CHL vs NCAA

[The Mountain Man]

I have a fellow simmer in another league saying that the NCAA is better than the CHL and that Eichel is playing against better guys than McDavid. I believe that he is wrong.... the NCAA has older players but the best of that age group (under 21) is playing in the CHL.

 

What is your opinion?

 

 

[OccamsRazor]

I have a fellow simmer in another league saying that the NCAA is better than the CHL and that Eichel is playing against better guys than McDavid. I believe that he is wrong.... the NCAA has older players but the best of that age group (under 21) is playing in the CHL.

 

What is your opinion?

 

 

I don't know about better but in college you will be playing against older guys for sure some 22-23 years old.

 

But the main difference is you can play college first and if it isn't for you then you can switch to juniors.

 

But you can't play juniors first then switch to college.

 

CHL does have some damn good younger talent though.

[flyercanuck]

@

 

Better at what?

 

NCAA has older players, no doubt. So they are physically more mature. 

 

The CHL has more elite talent, albeit younger. They also play more of an NHL style game and sched. 

 

Apples and oranges.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

I am no expert at NCAA and junior leagues, but seems to me that players playing against NCAA players are ultimately playing against guys who look to have excellent college careers, but then move on to other things in life...save for a select few players.

 

Over in Juniors, although they tend to be younger there, you play against guys who are more hardcore about hockey and basically eat, sleep, breathe, and think hockey almost 24/7 because its either make it to the big league pros or bust.

 

I agree the comparison is not that similar due to the paths the players in each league (Jrs vs NCAA) usually take, but if I were to pick one as being 'better' for player development as in playing AGAINST competition, I would say the Juniors would be more competitive and more indicative of how good players can be when measured up against peers.

 

Again, not anywhere near an expert on these....just from what I've learned listening to others on the subject.

[jammer2]

I have a fellow simmer in another league saying that the NCAA is better than the CHL and that Eichel is playing against better guys than McDavid. I believe that he is wrong.... the NCAA has older players but the best of that age group (under 21) is playing in the CHL.

 

What is your opinion?

 

 

 There is no doubt in my mind the CHL kicks out the more elite prospects. I must say, the NCAA is steadily chipping away at the CHL's dominance. It really is no contest when you look at truly elite talent....I have never seen a Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby or McDavid come out of the NCAA.....so the gap for true out and out superstars is still very real. I propose that rad is not allowed to post in this thread....ha ha!

[hf101]

Traditionally the most elite prospects have been from Canada, thus the chosen path has been the CHL.  On the other hand many star American players have chosen the NCAA. Thus I see this dominance is citizenship related more than choice via best program.  Every year the % of American born players increases at the draft and at the same time there has been growth in the number of colleges with quality hockey programs.  So the CHL dominance of the past I believe is changing towards the NCAA for the future.

 

The eligibility rules now tend to favor the NCAA players.  The NHL can only retain the rights of a player for 3 years post the draft.  If a said player wishes to stay in college he becomes a FA with a college education as a senior while being able to choose the team who is the best fit.  For many players that's a more desirable plan than the CHL -> AHL. 

 

Another plus for the NCAA player is that every college basically has a state of the art Fitness program with the finest equipment for the school athelete.  The NCAA allows you to play top-quality hockey and, at the same time, get an education. Being educated at a great university is an extremely valuable thing for you as a person; for your life.

 

[jammer2]

Another plus for the NCAA player is that every college basically has a state of the art Fitness program with the finest equipment for the school athelete. The NCAA allows you to play top-quality hockey and, at the same time, get an education. Being educated at a great university is an extremely valuable thing for you as a person; for your life.

 

I think a LOT of the American Universities are vastly superior to Canadian universities.....but every CHL player is given a free education also. I do think a degree from a Penn State, Harvard, Michigan etc is much more valuable than a McGill or Western etc.....you have a better chance of securing a high paying job with an American University degree, I don't think you can really argue that point....AND let's face it, there are WAY more players that don't make a living from hockey in comparison to the 5 % (or even less probably) that inevitably do get a chance to live out their childhood dreams. For this reason alone, the NCAA route is better for the "average" university athlete.

[radoran]

CHL is the better hockey development route.

But the gap has narrowed considerably in the past 20 years.

[The Mountain Man]

What is in question: Is the NCAA better hockey than the CHL.

