sure the NCAA is icing the top 3 draft picks, CHL vs. NCAA the NCAA isn't a terrible league compared to the CHL, but the CHL puts out more complete teams,they have about the same amount of teams but how many players get drafted out of CHL and how many get drated out of NCAA 3:1 around that, so that would be why CHL is considered better, the draft results over the last 10 years... NCAA will have the top 3 this year, and then another 2 in the 1st and another 3 in the 2nd and 4 in the 3rd... CHL players will consume about 1/3 of the first 3 rounds.
Ncaa/chl ?
- Thread starter MN_Gopher
- Start date
- Status
I wouldn't mind seeing what the gophers could do verse CHL teams....
14 drafted players not including kessel......erik johnson coming here, okposo, mueller was slated too...
14 drafted players not including kessel......erik johnson coming here, okposo, mueller was slated too...
I think one reason is, the CHL emulates the game as close as to the NHL as possible. They want the leauge to be like the NHL as close as possible. same NHL rules, etc etc. Plus they have more games which means a big diffrence, and the CHL is superior to the NCAA, is the best players in the world come from the CHL.
Iginla.
Crosby.
Nash.
Neidermeyer
Pronger
Modanno
Roenick
Iginla.
Crosby.
Nash.
Neidermeyer
Pronger
Modanno
Roenick
Juan said:
Good thread. A couple of thoughts. Focusing on MSU and ND as high quality representations of what the NCAA has to offer is probabably as far from ideal as me judging the CHL based on reading about Kitchner on the boards.
A key point that hasn't been mentioned here...is that the CHL due to its drafting nature is a relatively balanced league. The NCAA is a league of have and have nots...due to the competitive nature of recruiting and tradition. For example (without looking this up), the CHA league will likely have both fewer top draft picks than say a single WCHA team as well as fewer in number also. That (and age) would be why a typical WCHA team may be the best in North America.
As was said above and I agree with, the CHL is better from a drafting standpoint because of the recruiting grounds, Canada. The country is an amazing factory of youth hockey as the sport is ingrained in the culture...something that exists in few places in the states or other parts of the world. The fact that many players are in the CHL just two years reinforces IMO the fact that its as much about raw materials as anything.
As an interesting side note, I don't know that a WCHA team would win in a head to head meeting with a good CHL team. Not because the CHL team is necessarily better, but rather because (except for players focusing on drafting and the NHL) the CHL has little presence or exposure in WCHA land and therefore, I don't know if WCHA players would 'get up' for the game. Canada's perennial national champs Alberta came to Minnesota this year. Yes, I know they're not in the CHL...regardless, the game didn't seem to have much of a spark. Its the rivalries that bring out the most in the league...you want to see some truly spectacular hockey...watch the WCHA final 5 on the dish.
Ryan Van Horne
aka Scribe
In a word: age
Both are the same age (born in April 88), but Toews is playing against older players than Mueller. The age range of college players is 18 to 22. The age range of major junior players is 16 to 20. However, you have to factor in that teams are only allowed to have three overagers (20-year-olds), while there is no limit on the number of seniors a college team can have. Also, there are very few 16-year-olds who play major junior, so really, the age range of major junior, for argument's sake, is 17 to 19. A guy like Mueller is playing against older guys, but he's playing closer to his age group, so you would expect him to score more points. Mueller is 17 and playing against guys who are the same age, or one or two years older. Toews, is also 17 (a rarity in college) and playing against guys who are anywhere from one to four years older than him. At that age, that makes a big difference. That's why scouts like to go to tournaments where players are playing against guys in their same age bracket. It's nice to watch guys like Toews play against older guys, but it's more difficult to compare him to a play like Mueller. That's why scouts would prefer to compare them by watching them at the world junior tournament.
The example you cited of Matt Foy (Mike Comrie would be another good example of this phenomenon) can be explained thusly. If a 18-year-old or 19-year-old leaves a U.S. college to go play major junior, they are going to a league where they go from being in the younger half of the league, to being in the older half. That helps boost their production.
Also, they go from being a third-liner, or perhaps a second-liner who doesn't get much power play time, to prime-time ice time. This boosts their production.
All in all, I think the calibre of play in the NCAA is better than the CHL. But if you took the 21 and 22 year-olds out of the NCAA and put them in the AHL or the ECHL. I would say the CHL would have a better calibre of play. Players get stronger and mature physically at this age and I think this is a big reason why it's more diffficult for younger kids to score in the NCAA than it is for them to do it in the CHL.
