Ncaa/chl ?

[VOB]

Didn't really answer my questions Zine.

Its true 18 and 19 year olds have not yet reached their peak development (but they are no longer gangly preads either!) but that doesn't mean in any way shape or form that a still developing 19 year old is not just as good or better than a fully mature 23 year old!

 

[Zine]

Then what exactly are you saying? I though age was the be all and end all. Why is the NCAA the better league? According to you because of the age factor. Now you are saying something different.

Tell me Zine, as a whole who has the better talent...the CHL or the NCAA. I am not talking about individual teams because yes both NoDak and Minny feature a nice collection of talent but who do they play against? How much pro talent does Tech or even St Cloud have?

While I disagree somewhat with iconclast, he is right in his claim that the CHL is the superior league based on talent. In the latest CSB mid term rankings, 22 out of 30 players are from the CHL. The OHL alone has more ranked players in the 1st round than the entire NCAA or college bound players.

You underestimate the quality of play in the CHL.

Age is a big factor amongst QUALITY players. No, age doesn't make a difference when talking about walk-ons or roster fillers (many of UND's 10 D men), but amongst scholarship players it is huge.

As of right now, how else can you explain Joe Pavelski, Ryan Potulny, Chris Collins, etc >>>>>> Phil Kessel, Jonathan Toews, etc.?

I'll go back to my WJC argument that nobody seems to have countered.

There's no denying that the Canadian WJC team is, essentially, a CHL all-star team.
The same cannot be said for US WJC teams and the NCAA. Very few US players would even make an NCAA all-star squad. In reality, a handful wouldn't even make the NCAA "C" squad. (this year = Paukovich, Gerbe, Frazee, Chorney, Mitera).

However, even though Canada generally gets the better of the US, there's no denying that both nations are on equal footing. Most times they're within a goal or two of eachother.

Based on this, the top tier competition level in the NCAA has to be higher. There's no other way around it. I mean, in terms of pure offense, Scremp = Kessel. Robbie is ripping the OHL a new one while Kessel only the 3rd best forward on his team. Even Canada's best '88 (Toews) only has 18 points in 28 games.

It's either one of two things -- the NCAA has much more talented players OR age discrepancy plays a factor. I'm willing to bet on the former.

 

[Zine]

Didn't really answer my questions Zine.

Its true 18 and 19 year olds have not yet reached their peak development (but they are no longer gangly preads either!) but that doesn't mean in any way shape or form that a still developing 19 year old is not just as good or better than a fully mature 23 year old!

In certain circumstances no......but, in general, it sure does.

 

[thomasincanada]

It's either one of two things -- the NCAA has much more talented players OR age discrepancy plays a factor. I'm willing to bet on the former.

Don't you mean the latter?

 

[VOB]

Age is a big factor amongst QUALITY players. No, age doesn't make a difference when talking about walk-ons or roster fillers (many of UND's 10 D men), but amongst scholarship players it is huge.

And there in lies the rub Zine...quality players...who has more of them? NoDak sure does, but how many else in the NCAA do? More importantly how long do you suppose NoDak's quality players end up sticking around? Will Toews, Chorney and Lee ever be Juniors? Me thinks not! The older NCAA player, in terms of quality, is a cut below his younger counterparts who are on their way to the pros. Factor in that the typical CHL player is bigger, heavier and stronger than his NCAA counterpart....the age factor is nullified.

As to the WJC, as I told Goph, the CHL is not just represented by Canada but by several other teams as well. I would gladly give you Cogliano for Schremp, Betram for Ryan and I would have liked to have Radulov, Salmonson, Pohl, Kredgici and Zagrapan among others.

The fact that the CHL litters the rosters of so many teams, as opposed to say the NCAA, also speaks volumes as to the quality of play found in the league.

And of course the WJC is played at a much higher level than the NCAA. Just go to HF archives and read Jack Johnson's take on it.

 

[thomasincanada]

I'll go back to my WJC argument that nobody seems to have countered.

There's no denying that the Canadian WJC team is, essentially, a CHL all-star team.
The same cannot be said for US WJC teams and the NCAA. Very few US players would even make an NCAA all-star squad. In reality, a handful wouldn't even make the NCAA "C" squad. (this year = Paukovich, Gerbe, Frazee, Chorney, Mitera).

