Canadian hockey vs US hockey

[Jordan 13]

Crosby, Lecavalier, Thornton, Nash...plenty of "Canadian skill"

NHL Players with 80 points or more in the regular season sorted by nationality:

Canada...9

Russia.....4

Sweden...3

USA.........1 (Zach Parise - son of a Canadian hockey player who retired in the US)

So I think we are doing fine on the skill front up here in Canada.

[DarkStar50 679]

If you are going to use numbers in the discussion, then since Canadians make up the largest percentage of NHLers, it stands to reason there would be more Canadians with 80+ points than other nationalities! Take away the total numbers and find the percentages of players/nationalities/80+ points and your answer has more validity. Just sayin'............

[Esa_10 1]

If you are going to use numbers in the discussion, then since Canadians make up the largest percentage of NHLers, it stands to reason there would be more Canadians with 80+ points than other nationalities! Take away the total numbers and find the percentages of players/nationalities/80+ points and your answer has more validity. Just sayin'............

Yes - and that's Canada's #1 asset. It's depth.

[Esa_10 1]

On a whole Canadian hockey is obviously head and shoulders above the US and any other country at any level.

Then what do you make of the best players in the NHL being Europeans? Malkin? Zetterberg? Ovechkin? Lidstrom? Kovalchuk? Look at the freaking Detroit Red Wings..best team in the NHL and they're basically a European team.

4 of the top 5 in the playoffs are Europeans..either Russians or Swedes.

You got guys like Nash or Carter that will score 40 goals, but they lack the electrifying skill that Malkin or Ovechkin possess.

Personally I wouldn't consider that the top 5 players in the NHL, but that's beside the point.

Like I said, There are better players/teams from other countries, but on a whole Canada's depth trumps all at every level.

The Country simply puts more resources (time, effort, money, etc) into developing hockey than other countries. When Canada was losing internationally in the late 90's, they held a month long "hockey summit" involving execs, mgrs, players, coaches, refs, parents, etc of all different levels, to try and figure out what needed to be done to turn things around.

Hockey USA is definately on the rise, the $10M/yr they get from the NHL is sure helping.

[epstud74 24]

On a whole Canadian hockey is obviously head and shoulders above the US and any other country at any level.

Then what do you make of the best players in the NHL being Europeans? Malkin? Zetterberg? Ovechkin? Lidstrom? Kovalchuk? Look at the freaking Detroit Red Wings..best team in the NHL and they're basically a European team.

4 of the top 5 in the playoffs are Europeans..either Russians or Swedes.

You got guys like Nash or Carter that will score 40 goals, but they lack the electrifying skill that Malkin or Ovechkin possess.

ill bet you any money if crosby nash carter or richards wanted to show off they would put up "electrifying" performances out there. but canadians grow up being taught that hockey is a team game and having to listen to don cherry every saturday night growing up, "hot dogging" is not acceptable. see the pass from crosby to adams on the empty netter tonight? very selfless play. ovechkin would fire it away just to keep his point streak going.

Maybe you should stop listening to Don Cherry. I highly doubt Ovy is just the type to "fire it away to keep his point streak going." Face it, Ovy is more electrifying than the others you speak of.

[Jordan 13]

If you are going to use numbers in the discussion, then since Canadians make up the largest percentage of NHLers, it stands to reason there would be more Canadians with 80+ points than other nationalities! Take away the total numbers and find the percentages of players/nationalities/80+ points and your answer has more validity. Just sayin'............

No not really...I was responding particularly to epstud74's post (I should have quoted it) where he asserted that Canada doesn't produce skill players like Russia and Sweden does. He wasn't making his argument on a per capita basis he was staing his argument in absolute terms.

Further, if we were going to go down that vein of argument, we should be talking about the hockey playing populations in each country. If we accounted for the number of NHLers the country produced we would be double counting in effect.

If you are considering whether or not a country is developing talent, I don't think that you can look at it in that fashion. Well, you can, but it would be a different discussion. In terms of hockey playing population (in minor hockey) I would suggest that Russia + Sweden + USA have more kids playing hockey in total than Canada does; yet, on that basis Canada has still produced more 80 point scorers than those three countries combined.

[tonguesOUT4life 17]

On a whole Canadian hockey is obviously head and shoulders above the US and any other country at any level.

Then what do you make of the best players in the NHL being Europeans? Malkin? Zetterberg? Ovechkin? Lidstrom? Kovalchuk? Look at the freaking Detroit Red Wings..best team in the NHL and they're basically a European team.