MN_Gopher said:
Both are the same age (born in April 88), but Toews is playing against older players than Mueller. The age range of college players is 18 to 22. The age range of major junior players is 16 to 20. However, you have to factor in that teams are only allowed to have three overagers (20-year-olds), while there is no limit on the number of seniors a college team can have. Also, there are very few 16-year-olds who play major junior, so really, the age range of major junior, for argument's sake, is 17 to 19. A guy like Mueller is playing against older guys, but he's playing closer to his age group, so you would expect him to score more points. Mueller is 17 and playing against guys who are the same age, or one or two years older. Toews, is also 17 (a rarity in college) and playing against guys who are anywhere from one to four years older than him. At that age, that makes a big difference. That's why scouts like to go to tournaments where players are playing against guys in their same age bracket. It's nice to watch guys like Toews play against older guys, but it's more difficult to compare him to a play like Mueller. That's why scouts would prefer to compare them by watching them at the world junior tournament.
The example you cited of Matt Foy (Mike Comrie would be another good example of this phenomenon) can be explained thusly. If a 18-year-old or 19-year-old leaves a U.S. college to go play major junior, they are going to a league where they go from being in the younger half of the league, to being in the older half. That helps boost their production.
Also, they go from being a third-liner, or perhaps a second-liner who doesn't get much power play time, to prime-time ice time. This boosts their production.
All in all, I think the calibre of play in the NCAA is better than the CHL. But if you took the 21 and 22 year-olds out of the NCAA and put them in the AHL or the ECHL. I would say the CHL would have a better calibre of play. Players get stronger and mature physically at this age and I think this is a big reason why it's more diffficult for younger kids to score in the NCAA than it is for them to do it in the CHL.
Mueller didn't exactly stand out at the Top Prospects game --if anything his stock to a hit...so whatever success he's had this year in the WHL did not translate when he had to go up against an elite competition of his peers...
And neither did Toews or Mueller do much as 17 year olds at the WJHC...I don't think you could tell who was better from that showing vs. older U-20's...
On the other hand Backstrom looked great as an 18 year old vs. some same age and 19 year olds at the WJHC and he's doing very well as the top line centre for Brynas in the Swedish Elite League playing against men pros--so you would have to say that is an even better measure of where you should rank a prospect IF you are ranking their development at this stage--but if you are ranking as a projection several years out --it doesn't matter where they are playing now or what their stats are now --you just look at a guy's potential talent and project it.
And neither did Toews or Mueller do much as 17 year olds at the WJHC...I don't think you could tell who was better from that showing vs. older U-20's...
On the other hand Backstrom looked great as an 18 year old vs. some same age and 19 year olds at the WJHC and he's doing very well as the top line centre for Brynas in the Swedish Elite League playing against men pros--so you would have to say that is an even better measure of where you should rank a prospect IF you are ranking their development at this stage--but if you are ranking as a projection several years out --it doesn't matter where they are playing now or what their stats are now --you just look at a guy's potential talent and project it.
Oilers Chick
Registered User
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
I'd love to see the Memorial Cup champ take on the national champion of the NCAA and have the NCAA destroy them year after year just to simply end this argument.
Jon Prescription said:
Right. And how exactly would it end this argument? A bunch of players on average 21 years of age beating players as young as 16?
I don't think this is a head-to-head team comparison of "which league would win".
Rather, Gopher is asking for clarification on how the stats can be so much higher in the CHL for scoring, and why the CHL is still be considered (by some) to be a better league.
For the record, I think the top NCAA team vs. top CHL team would be a hell of a Best-of-7 Series. But yes, due to the age advantage for the NCAA, the average college squad is definitely superior to the average CHL team.
Jon Prescription said:
I've seen 6 different NCAA teams play this season. None of them were Denver, but they all have winning records, and four of them are currently ranked in the top 15 in the country.
Last year's London Knights would have kicked the crap out of all of them, in my opinion.
But you'd get into the situation of the NCAA team having several players in their early 20s, while the CHL team might have one or two 21-year-olds, who were 20 at the start of the season (and are in major junior because they don't have any NHL options left). Those couple of years do make a difference.
