The USHL against the CHL????

Status
Not open for further replies.

ej_pens

Registered User
Mar 12, 2003
2,062
1
Visit site
VOB said:
Believe me Van, "Tier I" in the U.S. doesn't mean anything! Do you know why the USHL was granted tier I status at the expense of the NAHL? The one main criteria that the NAHL could not meet was the attendance requirements and that was it!!!

The USHL didn't get Tier I at the "expense" of the NAHL. The NAHL teams simply weren't ready to make the move to Tier I and it showed by the almost total collapse of the league last offseason.

The NAHL does pretty well much everything for its players as the USHL does. The vast majority of teams in the NAHL ( I am pretty sure all of them really) pay for the players equipment and offset their billeting costs just as the USHL does.

2 seasons ago, I would have said the gap between the top teams in both leagues was very small (the USHL had more depth). But what has happened since then? The NAHL lost it's top developmental program (Compuware), one of their best newest franchises (Pittsburgh), and a very solid franchise (Danville) and gained very little (the AWHL, which was a step below the NAHL anyway, and a bunch of lower level league franchises).

They went from a very good league to one that is clearly a step below the USHL.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
ej_pens said:
The USHL didn't get Tier I at the "expense" of the NAHL. The NAHL teams simply weren't ready to make the move to Tier I and it showed by the almost total collapse of the league last offseason.
QUOTE]


Really, then why the attendance criteria? The USHL was and is in direct competition with the NAHL for players. The USHL was pushing really hard for the Tier 1 designation, a designation they did not want to share with the NAHL. The only thing the USHL had over the NAHL was a better attendance rate and this is why they had it inserted into the Tier 1 bylaws.

As a sidenote, the USHL also intended to do away with the NTDP by agreeing to hold eight spots open for players under the age of 18. The NTDP is of course still in existance, so the USHL has decided to scrap that policy, even though it is a "tier 1" criteria.

You are right in that the NAHL experienced a severe set back last season with the loss of it flagship program, Compuware, but there will be a new team in Detroit very shortly.
 

ej_pens

Registered User
Mar 12, 2003
2,062
1
Visit site
Really, then why the attendance criteria? The USHL was and is in direct competition with the NAHL for players. The USHL was pushing really hard for the Tier 1 designation, a designation they did not want to share with the NAHL. The only thing the USHL had over the NAHL was a better attendance rate and this is why they had it inserted into the Tier 1 bylaws.

The attendance criteria didn't kill the NAHL's Tier 1 attempt. In fact, there were rumors at that time that USA Hockey was willing to relax those requirements for the NAHL. The reason why the NAHL didn't go Tier 1 is that too many teams couldn't afford the costs. 3 teams folded and another was sold and moved. A 5th realized that their best opportunity was to move to a league that was ready for the jump. At least 2 more teams explored that avenue. Does that sound like a league on solid financial footing?

The league wasn't in good enough financial shape to go T1. They tried and it almost destroyed the league. At the very least, it cost them 3 of it's 4 best franchises.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
ej_pens said:
The attendance criteria didn't kill the NAHL's Tier 1 attempt. In fact, there were rumors at that time that USA Hockey was willing to relax those requirements for the NAHL. The reason why the NAHL didn't go Tier 1 is that too many teams couldn't afford the costs. 3 teams folded and another was sold and moved. A 5th realized that their best opportunity was to move to a league that was ready for the jump. At least 2 more teams explored that avenue. Does that sound like a league on solid financial footing?

The league wasn't in good enough financial shape to go T1. They tried and it almost destroyed the league. At the very least, it cost them 3 of it's 4 best franchises.

The initial attemdance requirments is what prevented the NAHL from going T-1 in the first place, nothing more. Teams folding had very little to do with the league's attempt to establish themselves as tier 1.

Compuware folded because their owner's business (Karmaonos who also ownes the Whalers and Hurricanes) was faltering and he could no longer afford to sponsor two Junior A teams.

Pittsburg folded because I believe they shared the same ice facility as Robert Morris and when Robert Morris decided to go D-1, Pittsburg had to go. The team was sold and moved to Ohio.

Chicago did indeed fold due to lack of support but they would have folded regardless of whether the NAHL was tier 1 or not!

ejpens, let me ask you, what do you think tier 1 is anyway and how do you think it is any different than what Junior A meant before? The biggest costs for any Junior A franchise in the U.S. are coaches salaries, travel and equipment. The NAHL pays its coaches a salary (not as much as the USHL but it is still a paid position), pays for its players equipment and offsets their billiting costs and of course provides for accomodations and meals when travelling.

What does the USHL do that is any different? Why should the USHL be viewed as tier 1 and the NAHL as tier II? The only answer is becasues some, and I emphasize only some, teams in the USHL are able to draw 4000 fans a game while their NAHL counterparts can only bring in 1500. I will go back to my original question, does attendance play a part in developing players and making a league or team any stronger?

The NAHL did just fine in producing the Brian Rolstons, Dougie Weights and Ryan Millers just fine in front of only 1000 or so people!
 

lmthaete

Registered User
Jun 21, 2004
22
0
Midwest
MikeC said:
The president of the USHL issued a challenge a few years ago (1 or 2) to the CHL president.

He wanted to play the winner of the Turner Cup (USHL playoff champion) against the winner of the memorial cup. Sadly, Branch refused.

From what I am reading, the CHL is better than the USHL. But a tournament between the two entities would be great for junior hockey.

I really think that Branch made a big mistake by refusing. Maybe the CHL has to much to loose???

As fans, what do you think of it????

First off - Turner Cup?
I think you either have the wrong championship or the wrong league in mind. The Turner Cup is presented to the winners of the International Hockey League play-off Championship. The Joseph Turner Memorial Cup is its full title and it was named in memory of Joe Turner.
The USHL and USA Tier I Champions receive the Clark Cup.

The USHL has a history of some wonderful players who have gone through their systems and now play in the NHL: Tyler Arnason, Jason Blake, Scott Clemmensen, Erik Cole, Ty Conklin, Ruslan Fedotenko, Chris and Peter Ferraro, Peter Sejna, Patrick Sharp, Garrett Stafford, to name only a few... http://www.ushl.com/alumni/
I'd consider that pretty significant considering the fact that the USHL has only been in existence for the past 25 years.

Many of the players in the USHL this past year made commitments to college hockey teams: http://www.ushl.com/college/index.cfm
And there were 35 players who have played in the USHL which were ranked in the NHL CSS Final Rankings: http://www.ushl.com/news/20040630nhldraftguide2004.pdf
"Seventeen players with roots in the United States Hockey League (USHL), and six who hope to plant them this season, were selected at the 2004 NHL Entry Draft": http://www.ushl.com/news/20040627ushl.cfm The most noteable being Blake Wheeler (selected 5th overall) who is protected by the USHL's Green Bay Gamblers for the 2004-2005 season.

The USHL has proved itself to be a very competitive USA Junior hockey league, however it would be hard to compare the USHL to the CHL. I think a game between the two leagues would be fun, but I think if they were to play each other, the only fair way to have a competitive game would be to have "All-Star" teams with the leagues top players to play each other, not the league's top team, because in my opinion, Tri-City had the best overall tallent in the USHL this year only to be stopped in the Clark Cup Campionships by Waterloo's unbelievable goalie Kevin Regan.
 

NWT Habs Fan

Registered User
Apr 25, 2003
2,047
0
Edmonton, AB
Visit site
I want to thank all of you for your informative background information on US junior hockey. I had brief exposure to it when I lived in Thunder Bay ON a while back and watched the Flyers play in the USHL, but haven't really been aware of the evolution of the USHL and NAHL over the past few years.

Good reading!!
 

LaLaLaprise

lalalaprise -twitter
Feb 28, 2002
8,716
1
Halifax, Nova Scotia
lmthaete said:
First off - Turner Cup?
I think you either have the wrong championship or the wrong league in mind. The Turner Cup is presented to the winners of the International Hockey League play-off Championship. The Joseph Turner Memorial Cup is its full title and it was named in memory of Joe Turner.
The USHL and USA Tier I Champions receive the Clark Cup.

The USHL has a history of some wonderful players who have gone through their systems and now play in the NHL: Tyler Arnason, Jason Blake, Scott Clemmensen, Erik Cole, Ty Conklin, Ruslan Fedotenko, Chris and Peter Ferraro, Peter Sejna, Patrick Sharp, Garrett Stafford, to name only a few... http://www.ushl.com/alumni/
I'd consider that pretty significant considering the fact that the USHL has only been in existence for the past 25 years.

Many of the players in the USHL this past year made commitments to college hockey teams: http://www.ushl.com/college/index.cfm
And there were 35 players who have played in the USHL which were ranked in the NHL CSS Final Rankings: http://www.ushl.com/news/20040630nhldraftguide2004.pdf
"Seventeen players with roots in the United States Hockey League (USHL), and six who hope to plant them this season, were selected at the 2004 NHL Entry Draft": http://www.ushl.com/news/20040627ushl.cfm The most noteable being Blake Wheeler (selected 5th overall) who is protected by the USHL's Green Bay Gamblers for the 2004-2005 season.

The USHL has proved itself to be a very competitive USA Junior hockey league, however it would be hard to compare the USHL to the CHL. I think a game between the two leagues would be fun, but I think if they were to play each other, the only fair way to have a competitive game would be to have "All-Star" teams with the leagues top players to play each other, not the league's top team, because in my opinion, Tri-City had the best overall tallent in the USHL this year only to be stopped in the Clark Cup Campionships by Waterloo's unbelievable goalie Kevin Regan.

There were over 100 CHL players picked and if i were to count the players who are owned by CHL teams it would top 130-140.

Blake Wheeler cant be counted as USHL because he has never played a game there. You should count the actual players Drafted FROM a USHL team.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
La-La-Laprise said:
There were over 100 CHL players picked and if i were to count the players who are owned by CHL teams it would top 130-140.

Blake Wheeler cant be counted as USHL because he has never played a game there. You should count the actual players Drafted FROM a USHL team.


The USHL is notorious for claiming anybody who even uttered the word 'USHL' as one of their own.

Rumors have been circulating that Wheeler will sign with the Coyotes this summer.

As for CHL players drafted, I think the number was 116 but you are right, if you include the Euro players who will be playing in the league next season, then the number easily inflates to about 130 or so.
 

Papa Smurf

Registered User
Jun 9, 2004
1,335
0
Oshawa, Ontario
The CHL is far better than the USHL. The USHL is basically a national Junior A league while the CHL is Major Junior, which is far more superior.
 

ttnorm

Registered User
Feb 21, 2003
508
0
Connecticut
Visit site
Canadian_man said:
The CHL is far better than the USHL. The USHL is basically a national Junior A league while the CHL is Major Junior, which is far more superior.
It's all just talk until you lace em up and play the games.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
ttnorm said:
It's all just talk until you lace em up and play the games.


Yeah you are so right and that is what the USHL found out when two of its teams lost to a team from the AWHL in a pre-season tilt two years ago; a league that has since merged with the NAHL and at the time was considered so inferior that it should have been designated a Junior B league. Since then the USHL has done nothing but talk as to how great they are while running away from any type of matches with NAHL teams.
 

PuckFan01

Registered User
Apr 14, 2002
674
0
Visit site
VOB said:
former NAHL players are found throughtout the NCAA, in big programs and the newer smaller programs. It is true that you will find more USHL players in programs such as North Dokata and Wisconsin because those schools are in the league's backyard.

This year schools such as Ohio State, Michigan State, University of Miami and Minnesota have all recruited kids out of the NAHL.

Boston College and Maine, two of the country's finest programs have not recruited any player from the USHL or the NAHL but have taken several from the EJHL. According to your logic, the EJHL must be better than both the USHL and NAHL since those two leagues failed to place any players on those teams this year, right?

I will grant you that the USHL does indeed place more players in the NCAA ever year but, again, it goes back to the depth issue. Players on third lines in weaker USHL teams are still considered legit D-1 prospects in the eyes of many recruiters while the same cannot be said of those players on the third line of weak NAHL teams.

The only advantage the USHL has over the NAHL is depth and nothing more. A first line player in the NAHL could also be a first line player in the USHL. I think the USHL also has the depth advantage over the BCHL as well but on a much lesser scale and in fact, I think the BCHL may have had the better overall talent this year.

I agree that some of recruiting is due to proximity. But I have talked to a number of coaches who have outright said that the USHL is the best league for developing college players. (btw, Minnesota's "recruit" out of the NAHL is being brought in as a 3rd string walk-on goalie.... and this kid was the NAHL's MVP. What does that tell you about the NAHL?)

As far as depth being the sole difference, even if that were the case, doesn't that essentially make the point that the league is clearly better?

Even then, I don't buy your comments. Name me some of the big name studs of recent vintage? Any big studs like Vanek? Cause I certainly haven't seen many out the NAHL recently.

Why is it when kids leave the NTDP, they seem to go to the USHL? Ballard, McKenzie, Fleming, Raduns.

Why is it that the USA Junior Player of the year seems to come from the USHL all the time these days?

How about draft picks coming out of the NAHL in recent years compared to the USHL?

Just some of the points I believe show it is more than just depth.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Ryan Miller, Jim Slater, Alvero Montoya, Danny Fritche and Matt Nickerson are just some of the big name talents who plyed their trade in the NAHL.

As I said before, the USHL is the better league right now but mainly because of depth. A few more high end talented players does not mean that the USHL is worlds better though. Would you argue that the BCHL is better becasue they enjoyed a better draft than the USHL this year?
 

PuckFan01

Registered User
Apr 14, 2002
674
0
Visit site
VOB said:
As I said before, the USHL is the better league right now but mainly because of depth. A few more high end talented players does not mean that the USHL is worlds better though. Would you argue that the BCHL is better becasue they enjoyed a better draft than the USHL this year?

The top end talent just doesn't compare. the USHL is superior. It is being proven year after year these days. The NAHL is like the minor leagues for junior hockey now.

My point wasn't basing anything on one year. Just go back the last 3, 4 or 5 years. Impact players, draft picks, scholarships awarded, junior player of the year, etc. Its not even an adequate comparison. The USHL is just flat out a better league and has been for more than just a year or two.

I would rather recruit from the BCHL or AJHL than I would the NAHL. The NAHL is mostly where low level schools from the CHA or the newly named "Atlantic Hockey" conference goes for many of their players.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
PuckFan01 said:
The top end talent just doesn't compare. the USHL is superior. It is being proven year after year these days. The NAHL is like the minor leagues for junior hockey now.

My point wasn't basing anything on one year. Just go back the last 3, 4 or 5 years. Impact players, draft picks, scholarships awarded, junior player of the year, etc. Its not even an adequate comparison. The USHL is just flat out a better league and has been for more than just a year or two.

I would rather recruit from the BCHL or AJHL than I would the NAHL. The NAHL is mostly where low level schools from the CHA or the newly named "Atlantic Hockey" conference goes for many of their players.

If that were the case then why did an NAHL allstar team beat a USHL allstar team three years ago (before the USHL pulled out of the king of the hill tournament)?

I believe the NAHL had 40 or so players recruited by the big four conferences this year and are not alot of USHL players recruited by those lower teams as well?

Yes the USHL is the better than the NAHL, especially right now, I have never disputed that but the gap is not as large as you think and there are more than a few NAHL teams that would have done well in the USHL this year. The NAHL simply lacks the depth of the USHL.

As for the top end talent not comparing, well can you name me one goalie that has come out of the USHL over the past five years that has received more accolades than Ryan Miller? Can you name me one former USHL player that actually cracked an NHL roster as a 19 year old like Danny Fritche did? That Montoya is no slouch either and playing in the NAHL sure didn't hurt him either.

Other than the number of scholarships awarded, how has the USHL proved that it is superior year after year when they have refused to play teams from the NAHL for fear of losing?
 

Holly Gunning

Registered User
Mar 9, 2002
3,484
0
out and about
Visit site
I almost forgot about this, but I overheard an NHL team "suit" say at the draft, when talking about what good prospects the NAHL Texas Tornado had, that they were in the wrong league, they should be in the USHL.

Here at HF, we collapsed what was the NAHL page into a more general page that will include high school hockey and the USNTDP. In case anyone was wondering what that was.
 

SeLaine

Registered User
May 26, 2004
313
25
The best USHL team would have a tough time beating last years Saskatoon Blades!
 

derbyfan

Registered User
Nov 23, 2002
663
0
Visit site
For VOB -
First off, thanks for your insights. Interesting that you think (VOB) that Aurora could topple the top USHL squads.
I wonder, however, just how far off top US junior squads are from the CHL. For example, in 2001 the expansion NAHL Pittsburgh Forge beat the Erie Otters 4-1 in a pre-season game, outshooting them 44-14. Also, the U.S. Under-18 squad used to play exhibition games against OHL squads and (according to USA Hockey as of 2000) had a record of 5-0-3 since the program's inception. At the 2000 Molson American Challenge cup, the Under-18's beat Erie 6-2 and Barrie 8-3...then the next week in USHL competition were losing to the likes of Green Bay and and Sioux Falls.
Just interested in hearing your perspective on these results. Granted, they were pre-season games. Do you think this played a big part in the end results - CHL teams were likely sitting their best players? Thing is, it was just a couple weeks before the OHL got it's regular season under way, so I'd wager the clubs would be playing most of their starting line-ups.
Thanks for the insights. Also, too bad Compuware had to fold - one hell of a hockey program. :banghead:
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
derbyfan said:
For VOB -
First off, thanks for your insights. Interesting that you think (VOB) that Aurora could topple the top USHL squads.
I wonder, however, just how far off top US junior squads are from the CHL. For example, in 2001 the expansion NAHL Pittsburgh Forge beat the Erie Otters 4-1 in a pre-season game, outshooting them 44-14. Also, the U.S. Under-18 squad used to play exhibition games against OHL squads and (according to USA Hockey as of 2000) had a record of 5-0-3 since the program's inception. At the 2000 Molson American Challenge cup, the Under-18's beat Erie 6-2 and Barrie 8-3...then the next week in USHL competition were losing to the likes of Green Bay and and Sioux Falls.
Just interested in hearing your perspective on these results. Granted, they were pre-season games. Do you think this played a big part in the end results - CHL teams were likely sitting their best players? Thing is, it was just a couple weeks before the OHL got it's regular season under way, so I'd wager the clubs would be playing most of their starting line-ups.
Thanks for the insights. Also, too bad Compuware had to fold - one hell of a hockey program. :banghead:

Good questions and I will try to answer them. When the Forge played Eire in the exhibition game you are refering to, Eire dressed 12 rookies, of which only 6 made the team. Eire in essence played their tryout camp team (yes there were some veterans playing but not receiving much ice time) against the Forge's full roster.

It was similar when the U-18 would play the OHL teams. For the O, these were meaningless exhibition games smack dab in the middle of their long and grueling season (why would the play then you ask, well there was about 17,000 reasons, $17000 U.S. per game that is, thats what it took for the NTDP to convince those teams to play them) and they were not going to risk any injuries to their top players. As a result, most would play their rookies and callups.

As for Aurora, yes I honestly feel they could have toppled USHL teams, they were that good. As for other Junior A teams in Ontario, few if any could have mounted much of a challenge against USHL clubs.
 

Tornado OS

Registered User
Jul 12, 2004
161
0
Grapevine, TX
I think when you look the two leagues NAHL and USHL, there are a lot of teams in the NAHL that could beat the USHL. You take the top teams in the NAHL, Texas, Soo, there is no question they could have competed at a very high level in the USHL.

As far as the Tornado, They have gone up to the Newmarket Tournament for the last 2 years and have swept the tourny each year. There may be better players in leagues above the NAHL, but remember this is a team game.
 

goteam

Registered User
Dec 16, 2002
1,107
0
Saskatchewan
Visit site
I'd like to see a tournament organized between the Western CJAHL leagues (AJHL, BCHL, MJHL, and SJHL), the Eastern CJAHL leagues (CJHL, MJAHL, NOJHL, OPJHL, LHJAAAQ, and SIJHL), the USHL, and the NAHL. I think you'd see comparable top end talent from all four participants.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
GOTEAM said:
I'd like to see a tournament organized between the Western CJAHL leagues (AJHL, BCHL, MJHL, and SJHL), the Eastern CJAHL leagues (CJHL, MJAHL, NOJHL, OPJHL, LHJAAAQ, and SIJHL), the USHL, and the NAHL. I think you'd see comparable top end talent from all four participants.


There is no question that you would see comparable top end talent, you only need to look at the results of the 2002 Viking Cup for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->