Ncaa Vs Chl

[MN_Gopher]

Here are some stats that might help.
Mike Comrie in NCAA 40 games 35 points, then to juniors 37 games 40 points. A bit better but he was older too a push.
Mark Parrish in NCAA 35 games 42 points, then to juniors 54 games and 92 points. Way better. For him it looks like NCAA was harder. Tough WCHA conf.
Matt Foy in NCAA 31 games 24 points, then to juniors 68 games and 132 points. Found juniors easier to score in i guess.
Jess Lane. In juniors 31 games 36 points, then goes to USHL 24 games and 14 points. USHL just a bit harder.
Lets look at some people after the NCAA and after juniors in the AHL. Same level of compition. This is all there first year in the AHL.
Jonny Pohl NCAAer 58 games 58 points in AHL
Darren Haydar NCAAer 75 games 75 points in AHL
Mark Hartigan NCAAer 55 games and 46 points in AHL
Jeff Taffe NCAAer 57 games 49 points in the AHL
Matt Foy junior 51 games 24 points in the AHL
Stephane Veilleux junior 77 games 35 points in AHL. Had 115 points in 68 games in last year of juniors.
Kyle Wanvig junior 34 games 13 points in the AHL. HAd 101 points in 69 games in his last year of junior.
The top three rookie scorers in the AHL this year were Kyle Wellwood junior, Noah Clarke NCAA and Mike Glumac NCAA. And Wade Dubby was the #1 goalie in the AHL. A rookie out of the NCAA.
It seems the pattern here is that NCAA players are fairing better off in the AHL. And players who cross the NCAA and juniors are putting up better numbers in the CHL. I did choose mostly WCHA hockey players because i know who they are and where they played. And most of the juniors were from Houston of the AHL, The wild affiliate, not known for high scoring. But it is still an obvious trend.
When u take PM Bouchard, Bret Burns and Nick Schultz of the wild. They in managment eyes out grew their junior teams but were not ready for the NHL. They played in some 40 50 games in the first few seasons. Were they could have played about 40 games in the NCAA. It is obvious they needed some middle ground, and the NCAA could have provided that.

 

[TheCrock]

My friend, there is no need to insult the entire country of Canada because you don't agree.
Obviously it is a much bigger move for an American to play in the CHL than the NCAA. You have to play in tiny towns like Saskatoon, and Rimouski.
I get the feeling sometimes that the Americans who are good enough and don't come up are afraid of the intimidation of the CHL since it is considered a much tougher league. Tons of fighting.
It is almost like they are taking the easy way out.

Haha can Americans really accuse anyone else of being dumb rednecks? Coulda sworn they were the capital of the world in that category. Let me add fat and ignorant to that list tho.

 

[ktownhockey]

I guess Andrew Cogliano is a fool for dissing St. Mike's and going the college route next year, too

I don't see all the benefits of Kessel going to major juniors. Look at how Crosby, as a 16 year old, destroyed the league. In 59 games he posted 135 points. How, exactly, does that help one's development when obviously he's already too good for the place? Apparently there's a lack of defense in the league. I'm not saying that Kessel is going to put up similar numbers because Crosby is an extremely special player, but if he's as good as everyone's making him out to be I'd expect him to upt up quite a few points. But it's almost as if he'd just be going there to pad his stats.

First off It is not set in stone i don't think that Cogliano is going to the NCAA. He says this but he still could get lured away.... anyways

How can you say Crosby is padding his stats ?? If he played in the NCAA this year I could assure you he'd be the top scorer.... he's 16 years old.... you want him to play Jr. A and get 200 points... or Midget and get 500.... Or how about those great US prep schools where he broke most scoring records as a 15 year old.... either way you look at it.. the CHL was the right choice for crosby as he will be lighting up arenas in about a year and a half in the NHL not entering his first year @ whichever University he would have chosen....

 

[ktownhockey]

The NCAA has come a LONG way since guys like Chelios were drafted. So to make the comparison that the NCAA today is exactly the way it was 20 some odd years ago is silly. The NCAA has grown, gotten better not only in their ability to recruit players but also developing them.