Take the best 18 or 19 year olds from the CHL, and pit them vs. the best 18 or 19 year olds from the NCAA, and the CHL players win the vast majority of the time. (This year might be an exception). Toews would have better numbers in the CHL because he'd be playing against those closer to him in age. It makes a world of difference.
The CHL still produces more prospects, both in quality and in quantity. (Again, this year may be an exception). The gap is closing, though. I don't think the NCAA will ever "catch up," but you see more high-quality Canadian kids taking the NCAA route, kids like Toews.
If I had a kid who was looking at a promising hockey career, it'd now be a tough decision as to where I'd want him to go. The CHL provides a more pro-style game and schedule, and even their playoffs are closer to pro. But if he had a chance to get a scholly from a school like UND, Minnesota, Denver or Michigan, or even an Ivy league school, I'd strongly urge him to take that bursary. The opportunity to get a good education while playing a high level of developmental hockey is becoming more and more of an option for many kids.
Take the best 18 or 19 year olds from the CHL, and pit them vs. the best 18 or 19 year olds from the NCAA, and the CHL players win the vast majority of the time. (This year might be an exception). Toews would have better numbers in the CHL because he'd be playing against those closer to him in age. It makes a world of difference.
The CHL still produces more prospects, both in quality and in quantity. (Again, this year may be an exception). The gap is closing, though. I don't think the NCAA will ever "catch up," but you see more high-quality Canadian kids taking the NCAA route, kids like Toews.
If I had a kid who was looking at a promising hockey career, it'd now be a tough decision as to where I'd want him to go. The CHL provides a more pro-style game and schedule, and even their playoffs are closer to pro. But if he had a chance to get a scholly from a school like UND, Minnesota, Denver or Michigan, or even an Ivy league school, I'd strongly urge him to take that bursary. The opportunity to get a good education while playing a high level of developmental hockey is becoming more and more of an option for many kids.
Jon Prescription said:
Assuming a team of mostly American players will "destroy" a team of mostly Canadian players year in year out is a bad idea, even if there is an age gap.
I just can't see any NCAA team destroying last years knights. I'm not predicting a winner here, but there is no way Schremp, Perry,Syvret,Prust, Fritsche & Bolland would get "destroyed" by NCAA players. That's absolutely ridiculous. 6 months later 4 of those knights had seen NHL ice time and several more are contributing in the AHL.
Juan said:
Problem is......London is an exception to the norm. Last year's London team was the best team the CHL had seen in a very long time. You can't use them as a benchmark to measure the level of play of the CHL by - or even how good an average Memorial Cup champion is.
Actually, looking at their roster, I don't think London would have even won the NCAA championship -- simply, the age factor again.
I mean look at North Dakota this year; they have 6 first round draft picks (counting Toews as one) and 3 2nd rounders, and are stuggling (by their standards) due to youth and inexperience.
You can't tell me these guys wouldn't make a sick CHL team:
Zajac
Stafford
Toews
Oshie
Lee
Chorney
Smaby
Finley
Kozek
Zine said:
Possibly not, but nobody would have beaten them easily, that's for sure.
Dale would have laced up himself before he let that happen
Zine said:
Some of them wouldnt make the Chl, because of age. Thats the whole point, age. If you took a team of the best 17/18/19 yr olds from the NCAA and put them against the best 17/18/19 yr olds from the CHl, the CHL would win most times.
How many of you actually saw London play last year? How many of you saw Denver play? Zine is right, that London team was one of the best ever but he is wrong in thinking that they would not have won a NCAA championship because of the age factor. Trust me, they would have been the favorite in the NCAA tourney as well.
Too much is made of the age factor. We are not talking about 28 year old pros here. The FACT of the matter is that the majority of the better talent in the NCAA leaves school before their senior year. This leaves the less talented and smaller older NCAA player.
I have talked to players who played in both leagues. Not one ever said to me that the college game was more physical or tougher.
Look at what AJ Thelen had to say during an interview with H.F.
That is a pretty matter of fact statement, one made by many who played in both leagues.
Mueller also made the same comments one time and remember, Mueller did play more than a dozen games against NCAA teams during his stint with the NTDP.
