The CHL agreement pays for room and food also but if you play 4 years in the whl it's value comes to about 45-50K(depends which school you go to) vs D1 value is about 150-200K depending on school. Can't speak on attendance other than Regina and U of S(Saskatoon) but they get over 1K a game, sometimes quite a bit more.
| Rank | Team | Dates | Total Attendance | Average Attendance | Capacity | Cap. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | North Dakota | 16 | 185,504 | 11,594 | 11,634 | 99.7 |
| 2 | Minnesota | 14 | 132,004 | 9,429 | 10,257 | 91.9 |
| 3 | Wisconsin | 12 | 105,625 | 8,802 | 15,359 | 57.3 |
| 4 | Boston College | 11 | 76,705 | 6,973 | 7,884 | 88.4 |
| 5 | Omaha | 13 | 87,741 | 6,749 | 7,898 | 85.5 |
| 6 | Michigan State | 11 | 70,857 | 6,442 | 6,114 | 105.4 |
| 7 | Minnesota Duluth | 11 | 69,286 | 6,299 | 6,756 | 93.2 |
| 8 | Penn State | 13 | 80,815 | 6,217 | 5,782 | 107.5 |
| 9 | Denver | 13 | 78,811 | 6,062 | 6,026 | 100.6 |
| 10 | Michigan | 13 | 75,019 | 5,771 | 5,800 | 99.5 |
yeah the NCAA experience is definitely better but the routes are kinda inverse. The NCAA route kids play in front of less than 1K in general for 2-3 years before going to the schools but they have to actually earn a scholarship vs kids who go WHL route play in front of 5K+ for most teams then if they don't make pro go to CIS. The one thing though is WHL path guarentees some sort of money even if you suck/get hurt where schools can de commit players if they don't perform/get hurt the NCAA route. Both definitely have pros and cons but both are good routes, depends on what the player wants. In general I'd say CHL is the best route for high end players where NCAA is better for mid tier talent or players who are undersized
Schools can’t decommit kids. They can ghost them and imply they don’t want them anymore, which does happen. But there are also cases where a kid gets a full boat and doesn’t touch ice for 4 years.
The Western States Hockey League had a revolving door of franchises before it added a bunch of teams in western Canada and then ultimately went belly up.
Ya that's pretty much it from what I've gathered. Right now based on Heisenberg's file the BCHL have about 160 kids committed for D1. USHL has 2x that amount. I think the idea is to raise the base level of competition and entice more kids to stay in Canada. Also, the BCHL has become a good place for American kids who'd be 3rd or 4th liners in the USHL to go get 1st or 2nd line and special teams minutes. They may be looking to gain more of them as well as gain more high end talent
That it did, the league was very much a mix of haves and have nots. But the top end teams (El Paso already moved to the NAHL) could've made it in the BCHL. Like Idaho, Colorado (Boulder), Ogden (Utah). There's an appetite for that level of hockey
Just a small correction, but Kent Johnson never played in the USHL. He was 2 years in the BCHL before heading to Michigan.
This is an interesting aspect of this. Junior hockey teams have a tricky dance, straddling a line of connection with the community and high level hockey. Do fans want a team that is elite even if there is no real connection to the community? Or will they put up with less quality if the players are local? The BCHL rule requires just 6 BC players. What's the best mix?
Describing a now defunct league that, throughout its history was a mixed bag of teams coming and going as "successful," well, that's the kind of thing I will not agree with.
It was successful in that it was around for nearly 30 years and the top half of the league was fairly consistent. They misplayed their hand as the American junior hockey landscape changed, but it was still a better league than you're giving credit
Major junior is a meat grinder, one that has always been unfair to all but the top line players. It's a little better now than in the days when the WHL isn't putting 14 and 15 year olds in their lineup to get themselves beaten up, but the irony is that it was the regulations brought in by Hockey Canada that made it slightly less of a meat grinder and now the BCHL wants to be more like major junior.
I think the phrase I used - "mixed bag" - was apt. Some good franchises and a lot of really bad ones. But a successful league would have a lot more stability than it had; individual franchises can maintain their own level of excellence but if the league itself isn't good, there won't be overall league stability. Strong structures can make up for individual weaknesses but individual strength cannot overcome strucctural weaknesses.
What kind of funding does the CHL get from Hockey Canada?
SJ and MJ are too far away. SJ is in good financial standing too, there's a lot less pressure on that league. MJ had some conversations about being absorbed by the SJ not too many years ago (never came close) so I imagine they'd be too focused on viability to consider anything.