4 of the top 5 in the playoffs are Europeans..either Russians or Swedes.

You got guys like Nash or Carter that will score 40 goals, but they lack the electrifying skill that Malkin or Ovechkin possess.

ill bet you any money if crosby nash carter or richards wanted to show off they would put up "electrifying" performances out there. but canadians grow up being taught that hockey is a team game and having to listen to don cherry every saturday night growing up, "hot dogging" is not acceptable. see the pass from crosby to adams on the empty netter tonight? very selfless play. ovechkin would fire it away just to keep his point streak going.

Maybe you should stop listening to Don Cherry. I highly doubt Ovy is just the type to "fire it away to keep his point streak going." Face it, Ovy is more electrifying than the others you speak of.

no one really cares. crosby will hoist the holy grail this year and your electrifying ovechkin is already golfing. thats how electrifying he is floating and cherry picking and not advancing to the next round, sticking his knees out on his own country man gonchar.. trying to take his other country mans head off malkin. id rather listen to don cherry then you.

[epstud74 24]

Floating and cherry picking? oooh okay.. Someone is in denial of Ovechkin's talents. He plays balls out, you may not appreciate his flash, but he plays hard and will hit.

As for Malkin, who would you rather have on the PP? Malkin or Crosby?

If you are going to use numbers in the discussion, then since Canadians make up the largest percentage of NHLers, it stands to reason there would be more Canadians with 80+ points than other nationalities! Take away the total numbers and find the percentages of players/nationalities/80+ points and your answer has more validity. Just sayin'............

No not really...I was responding particularly to epstud74's post (I should have quoted it) where he asserted that Canada doesn't produce skill players like Russia and Sweden does. He wasn't making his argument on a per capita basis he was staing his argument in absolute terms.

Further, if we were going to go down that vein of argument, we should be talking about the hockey playing populations in each country. If we accounted for the number of NHLers the country produced we would be double counting in effect.

If you are considering whether or not a country is developing talent, I don't think that you can look at it in that fashion. Well, you can, but it would be a different discussion. In terms of hockey playing population (in minor hockey) I would suggest that Russia + Sweden + USA have more kids playing hockey in total than Canada does; yet, on that basis Canada has still produced more 80 point scorers than those three countries combined.

I'm willing to bet Canada has more kids than all three countries playing hockey. USA Hockey is a pretty large organization, but I'm guessing the number of kids playing hockey after their first 2-3 yrs is much larger in Canada than in the USA or the Scandinavian countries. Finland and Sweden have small populations. In Russia, hockey seems to be localized to certain areas and more geared for development of elite players.

Population:

Sweden- Roughly 9 million

Canada- Roughly 32 million

[tonguesOUT4life 17]

yeah he goes balls out but he wont last if he puts his body through that punishment through the years. id rather have crosby in the pp. malkin dissapears sometimes but crosby just makes everyone better. but right now they are both in the same pp unit :lol: unstopable man.

[in da crease 0]

Interesting topic and discussion. You know what they say about opinions... They are like buttholes, everybody has one. Here's mine...

The best athletes will be the best athletes, regardless of what sport they choose to play. Most great hockey players are multi sport athletes and are very good at more than one sport. They excel at hockey because they are great athletes and that is the sport they fell in love with. If they were to have chosen soccer, football or baseball, they would have likely excelled at that sport too.

If you were able to identify the top 20% of 12 year old athletes in Canada and the same percentage in the US and polled those kids, asking how many played hockey, my bet is that the percentage of those top 20% of the athletes in Canada that play hockey is much much larger than the percentage of the top athletes in the US. Canada hockey is better and deeper because many of the best athletes play hockey. Most of the best athletes in the US pursue football, baseball, basketball, etc. That is why Canada is so deep.

The same argument holds true when you compare hockey from state to state in the US. Take North Dakota youth hockey versus Montana. ND has a smaller population. It's really not any colder. But hockey has stronger roots and more tradition. More of the athletes grow up playing hockey.

As for the Canadian vs Euro... well, two distinct thought processes from the ground up. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I like the view Brooks and Vairo took (more so Brooks)... A Hybrid, so to speak. Generally speaking, European's develop great individual talent and skill. They produce great scorers. But I believe Canadians produce more well rounded hockey players. Canadians are better (and smarter) at the physical aspect of the game and play much better defensively.

