keegan iverson and paul bittner and mac caruth

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 8:15 am

Scorekeep, are you counting the kids in the CHL who while not on the team are the property of one of the member clubs. This is not like a verbal commitment in college where most kids are not able , due to academics, to play. These are kids that didn't make the team but still have their rights owned by a CHL team. I said the number was close and it is.

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Wed May 29, 2013 8:26 am

Keepyourheadup - yeah I think you are pretty accurate. I looked at 4 rosters and the players on their official roster ranged from 24-27.

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 8:27 am

Your numbers indicate 27 roster spots for D1 hockey. With only 18 scholarships its pretty obvious that players 23-27 are likely on little or no help when it comes to money. Now factor in that almost 15% of college D1 teams offer no scholarships at all and the stats become even more confusing. Major jrs. is a great way for some kids to go, not so great for others. Not to pick on a kid but Corbett has been up there two years now, if he doesn't get drafted as an overager then what? What happens with Walker? He's been passed up twice. Portland put a huge push on Michealson, does that look like it would have been a good choice? In my opinion unless you are a Ryan Hartman or Seth Jones type player you are probably better off state side, but again, only each player and his family has the the right to make the choice and must live with the results, good or not so good.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Wed May 29, 2013 8:50 am

keepyourheadup wrote:Your numbers indicate 27 roster spots for D1 hockey. With only 18 scholarships its pretty obvious that players 23-27 are likely on little or no help when it comes to money.
Most colleges consider 80% to be more or less a "full-ride", which stretches the scholarships out to 22 players... good enough for all of your starters, a back-up goalie, and a couple of bench players (as you've indicated). Good coaches and AD's will help find need-based, specialty, or academic scholarships to cover the remaining 20% of the tuition and living expenses.
keepyourheadup wrote:Now factor in that almost 15% of college D1 teams offer no scholarships at all and the stats become even more confusing.
True, but most of those colleges are a draw unto themselves. You really think Harvard needs to give away an athletic scholarship to get kids to go there? Plus, those schools are the masters at finding non-athletic scholarships for their athletes.

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 8:58 am

No, clearly they don't and those institutions are need based making them affordable for most kids that could afford to play hockey in the first place! Most kids at a Yale or Harvard would likely pay no more than the cost of a public education. The very top end recruits, I'll use Bjugstad and Skjei as examples, are generally on a 90 percent or better, at the U the standard is 75% with a few above and below.

My point was the stats are far more complex than what was thrown out there.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Dub

Post by The Exiled One » Wed May 29, 2013 9:04 am

Bluewhitefan wrote:Let's not forget the lengthy posts Scorekeeper made during the season regarding a certain kid that chose to jump to the W after one year of HS hockey. He gave us the history of the kid's youth career as he jumped from association to association and then from school to school. Score is most probably this kid's parent or close family friend. It is not surprising that he has an obvious bias toward hockey north of the border.
Scorekeeper (aka D3Referee, edgeless2, oldschoolpuckster, etc) works for the WHL and has no connection to Minnesota High School Hockey. He's most likely a scout and part of his job is to convince Minnesotans that they've been following the wrong development path all these years. He thinks we should all stop being fans of the Gophers, Huskies, Bulldogs, Beavers, Sioux, and Mavericks and become fans of Portland or Medicine Hat instead. He refers to his league as "the Dub", assuming that we all refer to it that way. I'm guessing that more than a few readers (especially the old-timers) probably though he was referring to the WCHA! He has probably never been to the "Tournament", or if he has, he probably has no idea of the significance it holds in this state.
Last edited by The Exiled One on Wed May 29, 2013 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Exiled One
Posts: 1788
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:34 am

Post by The Exiled One » Wed May 29, 2013 9:04 am

keepyourheadup wrote:No, clearly they don't and those institutions are need based making them affordable for most kids that could afford to play hockey in the first place! Most kids at a Yale or Harvard would likely pay no more than the cost of a public education. The very top end recruits, I'll use Bjugstad and Skjei as examples, are generally on a 90 percent or better, at the U the standard is 75% with a few above and below.