Also, if you look at D-1 as a whole, you'll find that it isn't just the Americans who are filling these rosters. There are a large number of Canadians filling them as well. By saying that Americans who choose NCAA over CHL are dumb as far as choosing the "best" route to the NHL, aren't you also implying that the many Canadians who choose the NCAA route are also dumb? I mean why would someone like Dany Heatley, Paul Kariya, Rob Blake, etc. choose the NCAA instead of the CHL? Were they "dumb" in their choices as well?

It's a personal choice (with a few rare exceptions) which route a player takes. If he eventually makes it to the NHL, it doesn't really matter HOW he got there. What matters is that he got there.

I have alot of friends at NCAA Division I and III schools and some of them werent as good as players they played AAA with in Bantam but they continued on playing Junior A and in their 19, 20 year old years had breakout years in Junior A and got noticed; whereas the guys who used to dominate bantam who never got the OHL chance either quit or stopped caring and it's a shame because they could have got scholarships..... It's sad to see that happened... the CHL is on 90 % of the minor hockey players minds in Canada..... I think mostly because it's in our backyard and the NCAA unless your at a fairly large program is a wildcard... so most kids try their CHL dream and then if that doesnt work play in the CIS or just quit hockey...

it just shows the kin of passion in the CHL when 16,17 year olds are sacrificing a free education in the states to try to better themselves for draft day

and BTW almost all of the players in the CHL have school packages that pays for their secondary education.

 

[ktownhockey]

Foy

Here are some stats that might help.
Mike Comrie in NCAA 40 games 35 points, then to juniors 37 games 40 points. A bit better but he was older too a push.
Mark Parrish in NCAA 35 games 42 points, then to juniors 54 games and 92 points. Way better. For him it looks like NCAA was harder. Tough WCHA conf.
Matt Foy in NCAA 31 games 24 points, then to juniors 68 games and 132 points. Found juniors easier to score in i guess.
Jess Lane. In juniors 31 games 36 points, then goes to USHL 24 games and 14 points. USHL just a bit harder.
Lets look at some people after the NCAA and after juniors in the AHL. Same level of compition. This is all there first year in the AHL.
Jonny Pohl NCAAer 58 games 58 points in AHL
Darren Haydar NCAAer 75 games 75 points in AHL
Mark Hartigan NCAAer 55 games and 46 points in AHL
Jeff Taffe NCAAer 57 games 49 points in the AHL
Matt Foy junior 51 games 24 points in the AHL
Stephane Veilleux junior 77 games 35 points in AHL. Had 115 points in 68 games in last year of juniors.
Kyle Wanvig junior 34 games 13 points in the AHL. HAd 101 points in 69 games in his last year of junior.
The top three rookie scorers in the AHL this year were Kyle Wellwood junior, Noah Clarke NCAA and Mike Glumac NCAA. And Wade Dubby was the #1 goalie in the AHL. A rookie out of the NCAA.
It seems the pattern here is that NCAA players are fairing better off in the AHL. And players who cross the NCAA and juniors are putting up better numbers in the CHL. I did choose mostly WCHA hockey players because i know who they are and where they played. And most of the juniors were from Houston of the AHL, The wild affiliate, not known for high scoring. But it is still an obvious trend.
When u take PM Bouchard, Bret Burns and Nick Schultz of the wild. They in managment eyes out grew their junior teams but were not ready for the NHL. They played in some 40 50 games in the first few seasons. Were they could have played about 40 games in the NCAA. It is obvious they needed some middle ground, and the NCAA could have provided that.

Foy isn't a good example he along with Stajan were late bloomers in the GTHL... Foy played NCAA and came back because his agent thought it would be better for him and he would be able to start his career sooner than coming out of NCAA....
he also knew that he would be on a line with Corey Locke... which helped both of them out pretty good...

As for his stats in the AHL he was battling injuries and MONO all year and most of the games he played in he was sick as a dog....

his infated stats in Ottawa were a combination of chemistry with locke and sheppard and ice time.... He was one of the ice time leaders in the OHL if iam not mistaken...

 

[Funkymoses]

Here are some stats that might help.
Mike Comrie in NCAA 40 games 35 points, then to juniors 37 games 40 points. A bit better but he was older too a push.

not that I want to get involved in this argument again, but Comrie had 79 points in 37 games... 40 was just his assists.