As for those who say the NCAA is the safer option because of education, think again. There are now well over three hundred former CHL players playing University hockey and dozens more playing in the community college ranks. More CHL players who were not high round NHL draft picks are opting to use their education money from the CHL (varies from league to league - the dub is standard one year full tuition, books and fees for every year played - OHL gives more generous packages to higher round picks and the Q league gives a set amount to each player but then each team in the Q adds more money on top of that) to play CIS hockey rather than in the lower minor leagues.
There was a very interesting article about the dramatic change the education scholarships given by the CHL has had on the CIS. Here is a link to the story
http://www.universitysport.ca/e/m_icehockey/story_detail.cfm?id=6618
Interesting that both Alberta and Sasketewan are calling the NCAA out and boldly stating that they are as good as any of the top teams in the NCAA.
I talked recently with a member of the LSSU Lakers staff about their trip to Thunder Bay. He said Calgary was the strongest most physical and one of the most talented teams they played against this year. He said that were they in the CCHA and were they allowed to play their style of game (much more physical brand than the one currently being played in the NCAA), they would no doubt be the top team in the CCHA. He also made the comment that a small finese team like Michigan would have crapped their collective drawers playing any of the three teams the Lakers played in that tourney due to the physical nature of the games.
BTW, before any of you begin harping about the CHL/CIS being nothing but clutching, grabbing and goon hockey, this member of LSSU also stated he wished the game was played that way in the NCAA as it made for much less stopping and was very entertaining.
Too much is made of the age factor. We are not talking about 28 year old pros here. The FACT of the matter is that the majority of the better talent in the NCAA leaves school before their senior year. This leaves the less talented and smaller older NCAA player.
I have talked to players who played in both leagues. Not one ever said to me that the college game was more physical or tougher.
Look at what AJ Thelen had to say during an interview with H.F.
That is a pretty matter of fact statement, one made by many who played in both leagues.
Mueller also made the same comments one time and remember, Mueller did play more than a dozen games against NCAA teams during his stint with the NTDP.
As for those who say the NCAA is the safer option because of education, think again. There are now well over three hundred former CHL players playing University hockey and dozens more playing in the community college ranks. More CHL players who were not high round NHL draft picks are opting to use their education money from the CHL (varies from league to league - the dub is standard one year full tuition, books and fees for every year played - OHL gives more generous packages to higher round picks and the Q league gives a set amount to each player but then each team in the Q adds more money on top of that) to play CIS hockey rather than in the lower minor leagues.
There was a very interesting article about the dramatic change the education scholarships given by the CHL has had on the CIS. Here is a link to the story
http://www.universitysport.ca/e/m_icehockey/story_detail.cfm?id=6618
Interesting that both Alberta and Sasketewan are calling the NCAA out and boldly stating that they are as good as any of the top teams in the NCAA.
I talked recently with a member of the LSSU Lakers staff about their trip to Thunder Bay. He said Calgary was the strongest most physical and one of the most talented teams they played against this year. He said that were they in the CCHA and were they allowed to play their style of game (much more physical brand than the one currently being played in the NCAA), they would no doubt be the top team in the CCHA. He also made the comment that a small finese team like Michigan would have crapped their collective drawers playing any of the three teams the Lakers played in that tourney due to the physical nature of the games.
BTW, before any of you begin harping about the CHL/CIS being nothing but clutching, grabbing and goon hockey, this member of LSSU also stated he wished the game was played that way in the NCAA as it made for much less stopping and was very entertaining.
Age makes a big factor. And guys like Vanek, Eaves, Parise, Bochenski, Paul Martin, Ballard do leave early, but thet still leave as 20 year old sophmores and juniors. Those guys at 20 are much better than most anybody in the CHL at 18. A top NCAA team would kill most any CHL team. Age and talent they are better. Next years gopher team has the possibilty of featuring.
Kris Chucko 1st rd Junior
Balke Wheeler 1st round Sophmore
Nate Hagemo 2nd round Sophmore if he gets redshirt
Ryan Stoa 2nd round Sophmore
Jeff Frazee 2nd round Sophmore
Alex Goligoski 2nd round Junior
Danny Irmen 3rd round Senior
Ryan Potulny 3rd round Senior
Mike Vannelli 4th round Senior
RJ Anderson 4th round Sophmore
Derek Peltier 6th round Junior
With more than likey
Kessel 1st round Sophmore
E. Johnson 1st round Freshman
Okposo 1st round Freshman
Flynn 1st-2nd round Freshman
Fischer 1st-2nd Freshman
Carmen 2nd-3rd Freshman
And
Jim O'Brien a top player for the 07 draft.