My point was the stats are far more complex than what was thrown out there.
Agreed

2112
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 2:41 pm

Post by 2112 » Wed May 29, 2013 9:47 am

Granttenn wrote:
scorekeeper wrote:
keepyourheadup wrote:You are right scorekeep, and that reason is they have the luxury of getting first crack at the top players in the best hockey player producing country on the planet. Its the Canadian system, its what they know and expect and it obviously works for them. Sweden and Finland have hockey academies where they specialize as teenagers on just hockey and their systems produce a great number of players as well. There is no one size fits all. I agree with an earlier post...if your meant to play in the NHL you most likely will no matter the route you take.

With 59 CHL teams the total number of players is fairly close to the number of div 1 players in the ncaa.
The NCAA has 59 schools with an average roster of 27 players per school, with an average number of players (59 X 27) each year of 1,593

The CHL has 60 teams with an average roster of 23 per team, with an average number of players (60 X 23) each year of 1,380

Yet despits icing an average of 213 FEWER players per year, the CHL provides 60% of the NHL talent while the NCAA provides just 30%. So a league that has 25% fewer players produces 100% more NHL talent.

Is it because they have BETTER PLAYERS? BETTER COACHES? BETTER DEVEOPMENT MODEL? or ALL OF THE ABOVE?
The flaw with that analysis is that NCAA is a 4 year stay. How many years does average player spend in CHL. Say, for arguement it's 2, then they are running twice as many kids through.. Without that data, you can't make an apples to apples comparison.. Make sense?


4 Year stay, correct me if i am wrong but didn`t the gophers have 1 senior on the team this year, the leading scorer and MVP of the USHL this year is not even listed in the NHL prospect rankings. If the kid did that in the CHL he would be a first rounder, their is alot more respect given to a kid from the CHL for the draft because he has been tested and they know more of what they are getting. Plus alot of GM`s in the NHL are Canadian and the CHL is what they know, NCAA kids sometimes have to go the free agent route like the defensemen from the gophers. If he was in the CHL he probably would have been drafted, every kid can take a different path and there is nothing wrong with that.

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 9:56 am

The leading scorer and mvp is a smurf, if he were even 5' 10' he'd be a first rounder. 5" 7" is being generous. If you watched game 7 between LA and the Sharks last night there is no need to explain any further. If he somehow manages to keep putting up crazy numbers he'll get his chance. Look at his fellow recruit in Ann Arbor, pedestrian numbers for 2 years and still ranked around 75. SIZE matters.

2112
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 2:41 pm

Post by 2112 » Wed May 29, 2013 10:33 am

keepyourheadup wrote:The leading scorer and mvp is a smurf, if he were even 5' 10' he'd be a first rounder. 5" 7" is being generous. If you watched game 7 between LA and the Sharks last night there is no need to explain any further. If he somehow manages to keep putting up crazy numbers he'll get his chance. Look at his fellow recruit in Ann Arbor, pedestrian numbers for 2 years and still ranked around 75. SIZE matters.


So are you trying to say he still would`t be ranked if he put those numbers up in the CHL, and no need for the personal attack totally uncalled for.

Shinbone_News
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:50 am

Post by Shinbone_News » Wed May 29, 2013 10:40 am

keepyourheadup wrote:The leading scorer and mvp is a smurf, if he were even 5' 10' he'd be a first rounder. 5" 7" is being generous. If you watched game 7 between LA and the Sharks last night there is no need to explain any further. If he somehow manages to keep putting up crazy numbers he'll get his chance. Look at his fellow recruit in Ann Arbor, pedestrian numbers for 2 years and still ranked around 75. SIZE matters.
Yeah, it's easy to put up almost 100 points in 60 games when you're playing against all those other tiny little players. It's almost like they're playing sledge hockey out there. I think I heard there's one defenseman in Muskegon who is 5'11 (in skates, tho).

They should rename it the United States Tiny Hockey League.

"Size matters" should be refined to say "Size is the one assumption that scouts believe they can safely make and not get burned. If a player ends up sucking, well at least he was big and had good reach. If a player is small, he'll have to outperform at every level up to and including the NHL to get any respect."