However, even though Canada generally gets the better of the US, there's no denying that both nations are on equal footing. Most times they're within a goal or two of eachother.

I'll counter it for you. Firstly the Canadian WJC team is not essentially a CHL all star team. Many good players are Foreign, American or Overagers. Secondly, I don't think the Americans are on equal footing. In the last 20 years I count 10 gold for Canada, 4 silver & 2 bronze. The American team has won 1 gold, 1 silver & 1 bronze. How is that anything remotely close to equal footing? It's not. It's night & day the difference in success.

I also think the US team benefits more from the CHL than Canada does from the NCAA (when they use them).

 

[Zine]

And there in lies the rub Zine...quality players...who has more of them? NoDak sure does, but how many else in the NCAA do? More importantly how long do you suppose NoDak's quality players end up sticking around? Will Toews, Chorney and Lee ever be Juniors? Me thinks not! The older NCAA player, in terms of quality, is a cut below his younger counterparts who are on their way to the pros.

I've already said that MJ teams can compete at an NCAA level. My argument is that MJ teams would not do too well against 'higher level' NCAA competition.

As you noticed, 'second tier' guys like Potulny, Irmen, Pavelski, etc. are currently better than Toews, Kessel, etc. How in the world can you say this isn't age related? I'd say Toews, and especially Kessel are on par with the top CHL players. Still there not top NCAA players.

So it really doesn't matter if Toews, Kessel, Lee leave because the 'second tier' '86, '87, '88 guys that stay will still be better than the vast majority of top 89's, 90's, 91 coming in. It's like this every year -- this year is no exception.

Factor in that the typical CHL player is bigger, heavier and stronger than his NCAA counterpart....the age factor is nullified.

Again it wouldn't make a big difference.
For example, the CHL's best (this years WJC team) was extremely physical - in fact, that's the type of game Sutter built the team for. They, essentially, tied the US team (NCAA "B-" team).

Again, in general, it takes much longer for larger, more physical players to fully develop. That's why MANY are seen as long term projects.
This is why it's EASIER for smaller players to play with them when they're at a younger age. There's no denying that.
If you add 2-4 years to that smaller player in terms of physical maturity and experience - it makes a world of difference.

 

[Zine]

I'll counter it for you. Firstly the Canadian WJC team is not essentially a CHL all star team. Many good players are Foreign, American or Overagers.

Great point - didn't think about that. However, they are limited in number

Secondly, I don't think the Americans are on equal footing. In the last 20 years I count 10 gold for Canada, 4 silver & 2 bronze. The American team has won 1 gold, 1 silver & 1 bronze. How is that anything remotely close to equal footing? It's not. It's night & day the difference in success.).

Right, but we're not talking about the difference between Canada and say....Norway. Both the US and Canada are top 7 hockey nations and are in the same ballpark. I mean, year in and year out, when they play..the games are close.
Either way, there's no denying that a true NCAA all-star team would have absolutely dismantled the US WJC team.

I also think the US team benefits more from the CHL than Canada does from the NCAA (when they use them).

I don't think anyone really benefits from either. Both teams tend to steer clear of the opposing league. In recent years I can only think of Scremp who's played a vital role on the US team.

 

[thomasincanada]

I don't think anyone really benefits from either. Both teams tend to steer clear of the opposing league. In recent years I can only think of Scremp who's played a vital role on the US team.

Fritsche and O'Sullivan come to mind right off the bat. Two of the top 4 scorers for the Americans last year IIRC.

 

[Letang fan 58]

Look at the WJC. Is team Canada, mosty CHL guys, in most years simular to what a CHL all star team would look like? The American WJC championship team, of mostly NCAA guys, is no where near what the 1st, 2nd or 3rd team all NCAA team looks like. From this years team probally only Kessel and J. Johnson would be on an NCAA all star team. And they might not make it. Kessel is the third best forward on the gophers.

Wrong answer, the canadian allstar team of CHL players would be made up 90% of overage players (20 year olds) and since the 20 year olds are not allowed to play in the juniors your argument holds absolutely no water at all.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Look at guys like Wnvig and Veilleux's numbers. Both 81 born players. And both played in the 00-01 junior season. Wanvig put up 101 in 69 games. Veilleux put up 115 in 68 games. Age is the only reason they were able to put up those numbers. Their forst few years they were under a point a game. Its age.

