Ya, one of the advantages of going the CHL route is that you get to play in the CHL (which is better than any junior hockey or high school leagues) before 18, but once you've shown capable of being a top player in the CHL, there's not a whole lot more to gain from playing another year in the CHL.
The Vancouver Media Thread | Part VIII
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
Ya, one of the advantages of going the CHL route is that you get to play in the CHL (which is better than any junior hockey or high school leagues) before 18, but once you've shown capable of being a top player in the CHL, there's not a whole lot more to gain from playing another year in the CHL.
In terms of coaching, NCAA coaches have more time with fewer games and less travel (via bus) to work with the players. I'm guessing that the higher end kids are not doing a full course load. They are there for 1 or 2 seasons and leaving to go pro, like Quinn, Boeser, Williander, etc. did. Plus, there is then the option to select your program, vs getting drafted into one.
CHL is better than tier II BCHL, AJHL, OJHL, etc. And better than USHL. Those leagues have players in the same age range. NCAA, older group. The ones who stay for JR and SR years, not as talented as the ones capable of going pro after FR/SO year, but still physically more advanced at 21/22 to play against.
Plus, money difference in how well everything is funded. NCAA programs have better everything than CHL clubs, plus you can add in AHL teams that don't share facilities with their NHL club, like in SJ, Win who play out of the same arena. But, places like Utica, Adirondak, Providence, Bakersfield are unlikely to have practice facilities that come close to rivaling what the BU, BC, UND, Denver have.
I think what it really means is the the CHL will become feeder league for going to the NCAA. We will see if anything changes and we really won't know for years down the road when not only is this not new, but players will start to learn their best paths.
In a league where kids start at 16-17, while ncaa starts at 18, that’s going to be a natural down the line. No way chl can compete with the donations these us colleges get from their alumni and what gets put back into the programs.
I’d leave for ncaa as well if I was accepted.
Biggest losers are those kids at the bottom end of the ncaa rosters who will lose their spot to a chl kid coming in. As well as the tier ii programs in Canada and USHL as their better kids will likely opt for chl since they no longer are impacted by eligibility issues with the chl and ncaa.
I am 99% in agreement, but I do think the CHL could sell a get use to NHL schedule to some with the number of games they play. However they absolutely would need to get their facilities closer to NCAA, they will never have the money to be close, but closer is doable.
Well, I think for the CHL they need to get better at player/skill development. IMO too many games. They have multi hour bus rides from city to city. Might need to figure out more series based games (like MLB) to lessen burden of travel. In order to open up more practice time to work on their skills at 16-17.
It seems backwards in that 16-17 year olds are playing 70 games yet NCAA at 18-22 it's like 40 or something.
Totally agree. CHL takes easier route. Much easier to play games than organize a good skill developing practice. Playing games mainly on weekends, like the NCAA is not only advantageous for improved skill development, but also for those who really do value an education and recognize they are not likely to achieve their pro hockey goal.
Sadly, it's their business model where the CHL needs the gate receipts. Don't have the alum donors dropping millions into their programs.
The kids who will now head to NCAA, if they continue to be the first and second rounders, these were not the kids likely to use the college funding that the CHL clubs have to pay for as those need to be used like 2 years after leaving the CHL. These kids were going pro. So, no savings there for the CHL clubs.
Will never have the money to match facilities.
But, it does seem odd to have 16-19 year olds play 70 games then if they go NCAA it drops to almost half. At a younger age, kids need the puck on their stick through practices more than playing games. But, there really isn't a solution to cutting games. Outside of scheduling where you make fewer trips into a city for 1 or 2 trips per year vs 3-4 trips a year. See if they can add some extra practices that way.