It's my opinion, when I watch these player's, as individual hockey players, that Europeans are more concerned about their personal performance than the outcome of the game. Though they produce some fantastic goals and a lot of them, they seem to turn the puck over just as often, trying to make those highlight reel goals. Furthermore, they don't seem to care if they do. They don't tend to hustle as much and are more content with 3 goals and a loss than no goals and a win. This is what I see when I watch Ovie, Malkin, Jagr, etc. But when I watch Toews, Crosby, Nash, etc, I see great hardworking two way hockey players. They put their team above everything, and it's about winning, and doing whatever it takes for that win. If Toews has three goals and loses 4-3, he's not happy. I'm not so sure I see the same in Malkin.

As for the Malkin-Crosby question... Crosby in a second. I would ask, who would you rather have on your line, Malkin/Ovie or Toews/Crosby?

I also believe USA hockey is still a little disjointed. They are so focused on developing the top 1% of current hockey players. They need to be focused at the bottom by growing numbers and getting the best athletes in the US to play hockey at a young age.

[Jordan 13]

I'm willing to bet Canada has more kids than all three countries playing hockey. USA Hockey is a pretty large organization, but I'm guessing the number of kids playing hockey after their first 2-3 yrs is much larger in Canada than in the USA or the Scandinavian countries. Finland and Sweden have small populations. In Russia, hockey seems to be localized to certain areas and more geared for development of elite players.

Wikipedia - players by country

Doesn't appear to be the case:

Canada...545,363

United States...435,737

Russia...77,202

Sweden...67,747

Total:...580,686

As for development etc., Canada also has problems in terms of streaming and focussing development on the top players very early. We stream into AAA, AA, A, AE, Select and House league at 8 or 9 years old. Too early in my opinion.

[westcoastsniper 0]

Another factor is that the kids have to be from fairly well off families to begin with, in general Canadians have a higher per capita income then our american friends and that allows kids that have 'it' to go onto rep/travel teams starting in peewee (in my day at least, I don't know if it's earlier now), if both systems allowed for more travel and lower costs I'm sure we'd see inner-city american and canadian kids making it more often until then it will continue to be guys from thunder bay and moose jaw. accessibility is the biggest thing holding back hockey in the states and even parts of canada.

[in da crease 0]

Another factor is that the kids have to be from fairly well off families to begin with, in general Canadians have a higher per capita income then our american friends and that allows kids that have 'it' to go onto rep/travel teams starting in peewee (in my day at least, I don't know if it's earlier now), if both systems allowed for more travel and lower costs I'm sure we'd see inner-city american and canadian kids making it more often until then it will continue to be guys from thunder bay and moose jaw. accessibility is the biggest thing holding back hockey in the states and even parts of canada.

Spot on. And it gets worse every year. NHL aside, I could count a dozen of my kid's teammates from past 4 years that were excellent hockey players that have backed down to rec level hockey or quit all together, due to the rising cost of the game. It's a shame.

[epstud74 24]

I'm willing to bet Canada has more kids than all three countries playing hockey. USA Hockey is a pretty large organization, but I'm guessing the number of kids playing hockey after their first 2-3 yrs is much larger in Canada than in the USA or the Scandinavian countries. Finland and Sweden have small populations. In Russia, hockey seems to be localized to certain areas and more geared for development of elite players.

Wikipedia - players by country

Doesn't appear to be the case:

Canada...545,363

United States...435,737

Russia...77,202

Sweden...67,747

Total:...580,686

As for development etc., Canada also has problems in terms of streaming and focussing development on the top players very early. We stream into AAA, AA, A, AE, Select and House league at 8 or 9 years old. Too early in my opinion.

Why were US born players lumped into the argument in the 1st place? I was speaking of Russians and Swedes vs Canadians or North Americans...

In that case, Canada has many, many more players than Russia or Sweden involved in hockey, but look at the numbers of elite level Russians or Swedes. I'm willing to bet the developmental systems are still better overseas than they are in Europe.

So if you still want to use 3 or even 4 countries vs Canada..

Czechs

Slovaks

Russians

Swedes

You'll still have more Canadians playing the game. I guess you could even add Finland and we'd get less overall Europeans registered.

[JJ Thompson94 0]

Hey Jmiami, I can't believe you pay 30 to play at chelsea. I play for NYU out there plus I know Ronnie so I get comped for Open. I'd never pay $30 for Open. It's a joke. Aviator has a better schedule and atleast only 20.