VOB i know you like to disagree that age is not a big factor. If you like i can find several medical journals on it for you. I had do this in school once before. To bring you to reality i would be happy to find them again. But first i hope you get the point from these.

Power hitters in baseball. Cannot match bat speed with strength. Why? Tendons and Ligaments grow slower than one can build muscle. Either stunt your growth risk permant damage or just wait till you hit 22-25 and bang them out of the park.

Pitchers in baseball. Know when to teach the curveball? Really about 17-18 to really get a good one. Twisting the wrist at a young age will turn into elbow and shoulder problems and in some the onset of arthrieis in the wrist or carpol tunnel. Throw a 20 year old for 100 pitches. They say hey coach my arm is fine. Do not do it. Prior did it and the next year he was hurt and not nearly as good. I hope he comes back strong. There have been two other stud pitchers that threw 100+ pithces as 20 year olds and had poor careers that were injury filled.

Ever see Garnett play the post as a 6'11 guy out of high school. Got pushed around alot. So do most young B-Ball players. Why? Strengh cannot keep up with joint growth. The taller the player, the longer it takes to reach physical maturation. And basketball is not a truly power sport. But in young players it shows. You know Jordan was cut from his varsity team as a freshman. Why. Not yet devolped. Micheal Jordan was not ready to play varsity basketball as a 15 year old. And he became the best basketball player ever. Yet at a younger age he could not compete.

Weight training in general. See the joint growth vs muscle growth from above. Ever see a 15 year old body builder. They are 5 feet tall. Pocket Hercules ring a bell?

Now in non-athletes you are very correct. Teen agers are more agile and flexable. I think it is for every quarter inch of flexabilty you can get on a limb. You can add so much % to your max weight or increase your speed by so many seconds. But if older guys and most athletes do stretch out. Many can do the splits. So they lost nothing to being less flexable.

From persoanl experiance. As a junior i played with and against guys who are now in the NFL. I started on the OL and DL. Two of my teamates who were freshman also played. They started some time. And in practice they did not dominate me and i did the better of them. After two years i was in a DIII school and they were at Stanford and Iowa. Now i am typing on HF Boards and they were just drafted. Playing practice squad. Hopefullly they will play this coming up season. Two years let me play with future NFL players.

You do realixe the likes of Stoa, Frazee, Hagemo, Mueller all played MN HS hockey. While they were notacable they were not the best as sophmores and freshman.

You say Matt Foy had an edge to his game and was mis used in the NCAA. He looks a lot like Irmen to me. Both put up simular numbers as freshmen. Now Foy goes junior and tears it up. Irmen improves but hardly tore the NCAA a new one as a sophmore. Now in Irmens Junior year he is looking very good. Irmen in the CHL would put up well over 100 points. Mueller and Kessel both played on the same team last year. Kessle out scored Mueller by a strong margin. 10 more points in 8 less games i think. Now they are averaging about the same in their respective leagues.

Have you not heard that big D men and power forwards take longer to devolp. I bet you can guess why. They are not physically ready. So you are telling me that going against everything genetics states about the human body. About devolpment in general. Physiology, Kinesiology and even Psychology will tell you 18 year olds are behind 22 year olds.

Now in the pre weight training era. There was less of a difference and it was more like 18-26 were on par and at late 20s and early 30s is when bodies were fully set. Now with weight training, special diets, supplaments, hell even doping. Young frames can not support the weight and strain of to much muscle mass. Its is most evident in the NFL. Post HS players would, seriously, get killed or get severe concusions and brain traumas from contact. Thats why there is an age limit to enter the draft. Baseball another physical dempading sport does not field alot of teen super stars. I do agree that basketball and hockey have the least emphasis on pure power and strength training. But it does count. And it is a factor that needs to be looked at.

Ever see a teen age roider before. They can do tons on bench press. Then one day they rip their peck off. The body was able to put up the mass. But was not able to support it. That why, and i forget the name of the drug. That you shoot up for some weeks or months to stimulate joint growth. So when you do shoot up steroids, your joints are ready for the un-natural growth in mass. Now is regular lifting un-natural. To some, yes it is and the body has to be ready for it. Teen bodies are not as ready and will not see the results a 20 year old will.

In males the body on average does not peak until about 30.

 

[VOB]

As you noticed, 'second tier' guys like Potulny, Irmen, Pavelski, etc. are currently better than Toews, Kessel, etc. How in the world can you say this isn't age related? I'd say Toews, and especially Kessel are on par with the top CHL players. Still there not top NCAA players.