Not to shabby at all. And not all of these guys are 18 either. You are going to tell me on paper that CHL teams can field a better team than that.
Kris Chucko 1st rd Junior
Balke Wheeler 1st round Sophmore
Nate Hagemo 2nd round Sophmore if he gets redshirt
Ryan Stoa 2nd round Sophmore
Jeff Frazee 2nd round Sophmore
Alex Goligoski 2nd round Junior
Danny Irmen 3rd round Senior
Ryan Potulny 3rd round Senior
Mike Vannelli 4th round Senior
RJ Anderson 4th round Sophmore
Derek Peltier 6th round Junior
With more than likey
Kessel 1st round Sophmore
E. Johnson 1st round Freshman
Okposo 1st round Freshman
Flynn 1st-2nd round Freshman
Fischer 1st-2nd Freshman
Carmen 2nd-3rd Freshman
And
Jim O'Brien a top player for the 07 draft.
Not to shabby at all. And not all of these guys are 18 either. You are going to tell me on paper that CHL teams can field a better team than that.
VOB said:
The gophers allready beat Alberta. On a poor effort from them too. Mid season, the gophers would kill them.
MN_Gopher said:
The CHL is generally too balanced to really get a stacked team like that, but that's not exactly a typical US College team, either. I also think you can't just go by what round the guys on the team are drafted in. If that were the case the American Junior Team would have soundly whupped the Canadian Junior Team, correct?
In fact I remember people comparing this years American team to last years Canadian team before the tournament started. I think one of them was you, correct? If so that indicates to me you have too much of a bias for me to take your opinion too seriously.
I personally wouldn't say that last years knights could beat the top NCAA teams, quite frankly as good as they were I just don't know that they could. Deep down I'd like to think that but I'll honestly never know. They've never played each other any may never do so. Until then it's just speculation, and all I see here are US Homers saying the NCAA would win easily and Canadian Homers saying the CHL would win easily. I suspect neither is true.
MN_Gopher said:
I did not see the game but many who have said that Alberta aquited themselves quite well, playing in hostile territory and under NCAA (no hit/contact) rules.
I would like to see Minny take the challenge and head up to Alberta...and then we can see what happens.
As for who Minny will return next year, expect alot of defections...have you not been paying attention. The new collective bargaining will accelerate top talent in the NCAA leaving earlier and earlier. More will be like Vanek, Parise and Eaves (who left before they were 20), even though they might not be as talented.
BTW, Jim O'Brien is not considered the top player for the 07 draft.
I like how you say no contact rule for the NCAA. The only reason they are cutting down this year more than most is after what happened to Robbie Bina. I was at the game. And for a second i thought he may be done for good. Then you see him stick his hand up as they wheel him of the ice. After minutes or even seconds seems like an enternity. I'll take a tight rule on checking from behind so that does not have to happen again.
Alberta did play pretty good. I think they played about as well AA, Tech and MSU play. Trying to let the gophers beat them selves and not actually attack. Blocking a lot of shots and playing hard D. Still they gave up 41 shots on goal. The gophers were 1-8 on the PP. Now they are 25%. The game featured 2 gophers who are no longer on the team. Potulny and Irmen did not play together. Hirsch took time off and Borgen got demoted to the USHL. It was the first game of the year for the gophers. Alberta could be a middle the road NCAA team. Thats all. And i know they beat MSU and SCCC. But Goephert only played 1 period and Alberta did not score on him. Both MSU and SCCC used three goalies and it was their first games as well.
Alberta did play pretty good. I think they played about as well AA, Tech and MSU play. Trying to let the gophers beat them selves and not actually attack. Blocking a lot of shots and playing hard D. Still they gave up 41 shots on goal. The gophers were 1-8 on the PP. Now they are 25%. The game featured 2 gophers who are no longer on the team. Potulny and Irmen did not play together. Hirsch took time off and Borgen got demoted to the USHL. It was the first game of the year for the gophers. Alberta could be a middle the road NCAA team. Thats all. And i know they beat MSU and SCCC. But Goephert only played 1 period and Alberta did not score on him. Both MSU and SCCC used three goalies and it was their first games as well.