It goes back to the fact that hockey is the biggest sport in canada. Everybody picks up a stick in canada, there is a larger group of athletes that have a chance to excel at hockey. Just like every kid in america picks up a basketball, there is a larger group of athletes with a chance to excel at basketball.

Just look at the potential rosters for the olympics. The canadians potential 4th line could be a #1 line on an NHL team. I don't think the same could be said of the US fourth line. The Canadians have an All-star team where amazing players will get left off just because there will be no room. The US will have players that would never even be considered for team canada. It's not to say the US can't win. It's still a team game. But the Canadians are so much better.

I'm sure that there are canadian players worse than me, just like I'm sure there are canadians better than me at basketball. The NHL, the best players in the world are the best way to tell which country produces better players in general.

PS: Look at Kane and Toews. Kane will be a first line player called on to score and help lead the US to victory. Toews might not even make the canadian team. It's sad but true.

Yeah 30 it is for Chelsea. But if you get 10 pack I think it's comes out to like 22 per session. Aviator indeed has much more flexible times and is only 20. I love it there and often go. With Chelsea though I can get my hockey fix taken care of under 2 hours door to door as I live in Manhattan. Brooklyn obviously a longer drive.

So you play for my alma mater eh? I graduated the year before they started a program. How do you like playing there? I can't believe with all the money NYU has that they can't even muster up a Div 3 team, if not Div 1. It seems every week they are building some new building for God knows what. Would it kill 'em to build a hockey rink? And ACHA is pay-to-play right? What do they bang you for? On top of tuition...doesn't seem right. Is there some reason that I'm not aware of why they are not even Div 3? Maybe you know something I don't.

Playing NCAA even Div III involves alot of paperwork and a bunch of stuff I'm guessing NYU just doesn't want to deal with. Plus, I'm happy it's ACHA cause I wouldn't be good enough to play Div III. We don't pay though. We get everything for free. Hotels, Bus, Jerseys, Flights (if we ever make nationals) and whatever else. With the crazy tuition it better be free. We had a HORRIBLE year. Entire new coaching staff, mostly freshmen, we even had to take a chick cause we were short on players. It was a rebuilding year, so we hope to get our shit together next season.

I don't know why you canucks are getting so defensive. As a whole canadians are better, mostly because it is your sport and the whole country plays and cares about it. You have more players so its obvious that more players will be better, however you don't have the BEST player in the world at the moment. That goes to Russia with Ovechkin. No matter what you say about crosby and his non showmanship or whatever, give me a call when the man puts 50 biscuits in the net in one year. But hey, you still have Gretzky, Lemeuix and Orr.

Comparing US and Canadian hockey is like comparing US and Canadian Baseball. It's our sport and we just have more players playing. However, the best player in baseball at the moment is probably Albert Pujols and he Latin, so don't fret Canucks, Just wait till the lakes freeze again and lace up those skates and go play your sport.

[tonguesOUT4life 17]

Jjthompson,

I'll give you a call when Crosby hoists it before ovechkin.. Deal?

[QandA 0]

I don't know why you canucks are getting so defensive. As a whole canadians are better, mostly because it is your sport and the whole country plays and cares about it. You have more players so its obvious that more players will be better, however you don't have the BEST player in the world at the moment. That goes to Russia with Ovechkin. No matter what you say about crosby and his non showmanship or whatever, give me a call when the man puts 50 biscuits in the net in one year. But hey, you still have Gretzky, Lemeuix and Orr.

Comparing US and Canadian hockey is like comparing US and Canadian Baseball. It's our sport and we just have more players playing. However, the best player in baseball at the moment is probably Albert Pujols and he Latin, so don't fret Canucks, Just wait till the lakes freeze again and lace up those skates and go play your sport.

WTF? You wonder why "we're" defensive and than you make the statement that Ovechkin is better, fueling the fire. Personally, I can't pick between the two, but it's a debatable arguement, and as buddy on Pardon the Interruption put it, whoever won the Wash-Pit series, would come out as being "ahead" and I believe Crosby would be the victor, but don't let that change my opinion, they're both good. He doesn't have to score 50 goals to show how great he is, it wouldn't hurt, but hey, he's close to leading a team to game Stanley Cup. I'm going off on a Crosby-Ovechkin thing, but your opinion is so uneducated.

I'd say Joe Mauer's the best player right now, but it's only been a couple weeks.