Toews would not be on par with the top CHL players, far from it. If he were in the CHL, his point production would be less than say a player like Mueller, who in my opinion possesses greater offensive flair. Furthermore, check your stats a tad more. Kessel is ppg is similiar to Irmen and Potulny will more than likely be a NHLer (and you can expect him to be gone after this season). Toews will certainly be better than say Irmen by the age of 19, so yes age does play a part but of course he would still be in the CHL at the age of 19.

Again it wouldn't make a big difference.
For example, the CHL's best (this years WJC team) was extremely physical - in fact, that's the type of game Sutter built the team for. They, essentially, tied the US team (NCAA "B-" team).

Yes they were, that is why they won gold and in my opinion carried the play 5x5 against the U.S. but of course this year's tournament was called in much the same manner as the NCAA currently is and Canada could not be as physical as they wanted to be. The U.S.'s downfall was that they lacked grit, they were too soft, especially the Defense. That is why many have said the U.S. made a huge mistake leaving players like Yandle and Dubinsky off the team. Those CHLers could have and would have made a difference. If those teams squared off using CHL or NHL refs, Canada would have steamrolled them.

Again, in general, it takes much longer for larger, more physical players to fully develop. That's why MANY are seen as long term projects

Riiight. Thats why big players like Staal and Horton jumped right into the NHL as 18 year olds. The larger more physical players are just that....larger and physical. Are they fully mature...no but that doesn't mean they can't handle a 22 year old college player.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Yeah yeah i know its always brought up. But there somthing i never get a good answer on.

Using Mueller and Towes as my examples. Both about the same age, 15 days apart. Mueller 6'2 and 204, Towes 6'1 and 180. So simular builds, Towes needs to fill out a bit more. Both centers. Both projected top 3-6 picks.

Towes plays in the NCAA and has a line of 28 games playes with 18 points. Mueller plays in the WHL and has a line of 42 points in 36 games played. Towes is tied for 5th on his team in scoring. Mueller is third but if he played as many games and at his current pace would be leading the team in points.

So my question is when people say the CHL is tougher, more physical and better league what are they basing it on. It seems to be easier to score in the CHL. I would attribute scoring to open play not tight checking, physical play and a "tough game". No question the CHL puts out better players. But when Matt Foy can muster up 24 points in 31 games in the NCAA and one year later turn it into 132 points in 68 games, what happened? Putting who puts out who aside, i'll consede that to the obvious. Why is the CHL supposed to be so far superior?

NCAA is full of hooking, holding and all that crap. It's harder to score but the CHL talent levels are higher.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Riiight. Thats why big players like Staal and Horton jumped right into the NHL as 18 year olds. The larger more physical players are just that....larger and physical. Are they fully mature...no but that doesn't mean they can't handle a 22 year old college player.

And look at what those guys did their first NHL year. They lit it up right? No, they play one NHL and one AHL season and then they got great. Staal is one the best young players i nthe NHL. But Staals 31 points and Hortons 22 were good but not great. So why in their early 20s they are such better. Maybe age had something to do with it.

 

[thomasincanada]

Wrong answer, the canadian allstar team of CHL players would be made up 90% of overage players (20 year olds) and since the 20 year olds are not allowed to play in the juniors your argument holds absolutely no water at all.

I absolutely disagree with this. Some overagers would make the team for sure, but 90 percent is way off IMO. I'd guess maybe 30 percent of the team this year would have been overagers if they were allowed to play. Last years team would have been almost the same even if overagers were allowed to play.

That extra year experience and maturity helps, but it doesn't make up for the fact that almost all of the truly talented players are gone by that age - either to the AHL or the NHL. The top players in the CHL this year, and last, are mostly 19 years old and younger.

 

[Zine]

Toews would not be on par with the top CHL players, far from it. If he were in the CHL, his point production would be less than say a player like Mueller, who in my opinion possesses greater offensive flair. Furthermore, check your stats a tad more. Kessel is ppg is similiar to Irmen and Potulny will more than likely be a NHLer (and you can expect him to be gone after this season). Toews will certainly be better than say Irmen by the age of 19, so yes age does play a part but of course he would still be in the CHL at the age of 19..

