Questions about CHL and NCAA hockey

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Quite simple - the players usually have commitments to NCAA programs before they go to their NAHL/USHL teams. A lot of them don't, but those kids drafted in the first round most likely did.

[Jordan 13]

Just because they "have committed' to a program, doesn't mean that they are "responsible" for the player's development. Doesn't mean they can't claim, heck, I could claim responsibility for it...

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Actually, they do.

Schools usually try to steer a kid towards a particular junior team (or steer a team towards a particular kid when it comes to drafts/trades) and keep tabs w/ the player while he is at said team.

You're actually going to tell me with a straight face that if a school agrees on a commitment to a particular player, that they're just going to sit there and say "Okay, do whatever you want when you go to the USHL, even if you slack off, don't train, don't produce. But that's perfectly fine, you'll still have a full ride in a couple of years?"

[Jordan 13]

You're actually going to tell me with a straight face that if a school agrees on a commitment to a particular player, that they're just going to sit there and say "Okay, do whatever you want when you go to the USHL, even if you slack off, don't train, don't produce. But that's perfectly fine, you'll still have a full ride in a couple of years?"

No. Not at all what I am trying to say. I am just trying to point out that what is being touted on this thread as the cause of the player being drafted (the paticular program), is primarily a reflection of recruiting the top players.

Up here in Canada, in Toronto there is a minor hockey league (for kids aged 9-16) called the GTHL, I will guarantee that the top organizations have put more kids in the NHL than the NCAA. My point is that they recruit the top players in a region, and have for years so over the years a lot of the kids who play there make the big leagues; but, it has nothing to do with their "special magic". In the end it means nothing.

Here is a link to a very pro NCAA article put out by USHL Central Scouting that details that a typical CHL team with a roster of 25 will have 1 player make it to the NHL, while a typical NCAA roster of 28 will have 1/2 a player make the NHL. So CHL teams average a little over twice the rate of developing NHL players.

USHL Central Scouting

NCAA is fantastic hockey, and is getting stronger all of the time. No criticism intended.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

With all due respect, you were the one who started that mess anyway.

Once again, you seem to be burying the NCAA every chance you get. Who mentioned "special magic?" By making comments about the CHL and now the GTHL and how they seem to churn out so many players, you're essentially labeling NCAA hockey as an inferior product.

Let's face it - there's more hockey players in Canada, it's everywhere in the country. We get that. NCAA hockey is in certain pockets of the country, there's less teams, and the lure of the CHL ("fast track to the NHL") pulls quite a few elite US players.

I personally am not on either side. I'm just taking what you're saying and countering it.

The choice is quite simple for a player - the reward is the same - but the player has a choice to risk it all early in hopes of getting his reward sooner, or being conservative and getting a degree to fall back on if it doesn't work.

[Jordan 13]

JR...I am not trying "to bury the NCAA" in any way shape or form. In fact, I said that a typical NCAA team would beat a typical CHL team. I would assert that rather than being the one who "started all this mess anyway" I was simply responding to an earlier post that was fairly condescending to the quality of the CHL.

I have a lot of friends that have played in junior and a lot that played NCAA and I respect and applaud each of their accomplishments.

If my young son, ever turned out to be good enough to have the choice, I would pressure him significantly to go to the NCAA. It is without doubt, except for the exceptional few, a far better life choice.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

ok.