 

[MikeC44]

Here are some stats that might help.
Mike Comrie in NCAA 40 games 35 points, then to juniors 37 games 40 points. A bit better but he was older too a push.
Mark Parrish in NCAA 35 games 42 points, then to juniors 54 games and 92 points. Way better. For him it looks like NCAA was harder. Tough WCHA conf.
Matt Foy in NCAA 31 games 24 points, then to juniors 68 games and 132 points. Found juniors easier to score in i guess.
Jess Lane. In juniors 31 games 36 points, then goes to USHL 24 games and 14 points. USHL just a bit harder.
Lets look at some people after the NCAA and after juniors in the AHL. Same level of compition. This is all there first year in the AHL.
Jonny Pohl NCAAer 58 games 58 points in AHL
Darren Haydar NCAAer 75 games 75 points in AHL
Mark Hartigan NCAAer 55 games and 46 points in AHL
Jeff Taffe NCAAer 57 games 49 points in the AHL
Matt Foy junior 51 games 24 points in the AHL
Stephane Veilleux junior 77 games 35 points in AHL. Had 115 points in 68 games in last year of juniors.
Kyle Wanvig junior 34 games 13 points in the AHL. HAd 101 points in 69 games in his last year of junior.
The top three rookie scorers in the AHL this year were Kyle Wellwood junior, Noah Clarke NCAA and Mike Glumac NCAA. And Wade Dubby was the #1 goalie in the AHL. A rookie out of the NCAA.
It seems the pattern here is that NCAA players are fairing better off in the AHL. And players who cross the NCAA and juniors are putting up better numbers in the CHL. I did choose mostly WCHA hockey players because i know who they are and where they played. And most of the juniors were from Houston of the AHL, The wild affiliate, not known for high scoring. But it is still an obvious trend.
When u take PM Bouchard, Bret Burns and Nick Schultz of the wild. They in managment eyes out grew their junior teams but were not ready for the NHL. They played in some 40 50 games in the first few seasons. Were they could have played about 40 games in the NCAA. It is obvious they needed some middle ground, and the NCAA could have provided that.

You have to compare the ages of these players.
Wellwood was 20 years old. Clarke and Glumac are 3 and 4 years older than Wellwood, and Glumac played a year in the ECHL. Dubie was also a 24 year old rookie.

 

[Chainshot]

It's simply amazing, the amount of bigotry and broad-brush commentary in this thread AND the amount of unsubstantiated opinion that a few hoist off as "fact" when its simply opinion, no matter how strongly held.

The origins of the thread was the debate about NCAA vs. CHL in regards to smaller players. And it seems to have turned into a big "us vs. them", "my opinion is fact (yet I don't have a damn link to back it up)", and people making some pretty massive/outlandish assumptions just to try to prove a point.

Some things that we can SURMISE from what we see the NHL doing:

1) The NCAA has attracted more players of quality in recent years than IT has previously. The draft is the primary indicator of this, with more NCAA or NCAA committed players going in earlier rounds.

2) Finances will continue to play a part in how teams draft and develop players. Considering the bend of this thread, it's surprising that no one has mentioned how teams will also take smaller yet skilled European players since they, like their NCAA counterparts, have a much longer signing window and therefor can continue to develop prior to being signed. That alone makes it much less expensive for NHL teams to hang onto a players rights and make a determination much later than they would have to under current CBA rules for CHL draftees.

3) Individuals have choice in the matter of what they wish to do with their abilities and ultimately with their life. We can make up what we want about them based on their decisions, and what we say about them really has nothing to do with who they are but everything to do with what WE think. If they choose NCAA, CHL, or European pro leagues... they all have their reasons and unless someone has intimate knowledge of the situation, then there is only strongly held opinion and not "Fact" as basis for commentary.

4) Players, just like the rest of humanity, develop skills at different rates/levels. As one becomes more physically or mentally mature, ones performance can vary from previous perfomance. There will be those who bloom at 18, 19, 20, or even later who weren't the best at a given age. And there will be those who are dominant as youngsters who either fail to improve, fail to adapt to others improvements, and in some instances simply quit. It makes little sense to judge and assess a 20 year old on the basis of who he did or did not play well against at 14 or 17, etc... The scouting question to ask is "How are they performing now and how do we see them developing in the future? How is this league compared to others in terms of talent-level and how does that weigh a decision to draft this individual".

 

[eye]

stockwizard, you didn't respond to why ex-NHL players kids mostly choose the NHL route. You also didn't retract your rediculous quote on Chelios and you made no comment on the CHL being the surest way to the NHL with only a 3% success rate.