You have to be a pretty darn good CHL'er to even be considered for the WJC team, no? Right now, Toews is a slightly above average 2nd liner (18pts) on a top tier NCAA team. There’s no way a slightly above average 2nd line CHL player would even be considered for the Canadian WJC team – much less make it.
Same for Cogliano. He, in my opinion, looked like the most skilled Canadian forward on many nights ---- but the guy is the 6th leading scorer on Michigan. You think the 6th leading scorer on a CHL team would make the Canadian WJC; much less be the best forward on many nights?
Suppose you’re right though; in Toews’ case it proves my point that even in the CHL, the top '88 player would have some difficulties against 87, 86, and a few 85 players. See, age plays a difference. Still, for him, the CHL would be easier than playing against 85, 84 and 83 and even some 82's in the NCAAs. Same for Cogliano,
Of course, as Toews matures that gap will close quickly because of his talent. However, he's not your typical player and in no way represents the norm. In fact 99.99% of players his age aren't even in the same ballpark as him, so his situation really isn't that applicable. If it was, every 19 year old player would be close to NHL level.

As for Kessel, you prove my point again. One of (if not the) best offensive players for his age group in the world can be matched by average NHL prospects because of age difference.
Again though, based on pure talent the guy can close the talent gap fast, but 99.99% of players can’t do that.

However, I shouldn’t have brought up Toews and Kessel; they’re top 5 picks and bad examples.

Yes they were, that is why they won gold and in my opinion carried the play 5x5 against the U.S. but of course this year's tournament was called in much the same manner as the NCAA currently is and Canada could not be as physical as they wanted to be. The U.S.'s downfall was that they lacked grit, they were too soft, especially the Defense. That is why many have said the U.S. made a huge mistake leaving players like Yandle and Dubinsky off the team. Those CHLers could have and would have made a difference. If those teams squared off using CHL or NHL refs, Canada would have steamrolled them.

The US didn't lose because they weren't physical enough. The team imploded. They went in too cocky; had no chemistry; no cohesiveness; no coaching; and just outright tanked the tourney. Yandle and Dubinsky wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.

Riiight. Thats why big players like Staal and Horton jumped right into the NHL as 18 year olds. The larger more physical players are just that....larger and physical. Are they fully mature...no but that doesn't mean they can't handle a 22 year old college player.

Riiight. Like Horton and Staal are the norm.
Again, these guys are the exception to the rule and don’t represent what we’re talking about. 99.999999% of players don't fall into their category.

I'm not saying younger more physical players can't handle older, smaller, less physical guys -- they certainly can, often easily. However, that's not even half the battle. There are many more aspects than just pure physical strength that goes along with maturity. (coordination, experience, etc.).

Again, I ask you.........if the age gap between an 18 and 22 year old can be easily nullified by physical play, then why is it VERY common for smaller and weaker guys to still be able to compete against the bigger more physical players when they’re 18.….as opposed to when the bigger guys are 22.

 

[Hiishawk]

For what it's worth- I've seen hundreds of games in both CHL and NCAA. I am partial to the CHL as more of a developmental and therefore prospect-laden league- and as a Canadian, I'm a fan too.

But I agree with almost all of Zine's and MN's arguments that the NCAA would win almost any head-to-head contest for all the reasons they have given with age being absolutely the biggest factor. Most players aged 16 and 17 in the CHL- often about 40-50% the members of any CHL team- couldn't even make an average NCAA roster, the exceptions being maybe those slated for the top 50-60 of the draft. Of those 17 year olds who could crack an NCAA roster, there is no chance that they would play as big a role on their NCAA team as they do on their CHL clubs. Would Randy White or Ty Wishart be a top-line FW or DF on an NCAA team now, as they are on Calgary and PG's CHL teams? Not a chance in hell.

For the record, Canadian Univ. teams would- and have in the past- beaten CHL teams without much trouble. Moreover, I think I can safely say that it is the widespread beilef among hockey people that 80% of NCAA teams could beat 80% of CHL teams, and that is a conservative estimate.

 

[VOB]

You have to be a pretty darn good CHL'er to even be considered for the WJC team, no? Right now, Toews is a slightly above average 2nd liner (18pts) on a top tier NCAA team. There’s no way a slightly above average 2nd line CHL player would even be considered for the Canadian WJC team – much less make it.

