keegan iverson and paul bittner and mac caruth

[scorekeeper]

How do you answer the statistics of only 1 in 25 make it to the NHL from a WHL team?

I don't think that number needs an answer, but I can't resist.

That's a pretty big number. In fact, it's a number which is more than a 2:1 ratio of the next biggest NHL supplier, the NCAA which sends approximately 1 out of 60.

That number goes back to Karls article on cause and causation, where stepping foot in the WHL doesn't imply you have a 1 in 25 chance of making the NHL.

The WHL development model is setup in a way that the kids who are serious NHL prospects are really identified early in the process, which makes it even more important for 16 and 17 year old kids who get the opportunity to give it serious consideration.

There are three common denominators with WHL kids who are selected in the NHL Draft

1.) They are taller than 5'10". It's very rare to have a WHL prospect drafted who is not taller than 5'10". It happens every year with 1-3 kids, wuth the lions share of the 36-44 kids drafted annually are OVER 5'10"

2.) They are selected in their first year of eligibility 85% of the time. It does happen every year that a WHL player or two or three gets selected in their second or third year of eligibility, but 85% of WHL-NHL draft picks go in their first year.

3.) The single biggest common denominator for WHL players who get taken in the NHL draft is that they play in their 16 year old season (being 16 at the NHL cutoff). Almost 70% of WHL players who play the league minimum 40 games in their 16 year old season will get drafted in the NHL draft. In fact, if you examine every WHL player who gets drafted this year, you will see that almost 90% of them played as a roster player in the WHL (played at least 40 games) in their 16 year old season.

There is a further consistant formula that looks at these players post-draft. 30% of them will dress at least 1 game in the NHL, while only 10% will go on to have NHL careers of 400 games or more (pension players).

Those numbers certainly underline how difficult it is to reach and stick in the NHL, but it's a little more predictable for some.

For example, if you are good enough to play in the WHL as a 16 year old, like Keegan Iverson, like Paul Bittner, like Alec Baer, and you play as a regular player (minimum 40 games), then you are amongst a group of players who have historically been drafted into the NHL at a 67% rate. That's a lot more promising than the 1 in 25, although granted, it's just a start.

The 1 in 25 number gets watered down with older players. About half of WHL players don't start in the league until they are 18. While they still have slim NHL hopes, they are really guys who are done midget AAA or really good Junior A players who are playing for a scholarship or an opportunity to get on an AHL or European roster. And most of those players also realize their goals.

In other words, Keegan Iversons chances of making the NHL through the WHL are going to be much greater than Ben Walkers, though the odds of either actually making and sticking in the NHL are stacked against them, as they are stacked against us all.

Keegan has a better than 1 in 25 shot

In fact, strictly statistcally, Keegan is one of 45 players who played as a 16 year old, giving him a 67% of having his name called at the NHL Draft next season. If he does, he has a further 30% chance of ever playing an NHL game and a 10% chance of having a lengthy NHL career.

So at this point Keegan is 67% X 10% = 6.7% chance of playing 400 games of more in the NHL, and 67% X 30% = 20.1% chance of playing in the NHL at least 1 game.

Considering that 4% of WHLers go on to NHL careers, Keegan's odds at 20.1% are considerably more by virtue of him being the size he is and playing in the WHL as a 16 year old (meaning, he's been identified as a serious future NHL prospect).

This is striclty a statistical analysis based on historical results. I am not IMPLYING anything specific about Keegan, other than he's in good statistical company.

Seth Jones didn't come over until his 17th season, and yet his chances are probably going to be even greater than Iversons, and you can cherry pick exceptions all day, but these are the generalized historical statistics.

In the end, the 1 in 25 number is a good number, but when using it for an individual players chances, you can see that both Iverson and Jones have a greater than 1 in 25 chance and older players coming out of Junior A or other places would have a reduced chance.

However, given the exceptional scholarship program and the wealth of high paying minor pro jobs , most WHL players find success in hockey and in life despite never setting foot on NHL ice.