Pretty simple... I dont care of they are more mature...doesnt mean they can play hockey better than the CHL players. This other poolie also feels that defensively the NCAA players are far superior. There is no doubt that going to school is smart for the long term...that is not in question.

 

Maybe we should have a poll?

What league has better all around hockey as far as talent and skill...NCAA or CHL?  

[jammer2]

What is in question: Is the NCAA better hockey than the CHL.

Pretty simple... I dont care of they are more mature...doesnt mean they can play hockey better than the CHL players. This other poolie also feels that defensively the NCAA players are far superior. There is no doubt that going to school is smart for the long term...that is not in question.

 

Maybe we should have a poll?

What league has better all around hockey as far as talent and skill...NCAA or CHL?  

 

 

 

 No need at all for a poll.....the flags next to the players names tell the entire story.....this is a list of the top 50 point scorers in NHL history.....Canada has 41 of the top 50, USA has 4.....with a few Euro's thrown in....and all the Canadian players came from the CHL....that is all you really need to know, it's so lob sided it's not even funny.....your buddy needs to brush up on hockey history I'd say.

 

 

 http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/records/nhl-players-all-time-points-leaders.html

 

 Canada has 9 of the top 10 all time, and 17 of the top 20.....it's not really close, but like I said, the NCAA is gaining, it's starting to become more competitive between the two systems, but the NCAA still has a long ways to go.

[radoran]

What is in question: Is the NCAA better hockey than the CHL.

Pretty simple... I dont care of they are more mature...doesnt mean they can play hockey better than the CHL players. This other poolie also feels that defensively the NCAA players are far superior. There is no doubt that going to school is smart for the long term...that is not in question.

 

Maybe we should have a poll?

What league has better all around hockey as far as talent and skill...NCAA or CHL?

When you look at the numner of teams in the CHL vs the number or realisitcally competitive NCAA teams, I think the CHL still comes out on top.

But, again, the gap has narrowed and the top NCAA pLayers are on par. There are just fewer of them.

[JackStraw]

But, again, the gap has narrowed and the top NCAA pLayers are on par. There are just fewer of them.

 

Agreed. But they are also probably more concentrated. NCAA hockey isn't like basketball or football where you have strong programs all over the country. You have a few leagues in hockey (New England, the mid-West) where most of the talent lives. So I think one relevant issue is the level of competition that top players face. I mentioned this in another thread, comparing Eichel to McDavid you have to consider that Eichel is playing in arguably the toughest league in the NCAA (Hockey East) and against more physically mature opponents. Playing for BU, BC, Michigan, etc... is a lot different than playing for Texas or Nebraska (if they even have teams).

[flyer4ever]

Hockey wise I think the CHL prepares players better to be NHL ready at 19 or 20. However, with the state of the game under Gary Butthead and the total disregard for player safety I would definitely recommend an education to any young man contemplating this choice. The speed of the game and the salary cap are certain career shorteners for depth players at the NHL level.

[yave1964]

I watch a fair share of College Hockey, Ohio State, Big Ten, Bowling Green. I love the style that they play.

 Several people have brought up the age difference which is huge. A nineteen year old phenom playing against 22 year old seniors to me gets a lot more experience than a 19 year old phenom playing against 16 and 17 year olds.

 

 The big thing to me, I think that the archaic rules still exist that allow Juniors to control a player, even after drafted into the NHL. A college kid at 19 can decide to go pro, and spend the year at the AHL level competing against an even higher level. Juniors forbids this. Sooner or later this travesty will come to an end. I know a lot of Canadian fans would like to string me up for those comments but I stand by them as the number one thing I would change if I could about hockey. Juniors would still be there the same as College football and Basketball are. Take Duke in the NCAA, they won a championship with a team composed of mostly freshman who are going to move on to the NBA after one year, and yet they will still be competitive next year and the year after and the year after. It is about being agressive and building a program, Juniors is not going to fall off the face of the Earth if they do away with the absurdity of them dictating where a property of an NHL team gets to play, based off of his age.

 

 Take Dylan Larkin. He is on the fast track towards the NHL, he had a great year in college this past season, the original plan was for him to remain a Michigan Wolverine for three to four years but the Wings are considering having him play at the AHL with the Griffins next year instead, as he looks closer to being NHL ready than they thought. If he were in Juniors, this would not be an option which is just, well, again, absurd. I have heard the arguments that Junior teams spend time/money/effort grooming these kids and it is unfair to have them taken from them in their last year or two of junior eligibility. I disagree. Look at Duke, or Ohio State football. They lose underclassmen year after year and are still right there with the best of them. The best Junior programs would still be the best Junior programs, period. And I disagree with the argument that it would kill Juniors in smaller, weaker markets who are sub par but have that one star that the fans come pay to see. If you are putting out an inferior product you do not deserve a break anyway. Once drafted into the NHL the team should immediately have say in where you play.

 And it would not affect very many players anyway. A handful would be assigned to the AHL level, most would be returned to Juniors anyway.

 I have first hand seen one Junior game with my own butt in a seat in my life, the fans around me were rabid and knowledgeable and knew not only the players but the family of the players, the back story ect.. even more so than you find from NHL fans. I get their fierce loyalty to the sport, to their team, to the Canadian way of life. It is just wrong tho and it will change eventually.

[flyercanuck]

@yave1964

 

Thats fine.

 

What about all the juniors who sign contracts with their NHL teams yet are free to stay and develop in junior? Hows that work in college again? Oh right, it doesn't. Wheres the freedom there? 

 

I don't see anything wrong with the way it is now. Our team lost Aaron Ekblad this year because as an 18 year old he was NHL ready. Thats fine. Why do we also have to lose other guys who aren't NHL ready?  Show me a player who prospered by being fast tracked into the pros and I'll show you 100 who were ruined by being rushed. One of the big reasons this rule is in place is to save these kids from franchises like Philly or Toronto or Edmonton or (OK,I can name most franchises not called Red Wings) who would yo-yo players back and forth and completely destroy their development. Its tough enough trying to build a winner in junior with a 2 or 3 year window...now you want to make it less? 

[hf101]

A list of players that played NCAA hockey who played in the NHL last season.

 

http://collegehockeyinc.com/pages/2014-15-alums-nhl

 

[flyercanuck]

Over 1/5 of players in the NHL came from one junior league in one province. 

[yave1964]

 @flyercanuck

 

There is no league in the entire world that prepares players for the pro game like Juniors, none are close. I get to four or five OSU games a year in Columbus, it is an inferior product in every way, even good programs such as Michigan and Wisconsin, BC and the rest do not compare to Juniors.

 

 My problem is the indentured servitude that the players/NHL teams give to the Junior teams. The NHL should have more say in what happens with their players that they have drafted.

 I doubt if a dozen players a year would be pulled from Juniors and sent to the AHL/NHL. I think the biggest absurdity of the whole thing is a case like Drouin who was returned to Juniors last year and when Stamkos went down with a broken leg for several months they were unable to recall him because, you know, Juniors makes the rules. Just a simple tweak needs to be applied, if the Bolts had missed the postseason by a point or two because Drouin was trapped in Juniors it would have been obscene.

 

 I simply feel that Juniors is way too powerful and controls players, 100 percent for entirely too long. Again, I feel this will change within the next few years, Juniors need to understand that they are that, Juniors and that the NHL needs more say in the what is best for their players.

[radoran]

My problem is the indentured servitude that the players/NHL teams give to the Junior teams. The NHL should have more say in what happens with their players that they have drafted.

 

The issue is that the CHL could turn around and say that players cannot declare for the draft unless they are foregoing their junior eligibility.

 

WIth the AHL having a 20-year-old minimum, that could put teams and players into the position of declaring for the draft, not making the NHL and not being able to go back to Junior or play in the A. Yes, that could change,

 

But the factor that makes Juniors the best hockey developing platform is the restrictions they have on talent bolting for professional leagues.

 

If you take away that, you are risking the entire structure.

 

Or so they claim.

 

It doesn't look like either the NHL or the CHL is willing to take the risk and upset the apple cart.

 

Remember - it's not the CHL unilaterally imposing their terms on the NHL (as it is, for example, in the NCAAs) - it's the NHL agreeing to the CHL's restrictions.

[flyercanuck]

 @flyercanuck

 

There is no league in the entire world that prepares players for the pro game like Juniors, none are close. I get to four or five OSU games a year in Columbus, it is an inferior product in every way, even good programs such as Michigan and Wisconsin, BC and the rest do not compare to Juniors.