Reeeally? Then please explain how Tom Pyatt made the team. Here you have less than a ppg player and yet was chosen above NHL caliber players like Wolski. How on earth could that have happened???? The reason is because Canada constructs a TEAM, not a group of all stars! Toews production in the CHL would not be above Mueller's and based on their play in the WJC it would fall below what P. Mueller is achieving.

Same for Cogliano. He, in my opinion, looked like the most skilled Canadian forward on many nights

Hardly! He was a major disappointment. At the time of the tournament he was one of Michigan's leading scorers (2nd only to Hensik I believe and averaging well over a point a game in the NCAA). He was expected to provide Canada with much needed offense (this wasn't a very skilled team) but fizzled. This kid can't play in traffic. He looked good against some of the smaller Euro teams but when things got heavy, he was a non factor. The kid is small and cannot yet handle the physical play. He made the right choice in choosing the NCAA because he will need at least three more years before he is ready for the pros.

The US didn't lose because they weren't physical enough. The team imploded.

No we didn't! I remember after Mueller scored the goal to tie the game, the Canadians came our roaring and had the U.S. hemmed in their own zone for over a minute! They pounded our D who continuously lost the battles along the wall and failed to get the puck out. We never put that kind of pressure on any team. The Russians simply man handled us. We were just to friggin SOFT.

For the record, Canadian Univ. teams would- and have in the past- beaten CHL teams without much trouble.

Three years ago I went to the Aud in Kitchener to watch a bunch of Team Canada hopefuls play an allstar team from the CIS. Now this was Canada's tryout roster and about 5 or 6 players who were assured slots did not dress. The average age of these young junior hopefuls was probably slightly under 19 years. The average age of the University kids had to be upwards of 22 and probably closer to 23. According to you it should have been no contest right. I mean here you have a 4 year age spread and some of the best players from the Canadian University ranks (many of them who go on to have pro careers in the AHL/ECHL and Europe) against what many of you consider gangly uncoordinated kids. The game was no contest. The CHLers blew the doors off the University kids. Age wasn't much of a factor here.

Age is important. A 22 year old will be a better player than he was at 18 years of age. I have never denied that. That does not mean, however, that all players develop at the same rate and that every 18 year old is the same. There are many 18 and 19 year old players in the CHL who are every bit as good as their 21 to 23 year old counterparts in the NCAA.

Zine, if NoDak were to keep its highly skilled freshman and sophomores for the full four years, then you would have no argument from me that NoDak would beat any CHL team. But you know they won't. Toews, Lee, Chorney...will only stick around for 2 years (max with the new NHL collective bargaining....heck I remember when Lee was just drafted, Mukler was quoted as saying that he will only be in college for one year, two at the most before they sign him). The NCAA has always lost its most talented players early....players that were on equal footing with their talented CHL counterparts....as I said before, that trend will not only continue now but be amplified.

 

[Injektilo]

The game was no contest. The CHLers blew the doors off the University kids. Age wasn't much of a factor here.

The other week I went to a Wilfrid Laurier University - University of Waterloo game just around the corner from where I live, and I was rather unimpressed with both teams. I think it's safe to say that the Kitchener Rangers would have blown either team out easily, it wouldn't have been close. And WLU and UW aren't bad teams either, UW is ranked #10 in the country, and WLU also recieved votes for a top 10 ranking (and won the game against UW).

I know that teams like Alberta and Saskatchewan are much much better than WLU or UW, but I certainly wasn't impressed with the calibre of the few CIS games i've seen.

 

[VOB]

The other week I went to a Wilfrid Laurier University - University of Waterloo game just around the corner from where I live, and I was rather unimpressed with both teams. I think it's safe to say that the Kitchener Rangers would have blown either team out easily, it wouldn't have been close. And WLU and UW aren't bad teams either, UW is ranked #10 in the country, and WLU also recieved votes for a top 10 ranking (and won the game against UW).

I know that teams like Alberta and Saskatchewan are much much better than WLU or UW, but I certainly wasn't impressed with the calibre of the few CIS games i've seen.

Yeah I saw Western play on a couple of occasions. They are not too bad and would be an average NCAA team were they to play in that league. They lost to Michigan State but beat Ferris State in exhibition play. Of course the game was your typical no contact NCAA one and Western spent the majority of the time in the box in both contests. I think they could give Michigan State a good game if they were to play them at home.

