Why do some prospects choose the NCAA?

[Danish Pastry]

On the back end? You mean in their 40s? You can't recapture lost youth - once your playing career is over, it is over - there is no making up a couple of years of your youth that you could have played in the NHL but didn't.

But, the American desire to be part of the NCAA is the answer. That is the only reason I can see to play NCAA hockey.

well according to HF players cant develope or get better after 23... then they are on the down turn of their careers... damn the sedins and guys like perry waiting till they got to their mid twenties...

also poor pavelski college destroyed him i bet he will miss those years he would have been a fringe player... too small and slow for the nhl...

 

[Ogopogo*]

And if hockey doesn't work out then you have to do 4 years where you don't have a job. And if you get drafted and sign a contract and still don't make it then the CHL doesn't pay for your education. So that means you then have 4 years where you don't have a job, never really had a well paying job, and need to pay for 4 years of school.

There's pros and cons to both routes.

If you sign a pro contract, you have the cash to fund your education. Especially in Canada where a university degree is significantly less expensive than in the USA.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Prospects go the NCAA route so they can educate themselves and hopefully avoid becoming the guy who makes a ridiculously ignorant argument such as this one.

You have completely missed the point yet, you continue to make meaningless arguments that have nothing to do with my point.

 

[massivegoonery]

Seriously, when you're done, you're done. You can't just magically make up two lost years. Who cares if that is age 27, 29 or 46.

Spending two years of your physical prime outside of the NHL doesn't make sense to me. To an American - based on this thread - being part of the NCAA in your early 20s is an important thing so, I understand that. But, if the NHL is your goal, going the NCAA route instead of the CHL makes no sense to me.

Pretty simple stuff, not sure why it is so tough for people to get it.

Most players come out of college in better shape than they went in, it's a short season with a large focus on off-ice conditioning. They probably will have longer careers than if they flew off to Canada to be exploited by some junior team over the course of 60,70,80 game season.

 

[puckguy11]

I'm a college hockey blogger, so while I may be a tad biased on the topic, I see the merits of both the NCAA and the CHL in the scheme of things. I find the NCAA as a good way to season prospects who, when their time would have ended in the CHL may not be ready for the jump to the ECHL or AHL right off the bat. What I DO think should change is the removal of the "ban" of CHL players in the NCAA. These kids are getting living stipends, not money they can go purchase a Ferrari with.

 

[Ogopogo*]

well according to HF players cant develope or get better after 23... then they are on the down turn of their careers... damn the sedins and guys like perry waiting till they got to their mid twenties...

also poor pavelski college destroyed him i bet he will miss those years he would have been a fringe player... too small and slow for the nhl...

Your point is...?

Blowing two to four years of pro hockey is till blowing two to four years of pro hockey even if it is the AHL.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

I can understand why most Americans go NCAA because that is what athletes do, they go to college and play there before hopefully going pro. For canadians, i dont understand as much with the opportunity the chl gives players but it is their choice. I think there is definitely more than scholarships given to players under the table but I dont know for sure. Another reason is that a lot of parents want education for their kids, and just because they get the scholarship money from the chl doesnt mean they are going to go to college when they are finished playing hockey in the chl.

 

[Seachd]

Am I the only one who doesn't see how 2-3 years in the CHL plus 2 years in the AHL is "fast-tracking" it to the NHL?

I'm not sure how the average CHLer takes any longer to get to be an NHL regular than the average NCAA player.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm a college hockey blogger, so while I may be a tad biased on the topic, I see the merits of both the NCAA and the CHL in the scheme of things. I find the NCAA as a good way to season prospects who, when their time would have ended in the CHL may not be ready for the jump to the ECHL or AHL right off the bat. What I DO think should change is the removal of the "ban" of CHL players in the NCAA. These kids are getting living stipends, not money they can go purchase a Ferrari with.

Thank you, another good point.

We now have two vaild points to play NCAA hockey. This is the kind of stuff I am looking for.

That being said, an 18 year old player wouldn't know if he is going to be ready for pro hockey at 20. Can't really predict the future.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Am I the only one who doesn't see how 2-3 years in the CHL plus 2 years in the AHL is "fast-tracking" it to the NHL?

I'm not sure how the average CHLer takes any longer to get to be an NHL regular than the average NCAA player.

There are plenty of players who do not spend 2 years in the AHL before getting to the NHL.

 

[Danish Pastry]

Your point is...?

Blowing two to four years of pro hockey is till blowing two to four years of pro hockey even if it is the AHL.

rushing players into the league may turn their career into just a couple seasons... some players are not ready mentally and physically...

you can leave college to if you want to go pro so whats the point...

both leagues do a good job... chl just has more players and well tons of canadians so of course it will put the most players in the league...

curious what the percentage is of players from each league who go pro...

 

[headsigh]

CHL isn't the fast track at all. The only fast track to the draft I can think of is if you're playing in Europe. You're spending 2-3 years in the CHL and most top prospects from the NCAA spend 2-3 years in the NCAA. There really is no veritable difference about what league will get you into the NHL quicker.

 

[Seachd]

There are plenty of players who do not spend 2 years in the AHL before getting to the NHL.

Yes, but how is 2 years of CHL and 1 year of AHL different than a year each of USHL, NCAA and AHL?

You'll find examples of everything.

 

[rmartin65]

This is a ridiculous thread. There are numerous reasons to why the NCAA route is NOT a stupid one.

1) Education- these kids wont be hockey players forever, and it is very unlikely that they will earn enough in their playing career to last a lifetime. An education helps them get ready for a job afterwards.

2) It lets kids play against people their own age, instead of being physically dominated by grown men. Not everyone is fully grown at 18/19 years old. Look at RNH- he would get physically killed in even the AHL. NCAA programs gives kids' bodies the chance to mature.