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 10:58 am

Not meant as a personal attack at all, my apologies if it came across that way. I agree that if he put the same numbers up in the CHL he would be ranked. The point I'm trying to make is his size is clearly considered to much of a liability to be ranked. I suspect he'll be drafted anyway for what its worth. The line he played on had two other kids that make this an interesting discussion. The one that was ranked fairly high and was drafted in I believe the forth round was the one that scored the least. Although the difference wasn't great what attributes does this individual possess that the other two do not? Having watched this team play a number of times he was the least dynamic of the three. A quick check of the roster makes it pretty clear.

IMHO it comes down to this, smaller players need to prove they can compete every time out, scouts have little patience with these kids, big guys on the other hand have to prove they can't and are often carried along for quite some time as scouts wait for the light to come on.

Just to make things clear, I'm a big fan of this kid and hope he proves all the doubters wrong.

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 1:39 pm

Granttenn wrote:
scorekeeper wrote:
keepyourheadup wrote:You are right scorekeep, and that reason is they have the luxury of getting first crack at the top players in the best hockey player producing country on the planet. Its the Canadian system, its what they know and expect and it obviously works for them. Sweden and Finland have hockey academies where they specialize as teenagers on just hockey and their systems produce a great number of players as well. There is no one size fits all. I agree with an earlier post...if your meant to play in the NHL you most likely will no matter the route you take.

With 59 CHL teams the total number of players is fairly close to the number of div 1 players in the ncaa.
The NCAA has 59 schools with an average roster of 27 players per school, with an average number of players (59 X 27) each year of 1,593

The CHL has 60 teams with an average roster of 23 per team, with an average number of players (60 X 23) each year of 1,380

Yet despits icing an average of 213 FEWER players per year, the CHL provides 60% of the NHL talent while the NCAA provides just 30%. So a league that has 25% fewer players produces 100% more NHL talent.

Is it because they have BETTER PLAYERS? BETTER COACHES? BETTER DEVEOPMENT MODEL? or ALL OF THE ABOVE?
The flaw with that analysis is that NCAA is a 4 year stay. How many years does average player spend in CHL. Say, for arguement it's 2, then they are running twice as many kids through.. Without that data, you can't make an apples to apples comparison.. Make sense?
Doesn't make sense, no. If you are talking about the USHL it makes sense, as there are many kids who go for a year or two and then jump to college.

MOST CHLers are in the league 3-4 years. Some stay a full 5. There are some that make late appearances for a year or two but they are few and far between.

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 1:51 pm

keepyourheadup wrote:Scorekeep, are you counting the kids in the CHL who while not on the team are the property of one of the member clubs. This is not like a verbal commitment in college where most kids are not able , due to academics, to play. These are kids that didn't make the team but still have their rights owned by a CHL team. I said the number was close and it is.
No. This is a completely different thing. You are talking about the 50 man protected list. 23-25 of the players on each list are the teams rostered players. CHL teams can roster a MAXIMUM of 25 players, but most roster 23.

The other 25-27 players on that list include the bantam draft pciks (approximately 11 each, none of which are eligible to roster that year), a handful of older prospects that are in the USHL/Junior A or even college and another ten or twelve 16 & 17 year old Affiliated Players who didn't make the team but are eligible to be called up.

It doesn't change the roster size, which is maximum 25.

The NCAA will roster a little over 200 more players per year on average than the CHL. The number (and percentage) will fluxuate any given year by a handful or so.

Despite the smaller number, however, the CHL still provides twice as much NHL talent. If it was 33% 2 years ago then it is in decline, as it is 30% this year from the NCAA, compared to 60% from the CHL.