As for Alberta being better....for sure! A friend sent me a couple of game tapes and I tell you what, they would easily be a top team in the NCAA. Me thinks that few if any NCAA clubs will take their challenge.

 

[MN_Gopher]

As for Alberta being better....for sure! A friend sent me a couple of game tapes and I tell you what, they would easily be a top team in the NCAA. Me thinks that few if any NCAA clubs will take their challenge.

Champions do not call out contenders. Alberta wants respect. They want to show that they can compete with any team out there not in the AHL or NHL. Why would an NCAA team answer. All that can happen is, what? Get a player hurt in a meaningless game. Now if they want to do it right. Make it a trophy and put some money into the game. And Universities might be inticed to play for some extra cash. Like a college football bowl game. It would need a sponsor. But that is the only way the NCAA will answer a challege for an up-start.

 

[VOB]

Champions do not call out contenders. Alberta wants respect. They want to show that they can compete with any team out there not in the AHL or NHL. Why would an NCAA team answer. All that can happen is, what? Get a player hurt in a meaningless game. Now if they want to do it right. Make it a trophy and put some money into the game. And Universities might be inticed to play for some extra cash. Like a college football bowl game. It would need a sponsor. But that is the only way the NCAA will answer a challege for an up-start.

Actually that is exactly what Alberta wants to do. They want to set up a new tourney with a trophy and everything...they want to call it the Can-Am challenge. Why should Alberta always have to venture into NCAA territory to play. Its high time, they figure, for one of the NCAA's top clubs to take them on in their own rink.

The NCAA, in my opinion, is scared to answer that challenge. Too much would be on the line. They try and recruit in Western Canada by saying that the NCAA is better than the WHL and the CIS. What would happen if they were to play Alberta and lose? What would they then say on the recruiting trail?

 

[Letang fan 58]

I absolutely disagree with this. Some overagers would make the team for sure, but 90 percent is way off IMO. I'd guess maybe 30 percent of the team this year would have been overagers if they were allowed to play. Last years team would have been almost the same even if overagers were allowed to play.

That extra year experience and maturity helps, but it doesn't make up for the fact that almost all of the truly talented players are gone by that age - either to the AHL or the NHL. The top players in the CHL this year, and last, are mostly 19 years old and younger.

the junior team we sent this year was half made up of ppl under the age of 19, likely very few of them would make the team.......last years team is way different,,,,,,,,we had a ton of phenom 19 year olds in the CHL last year and we dont this year so its a huge difference.........this team would def be made up of monstly overage players.

On another note, this entire thread has been a sham........clearly gopher fan wants the answer that the NCAA is a better league then the CHL which is just simply not the case.

Maybe if the NCAA could come up with a real system where players are drafted instead of Minnesota being the DUKE or YANKEES of the NCAA then you could compare.
Put the top players in the CHL together for an entire year and they would handle every NCAA team IMO.

 

[Hasbro]

Maybe if the NCAA could come up with a real system where players are drafted instead of Minnesota being the DUKE or YANKEES of the NCAA then you could compare.

YYou just can't do that. You can no more draft a college prospect then a college could draft any other applicant. These are students and have the right to attend any institution that will admit them.

Do you really think Kessel would go to American International?

 

[Zine]

Age is important. A 22 year old will be a better player than he was at 18 years of age. I have never denied that. That does not mean, however, that all players develop at the same rate and that every 18 year old is the same. There are many 18 and 19 year old players in the CHL who are every bit as good as their 21 to 23 year old counterparts in the NCAA.

Right here is why your argument is flawed.

You've stated, yourself, that age does play a factor........but, again, you've resorted to using the exception to the rule to prove your point.

Of course, not every player develops at the same rate --- there are many 18/19 year olds that are every bit as good as 21/23 year olds. However, this is NOT the norm when comparing draft-level talent players.

I've said many times that CHL teams can compete at the NCAA level because, on average, they are more talented. This talent CAN overcome the age difference against older, much less talented players.
However, against TOP level NCAA programs (who have a similar talent level and are MUCH older) CHL teams would not do well. This has been my argument all along.

Again, if they played each other using NHL rules, top NCAA teams (after adjusting)would win..and pretty handedly.
And, again, physical play wouldn't make too much a difference because it's VERY common for smaller and weaker guys to still be able to compete against the bigger more physical 18 year olds. In fact, its more than common..its the norm.