I agree with Chainshot to some degree, there are some very poorly thought out replies here but I chock that up to league loyalty and passion for this great sport we all tear apart and defend with equal vigor. I for one love both the NCAA and the CHL and prefer both over the poorly officiated and bast""""""""d version of the NHL game we have been exposed to the last 10 years. Oh, how I long for a game that calls the rulebook and allows stars to shine again.

 

[VOB]

It seems the pattern here is that NCAA players are fairing better off in the AHL. And players who cross the NCAA and juniors are putting up better numbers in the CHL. I did choose mostly WCHA hockey players because i know who they are and where they played. And most of the juniors were from Houston of the AHL, The wild affiliate, not known for high scoring. But it is still an obvious trend.
When u take PM Bouchard, Bret Burns and Nick Schultz of the wild. They in managment eyes out grew their junior teams but were not ready for the NHL. They played in some 40 50 games in the first few seasons. Were they could have played about 40 games in the NCAA. It is obvious they needed some middle ground, and the NCAA could have provided that.

Interesting that you would wade in here MN Gopher, not ever having even seen a CHL game and all. I do like how you use "stats" to pad you arguement on how the NCAA is better because of NCAA players receiving better stats in both the AHL and CHL (when they cross over) This does not apply to all players, however. Take a look Jonathun Lehun who had 37pts in 57 games for Owen Sound, only a modest gain from his point totals when he was playing for St Cloud but the difference here is that he was one year older. That year makes a larger difference than you are willing to give credit for. How would he have done at St Cloud as a sophmore?

Take a look at Mike Cammalleri. As a freshman, he posted 26 pts in 39 games. One year later he potted 29 goals with 32 assists for a point total of 62 in 42 games. WOW,he almost trippled his point total! Same player so according to your logic, the NCAA must have been BRUTAL that year since the prior year he was averaging less than a point a game! Couldn't have been anything to do with his being a year older and a year better, much like Foy was and he probably would have lit up the NCAA if he remained as a freshman or like Comire who jumped right from the CHL into Edmonton's third line (second sometimes) during the course of the season. Comrie probably would have destroyed the NCAA as a junior much like he did the CHL.

While it is true that most former NCAA players do put up better numbers in Major A (don't tell that to Justun Maiser though whose point totals dropped when going from B.U. to Seattle of the WHL), a primary reason is because they are a year older and are playing against players who are younger than they are.

As for your AHL analogy, as Mike C44 already stated, the NCAA rookie players in the AHL are 23 or 24 years old compared to 20 that the CHL players are. Tell me something, which league do you think a very good 20 year old should develop in, the AHL or NCAA? The AHL (not the NCAA) is the middle ground that many of these players need to make it to the NHL. Its funny that you did not look at the NHL rookies, of which 8 out of the top 10 hailed from the CHL.

 

[VOB]

stockwizard, you didn't respond to why ex-NHL players kids mostly choose the NHL route. You also didn't retract your rediculous quote on Chelios and you made no comment on the CHL being the surest way to the NHL with only a 3% success rate.
.

The majority of those ex NHL players sons are American and as a result the NCAA is the prefered route. Its not like they think the CHL is beneath their son's or any thing like that.

 

[MikeC44]

The majority of those ex NHL players sons are American and as a result the NCAA is the prefered route. Its not like they think the CHL is beneath their son's or any thing like that.

Does anyone have a list of these NHL players' sons?
How many are we talking about?

I know there are a bunch of Hunter kids who played for London, and some Sutters who have played in the WHL. Paul MacLean's son, AJ, played for the Mooseheads. Eric Chouinard and Phil Sauve also played in the Q.

 

[VOB]

Does anyone have a list of these NHL players' sons?
How many are we talking about?

I know there are a bunch of Hunter kids who played for London, and some Sutters who have played in the WHL. Paul MacLean's son, AJ, played for the Mooseheads. Eric Chouinard and Phil Sauve also played in the Q.

I don't have a list but yes there are also alot of NHLers kids who played in the CHL as well such as Gainey, Nolan, and Crombee. The CHL (and hockey in general) receives little press in the U.S. and most NCAA fans don't even know where Ontario is, let alone about the OHL, so everything is really centered on what they are familiar with. So all a poster like "eyes" hears about are Nystrom's, Bourque's, Tambellini's,Statny's ect kids going off to college and they automatically assume that all NHLers are sending their kids to the NCAA because it is the better route.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

Guys, please dont think that all CHL fans are as moronic as Stockwizard. He is an annomely, most CHL fans dont have this grudge with the NCAA and their players.

