Blue and Green
Out to lunch
- Dec 17, 2017
- 4,342
- 4,772
Plenty more CHL '05s will follow as time goes along.Brayden Dube (2005, WHL, Prince Albert Raiders) commits to Bemidji State.
Plenty more CHL '05s will follow as time goes along.Brayden Dube (2005, WHL, Prince Albert Raiders) commits to Bemidji State.
To your first point - Yes that's fair, we can agree there.London's not the average CHL team, yes, just as the example of Boston College isn't the average NCAA team.
Re: depth of talent, plenty of USHLers get drafted but a lot of those guys jump immediately afterwards to NCAA (Matvei Gridin even moved to the Q), whereas most CHL draftees have stayed in their league for the duration of their non-overage eligibility.
I've watched the Canucks' AHL team for the past several seasons so I know that the AHL isn't an easy place for younger players, but a fair chunk of the first-round 18YO's and a moderately larger group of drafted 19YO's could play competently in that league right now.
Max Namestnikov (2004, OHL, Guelph Storm) commits to Bemidji State.
There are perhaps 5-6 18-year-old elite players in any given year who have the strength and ability to play solid minutes in the AHL. There are more or less two dozen 19-year-old players who could do the same. It is a fairly small number, but this is who we mean when we say the elite prospects who may sign an ELC and forgo the NCAA route.To your first point - Yes that's fair, we can agree there.
I'm 25 minutes away from the Cleveland Monsters and go to several games a year and watch online. I'm going tomorrow for the Lumberjacks throwback night. Gavin Brindley is an example of who I'm talking about - wasn't first round but could have slid into the back of day 1. He absolutely would have been one of the better 19 y/o CHLers if he wasn't at Michigan and when I watch him play in the AHL there's times where he's good, but others where you see he needs to adjust to more physical players leaning on him when he tries to make plays with the puck, and pace of the game. He wouldn't have been ready at 18. Yes some of the high end teenagers could play there, but I don't think as big of a portion as suggested would have success and could hurt development. We'll see where this takes us but I appreciate the dialogue.
This 100%. People sees guys in junior put up great numbers at 17/18 and think they will do well in the AHL. Its really not the case. If they do change the CBA to allow CHLers into the AHL before 20, I'd like to see it on a very limited basis. Something like you're limited to 1 U20 CHL player in the AHL per year. It should be about actual development and not just having a kid learn to survive in the AHL. This idea should extend to going to the NCAA as well. It's a half step below the AHL so guys picked in the top 40 or so picks should be able to handle NCAA at 18/19. But for guys picked round 3 and on, it should be about more than just surviving the NCAA.To your first point - Yes that's fair, we can agree there.
2nd - Correct that's what I was saying earlier, USHLers leave before 20 and CHL draftees had to stay because of the CHL draft rule keeping their top 18-19's in the league. As you know it's either NHL or back to junior. I just wonder what the shift might look like now that they're NCAA eligible. This opens up a whole new option for even the mid round types to leave before twenty. If the top guys can leave and play in the AHL like you're saying, the next tier could move onto NCAA. Thus watering down the league which was my other original point.
I'm 25 minutes away from the Cleveland Monsters and go to several games a year and watch online. I'm going tomorrow for the Lumberjacks throwback night. Gavin Brindley is an example of who I'm talking about - wasn't first round but could have slid into the back of day 1. He absolutely would have been one of the better 19 y/o CHLers if he wasn't at Michigan and when I watch him play in the AHL there's times where he's good, but others where you see he needs to adjust to more physical players leaning on him when he tries to make plays with the puck, and pace of the game. He wouldn't have been ready at 18. Yes some of the high end teenagers could play there, but I don't think as big of a portion as suggested would have success and could hurt development. We'll see where this takes us but I appreciate the dialogue.
One of the positive of the new rule it should make college hockey dramatically deeper which could have a lot of teams in the mix . Yea , BU - Michigan will get the stud kids at 18 but other programs start getting high end 20 year old kids from CHL verse kids from the Nahl could make huge difference . However , it looks to me college hockey just got little older not younger.
The only college hockey fans happy about a bunch more 21 year old freshmen coming in are those supporting programs that have never figured out how to compete.
25 year olds playing against 18 (or 17) years old in college hockey is stupid.
The 18 vs 21 stat makes sense. But I had seen a stat on here that I felt was incorrect on the number of freshmen by age, and I never saw a good link confirming it. I would reckon the average age of freshmen these days to be between like 19.8 and 20.4, but as I mentioned skewing higher and higher at the crappy schools.You do realize that for the past several years there have been far far more 21-year-old freshman than 18 your old ones, right?
This new rule change will probably make true freshman even scarcer, but this is the trajectory D-1 hockey has been on. It's a way for the smaller to mid-tier programs compete against the traditional powers.
All in all though, I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that limits 21-year-old freshman.
It’s completely ridiculous but the college’s don’t really care either . Their have been talk to lower age by one year which i think is just common sense ?The only college hockey fans happy about a bunch more 21 year old freshmen coming in are those supporting programs that have never figured out how to compete.
25 year olds playing against 18 (or 17) years old in college hockey is stupid.
The 18 vs 21 stat makes sense. But I had seen a stat on here that I felt was incorrect on the number of freshmen by age, and I never saw a good link confirming it. I would reckon the average age of freshmen these days to be between like 19.8 and 20.4, but as I mentioned skewing higher and higher at the crappy schools.
So ya, I never liked 21 year old freshmen and this will just make the problem worse.