The WHL might be a fit for that truly gifted player but the problem is that too many kids think they are already that gifted player. The WHL knows full well that half these kids will never pan out in the NHL.

It doesn't really matter what the kid thinks. The WHL is a hockey business run by full time hockey guys. They will make the decision which kids are gifted and ready to play in the WHL and actively recruit those kids. They aren't right all of the time, but they do get it right MOST of the time.

[scorekeeper]

How does Iverson have three years paid for when he has only played in Portland for 2?

They can offer a year for signing. I don't know for a fact that he does or not. Only him and his agent know, but it's commonplace with a high profile 15 year old to give them a year for signing and get them off on the right foot.

[Lazy Scout]

I am assuming you have evidence to back up you method of madness statistical percentages. You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth. From what I could sort thru from all your hypothetical percentages is that Keegan Iverson, the best 16 year old in the state of Minnesota hockey has only a 20% chance of playing 1 game in the NHL and that WHL'ers only have a 10% chance of having a NHL lengthy career.

You said it " odds are stacked against them." 67% chance of being drafted by the NHL and playing in the NHL are two very different scenarios.

By reading your post, you just convinced me even more that it is better to go the NCAA route and secure an education all the while trying to reach for your dreams of the NHL. With percentages like the ones you just stated, you would be better of moving to Hollywood and trying to make it in the movies.

[scorekeeper]

You said it " odds are stacked against them." 67% chance of being drafted by the NHL and playing in the NHL are two very different scenarios.

67% chance of getting drafted.

20% chance of playing in the NHL

6.7% chance of making a career of it.

Sorry if that was too difficult too follow for you.

Odds are stacked against anyone looking for an NHL career, but they are at least twice as strong though the CHL as anywhere else. Lots of great high paying opportunities in hockey outside the NHL though and the WHL scholarship program is the single best available, so lots of great options for these kids both in and out of the NHL and both in and out of hockey.

Also, I think those are much better odds than you have moving to Hollywood and making it in the movies though.

And I don't think you were swayed anyways. It's clear you'll grasp at any thread that you think strengthens your case, so I'm glad I offered you a thread you could hang on tight too

[Gopher Blog]

As always seems to get left out in these discussions, the WHL education package has strings attached. Something I think the WHL lovers try to gloss over in order to sucker kids in.

The player will forfeit his scholarship WHL Scholarship should the following occur:

- A player is required by their post-secondary institution to withdraw due to failure to maintain passing grades

- A player signs a professional hockey contract at the NHL, AHL or Elite European level

- A player does not enroll in a post secondary program within one year following his last season of eligibility in the WHL

- The Graduate Player is permitted to play one year in a designated professional league (ECHL or lower) without forfeiting their WHL Scholarship benefits.

[scorekeeper]

As always seems to get left out in these discussions, the WHL education package has strings attached. Something I think the WHL lovers try to gloss over in order to sucker kids in.

The player will forfeit his scholarship WHL Scholarship should the following occur:

- A player is required by their post-secondary institution to withdraw due to failure to maintain passing grades

- A player signs a professional hockey contract at the NHL, AHL or Elite European level

- A player does not enroll in a post secondary program within one year following his last season of eligibility in the WHL

- The Graduate Player is permitted to play one year in a designated professional league (ECHL or lower) without forfeiting their WHL Scholarship benefits.

It's only left out if you close your ears and eyes, which an NCAA shill such as yourself is no doubt adept at doing.

These are pretty cut and dried above board terms which we've covered on MANY occasions in this forum. You like to keep bringing them back as if they are insightful or somehow, what did you call them "fine print"., when in fact, when you go to the WHL website and look up the scholarship program it's pretty FRONT & CENTER stuff.

This one is particular shocker ...

"- A player is required by their post-secondary institution to withdraw due to failure to maintain passing grades"

Are you saying the NCAA keeps you in with failing grades? Is that some kind of "string" not attached to other scholarships?

Another one ...