3) College is a growing experience. There is more to life than sports.

4) Why is the CHL any better? At the time the kids are entering college, odds are they are already drafted. They dont need further exposure, they need to develop their game more.

Plenty of good players have come from the NCAA ranks.

 

[Congo]

If you sign a pro contract, you have the cash to fund your education. Especially in Canada where a university degree is significantly less expensive than in the USA.

Maybe, depends where you play. If you're one of the guys who says, "Maybe someone will notice me," and you end up in the ECHL that's not going to cover your education, especially not in the US. Even playing in the AHL you'd have to save quite a bit to set your self up for 4 years.

 

[Nocashstyle]

Your point is...?

Blowing two to four years of pro hockey is till blowing two to four years of pro hockey even if it is the AHL.

You do realize that a lot of prospects need time to develop their skills right? Not every prospect is seasoned enough to even play in the AHL. Playing against men in their early twenties in the NCAA can be a lot more beneficial than playing another year of juniors against teenagers. Getting an education while you're at it doesn't hurt either.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

OP, serious question. How old are you? Do you remember what it was like to be 17?

Don't underestimate the vast difference between extracurricular activities available at an American university compared to a backwater town like Medicine Hat or Bathurst

 

[TrollololBoyle]

If I played hockey, I'd chose college instead of the CHL too (partly because I'd have to go all the way to the Q to play juniors), but college offers so much more, from extra curricular activities to the social life outside of college.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

The NCAA allows some players to develop at a slower rate. This allows players to mature (physically and mentally) and enter the pro ranks at later age. And gives teams longer to sign them.

The NCAA plays less games. That's less ice time, but there's far more time to work off the ice. With a CHL schedule of 80 games, plus all the travel time, players can't work on off-ice conditioning and strength training during the season.

A 20 year old can come out of the CHL needing to build muscle/strength, and then struggle for two years in the AHL/ECHL. Perhaps off the ice they're not a mentally mature, and don't commit themselves they way that they should. They're then 22 and out of a contract.

A NCAA player can then come out of college at 22 more physically ready to play in the NHL and potentially more mentally mature.

 

[Ogopogo*]

OP, serious question. How old are you? Do you remember what it was like to be 17?

Don't underestimate the vast difference between extracurricular activities available at an American university compared to a backwater town like Medicine Hat or Bathurst

Not sure if you have ever been to Mecidine Hat or Bathurst but, I can assure you that both places have liquor and women. Is that what you mean by "extracurricular activities"? Although, this does bring up an interesting thought.

Are a lot of English-speaking prospects hesitant to go to the QMJHL becuase of the language/cultural differences they percieve? Is this why the perceived inferiority of the QMJHL exists? I never thought of that before, your post brings up an interesting point.

 

[deano]

Thank you, another good point.

We now have two vaild points to play NCAA hockey. This is the kind of stuff I am looking for.

That being said, an 18 year old player wouldn't know if he is going to be ready for pro hockey at 20. Can't really predict the future.

For every high scoring junior who fizzles on the pro/minor pro level, there is some unknown college guy who carves out an NHL career. The CHL gives kids better exposure to media, a pro like schedule as well as a high level of competition, but to say that it is the best road to the NHL is a highly biased opinion. I've seen as many sure fire CHL prospects become nothing more than draft footnotes, as I have unknown free agents becoming every day NHL players. The biggest truth is that potential needs to be cultivated in the right environment, and the CHL is not the perfect environment for every player.

A young player needs to choose a situation that allows them to learn and gain confidence in what they are doing. Not all NHL players were flashy, promising Bantam or Junior players who played for top teams. Some big programs or teams can stifle that development in many young players as well as cultivate it in others. It's up to the player to go where he can develop to his best ability, and sometimes that means going an ulterior route than the CHL. The Canadian leagues, American leagues, and European leagues all have success stories of players graduating into successful NHL careers. It's really about the player being in a proper environment and seizing his opportunities.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

There are lots of reasons. My friend was asked by his OHL team to come up to play a few games this season, but he said no because a Div-1 school guaranteed he'd be their starter in 2 years when he's eligible. He is highly rated as a goaltender for his year so he knows he'll be drafted, and he's been given a far better chance to play and develop in college. He might get drafted lower if he plays next year in Junior A than if he plays OHL, but who cares? In the end its all about development and for some the college rout is the better one to go. This is a guy with a very good chance at getting to the show eventually, so the education isn't a MASSIVE reason, but he still knows its great to have something to fall back on. Its sorta different for a goalie, since they don't really need a 60 game schedule as much as players, but its still valid I'd say

 

[William H Bonney]

That being said, an 18 year old player wouldn't know if he is going to be ready for pro hockey at 20. Can't really predict the future.

So why do you keep repeating this ridiculous idea that NCAA players are automatically burning 2-5 years of professional hockey experience by playing in the NCAA?

 

[leoleo3535]

Firstly why not the NCAA?

The only thing I have against the NCAA is how they limit players options....ie if they have played in the CHL they cannot play in the NCAA. What a self serving dinosaur rule. (at the same time they allow players from the USHL , BCHL etc.??????)

Another thing to keep in mind....some players are not good enough to play in the CHL so they play in the BCHL, AJHL etc.....
After time there of growing, developing their skills etc they can step to an NCAA destination.

 

[Bjorn Le]

If I played hockey, I'd chose college instead of the CHL too (partly because I'd have to go all the way to the Q to play juniors), but college offers so much more, from extra curricular activities to the social life outside of college.

Getting drunk and stoned every week is why you would choose NCAA?

There's nothing that you can do in Collge socially that you couldn't do in the CHL, except for partying like an idiot.

CHL kids definitey have social lives. They don't get distracted as easily by alcohol or partying though, which is a good thing.