The colleges don't care because it's the only way they can compete.It’s completely ridiculous but the college’s don’t really care either . Their have been talk to lower age by one year which i think is just common sense ?
I know. Our ex-coach was pushing that and we all wanted it.About six or seven years ago the Big 10 (hockey part) attempted to float a proposal limiting 20 year old freshman. It didn't get very far as most other conferences, teams and even the USHL/NAHL along with USA Hockey were adamantly opposed to the proposal.
It’s completely ridiculous but the college’s don’t really care either . Their have been talk to lower age by one year which i think is just common sense ?
I am curious why some people get hung up on NCAA hockey having players in the their 20's? Like is it just the American stereotypical ideal that college is for people aged 18-22 and anything outside of that is wrong? If you haven't used up your eligibility in some way, have at it. 60 year old freshman? Go for it. If people truly want NCAA hockey to be inline with other sports, junior hockey would have to be eliminated entirely and HS's would have to seriously step their game up. Neither of these things are likely to happen.
It's a mostly Minnesotan complaint because Minnesota is the only state with competitive HS hockey that consistently produces D1 talent. Because of how hockey is structured. how expensive it is, lack of rinks in most of the country, and lack of significant minor hockey talent bases in most of the States, high schools having hockey is near impossible in most places. And even where possible, many programs are forced to co-op.I am curious why some people get hung up on NCAA hockey having players in the their 20's? Like is it just the American stereotypical ideal that college is for people aged 18-22 and anything outside of that is wrong? If you haven't used up your eligibility in some way, have at it. 60 year old freshman? Go for it. If people truly want NCAA hockey to be inline with other sports, junior hockey would have to be eliminated entirely and HS's would have to seriously step their game up. Neither of these things are likely to happen.
Is this a serious question?You’re intentionally avoiding the larger point that they haven’t gotten those players in prior seasons.
What has all of a sudden changed that will make them get those players in future seasons?
London's not the average CHL team, yes, just as the example of Boston College isn't the average NCAA team.
Re: depth of talent, plenty of USHLers get drafted but a lot of those guys jump immediately afterwards to NCAA (Matvei Gridin even moved to the Q), whereas most CHL draftees have stayed in their league for the duration of their non-overage eligibility.
Some could but a lot really couldn't and playing big MPG versus barely hanging around in the AHL which is a mens league is a larger jump than people are assuming here.I've watched the Canucks' AHL team for the past several seasons so I know that the AHL isn't an easy place for younger players, but a fair chunk of the first-round 18YO's and a moderately larger group of drafted 19YO's could play competently in that league right now.
Is that really so bad? I bet most of these kids that are good enough for junior hockey want to play the sport for as long as they can. Even if it means they are just minor league lifers. They can always go to school/get the degree later. For most of these guys, this window is their peak in the sport they love. I don't think they care they are in "limbo" or that they might delay getting a 9 to 5 until they are in their late 20's or early 30's.High-end players, like top 3 round picks, shouldn't be scare off by a bunch of 21 year old freshmen that aren't going anywhere. There won't be a seismic shift in college hockey demographics because these overagers are just committing to spots that already went to overagers... it's just a shuffling of which overagers get the spots.
The perverse effect (Kingpin) is that it makes it more and more apparent to rank and file players that in order to have the opportunity to play NCAA Hockey, you have to spend up to three players of your life after high school in a state of limbo. You're not fully in school as a student getting your degree from the school you intend to. You're not really working full time. You're just playing hockey. For players that aren't going anywhere with hockey, it's kind of a waste of time, but a necessary one to fulfill their goal of playing college hockey. It is what it is, but just unfortunate for individuals that would like to play D1 Hockey and also keep their life moving in the right direction so they aren't waiting until they're 25 to start their real post-hockey career.
Is it the worst thing to ever happen to society? No, not really. Is it a bit silly that we're putting hundreds of men into a further delayed state of adolescence to squeeze out every bit of athletic juice at what are functionally amateur levels? Perhaps. Would there be a point where it is "too much"? What if after Junior Hockey, it became the norm to play two additional seasons of Young Adult Hockey, where players aged out of Junior, then played their 21 and 22 year old seasons, and then entered NCAA Hockey at Age 23?Is that really so bad? I bet most of these kids that are good enough for junior hockey want to play the sport for as long as they can. Even if it means they are just minor league lifers. They can always go to school/get the degree later. For most of these guys, this window is their peak in the sport they love. I don't think they care they are in "limbo" or that they might delay getting a 9 to 5 until they are in their late 20's or early 30's.
That wording is a bit dramatic. I'd argue there's nothing silly about it. It's just people's arbitrary notions that at a certain age you need to be in the work force. Even more arbitrary when you apply that standard to high end athletes (and yes even 4th liners at low end programs are high end athletes).Is it the worst thing to ever happen to society? No, not really. Is it a bit silly that we're putting hundreds of men into a further delayed state of adolescence to squeeze out every bit of athletic juice at what are functionally amateur levels? Perhaps. Would there be a point where it is "too much"? What if after Junior Hockey, it became the norm to play two additional seasons of Young Adult Hockey, where players aged out of Junior, then played their 21 and 22 year old seasons, and then entered NCAA Hockey at Age 23?
Is it the worst thing to ever happen to society? No, not really. Is it a bit silly that we're putting hundreds of men into a further delayed state of adolescence to squeeze out every bit of athletic juice at what are functionally amateur levels? Perhaps. Would there be a point where it is "too much"? What if after Junior Hockey, it became the norm to play two additional seasons of Young Adult Hockey, where players aged out of Junior, then played their 21 and 22 year old seasons, and then entered NCAA Hockey at Age 23?