 

[stockwizard*]

Guys, please dont think that all CHL fans are as moronic as Stockwizard. He is an annomely, most CHL fans dont have this grudge with the NCAA and their players.

What's with the name calling.

I have no grudge or bias. If you want proof just look at the draft results year after year. What I am trying to do is bring awareness and try to help the American kids who dream of playing in the NHL.

I love how someone is implying that my whole argument is out the window because Chelios played Junior A in Canada.

And the idea that all the ex players want their sons to take the NCAA route is hilarious. I guess a poll was taken and every single father asked wanted their son to go NCAA. I am sure alot of them want their sons to go that route or CIS because they know how tough CHL can be.
The CHL has a pro league environment which can be tough for 16 and 17 year olds.

This is the same thing as if you ask a famous actor and they will say they don't wan't their kids to be actors. Obviously there is no guarantee you are going to play in the NHL if you play in the CHL, however the odds are a lot better than if you play CIS or NCAA.

Like I said, the NCAA is great if you want to concentrate on your education, but if you have dreams of playing in the NHL, then come to the CHL.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

But Stockwizard, there isnt a clear cut and dry path to take to the NHL. Players go whcih ever way they see fit.

Some players are late bloomers and need more time in lower leagues, some players can handle higher competition early. Maybe some players want to get a degree in case they blow out a knee.

WHo knows?

 

[VOB]

But Stockwizard, there isnt a clear cut and dry path to take to the NHL. Players go whcih ever way they see fit.

Some players are late bloomers and need more time in lower leagues, some players can handle higher competition early. Maybe some players want to get a degree in case they blow out a knee.

WHo knows?

Yeah that's about it. There is no one right path. All players are differet and need different alternatives. I remember Mike Comrie stating one time that he was not physically ready for the WHL as a 16 or even 17 year old. He needed time in the Junior A ranks to mature. What would have happened had he played in the dub as a 16 year old? He made the right decision for him at the time in pursuing the NCAA option.

To a player like Crosby, the Q was the obvious choice. Why go back to a prep school where he completly anhialated the competition or play in an inferior Junior A league while waiting to go to college?

Different players, different outcomes.

The only thing that bothers me is when elite players do end up taking the NCAA route and then leave after one or two seasons. Obvioulsy those players were not there for the education but rather to develop for the pros. Perhaps they should have given greater consideration to the CHL instead while the school could have saved a scholarship for a player that wanted to be there for school first and hockey second. Isn't that what the NCAA is suppose to be all about?

 

[stockwizard*]

But Stockwizard, there isnt a clear cut and dry path to take to the NHL. Players go whcih ever way they see fit.

Some players are late bloomers and need more time in lower leagues, some players can handle higher competition early. Maybe some players want to get a degree in case they blow out a knee.

WHo knows?

Of course. I think I have stated here before that if you are a late developing player the NCAA or CIS is fine. Perhaps later on if you keep on developing you will get a tryout with an NHL team.
Everything would have to be in perfect allignment though.

 

[ktownhockey]

this thread

I started this thread to talk about how smaller players who choose the OHL get drafted later and some times not even drafted at all, sometimes if they choose the NCAA they would get more exposure cause the points they would be putting up would look more impressive in the NCAA

Another thing I dont understand is that if someone puts up big totals in the NCAA it doesnt matter their size (Mike Cammalleri, Paul Kariya) and in the CHL if ur under 5"10 your labelled a CHL scorer and you are said to be going now where... People bash Corey Locke etc but if they are given an opportunity it doesnt matter how big they are it matters how they play the game... CHL or NCAA it doesnt matter... whatever path best suits a player/.. if you are ready for the OHL at 16 why not play there... if you are not physically reayd then wait it out and get a scholarship..

both ways are execellent developmental leagues I just feel that the OHL small guys get screwed in the draft for making the choice to plau there... end of story

 

[chaachie12]

What's with the name calling.


Like I said, the NCAA is great if you want to concentrate on your education, but if you have dreams of playing in the NHL, then come to the CHL.

like calling kids cowards for going to college?