Mailman
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Dub

Post by Mailman » Wed May 29, 2013 1:58 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
Bluewhitefan wrote:Let's not forget the lengthy posts Scorekeeper made during the season regarding a certain kid that chose to jump to the W after one year of HS hockey. He gave us the history of the kid's youth career as he jumped from association to association and then from school to school. Score is most probably this kid's parent or close family friend. It is not surprising that he has an obvious bias toward hockey north of the border.
Scorekeeper (aka D3Referee, edgeless2, oldschoolpuckster, etc) works for the WHL and has no connection to Minnesota High School Hockey. He's most likely a scout and part of his job is to convince Minnesotans that they've been following the wrong development path all these years. He thinks we should all stop being fans of the Gophers, Huskies, Bulldogs, Beavers, Sioux, and Mavericks and become fans of Portland or Medicine Hat instead. He refers to his league as "the Dub", assuming that we all refer to it that way. I'm guessing that more than a few readers (especially the old-timers) probably though he was referring to the WCHA! He has probably never been to the "Tournament", or if he has, he probably has no idea of the significance it holds in this state.
What say you scorekeeper; true or not ?

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Re: Dub

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 2:02 pm

Mailman wrote:
What say you scorekeeper; true or not ?
Scorekeeper = Scorekeeper

My identity is well known to both Karl and Lee and a good many posters. Others can take responsibility for their own posts. I stand 100% behind mine.

Mailman
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Dub

Post by Mailman » Wed May 29, 2013 2:05 pm

scorekeeper wrote:
Mailman wrote:
What say you scorekeeper; true or not ?
Scorekeeper = Scorekeeper

My identity is well known to both Karl and Lee and a good many posters. Others can take responsibility for their own posts. I stand 100% behind mine.
Your id isn't known to me. Are you the user of these other nicks, and do you work for the WHL ?

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 2:15 pm

Tigers33 wrote:I also think the number is up to 33 percent of pro's played in college. It was 31% in a study two years ago.
Then it's in decline, because it was less than 30% this year. And only 43% of them stayed 4 years in college. That the means the MAJORITY of NCAA players who play a game in the NHL - a full 57% - DID NOT stay 4 years at college.

I think the college path is great for those who seek it and I agree that it is getting better. But the facts still are what the facts still are, that the CHL produces twice as many players and does so with less players on the roster.

- CHL kids statistically get 3.5 times the ice in any given season
- CHL kids play 3 times as many games in any given season
- CHL kids get twice as many practices in any given season
- CHL kids who do go to college have a better package

It's true that the the scholarship for CHL kids is a CONSOLATION prize, as most have a goal of playing hockey professionally and 60% achieve that goal. Those who don't cash in the scholarship.

The fact is the WHL is an amazing path both for hockey and school - a better path for MOST.

Those with goals in academics CHOOSE the school that fits them. Some might want to be doctors. Others lawyers. Some artists. Maybe they even want to kep playing hockey. (The Central Hockey League rookie of the year this year is a 5 year U of M graduate on the WHL's dime after a 4 year career in the WHL)

For those who choose hockey, 60% will turn pro and the the league produces NHLers at a rate more than twice the NCAA.

The NCAA is a good route. But the CHL is still the BEST route for MOST, regardless if you are American or Canadian.

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Re: Dub

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 2:18 pm

Mailman wrote:Your id isn't known to me. Are you the user of these other nicks, and do you work for the WHL ?
Nope. Go Fish.

You don't have to work for the WHL to know this information. It's not privellaged info. A Google works just fine

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 3:10 pm

Ok I'll bite, is it the best because they develop the players or because as I stated earlier the most developed players are already right under their nose to begin with? These percentages can be looked at in many different ways, What % of the NHL is Canadian? Of that number I would assume the great majority use the CHL as their vehicle to the NHL. Its tough to argue that the CHL isn't the best and quickest way to the the show, we are seeing more and more Europeans finding there way there for that very reason.

The US model is much different and its important to understand that just as Canadians rightfully defend their system so to does the US and our model. The Pat Lafontaine, Patrick Kane and Seth Jones types are exactly what the CHL is about. The CHL is able to age kids out and simply reload due to the incredible number of players available to them. There are literally 100's of JR A & B teams scattered across Canada and most of the kids on these teams would jump at the chance to play majors. In the US a kid has a chance to play as an amateur till he's 24 or 25 years old. Some of these kids end up making it but if they don't they have had the help of an athletic department to guide them through their education.

