Finally, there are stipulations in the CHL education package that can make it less attractive.
Let’s imagine two hypothetical hockey players. We’ll call them Adam and Bob. At age 16, both are highly touted prospects of equal skill. Both have the brains to get through college if they apply themselves. They’ve been drafted by OHL teams, have offers from NCAA recruiters, and the time has come to make a decision. Adam chooses a college in a decent conference, and Bob goes to the OHL.
Fast forward four years. Adam and Bob have both matured, and come to the realization that at age 16, they were big fish in a little pond. They were both drafted at age 18, but in the later rounds, Adam by Anaheim, and Bob by Boston. It’s June, and neither of the teams that drafted them have signed them to an entry level deal.
Adam is disappointed, but not too worried. Anaheim’s director of player development has told him that they aren’t yet ready to use one of their fifty pro contract slots on him, but to just keep plugging away and that they’ll reevaluate him at the end of next year. The CBA allows Anaheim to hold Adam’s rights for up to four years without signing him. Adam has two years of university under his belt and two more years to fix the flaws in his game. If Anaheim really thinks that he’s ready for the next level within the next two years, they’ll sign him to an ELC and he’ll have some financial security. If not, he can offer his services to any team in any league that will take him. If that fails, he has a university degree.
Bob, on the other hand, isn’t feeling quite so optimistic about his future. Boston has informed him that they won’t sign him to a contract. He’s played dutifully for his OHL team for four years. Now he has to make a choice that’s just as difficult as the one he made at age 16.
1) He can try to get on with a minor pro team, but in that case, he has less than two seasons to gauge his future in hockey before his education package is voided. Even in the fleeting world of professional sports careers, 18 months is a short time, hardly enough time for a player to decide whether they have a long-term future in the league. If he gives up after the 18 months, it will also mean that Adam will have been out high school for nearly four years, making the transition to university/college more difficult.
2) He can use his education package and play CIS for four years. At age 24, he will have a degree, but his professional hockey prospects will be limited, since he has spent the last four years playing in the CIS against inferior competition.
At the risk of sounding flippant, who seems smarter, Adam or Bob?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against the CHL. I’ve derived countless hours of enjoyment watching the games. I also don’t think that a kid should torture himself by going to college if he lacks the brains and/or inclination to do so. I just know that if it were my kid having to make that decision at age 16, I would do everything in my power to convince him to go to college and hopefully he would at least understand (if not necessarily agree with) the reasoning behind it.
Let’s imagine two hypothetical hockey players. We’ll call them Adam and Bob. At age 16, both are highly touted prospects of equal skill. Both have the brains to get through college if they apply themselves. They’ve been drafted by OHL teams, have offers from NCAA recruiters, and the time has come to make a decision. Adam chooses a college in a decent conference, and Bob goes to the OHL.
Fast forward four years. Adam and Bob have both matured, and come to the realization that at age 16, they were big fish in a little pond. They were both drafted at age 18, but in the later rounds, Adam by Anaheim, and Bob by Boston. It’s June, and neither of the teams that drafted them have signed them to an entry level deal.
Adam is disappointed, but not too worried. Anaheim’s director of player development has told him that they aren’t yet ready to use one of their fifty pro contract slots on him, but to just keep plugging away and that they’ll reevaluate him at the end of next year. The CBA allows Anaheim to hold Adam’s rights for up to four years without signing him. Adam has two years of university under his belt and two more years to fix the flaws in his game. If Anaheim really thinks that he’s ready for the next level within the next two years, they’ll sign him to an ELC and he’ll have some financial security. If not, he can offer his services to any team in any league that will take him. If that fails, he has a university degree.
Bob, on the other hand, isn’t feeling quite so optimistic about his future. Boston has informed him that they won’t sign him to a contract. He’s played dutifully for his OHL team for four years. Now he has to make a choice that’s just as difficult as the one he made at age 16.
1) He can try to get on with a minor pro team, but in that case, he has less than two seasons to gauge his future in hockey before his education package is voided. Even in the fleeting world of professional sports careers, 18 months is a short time, hardly enough time for a player to decide whether they have a long-term future in the league. If he gives up after the 18 months, it will also mean that Adam will have been out high school for nearly four years, making the transition to university/college more difficult.
2) He can use his education package and play CIS for four years. At age 24, he will have a degree, but his professional hockey prospects will be limited, since he has spent the last four years playing in the CIS against inferior competition.
At the risk of sounding flippant, who seems smarter, Adam or Bob?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against the CHL. I’ve derived countless hours of enjoyment watching the games. I also don’t think that a kid should torture himself by going to college if he lacks the brains and/or inclination to do so. I just know that if it were my kid having to make that decision at age 16, I would do everything in my power to convince him to go to college and hopefully he would at least understand (if not necessarily agree with) the reasoning behind it.