"- A player does not enroll in a post secondary program within one year following his last season of eligibility in the WHL"

You don't get to sit around till your 40, no, you have to use it in a timely fashion. I wasn't aware, does the NCAA let you use that scholarship when you are 30 or do you have to use it on their timeline?

[Lazy Scout]

No, the NCAA lets you use the scholarship WHILE you are playing hockey, not the fork in the road way like the WHL.... play hockey or go to school but not both. NCAA route doesn't make you make a choice.

Also, do you think 6.7% odds are very compelling? If I am the best 16 yr old out of the state of Minnesota and my odds of having a career are 6.7%, that is not too reassuring to me.

[gophers2121]

Keeper - please explain where the fork in the road is if you take the NCAA route?

[Gopher Blog]

I don't think anybody argues getting grades to stay in good standing at a school should be required for any scholarship. It's the other fine print that often get left out of the WHL hype by the pro-WHL rubes.

A lot of these young guys aren't going to want to shelf their pursuit of pro hockey within one year of leaving the WHL (and CIS is joke hockey so don't even start with that). Nor is any guy going to be able to retire on one contract (and certainly not when it is an AHL deal, European deal, etc). The onus for paying for your education falls on the players at that point. Hardly a fair bargain. I doubt most of these young guys are fully aware of this.

As for your stats (which you like to throw out but I see no substantiated source), it's like the old saying "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[Gopher Blog]

No, the NCAA lets you use the scholarship WHILE you are playing hockey, not the fork in the road way like the WHL.... play hockey or go to school but not both. NCAA route doesn't make you make a choice.

You can explain that all day but he's going to be blind to that logic.

[keepyourheadup]

WHL scholarship program is the single best available


What CHL shill came up with that?

Single best in Canada maybe, Are we all so ignorant down here that we've failed to notice, that statement is as nonsensical as me claiming the NCAA is the better route to the NHL. I've not seen a single statistic that comes even close to demonstrating this. Graduation rates....period, its the only quantifiable stat we can use and there is simply no comparison.

Under the best of circumstances a kid could hope to get 20,000 a year from what I've seen Is room and board included or just tuition and books? Pretty sure Notre Dame is around 50,000 a year. Who makes up the 120,000 over 4 years.

A statement like that excludes all other possibilities is just the same drivel you accuse others of.

[scorekeeper]

I don't think anybody argues getting grades to stay in good standing at a school should be required for any scholarship. It's the other fine print that often get left out of the WHL hype by the pro-WHL rubes.

This is the basic problem with shills like yourself. You know and I know there is no fine print. The scholarship is the best in the world and its terms are FRONT and CENTER.

Please folks, DO NOT TAKE MY WORD ON IT. Do yourself a small due dilligence. A simple GOOGLE search on the term "WHL Scholarship Progra,". One of the top links (past the spam) is this one;
http://www.whl.ca/prospects-central-whl ... ip-program

Now, don't take my word on it. You tell me, is what GopherBlog reports FINE PRINT, or is it the actual FRONT & CENTER meat and potatoes of the scholly.

It's the latter, and GopherBlog knows this, as he's been corrected on it numerous times.

But he has no problem - NONE - jumping on here with a BOLD FACED LIE that somehow these terms are fine print.

The WHL contract is a small 3 page contract that spells out exactly whats on that URL, the terms of the scholly. It also outlines the stipend players will be paid and it outlines the other benefits, some of which include University Education while with the team.

There is no unreasonable term or hidden term. It's pretty straight forward. Make the choice to go to school, do it in a timely fashion and and keep good grades. Is that any different from any other scholly?

[scorekeeper]

WHL scholarship program is the single best available

Single best in Canada maybe, Are we all so ignorant down here that we've failed to notice, that statement is as nonsensical as me claiming the NCAA is the better route to the NHL. I've not seen a single statistic that comes even close to demonstrating this. Graduation rates....period, its the only quantifiable stat we can use and there is simply no comparison.

It's the best scholly because it's fully paid for, up to 7 years worth and the student has a wider variety of schools to choose from. I challenge you to find an NCAA athletic scholarship that compares.

