Toggle sidebar

CHL Can Now Play NCAA - Changes Everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtechkid
  • Start date Start date
WarriorofTime said:
Oh got it you’re moving the goal posts because words like “could help” are beyond your understanding. Yeah thats cool.
Click to expand...
You brought up an American, the comment was about canadian jersey sales which they get a minuscule fraction “””if””” they have their name on it

Zach edey for example (substantially bigger sport)
Was asked about his jersey sales as that’s what he was eligble for. He said it got him a nice meal out

HUGE. Keeping up with the Jonses
 
Breakers said:
You brought up an American, the comment was about canadian jersey sales which they get a monocular fraction if they have their name on it

Zach edey for example (substantially bigger sport)
Was asked about his jersey sales as that’s what he was eligble for. He said it got him a nice meal out

HUGE. Keeping up with the Jonses
Click to expand...
Keep up man. Canadians get nil money. Go check ncaa basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torts and Hockeyville USA
A thought experiment with no wrong answer I think, how is "success" measured in this new world by the parties involved?

Everybody's talking about this new "CHL-NCAA-NHL" pipeline but that's not going to be the case for most players. There are going to be plenty of CHL players who's hockey career outcome is going to be essentially no different than the USports path of years prior. They'll play out their CHL eligibility (to 19 or 20), then play out their NCAA eligibility, get a degree and go on to the rest of their life or they'll sign a Euro or lower level pro deal.

If a hypothetical example player named Kavin McGenna plays for Quendelton State University in the NCAA for his draft year, Quendelton gets announced on draft day but McGenna would probably still be in discussion for #1 even if he didn't play hockey in his draft year. Is McGenna a NCAA success story or are they just the league he happened to be in as he crossed the hypothetical finish line of development from junior team(s) prior? Both places will consider them a NHL alumni though.

I definitely think CHL teams would be and are considering the departures of their unsigned/undrafted overagers, or soon to be overagers, to the NCAA but we'll have to see what happens when it's not those players.

Like I said at the top, I don't think there's a wrong answer but I definitely think people need to temper their expectations about future NHLers when posting every single CHL commitment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast and qcal1427
2Mototik2 said:
A thought experiment with no wrong answer I think, how is "success" measured in this new world by the parties involved?

Everybody's talking about this new "CHL-NCAA-NHL" pipeline but that's not going to be the case for most players. There are going to be plenty of CHL players who's hockey career outcome is going to be essentially no different than the USports path of years prior. They'll play out their CHL eligibility (to 19 or 20), then play out their NCAA eligibility, get a degree and go on to the rest of their life or they'll sign a Euro or lower level pro deal.

If a hypothetical example player named Kavin McGenna plays for Quendelton State University in the NCAA for his draft year, Quendelton gets announced on draft day but McGenna would probably still be in discussion for #1 even if he didn't play hockey in his draft year. Is McGenna a NCAA success story or are they just the league he happened to be in as he crossed the hypothetical finish line of development from junior team(s) prior? Both places will consider them a NHL alumni though.

I definitely think CHL teams would be and are considering the departures of their unsigned/undrafted overagers, or soon to be overagers, to the NCAA but we'll have to see what happens when it's not those players.

Like I said at the top, I don't think there's a wrong answer but I definitely think people need to temper their expectations about future NHLers when posting every single CHL commitment.
Click to expand...
Yes, bit of a tough question to answer directly and one that largely gets to the heart of many discussions around CHL vs. NCAA, whether to go to the NTDP, how the USHL should operate, different development paths, etc. that flows down all the way to younger ranks when families with players as young as 10 start considering moving around for their hockey "careers" in order to maximize chances of a professional career (not just in North America btw).

When Connor McDavid first enters hockey with all the various other kids, it's not like all the kids are the exact same, and McDavid gets the magic hockey development dust sprinkled on them and then come 17 he's the first overall pick. From the moment he first stepped on the ice, he's going to be way better than every other kid that also stepped on the ice, by a wide wide wide wide margin. While some kids are late bloomers, many will follow such a similar story. Every time they step on the ice, they are better than everybody else.