Its your last statement there that is waging this war, because it is 100% wrong. Players from theNCAA are just as focused...you either know that and just like conflict or are just flat wrong and can't see past it.

 

[stockwizard*]

like calling kids cowards for going to college?

Its your last statement there that is waging this war, because it is 100% wrong. Players from theNCAA are just as focused...you either know that and just like conflict or are just flat wrong and can't see past it.

I said kessel made a cowardly choice. I never called him a coward.
I thought he was supposed to be supremely talented for a 16 year old. Crosby would never waste time in College.
Why not save that spot for someone who intends on finishing their degree?

 

[db23]

I started this thread to talk about how smaller players who choose the OHL get drafted later and some times not even drafted at all, sometimes if they choose the NCAA they would get more exposure cause the points they would be putting up would look more impressive in the NCAA

Another thing I dont understand is that if someone puts up big totals in the NCAA it doesnt matter their size (Mike Cammalleri, Paul Kariya) and in the CHL if ur under 5"10 your labelled a CHL scorer and you are said to be going now where... People bash Corey Locke etc but if they are given an opportunity it doesnt matter how big they are it matters how they play the game... CHL or NCAA it doesnt matter... whatever path best suits a player/.. if you are ready for the OHL at 16 why not play there... if you are not physically reayd then wait it out and get a scholarship..

both ways are execellent developmental leagues I just feel that the OHL small guys get screwed in the draft for making the choice to plau there... end of story

I don't think that the smaller scorers who go through the NCAA are any better off. If you look at a player like Darren Haydar or Jeff Hamilton, they are 25 or 26 years old and fringe pros who will end up in Europe the same as a lot of the smaller CHL stars who don't have the all round game to make the NHL. It just takes the NCAA players longer to get to that point.

The solution is to break down the strict seperation between the two. Why should CHL players not be eligible for the NCAA? Because they made $500 a week playing Junior A? Most kids could make that working evenings stocking shelves at the grocery stores while they were finishing high school. Landscaping on weekends for their Dad's company. If players from the all of the other junior leagues in N.A. are eligible for the NCAA, I don't see a good reason that CHL players shouldn't be.

That way a kid has the option of playing a couple of years in the CHL and if it looks like h may be better off getting his education, then he could go to the NCAA or a Canadian college. With the changes in NCAA NHL draft rules, the player would be drafted at the sam time regardless of his choice. It would make things much easier and fairer.

 

[jiggs 10]

That is totally irrelevant.
The only reason why they would be competitive, if they were, is because the players are very old in many cases.
There are a lot more U.S. players considering the CHL as opposed to Canadians going NCAA. Most U.S. schools would much rather offer a scholorship to an American kid than a Canadian kid. I have read this many times.
Some NCAA scouts have given up scouting top talent in Canada in the 16 age range. They have very little change of landing them. They have resorted mainly to scouting 19 and 20 year olds who's eligibility is running out.
There are more NHL scoutd looking at the CHL, the coaches are better, the talent is better, and all you have to do is look at the draft results year after year if you have any doubts.
Most NCAA players never even finish their degree anyways.

Actually, your points are very wrong in most cases.

The average age for a senior in the NCAA is 23. Only one year more than if they were a regular student. And most of them start when they are either 18 or 19, so they are not all that far ahead of the CHL players. In fact, many of them are 17 when they are recruited, and 18 when they start to play. Look at Brady Murray, for example. He started the year on the second line at age 17.
The reason more scholarships are going to American kids these days are...THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS then they were 20 years ago! I know, I live in an NCAA city where for years we only recruited Canadians (and caught un-Godly amounts of grief for it). The past 10 years, however, they have recruited roughly 60% US kids, and had a few walk-ons make it, so right now they actually have about 70% US kids on the team. And they won 2 NCAA titles in the past 7 years (and lost in the championship game in OT once), so it shows it's working. Look at Minnesota, for example. They have only played 2 players NOT from the state in 25 years (Vanek and Potulny...well, I guess 3 with the little Potulny). And they've done alright. Even sent a few kids to the NHL.

The talent is better in the CHL? Not at age 17 or 18. That's why these kids leave to go to the NCAA...to get noticed and drafted and get an education (for free). 4 or 5 years at a college playing against better players, lifting weights more, practicing A LOT more, and getting some schooling in is MUCH better than playing in the bus leagues at 18 or 19. Unless you're a superstar, you are going to spend 3 years in the AHL anyway. I, for one, would rather spend that time in a good college program, because when I decide to leave (or graduate), I would be ready to step right in, or at the very least inside of a year in the AHL. And I would still only be 24 or so by the time I made it.
It's a personal decision for kids. But getting an education while playing hockey is NEVER a bad thing.

 

[stockwizard*]

Actually, your points are very wrong in most cases.

The average age for a senior in the NCAA is 23. Only one year more than if they were a regular student. And most of them start when they are either 18 or 19, so they are not all that far ahead of the CHL players. In fact, many of them are 17 when they are recruited, and 18 when they start to play. Look at Brady Murray, for example. He started the year on the second line at age 17.
The reason more scholarships are going to American kids these days are...THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS then they were 20 years ago! I know, I live in an NCAA city where for years we only recruited Canadians (and caught un-Godly amounts of grief for it). The past 10 years, however, they have recruited roughly 60% US kids, and had a few walk-ons make it, so right now they actually have about 70% US kids on the team. And they won 2 NCAA titles in the past 7 years (and lost in the championship game in OT once), so it shows it's working. Look at Minnesota, for example. They have only played 2 players NOT from the state in 25 years (Vanek and Potulny...well, I guess 3 with the little Potulny). And they've done alright. Even sent a few kids to the NHL.

The talent is better in the CHL? Not at age 17 or 18. That's why these kids leave to go to the NCAA...to get noticed and drafted and get an education (for free). 4 or 5 years at a college playing against better players, lifting weights more, practicing A LOT more, and getting some schooling in is MUCH better than playing in the bus leagues at 18 or 19. Unless you're a superstar, you are going to spend 3 years in the AHL anyway. I, for one, would rather spend that time in a good college program, because when I decide to leave (or graduate), I would be ready to step right in, or at the very least inside of a year in the AHL. And I would still only be 24 or so by the time I made it.
It's a personal decision for kids. But getting an education while playing hockey is NEVER a bad thing.

You say kids go to the NCAA instead of the CHL to "get noticed and drafted" What are you smoking?
I know a lot of the kids in the NCAA are American. No Canadian want's to come up unless they are offered a full scholorship. Even then most of the time they prefer the CHL.
You are saying the average 18 year old in the NCAA is better than the average 18 year old in the CHL. In your dreams!
By the way, a large number of CHL players move on to the CIS (Canadian University hockey) with a scholorship at the age of 20. Some Americans have done this.

 

[Molson v. Labatt]

I don't think that the smaller scorers who go through the NCAA are any better off. If you look at a player like Darren Haydar or Jeff Hamilton, they are 25 or 26 years old and fringe pros who will end up in Europe the same as a lot of the smaller CHL stars who don't have the all round game to make the NHL. It just takes the NCAA players longer to get to that point.

The solution is to break down the strict seperation between the two. Why should CHL players not be eligible for the NCAA? Because they made $500 a week playing Junior A? Most kids could make that working evenings stocking shelves at the grocery stores while they were finishing high school. Landscaping on weekends for their Dad's company. If players from the all of the other junior leagues in N.A. are eligible for the NCAA, I don't see a good reason that CHL players shouldn't be.

That way a kid has the option of playing a couple of years in the CHL and if it looks like h may be better off getting his education, then he could go to the NCAA or a Canadian college. With the changes in NCAA NHL draft rules, the player would be drafted at the sam time regardless of his choice. It would make things much easier and fairer.

Excellent Post!

I couldn't agree more. While the NHL has come a long way, size is still a determining factor for prospects, with many excellent hockey players being underestimated or even ignored because thy are sub-6 feet. There have been many examples given in this thread, representing both the CHL and NCAA. I couldn't agree more with ktownhockey that it shouldn't be the size that matters, but how well you play the game.

The CHL and NCAA have built themselves as rivals, but I do think that with the exception of the bluechippers, guys that could play anywhere, they tend to recruit different markets. In the end, they are both valid paths to continue hockey, and both work if the end goal is exposure.

I think the rule-changes are coming to put both on a level playing-field as far as being drafted. This is much needed. It is rair to hear a club draft a CHL player only to say that they expect him to play juniors for 3 more years- that however is an option for college draftees.