Is the CHL helping its alumni in the same way a University helps its athletes beyond the financial piece of the puzzle, does the CHL have tutors and mandatory study halls and academic advisers available to those that choose to pursue their education package?

When it comes to the NHL I'll agree that the CHL is the best path, but in the end the mission is about hockey... period, the NCAA makes every attempt to balance athletics and education, although their success in this can easily be called into question.

To me it doesn't matter when it comes to the NHL, if you're good enough they'll find you.

As more Minnesotans make the choice to head north it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

scorekeeper
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:08 am

Post by scorekeeper » Wed May 29, 2013 3:56 pm

keepyourheadup wrote: Ok I'll bite, is it the best because they develop the players or because as I stated earlier the most developed players are already right under their nose to begin with?
I don't know about that. There is a lot of great players on this side of the border. I think it has more to do with the development model. These kids want to go pro, so the CHL leagues are modelled that way to prepare them. To start with, you play a 72 game season plus best of 7 playoffs. You practice everyday 2-3 hours of ice and dryland. You are doing so with professional coaches who do this for a living, not your middle school science teacher. You skate with NHL draft picks and other high ranked NHL prospects, not the best of you JV and Bantam crop and whatever holdovers are left from last years varsity. There is no comparison between the two development models.
keepyourheadup wrote: The US model is much different and its important to understand that just as Canadians rightfully defend their system so to does the US and our model.
The difference is, the US system is not under attack. When a kid commits to an NCAA program, we just say congratulations! Great kid! Great program! Great fit! However, when a kid commits to a WHL program they and their families are villainized. Look at what happened at BSM this year.

This very thread should be a congratulations-fest for the 3 Minnesota players who just played in the Memorial Cup, but instead we have these negative nancies , these pathetic little men, jumping on to minimize their accomplishments and participation. Questioning their ice time, their impact, etc. And ridiculous claims comparing local high school teams to Major Junior Teams. It's sad. There is a desperate need to minimize, ridicule and criticize if someone goes off the beaten path.

That's the difference and this board is a prime example.

You don't get that from CHL fans when a player commits to the NCAA. They simply say, "Good job son! Congratulations and Good Luck"!

Here in Minnesota the insecurities are heightened that someone might be getting ahead of little Johhny. That everybody neeeds to stay put, play high school and then college. That one size fits all.
keepyourheadup wrote: The Pat Lafontaine, Patrick Kane and Seth Jones types are exactly what the CHL is about.
I agree those kids are good fits, but those kids will excel anywhere, as they are so far ahead of their peers. I would argue that the WHL has been a fantastic fit for a kid like Ben Walker. He already has 3 full years paid for - in his pocket - at the University of Minnesota, and he will get his 4th year paid for this upcoming season. After that Ben will have one year to try his hand at professional hockey. If it doesn't work out, Ben can attend the University of Minnesota on the WHL's dime. Now, would the Gophers have offered Ben a 4 year scholarship? I don't know. But he has one now and it's 100% paid for.
keepyourheadup wrote: Is the CHL helping its alumni in the same way a University helps its athletes beyond the financial piece of the puzzle, does the CHL have tutors and mandatory study halls and academic advisers available to those that choose to pursue their education package?
During their high school years, WHL players are required to maintain B's or better in school or they don't play. Teams will pay for tutors for players who are struggling in school and once a player graduates, teams also pay for local college classes for graduated players. So a guy like Ben Walkers could hit the U of M with 3 years college courses already completed and paid for by the Victoria Royals hockey club.