Again... I would like to see a top school like Minny or Wisconsin take that challenge. Its a different brand of hockey up there, just ask LSSU who easily handled CIS opponents at home but dropped two games to mid level CIS teams in Thunder-Bay.
Yes Minnesota has improved since their 4-3 victory over Alberta...but you know what? So has Alberta.
I find it really facinating that the top teams in the CIS are basically challenging the NCAA and saying we are everybit as good as you. I don't think they would have done that ten years ago.
I wonder if Minny, Denver, CC or NoDak have the gonads to take that offer.
As for physical play in the NCAA...its getting softer every year! Look what happened to J.J of Michigan...a clean hit and a game suspension.
Yes Minnesota has improved since their 4-3 victory over Alberta...but you know what? So has Alberta.
I find it really facinating that the top teams in the CIS are basically challenging the NCAA and saying we are everybit as good as you. I don't think they would have done that ten years ago.
I wonder if Minny, Denver, CC or NoDak have the gonads to take that offer.
As for physical play in the NCAA...its getting softer every year! Look what happened to J.J of Michigan...a clean hit and a game suspension.
VOB said:
No.....age makes a huge difference. Even less talented 22 year olds are better than more talented 17-18 year olds simply due to physical maturation. Heck, Phil Kessel isn't even in the top 20 of NCAA scoring. He's, in fact, not even the best forward on his team. I'd say he's behind Potulny and Irmen (both 84's). I go back to my point about how relatively easy it is for semi-skilled and undrafted overagers to dominate the CHL. Despite being limited to 3 per team, year in and year out, there's always a good % of them in the top 10 of scoring.
For example, look at the WJC. Minus the small amount of overagers, the Canadian team is usually the CHL all-star team. I'd bet 3/4 of the US team wouldn't even make an NCAA all-star team.
Last edited:
The thing to take into consideration is that there's a big gap between the 'top' and 'bottom' programs in the NCAA. Like thomasincanada said, the CHL is more well balanced.
CHL teams certainly can perform at an NCAA level, but I don't think they'd do too well against the top tier NCAA programs.
VOB mentioned LSS and the CCHA. Apart from Michigan, and from time to time Mich. St. (and very recently Miami), the CCHA really isn't that good of a league. It has no depth whatsoever. I'm sure a CHL team would do very well in that league. However, I think a top CHL club would probably find itself in the lower half of the WCHA and possibly HE.
CHL teams certainly can perform at an NCAA level, but I don't think they'd do too well against the top tier NCAA programs.
VOB mentioned LSS and the CCHA. Apart from Michigan, and from time to time Mich. St. (and very recently Miami), the CCHA really isn't that good of a league. It has no depth whatsoever. I'm sure a CHL team would do very well in that league. However, I think a top CHL club would probably find itself in the lower half of the WCHA and possibly HE.
Zine, I had a big debate on the age issue with Goph not that long ago, I am sure you can still find it in the NCAA section...
You are giving age too much credit. Look at the Petes..average age 18.8, compare them to the Gophs..average age 21...just a shade over two years difference. It is not like there is a four or five year gap. Furthermore look at the height and weight of each team. The Gophs measure 6.0 ft and 181lbs....the Petes top out at 6.1 and 196lbs.
I have seen the Petes play and not only are they big, fast and talented...they are strong and physical. They would have trouble in the NCAA not because they are "younger" but because of the way the game is called in the U.S. college ranks. I have not seen Minny play this year yet but I have seen Wisconsin, Michigan and Miami (all top ranked teams) and I can tell you flat out that if the Petes were to play them using NHL referees....they would beat Michigan and Miami and give Wisconsin all they could handle.
You are giving age too much credit. Look at the Petes..average age 18.8, compare them to the Gophs..average age 21...just a shade over two years difference. It is not like there is a four or five year gap. Furthermore look at the height and weight of each team. The Gophs measure 6.0 ft and 181lbs....the Petes top out at 6.1 and 196lbs.
I have seen the Petes play and not only are they big, fast and talented...they are strong and physical. They would have trouble in the NCAA not because they are "younger" but because of the way the game is called in the U.S. college ranks. I have not seen Minny play this year yet but I have seen Wisconsin, Michigan and Miami (all top ranked teams) and I can tell you flat out that if the Petes were to play them using NHL referees....they would beat Michigan and Miami and give Wisconsin all they could handle.
- Status
