having to make a step off to college on their own or whatever work they pursue after hockey a couple of years behind their peers.
So in my opinion unless you know that you are almost guranteed to get a college scholarship ie Jonathon Sigalet Kris Chucko, i think the smartest point would attempt the major junior route because of the level of hockey games played and as soon as you sign th card to play for a team if your dropped halfway through the season or ten games in you still get that year of schooling paid for you.

 

[VOB]

They're on the ice every day. 1 1/2 to 2 hour practice is what I've heard.

Nope. Practices are usually no more than 1 hour and there are 4 a week and in some rare cases 5 as Sundays are generally off days. It is almost unheard of having a formal practice on a game day. Teams may get in a light skate in the morning, but trust me, that hardly constitutes as a practice.

The reality is that CHL players not only get more game time but practice time as well. Remember, they open camp a full month, and in some cases 6 weeks, before college teams hit the ice for the first time. Their season is longer, meaning more practice time. The average CHL team gets in about three practices a week.

Good job RUSqueelen and Alpine on explaining the CHL eduaction packages. I remember a few years back, few if any American college fans on this board believed that they existed where as now, most realize that choosing the CHL is not closing any doors to a post secondary education.