I'll wait though. Name one ...

[scorekeeper]

No, the NCAA lets you use the scholarship WHILE you are playing hockey, not the fork in the road way like the WHL.... play hockey or go to school but not both. NCAA route doesn't make you make a choice.

well 2 things.

1.) You absolutely 100% can take college courses while playing for the WHL team and the team will pay for it. Lots of WHL kids go to college WHILE they play with their teams. This is how some of the players get up to 7 years worth of education on the teams dime. Again, another benefit most folks down here are unware of.

2.) There is a fork in the road for NCAA players of NHL caliber. In fact MOST NHL players who come through the NCAA - a full 57% - do not complete the full 4 years before going to the NHL.

So both have a fork to some degree and both offer college WHILE playing. Again, most down here unaware of that.

[scorekeeper]

Keeper - please explain where the fork in the road is if you take the NCAA route?

I think he is refering to the fork in the road in the CHL, where players make a decision on wether to cash in their scholarship or pursue professional hockey. That fork is approximately 22 years old, a year after the players final year of WHL eligibility.

He has kept his options open and now, as a 22 year old man, can choose either 4-5 years of college or a pro career.

[scorekeeper]

.... play hockey or go to school but not both. NCAA route doesn't make you make a choice.

The NCAA absolutely forces you to choose and it forces you to choose at the young age of 15 or 16. If you choose NCAA you can't play major junior. You have to forfeit the right to participate in the single best hockey development program in the world.

If you choose major junior you can participate in the single best hockey development program in the world and still play college hockey if you want to. Lots of world class schools north of the border also have great hockey teams.

[The Exiled One]

Let's assume that our mythical "talented kid" has the option to play anywhere he likes, are his odds of making the NHL better or worse playing for the WHL than playing for Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, or Denver?

HINT: Each one of those teams has 9 or more alumni in the NHL this season. The WHL per team average is 8. In fact, your odds of making the NHL are just as good playing for CC, Denver, or St. Cloud, who each had 8 alumni in the NHL this season.

scorekeeper keeps comparing the WHL on a whole to the NCAA on a whole because the numbers work better for him. However, the major difference is that the player doesn't get to pick his WHL team. Players get to pick their NCAA team.

So, if you aren't good enough to make one of the NCAA teams listed above (or Michigan, Miami, Maine, Michigan State, BU, or BC) feel free to try and make the NHL through the WHL. However, if you can make one of the teams listed, YOUR ODDS OF MAKING THE NHL ARE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN GOING THROUGH THE WHL.

[keepyourheadup]

I just can't help but ask,

If the educational benefit is so outstanding why do only 1 in 4 take advantage of it? You clearly showed us statistically that there not all in the NHL. It seems to fly in the face of logic that so many don't take advantage of it.

Could it be that there is really no vested interest on the part of the benefactor? Isn't just possible the CHL as a business likes the cost of this or are they banging on doors telling their employees to please spend some of their money. Would the league be pleased to see this cost triple? This is big business, the bean counters love cost certainty. Colleges know exactly what their budget is and have everything to lose if a kid can't make grades. Does the CHL have that same commitment ?

If you can honrestly answer these questions and still believe the benefit is superior there is really nothing left to discuss

[The Exiled One]

The NCAA absolutely forces you to choose and it forces you to choose at the young age of 15 or 16. If you choose NCAA you can't play major junior. You have to forfeit the right to participate in the single best hockey development program in the world.

If you choose major junior you can participate in the single best hockey development program in the world and still play college hockey if you want to. Lots of world class schools north of the border also have great hockey teams.

Okay, I'm not sure how you're going to spin this, but Tyler Pitlick? Jim O'Brien? Mark Parrish? Cam Reid? They all played NCAA then played WHL.

*This should be a neck wrenching twist.*

[scorekeeper]

scorekeeper keeps comparing the WHL on a whole to the NCAA on a whole because the numbers work better for him. However, the major difference is that the player doesn't get to pick his WHL team. Players get to pick their NCAA team.

