theo6060
Registered User
What are the pros and cons for players playing in each of those leagues? How do they compare? Any insight is appreciated.
theo6060 said:What are the pros and cons for players playing in each of those leagues? How do they compare? Any insight is appreciated.
I'm not sure how much Ncaa hockey you watch,but it's far from wide open. It's pretty much clutch and grab and trap nowadays. Only 4 teams in the Ncaa averaged over 4 goals a game last year and a majority were in the low 3's high 2's and only 1 player in the Ncaa had over 1.5 points a game and that was in a weak CHA conference. And you can top that off with 6 goalies having gaa's under 2.00 which shows how defensive minded most of the teams are now.X-SHARKIE said:I honestly think that the CHL is the best place possible for a North American player to devolope.
I see alot of NCAA games and I love the hockey, It's very wide open and dirty though because the refs put their wistles in their pockets most of the time.
You can play upwards of 40ish games a year if you're on a good team in the NCAA but CHL players often get to play 70 games a year! and IMO vs better competition and more NHL like game.
NCAA is a great place for skilled players though like Vanek and Parise because it's an open game and they get to work on their crafts more then a guy in the WHL who is looking at the trap.
If somone said....what would you rather watch an NCAA game or a CHL game? It would be very close, but if somone asked which is the better league for devolopment? I would say CHL.
NCAA Hockey Fan said:I'm not sure how much Ncaa hockey you watch,but it's far from wide open. It's pretty much clutch and grab and trap nowadays. Only 4 teams in the Ncaa averaged over 4 goals a game last year and a majority were in the low 3's high 2's and only 1 player in the Ncaa had over 1.5 points a game and that was in a weak CHA conference. And you can top that off with 6 goalies having gaa's under 2.00 which shows how defensive minded most of the teams are now.
montreal said:Your talking about two totally different leagues based on age.
CHL is mostly 16-19 year olds with a few 20 year olds for the most part.
NCAA is mostly 18/19-23 year olds. Rare to see 17 year olds, and it seems to me there's more and more 19 year old freshmen, who go the USHL or Junior A route first, as the NCAA is a physically mature league since there's a big difference in strength between a 17-19 year old and a 20-22 year old.
This makes it hard to compare. The NCAA schedule is also totally different. Almost every game is friday/saturday night (mostly, there are some sunday or weeknight games but they seem rare in Div 1) Then there's the amount of games. Ivy leauge plays on 29, non Ivy play around 36-40. CHL play twice that.
Please I don't want to hear any crap from any poster saying I am saying one league is better then the other. Both have pros and cons and it's up to the individual to see what league is best for them. I like watching both leagues, although I enjoy the Q the most.
La-La-Laprise said:I think if the cream of the crop played from NCAA and CHL it would be a dandy game. Hard to pick who would win.
Thing is though the CIS allstar team dismantled the 2003 World Junior team in exhibition games. I attribute that to the CIS players being mid 20's and physically more mature. Upshall was getting tossed around, i actually thought he was going to get hurt.
I am going to garner a guess that NCAA players, for the most part, are more physically mature than the average CHLer.
Reveille said:I'd say the same.
I think that if it was the NCAA allstars vs. the CHL allstars that the NCAA would destroy them. But that's soley due to them being older, more physically mature, etc.
The skill level is high in both leagues. Two totally different styles for the most parts.
I think the only real difference maker is if the player wants to get an education at the same time.
Matt MacInnis said:Laprise, I like how you tossed in a token Moosehead along with just throwing out some recognizable CHL names. I'm afraid that I strongly disagree that he belongs among those guys though, but we'll settle that debate in 10 years.
PMP5030 said:Having seen quite a bit of the OHL and NCAA hockey, I'll repeat what I always say:
If you're truly good enough to make the NHL, it doesn't matter where you play.
Both offer hockey against quality competition. Most of the NHL "phenoms" play CHL because you can get into it sooner agewise. The NCAA favors more the late-bloomer.
I will say that team defense is much more sophisticated in the NCAA. Many teams employ more pro-style trapping defenses than what I've typically seen in the OHL. A skilled player in the OHL has room to operate that isn't normally there in NCAA hockey. Which I attribute mostly to the fact that NCAA players are (as noted before) older and more experienced.
Matt MacInnis said:More than a dozen. I'm just not very enamoured by him. When I see him play, I just don't see him being able to transfer his skills to the NHL.