 

 My problem is the indentured servitude that the players/NHL teams give to the Junior teams. The NHL should have more say in what happens with their players that they have drafted.

 I doubt if a dozen players a year would be pulled from Juniors and sent to the AHL/NHL. I think the biggest absurdity of the whole thing is a case like Drouin who was returned to Juniors last year and when Stamkos went down with a broken leg for several months they were unable to recall him because, you know, Juniors makes the rules. Just a simple tweak needs to be applied, if the Bolts had missed the postseason by a point or two because Drouin was trapped in Juniors it would have been obscene.

 

 I simply feel that Juniors is way too powerful and controls players, 100 percent for entirely too long. Again, I feel this will change within the next few years, Juniors need to understand that they are that, Juniors and that the NHL needs more say in the what is best for their players.

 

 

 

If I cheered for a franchise that preached patience (like you do) I might be inclined to agree with you.

 

There are too many idiot gms who either don't know how to develop, don't have the patience, or are just plain trying to save their own ass. Those are the guys (cough Holmgren cough) that young players need to be saved from. The ones with the "waddaya mean yer not ready for the NHL as a teenager....I started playing when I was...um, er, well it was 21 but now its different." mentality. 

 

Thanks for bringing up Drouin. Here is a guy who isn't quite ready this year. Why on earth should he have been brought up last year because of an injury? A good franchise should have players ready to plug into those situations (see Red Wings) But some gms think just because he was a 1st round pick he should be ready when they say he should be. 

[hf101]

A couple of good reads:

 

http://dicuria.com/blog/comparison-ncaa-vs-chl-which-path-is-better/

 

http://thehockeywriters.com/comparing-bus-jack-eichel-to-other-college-hockey-greats/

[yave1964]

@flyercanuck

 

You are one of my absolute favorites in here, I always find what you put in here insightful and witty. This is one issue that we will never change the other's mind upon, and we will have to respectfully agree to disagree. I get your argument that the NHL and AHL have the age limit issue in there strictly for monetary reasons, it prevents teams from getting stupid with underage players monetarily. I still think that things will change.

[flyercanuck]

@yave1964

 

Right back at ya.

 

That's something that makes this board tick though, we don't have to agree on whatever we're discussing. I understand the idea that some players might not quite be ready for the NHL but may also be slightly advanced for junior. I just don't think it hurts anyone to play another year there if they aren't ready. it gives them a chance to either work on a weakness without being humiliated, or to take their strengths up another notch. 

 

And we fans of junior get to see the odd superstar evolve right before our eyes, and years before a lot of NHL fans ever hear of them. Taking that away from fans who supported these kids before they were household names just doesn't sit well with me.

[radoran]

I get your argument that the NHL and AHL have the age limit issue in there strictly for monetary reasons

 

I just disagree with that. The AHL age limit is tangentially related to the CHL situation, but not directly.

 

I understand the idea that some players might not quite be ready for the NHL but may also be slightly advanced for junior. I just don't think it hurts anyone to play another year there if they aren't ready.

 

The CHL has restrictions on its players to protect the CHL as the talent developing pool that it is. If you yank out all the "NHL borderline" players from the CHL and put them in the AHL a number of things happen:

 

1) CHL players still in the league don't have the benefit of playing against/with those players

2) CHL teams who lose those players have their bottom line affected (e.g. Calgary has a Sanheim emerge as an important cog and then loses him to the AHL (not the NHL))

3) there are fewer AHL jobs for NHLPA members (which is a reason the NHLPA isn't up in arms about it)

 

The NHL obviously agrees with that (because, well, they have agreed to it).

[jammer2]

1) CHL players still in the league don't have the benefit of playing against/with those players

 

 That's a really good point that has not been mentioned to this point. The CHL is so great because you get to play against the very best teenagers in the world. They all make each other better as they compete....take out 10-15 players out of the equation (not to mention, the very best ones) and you have a slightly watered down product....and you don't have elite forwards testing their skills against the likes of Darnell Nurse etc...

 

 The other point, another solid one...nobody is holding a gun to the NHL's head here, they realize that keeping the CHL strong is the best way to assure the flow of amazing talent coming their way. It's all intertwined....all connected. One back scratches the other. Keeping the status quo means that both the CHL and NHL will continue to be powerhouses.