While we know he won't go from first stepping on the ice to being the best player in the world automatically, it is difficult to say the level of "credit" any specific development path along the way played in becoming the reason. At that point, he will likely follow the same path all the other great players did before him, not because we necessarily know this is what produces players better than any other hypothetical system could, but more so, we know at the very least it doesn't harm them. If it worked for Crosby, worked for Lemieux, worked for Gretzky, worked for Orr, then what we can almost certainly say is that "if it doesn't work for McDavid, it's probably not because of a bad development path, but some reason personal to McDavid".

In truth, we could probably surmise that as long as a talented player like McDavid (a) is on the ice regularly, (b) participating in hockey drills and games regularly, (c) is continually being moved up and challenged with increasingly better competition, (d) has a good work ethic and attitude, (e) has favorable genetic results as he grows in terms of his height/build/physical characteristics, etc. then it probably does not matter so much if he had gone one particular "development path" versus another.

Of course that won't stop every person he encountered along the way from taking some degree of credit to say 'see, look what I did, I created McDavid!' like a Frankenstein's monster built in a lab, as a way to advance their own interests. When all we can truly say with any degree of certainty is "well you didn't screw him up at least".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2Mototik2, Hockeyville USA and qcal1427
2Mototik2 said:
A thought experiment with no wrong answer I think, how is "success" measured in this new world by the parties involved?

Everybody's talking about this new "CHL-NCAA-NHL" pipeline but that's not going to be the case for most players. There are going to be plenty of CHL players who's hockey career outcome is going to be essentially no different than the USports path of years prior. They'll play out their CHL eligibility (to 19 or 20), then play out their NCAA eligibility, get a degree and go on to the rest of their life or they'll sign a Euro or lower level pro deal.

If a hypothetical example player named Kavin McGenna plays for Quendelton State University in the NCAA for his draft year, Quendelton gets announced on draft day but McGenna would probably still be in discussion for #1 even if he didn't play hockey in his draft year. Is McGenna a NCAA success story or are they just the league he happened to be in as he crossed the hypothetical finish line of development from junior team(s) prior? Both places will consider them a NHL alumni though.

I definitely think CHL teams would be and are considering the departures of their unsigned/undrafted overagers, or soon to be overagers, to the NCAA but we'll have to see what happens when it's not those players.

Like I said at the top, I don't think there's a wrong answer but I definitely think people need to temper their expectations about future NHLers when posting every single CHL commitment.
Click to expand...
I think success for the NCAA is the easiest to define. They have already positioned themselves as the best (in terms of quality of play) junior league in the world. Success means continuing to widen that gap in on-ice play over the CHL by poaching the players that can make the biggest NCAA impact. That will take on different forms for say Michigan (success being recruiting a McKenna type) vs. say a Vermont (who can maybe get a CHL overager that is better than a USHL guy). They could always sell themselves based off of the lifestyle, education, and smaller gap to pro hockey quality-wise. They just now don't have an artificially limited pool of players to make that pitch to.

For the CHL, success will probably be in two main avenues. The first is convincing the top drafted and D0 Canadian prospects to stay. They are a business, and they sell tickets based off of having the McDavids and Bedards and McKennas of the world. Yes there's always been guys like Makar and Fantilli that have gone to the NCAA before, but that path got a whole lot more straightforward and even losing some of these guys would be a massive hit to the prestige and bottom line of the league. They have the best top-end drafted talent and need to keep them. The second part will be increasing the talent at the bottom of their rosters, which is where you see real gaps currently with the NCAA. This will rely on convincing American players to forgo the NTDP or USHL and come north instead.

I'll group the USHL and USA Hockey together as I feel like they generally have the same aims -- make sure that there is still a viable pre-NCAA path for players (and mostly American players) that does not rely on Hockey Canada. The success of this will probably be in their ability to keep the second tier of American junior players (the guys that are cut from the NTDP) home.

Finally for the NHL I see two avenues for success. The first is purely selfishly to use the upheaval as a forcing function to obtain a more standardized and favorable ruleset for drafted prospects. Uniform lengths of rights for drafted players, major changes to the CHL transfer agreement to allow for younger guys to be in the AHL, etc.. At a more broad "stewards of the game" level though I definitely do think that success for them means making sure that all three of the main leagues -- NCAA, CHL, and USHL -- remain healthy even if their roles slightly shift. They've already announced more funding for USA Hockey and the USHL, I'm sure there will be more things of that nature on the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 1, guests: 5)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom