What % of CHL players could make NCAA teams?

[VOB]

Yes with significant acclamation to the NCAA...85% of all USHL players end up cracking AHA, CHA and ECAC type conferences. I would agree that with acclamation to the NCAA that over 85% of CHL players could crack leagues like the AHA, CHA and ECAC.

Actually, out of the 107 USHL recruits committed so far, only a little over 20 are going to the ECAC, AHA and CHA. More USHL players are going to the WCHA than the entire number going to the so called lesser leagues.

Again, there is no question that 100% of CHL players could play in the NCAA.

 

[Hasbro]

Actually, out of the 107 USHL recruits committed so far, only a little over 20 are going to the ECAC, AHA and CHA. More USHL players are going to the WCHA than the entire number going to the so called lesser leagues.

Again, there is no question that 100% of CHL players could play in the NCAA.

Being a CIS apologist does indict your credibility here.

 

[Transported Upstater]

i don't know what your talking about... Florida State has rigid academic requirements for football players

Seriously though, I think the major thing here is academics. You have to be at least an above average student in high school at most of these universities to make it academically I think. ANd if you want a real major, you would have to be well above that...

"Cheerleader Pimping" isn't a real major? HOW DARE YOU!!!

 

[Transported Upstater]

Actually, out of the 107 USHL recruits committed so far, only a little over 20 are going to the ECAC, AHA and CHA. More USHL players are going to the WCHA than the entire number going to the so called lesser leagues.

Again, there is no question that 100% of CHL players could play in the NCAA.

No. Not 100%.

I greatly prefer the CHL to the NCAA for development. Anyone who disputes that the WHL, OHL and LHJMQ are the world's best developmental leagues for hockey players is either a homer or someone just plain ignorant who likes to ignore facts.

But there is no way that CHL goons could play NCAA hockey, and there are plenty of 16-year olds who could never make NCAA rosters.

 

[5mn Major]

Actually, out of the 107 USHL recruits committed so far, only a little over 20 are going to the ECAC, AHA and CHA. More USHL players are going to the WCHA than the entire number going to the so called lesser leagues.

Again, there is no question that 100% of CHL players could play in the NCAA.

So...your 85% is too high. Listen, its quite simple....if you want to compare the USHL to the CHL that's your biz.

By your own logic then, many CHL players could make it in the NCAA if they can make the transition to the NCAA game. Having said that, there are some conferences where many would be keeping the bench warm for the guys playing hockey.

 

[5mn Major]

I greatly prefer the CHL to the NCAA for development. Anyone who disputes that the WHL, OHL and LHJMQ are the world's best developmental leagues for hockey players is either a homer or someone just plain ignorant who likes to ignore facts.

I"m not saying that those leagues are not...but show me the damning evidence where they are far and away the best development leagues in the world.

Afterall, the purpose of this thread is to continue to hit everyone over the head with that perspective...am I wrong?

 

[vcx*]

First off, I must correct you on something...

Cornell is an Ivy League school, they don't give athletic scholarships....it's against Ivy League rules (which in many cases is separate from NCAA rules).

Second, as much as I am a supporter of the NCAA, I believe some of their rules are downright ridiculous, such as the opt-in rule.

In answer to the thread's original question, some very good answers were given but I'll add a bit more.

Someone mentioned the four "major" conferences (CCHA, ECACHL, HE and WCHA). Even within those conferences there is a wide spectrum of talent. UAA for example can't draw the elite talent (or as much thereof) as say a Minnesota or UND in the WCHA. Some will say the reason is geography, others will say it's money and so on.

There have been and continues to be cases where there are players that seems to have come out of nowhere who become great collegiate players, Scott Parse out of Nebraska-Omaha is a very good example.

What people forget is NCAA players are STUDENT-ATHLETES. Hockey isn't the only thing that's going to allow them to play in the collegiate ranks. They also have to be able to have the "grades" to play. Keith Yandle, who now plays with Moncton, originally had intended to go NCAA. UNH, where he originally wanted to go wanted him playing a year of US junior "A", so he opted to change his destination to Maine. The Black Bears really wanted him to play this year but he didn't have the grades to get into Maine, so he ended up going to the CHL. The academic standards are even more rigid for players desiring to go the Ivies. At schools like Cornell and Harvard, you can't just be a good hockey player and expect to get in, you have to have a very strong academic record (grades) as well.

I had a buddy that played for Cornell about 6yrs ago, he sucked too.

 

[VOB]

So...your 85% is too high. Listen, its quite simple....if you want to compare the USHL to the CHL that's your biz.

By your own logic then, many CHL players could make it in the NCAA if they can make the transition to the NCAA game. Having said that, there are some conferences where many would be keeping the bench warm for the guys playing hockey.

Can the same not be said the other way around as well? Again, how many of the Crusader players could have cracked a CHL roster when they were under 20????


Again, if 85% of all players who play in the USHL end up in the NCAA (and where the vast majority of those end up in the so called better conference....H.E., WCHA and CCHA), then it is a no brainer that most all CHL players could play in the NCAA.

 

[Transported Upstater]

I"m not saying that those leagues are not...but show me the damning evidence where they are far and away the best development leagues in the world.

Afterall, the purpose of this thread is to continue to hit everyone over the head with that perspective...am I wrong?

I don't want to get into this debate too much, but I guess I can point to the fact that over half of the players in the NHL today have spent time in the CHL, and the majority of those players spent most of their late teens in the CHL (but not all; many Euros spend only a year or two there).

The best United States development league is the national team. By far. The NTDP is getting to the point where it can really point to plenty of outstanding players as its background. I'm extremely impressed and proud of the NTDP. But it is still an invitation-only thing, if I'm not mistaken, and the percentage of US hockey players who get the opportunity to play there is vanishingly miniscule.

I have a hard time comparing the NCAA and CHL, simply because they are pretty much not related or similar in any way. The NCAA is not a junior league by nature, and it is very difficult to compare it to a league that exists primarily for the purpose of sending kids to the NHL.

The NCAA and CHL are greatly different animals.

 

[Gallagbi]

$250-500 a month american here in Spokane. You move up the pay scale the older you get.

Close to the numbers I got from a few guys around here as well. OA's get decent pay, but $600 a month is McDonalds money. That's towards the higher end of the scale as well too. In the end they'd make more money playing Tier II and getting loads of stuff under the table while working a token job.

 

[Transported Upstater]

I had a buddy that played for Cornell about 6yrs ago, he sucked too.

Well, he probably wasn't dumb.

And if he was, he was an exception; I know more about Cornell hockey players than all but a few people here, and they were pretty damn smart in comparison to some student-athletes I've met.

Some of the 4-year hockey players during my time graduated with honors, and considering that 3% of Cornell students do so, that's an outstanding accomplishment. Now, I didn't say that all of them took the hardest courses, but the fact is that they graduated with honors from an Ivy. That speaks volumes about their time management and organizational skills, which bodes well for any future life task.

Remember, what percentage of NCAA/CHL players make it to the NHL for long enough to call it their home? It's a very tiny number, people...

 

[Hasbro]

I don't want to get into this debate too much, but I guess I can point to the fact that over half of the players in the NHL today have spent time in the CHL, and the majority of those players spent most of their late teens in the CHL (but not all; many Euros spend only a year or two there).

The best United States development league is the national team. By far. The NTDP is getting to the point where it can really point to plenty of outstanding players as its background. I'm extremely impressed and proud of the NTDP. But it is still an invitation-only thing, if I'm not mistaken, and the percentage of US hockey players who get the opportunity to play there is vanishingly miniscule.

I have a hard time comparing the NCAA and CHL, simply because they are pretty much not related or similar in any way. The NCAA is not a junior league by nature, and it is very difficult to compare it to a league that exists primarily for the purpose of sending kids to the NHL.

The NCAA and CHL are greatly different animals.

Let also not forget it's basicaly two seperate talent pools, Canadians will gravitate more to the CHL while Americans are more apt to go to College. Junior has caps on forieing players whereas the unis can recruit all they want.

 

[Transported Upstater]

Let also not forget it's basicaly two seperate talent pools, Canadians will gravitate more to the CHL while Americans are more apt to go to College. Junior has caps on forieing players whereas the unis can recruit all they want.

True.


EDIT: I blame myself for getting involved in this debate. It is something that can never be solved. The very nature of American hockey development is simply so different from the way our northern neighbors run their system that it makes comparisons difficult.

 

[MN_Gopher]

I agree that almost if not all players in the CHL could play in the NCAA. But there is class work for one. And tradition. Do you think that a team like Minnesota would fill their roster with average Canadians or your average Minnesota kids. Same could be said for lots of other places. I cannot see many guys in Alberta growing up wanting to wear the M. where guys like E. Johnson did, even Kauffman dreamed of it, and he could be replaced. But do you choose tradtion and talent over just equal talent with no tradition? I think alone would make the %low.

 

[5mn Major]

Again, if 85% of all players who play in the USHL end up in the NCAA (and where the vast majority of those end up in the so called better conference....H.E., WCHA and CCHA), then it is a no brainer that most all CHL players could play in the NCAA.

Yes I know...you've said that 3 times now. And again, based on that logic...for players from the CHL to actually get playing time, they would have to acclimate their play up to the NCAAs (just like players from the USHL).

 

[5mn Major]

I don't want to get into this debate too much, but I guess I can point to the fact that over half of the players in the NHL today have spent time in the CHL, and the majority of those players spent most of their late teens in the CHL (but not all; many Euros spend only a year or two there).

The best United States development league is the national team. By far. The NTDP is getting to the point where it can really point to plenty of outstanding players as its background. I'm extremely impressed and proud of the NTDP. But it is still an invitation-only thing, if I'm not mistaken, and the percentage of US hockey players who get the opportunity to play there is vanishingly miniscule.

I have a hard time comparing the NCAA and CHL, simply because they are pretty much not related or similar in any way. The NCAA is not a junior league by nature, and it is very difficult to compare it to a league that exists primarily for the purpose of sending kids to the NHL.

The NCAA and CHL are greatly different animals.

I am American...but I'm definitely no more patriotic than average. I'm just someone who questions loose use of facts to reach forgone conclusions.

I didn't say Canada 10 years ago, which doesn't particularly interest me. I'm more interested about facts that expose the state of the CHL and other competing developmental options today? Well lets look at one piece of evidence typically used to back the CHL...the draft. Right now I believe approximately 3 players typically considered in the top 3 are going or have committed to the NCAAs...with up to 6 in the top 10 (7 if Mueller would have been able to play NCAA as friends of the family said he really wanted). That is projected to continue...UW itself has loaded up with a pretty heavy load for '07. Is it that they just like school? Or maybe there's a chance that prospects have a pretty good idea of what the options are.

And unlike the CHL, talent like those draftees is not spread across over 5 dozen teams, but rather primarily just the WCHA. The WCHA has a schedule where it pretty much plays itself and therefore, can guarantee extremely high levels of competition. I've never said the CHL is a worse league, but clear up my 'ignorance'...where are the facts saying that the CHL facilities, play and prospects are pound for pound so much better than the WCHA?

I know you didn't have to answer...consider yourself off the hook.

 

[VOB]

Yes I know...you've said that 3 times now. And again, based on that logic...for players from the CHL to actually get playing time, they would have to acclimate their play up to the NCAAs (just like players from the USHL).

Sure...if the CHL was on par with the USHL, but of course it is not...its better!

Right now I believe approximately 3 players typically considered in the top 3 are going or have committed to the NCAAs...with up to 6 in the top 10 (7 if Mueller would have been able to play NCAA as friends of the family said he really wanted). That is projected to continue...

According to the NHL CSB...7 out of the top 10 for this year's draft are from the CHL and 22 out of the top 30 are from the CHL. Even the lesser scouting services such as ISS and McKeens all have more CHLers rated in the first round than any other league and the 2007 draft will even be better for the CHL vis a vis their competitors.