That's not neccesarily true on either side.

Many kids , especially Americans, do get to pick their WHL team, because so few of them actually get drafted. There were only a handful of 1998's selected in the bantam draft this year. The rest are free to pick up the phone and inquire abbout tryouts.

On the other side, you don't get to pick your NCAA team, as you are limited to those that make you offers, or, try your luck as a walk-on.

[scorekeeper]

Okay, I'm not sure how you're going to spin this, but Tyler Pitlick? Jim O'Brien? Mark Parrish? Cam Reid? They all played NCAA then played WHL.

*This should be a neck wrenching twist.*

Not sure what you are looking for here ... what about em? Are you refering to the fact the NHL teams that drafted them prefered they played WHL? That's no suprise.

Don't you remember when the Islanders yanked Oksposo from the Gophers because they felt his development was getting stunted.

[Lazy Scout]

WHL scholarship program is the single best available

Single best in Canada maybe, Are we all so ignorant down here that we've failed to notice, that statement is as nonsensical as me claiming the NCAA is the better route to the NHL. I've not seen a single statistic that comes even close to demonstrating this. Graduation rates....period, its the only quantifiable stat we can use and there is simply no comparison.

It's the best scholly because it's fully paid for, up to 7 years worth and the student has a wider variety of schools to choose from. I challenge you to find an NCAA athletic scholarship that compares.

I'll wait though. Name one ...

I would say an athletic scholarship to Notre Dame at $54,000 x 4 years = $216,000 is way better than any scholarship to a state school in Minnesota or Canada. Once again you are very vague when you say you have many schools to pick from. Sure, but you might have to pay the difference on them. Looks like to me that this isn't the best scholarship scenario in the world.

[The Exiled One]

On the other side, you don't get to pick your NCAA team, as you are limited to those that make you offers, or, try your luck as a walk-on.

Like I said, if you're good enough to make one of those teams.

Secondly, you know for damn well why more Minnesotans aren't drafted in the WHL. It's because most Minnesotans prefer to play college hockey. So, you're basically advocating the corrupt WHL tradition of falsely claiming to be interested in college so that you go undrafted or drop in the draft to your desired WHL team. Nice. Way to own up to the corruption.

[The Exiled One]

Okay, I'm not sure how you're going to spin this, but Tyler Pitlick? Jim O'Brien? Mark Parrish? Cam Reid? They all played NCAA then played WHL.

*This should be a neck wrenching twist.*

Not sure what you are looking for here ... what about em?

Uhhhh.... you lied?

If you choose NCAA you can't play major junior.

[scorekeeper]

WHL scholarship program is the single best available

Single best in Canada maybe, Are we all so ignorant down here that we've failed to notice, that statement is as nonsensical as me claiming the NCAA is the better route to the NHL. I've not seen a single statistic that comes even close to demonstrating this. Graduation rates....period, its the only quantifiable stat we can use and there is simply no comparison.

It's the best scholly because it's fully paid for, up to 7 years worth and the student has a wider variety of schools to choose from. I challenge you to find an NCAA athletic scholarship that compares.

I'll wait though. Name one ...

I would say an athletic scholarship to Notre Dame at $54,000 x 4 years = $216,000 is way better than any scholarship to a state school in Minnesota or Canada. Once again you are very vague when you say you have many schools to pick from. Sure, but you might have to pay the difference on them. Looks like to me that this isn't the best scholarship scenario in the world.

Again, you might get all swayed by the price tag, but just because something is more expensive doesn't mean it's better. Notre Dame doesn't rank in the top 100 schools in the world.

University of BC, University of Toronto and McGill all do. If I am choosing between a full ride Masters degree at McGill and a 75% paid for bachelor degree at Notre Dame ... it's a no brainer. My kid is at McGill in a heart beat. Hell, I'll pay 25% McGill over 100% at Notre Dame under same circumstance. It's not even close.

Get an additional year hockey at McGill to boot.