[HattrickSwayze 3]

Playing NCAA even Div III involves alot of paperwork and a bunch of stuff I'm guessing NYU just doesn't want to deal with. Plus, I'm happy it's ACHA cause I wouldn't be good enough to play Div III. We don't pay though. We get everything for free. Hotels, Bus, Jerseys, Flights (if we ever make nationals) and whatever else. With the crazy tuition it better be free. We had a HORRIBLE year. Entire new coaching staff, mostly freshmen, we even had to take a chick cause we were short on players. It was a rebuilding year, so we hope to get our shit together next season.

I don't know why you canucks are getting so defensive. As a whole canadians are better, mostly because it is your sport and the whole country plays and cares about it. You have more players so its obvious that more players will be better, however you don't have the BEST player in the world at the moment. That goes to Russia with Ovechkin. No matter what you say about crosby and his non showmanship or whatever, give me a call when the man puts 50 biscuits in the net in one year. But hey, you still have Gretzky, Lemeuix and Orr.

Comparing US and Canadian hockey is like comparing US and Canadian Baseball. It's our sport and we just have more players playing. However, the best player in baseball at the moment is probably Albert Pujols and he Latin, so don't fret Canucks, Just wait till the lakes freeze again and lace up those skates and go play your sport.

What's the talent level like in the ACHA? The UW (Washington) has a team, I think Division 3? I've heard that the talent level's not really that great (atleast in Division 3), that guys who play lower than me in the local rec league play on the team. ACHA must be full check right?

[jmiami 4]

Hey Jmiami, I can't believe you pay 30 to play at chelsea. I play for NYU out there plus I know Ronnie so I get comped for Open. I'd never pay $30 for Open. It's a joke. Aviator has a better schedule and atleast only 20.

It goes back to the fact that hockey is the biggest sport in canada. Everybody picks up a stick in canada, there is a larger group of athletes that have a chance to excel at hockey. Just like every kid in america picks up a basketball, there is a larger group of athletes with a chance to excel at basketball.

Just look at the potential rosters for the olympics. The canadians potential 4th line could be a #1 line on an NHL team. I don't think the same could be said of the US fourth line. The Canadians have an All-star team where amazing players will get left off just because there will be no room. The US will have players that would never even be considered for team canada. It's not to say the US can't win. It's still a team game. But the Canadians are so much better.

I'm sure that there are canadian players worse than me, just like I'm sure there are canadians better than me at basketball. The NHL, the best players in the world are the best way to tell which country produces better players in general.

PS: Look at Kane and Toews. Kane will be a first line player called on to score and help lead the US to victory. Toews might not even make the canadian team. It's sad but true.

Yeah 30 it is for Chelsea. But if you get 10 pack I think it's comes out to like 22 per session. Aviator indeed has much more flexible times and is only 20. I love it there and often go. With Chelsea though I can get my hockey fix taken care of under 2 hours door to door as I live in Manhattan. Brooklyn obviously a longer drive.

So you play for my alma mater eh? I graduated the year before they started a program. How do you like playing there? I can't believe with all the money NYU has that they can't even muster up a Div 3 team, if not Div 1. It seems every week they are building some new building for God knows what. Would it kill 'em to build a hockey rink? And ACHA is pay-to-play right? What do they bang you for? On top of tuition...doesn't seem right. Is there some reason that I'm not aware of why they are not even Div 3? Maybe you know something I don't.

Playing NCAA even Div III involves alot of paperwork and a bunch of stuff I'm guessing NYU just doesn't want to deal with. Plus, I'm happy it's ACHA cause I wouldn't be good enough to play Div III. We don't pay though. We get everything for free. Hotels, Bus, Jerseys, Flights (if we ever make nationals) and whatever else. With the crazy tuition it better be free. We had a HORRIBLE year. Entire new coaching staff, mostly freshmen, we even had to take a chick cause we were short on players. It was a rebuilding year, so we hope to get our shit together next season.

I don't know why you canucks are getting so defensive. As a whole canadians are better, mostly because it is your sport and the whole country plays and cares about it. You have more players so its obvious that more players will be better, however you don't have the BEST player in the world at the moment. That goes to Russia with Ovechkin. No matter what you say about crosby and his non showmanship or whatever, give me a call when the man puts 50 biscuits in the net in one year. But hey, you still have Gretzky, Lemeuix and Orr.