That's another thing nobody talks about down here. Everyone is quick to point out that the CHL is a BUSINESS. Some will further conclude that it is no place for kids. However, the USHL is a similar model and nobody be-smeaches the USHL unless a local high school star bolts. But what does the USHL do with all the money? In the CHL, kids earn 13K-40K per year in scholarship PLUS the team gives them a small amount of cash, PLUS the team pays for college courses for it's grads and tutors for it's high school kids. Is the USHL providing these benefits to it's players? What are they doing with their profits?
keepyourheadup wrote: When it comes to the NHL I'll agree that the CHL is the best path, but in the end the mission is about hockey... period, the NCAA makes every attempt to balance athletics and education, although their success in this can easily be called into question.
The CHL teams take education very seriously. You don't play without B's or better. They want to move kids to both professional hockey and university. That's the business plan and they do it extremely well.
keepyourheadup wrote: To me it doesn't matter when it comes to the NHL, if you're good enough they'll find you.
Yes, but first you have to get good enough. The CHL development program is head and shoulders over any high school, prep team, elite league etc. If you don't get good enough, you won't be found.
keepyourheadup wrote: As more Minnesotans make the choice to head north it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
The WHL has 6 basic geographical regions. Manitoba. Saskatchewan. BC. Alberta. Minnesota. The other Western States. Minnesota is as large as Alberta in terms of player participation and greater than the other regions. If irrational fears were removed from the equation, the WHL could easily see it's rosters a full 30% Minnesotans. However, at this time, the unofficial NCAA marketing arm does a good job in spreading mis-information and fear-mongering, scaring local folk out of great opportunities.

This will change in time. Of that I am sure.

Anyways, that's enough for me. If anyone has a serious CHL / WHL questions and want an informed answer, feel free to PM. I'd be happy to help you out.

Mailman
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: Dub

Post by Mailman » Wed May 29, 2013 4:25 pm

scorekeeper wrote:
Mailman wrote:Your id isn't known to me. Are you the user of these other nicks, and do you work for the WHL ?
Nope. Go Fish.

You don't have to work for the WHL to know this information. It's not privellaged info. A Google works just fine
That wasn't why I asked.

Thanks for the reply.

oldschoolpuckster
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Dub

Post by oldschoolpuckster » Wed May 29, 2013 4:41 pm

Scorekeeper (aka D3Referee, edgeless2, oldschoolpuckster, etc) works for the WHL and has no connection to Minnesota High School Hockey. He's most likely a scout and part of his job is to convince Minnesotans that they've been following the wrong development path all these years. He thinks we should all stop being fans of the Gophers, Huskies, Bulldogs, Beavers, Sioux, and Mavericks and become fans of Portland or Medicine Hat instead. He refers to his league as "the Dub", assuming that we all refer to it that way. I'm guessing that more than a few readers (especially the old-timers) probably though he was referring to the WCHA! He has probably never been to the "Tournament", or if he has, he probably has no idea of the significance it holds in this state.[/quote]

oldschool is oldschool. I know who scorekeeper is (and I like his takes)

I am a fan of USA, USHL, NAHL and MSHSL. I am just not convinced that the NCAA is the "end all" solution for every kids future. True, it works well for some. The CHL works well for most who play in it!! (but not all)
The kid still has to work hard and get a little "luck" to make it to the NHL.

There is more than one path to get there and Scorekeeper and I agree, the CHL is a great opportunity to get it all!!

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Wed May 29, 2013 5:39 pm

Great response and while I'll take you at your word on things related to the educational piece, I can tell you that a good number of NCAA hockey players would not qualify to attend the colleges they attend if it wasn't for sports. It's a pretty big assumption to think kids will come home and gain acceptance to a school like Michigan or Minnesota, not to mention the Ivy League. The value of an education from an institution like Yale simply cant be overstated. There are some things about the college route that the CHL just cannot offer. I believe both systems work but one attracts more elite players than the other.

Bruins
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:22 pm

Post by Bruins » Wed May 29, 2013 6:35 pm

Scorekeeper, great post and I agree with ALL of it. This is the reason the CHL is getting bashed. The more US players head north, the more bashing of the CHL. The NCAA is a BILLION dollar plus business on the backs of these kids. Most D1 hockey schools roster 30 players yet only get 18 scholarships to divide up. Why is that when the NCAA takes in billions? EVERY player in the CHL gets a schlarship. Im not saying NCAA is a bad route but its certaily not in the same league as the CHL when it comes to giving more to the player:

-More scholarship
-More games
-Longer season
-Worlds largest development program for the NHL/professional hockey
-NHL style of games and season.
-Highly scouted

Locked