Comparing US and Canadian hockey is like comparing US and Canadian Baseball. It's our sport and we just have more players playing. However, the best player in baseball at the moment is probably Albert Pujols and he Latin, so don't fret Canucks, Just wait till the lakes freeze again and lace up those skates and go play your sport.

Okay good. I'm relieved to hear that NYU doesn't charge you guys to play. Sorry the team had a such a bad year. I can't believe you were short on players. If I knew that I would've tried to sneak in there and help out. I see they let Grad students play, so why not alumni? Hell, if not, I coulda signed up for a part-time course...like a wine-tasting course for instance. A 44 year old guy sneaks his way back onto his alma mater's team...wait a minute...that would be a good plot for a Will Farrell movie. I hope to hell next year is better for you guys. I'm gonna catch a couple games.

[DarkStar50 679]

Jjthompson,

I'll give you a call when Crosby hoists it before ovechkin.. Deal?

Saying which player is better because his team wins the Cup is a crock of ....

There is no I in Stanley Cup.

[fieldofdreams 0]

Case in point: Mikael Samulesson has won a cup, and is now defending it in the finals again this year. Where is he ranked in all this? As Linda Cohn would say: Former Ranger, now good.

[Esa_10 1]

JJ... You make the point right here...

"PS: Look at Kane and Toews. Kane will be a first line player called on to score and help lead the US to victory. Toews might not even make the canadian team. It's sad but true."

If Toews was American and Kane was Canadian it would be the exact same situation....Toews would be a first line guy on the US and Kane would struggle to make Canada.

[JJ Thompson94 0]

What's the talent level like in the ACHA? The UW (Washington) has a team, I think Division 3? I've heard that the talent level's not really that great (atleast in Division 3), that guys who play lower than me in the local rec league play on the team. ACHA must be full check right?

ACHA is the club hockey league all over US colleges. There are three divisions. They are all full check. NYU is Div. II and I think the competion is pretty good. I've heard that the best teams can atleast compete with NCAA. I don't know how true that is. I started playing ice hockey at 16 and I'm now 22. Since 16 I stopped playing roller completly and worked my balls off. People have said that I'm really good considering I started at 16. However, If we had a decent team, I'd still be a third line guy.

Okay good. I'm relieved to hear that NYU doesn't charge you guys to play. Sorry the team had a such a bad year. I can't believe you were short on players. If I knew that I would've tried to sneak in there and help out. I see they let Grad students play, so why not alumni? Hell, if not, I coulda signed up for a part-time course...like a wine-tasting course for instance. A 44 year old guy sneaks his way back onto his alma mater's team...wait a minute...that would be a good plot for a Will Farrell movie. I hope to hell next year is better for you guys. I'm gonna catch a couple games.

send me a pm and we can play an open at aviator one day. I am a bit rusty, I havn't skated since early March with work, all I have time for is the gym. But I need to start skating soon.

JJ... You make the point right here...

"PS: Look at Kane and Toews. Kane will be a first line player called on to score and help lead the US to victory. Toews might not even make the canadian team. It's sad but true."

If Toews was American and Kane was Canadian it would be the exact same situation....Toews would be a first line guy on the US and Kane would struggle to make Canada.

That was my exact point. There are just more canadian players, so there is a greater chance that they will be better. Is there a chance that a non canadian player could be the best, yes, but as a whole canadians have more good players.

[dontdumpdangle 0]

Parise would make team Canada no problem. One of the most under rated players in the game

[HattrickSwayze 3]

What's the talent level like in the ACHA? The UW (Washington) has a team, I think Division 3? I've heard that the talent level's not really that great (atleast in Division 3), that guys who play lower than me in the local rec league play on the team. ACHA must be full check right?

ACHA is the club hockey league all over US colleges. There are three divisions. They are all full check. NYU is Div. II and I think the competion is pretty good. I've heard that the best teams can atleast compete with NCAA. I don't know how true that is. I started playing ice hockey at 16 and I'm now 22. Since 16 I stopped playing roller completly and worked my balls off. People have said that I'm really good considering I started at 16. However, If we had a decent team, I'd still be a third line guy.

Thanks for the insight. I haven't been skating too long, but I've progressed relatively quickly. I figured if Div. III ACHA was a possibility, I'd consider it if I end up going back to school. I guess the best thing to do would be to catch a game and see if I think I can do it. Considering you've been skating almost 6 times longer than I have though makes me think it's a bit of a pipe dream to consider any time soon, unless the gap between Div. II and Div. III is a big one.