Usports versus NCAA Div-1

[DustyTendy35]

So I have scowered the internet and have not been able to find any confirmation as to if any Usports teams or NCAA teams have gone toe to toe in a game.

I'm brand new to this website so I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times.

Also on another note I truly believe there are Usports clubs that could take on the NCAA and likely win games. I just look at the age, and level of junior each side played.

Obviously the NCAA has had countless more players go on to play in the NHL than Usports but I believe it's because they are younger and still have years to develop whereas Usports guys more often than not have reached or are close to reaching their peak.

Just my thoughts, I'm expecting to get told how wrong I am so this should be a fun first thread on HF.

 

[AUS Fan]

I'm not gonna say too much on this, but I think your theory on NHL players is incorrect. NCAA players are generally "better" than USports players which is why they get drafted and play in the NHL. This is NOT to say that USports players are Bad, just that the NCAA has better skilled guys overall.

On the question of USports winning consistently, I also think you are incorrect. Some USport teams have won against NCAA teams, but more have lost.

I'll let the UNB and UofA cheerleaders get on and tell you about the time their team beat <insert name>.

 

[MiamiHockey]

So I have scowered the internet and have not been able to find any confirmation as to if any Usports teams or NCAA teams have gone toe to toe in a game.

I'm brand new to this website so I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times.

Also on another note I truly believe there are Usports clubs that could take on the NCAA and likely win games. I just look at the age, and level of junior each side played.

Obviously the NCAA has had countless more players go on to play in the NHL than Usports but I believe it's because they are younger and still have years to develop whereas Usports guys more often than not have reached or are close to reaching their peak.

Just my thoughts, I'm expecting to get told how wrong I am so this should be a fun first thread on HF.

Every season there are games between NCAA and USport teams, and the scores are posted on this very discussion board.

You have scoured nothing if you can't find this info.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

NCAA Div 1 competes with Major Junior hockey to recruit same-aged NHL draft picks and potential picks. U Sports is where Junior hockey graduates go for their education and to continue to play hockey. If there is an NHL draft pick playing for a U Sports team, it is because he wasn't signed (because he didn't develop as projected, or because of injuries).

So you really are talking about an apples and oranges comparison. The high-end skill level on Div 1 teams is much, much higher than U Sports. The U Sports advantage is experience - the players tend to be older than their NCAA counterparts, might have more hockey IQ, and are often heavier and stronger.

In my experience, when U Sports teams defeat NCAA teams (which is not often), they score early and then grind out a close-checking game to protect the score, counting on special teams to be the difference maker.

 

[Drummer]

The head-2-head games mostly occur in early October, before the NCAA season starts. You can review the results on USCHO for week-2 each season and see for yourself that USPORTS (CIAU/CIS) generally go 3-16-1 most seasons. The wins come from the top teir USPORTS teams (UNB, Alberta, Western/McGill, etc.) with everyone else being cannon fodder.

As Foyle mentioned, it's a Apples-Orange comparison. Different age, different skill level - different roads lead to different results.

The reason the head-2-heads exist is the US teams pay for the trip with the visitor able to pocket some cash if their frugal and a loss, if it occurs, doesn't count towards an NCAA team's record (win-win). There are no restrictions on international travel for USPORTS teams while NCAA teams can only travel once every 5 years. So, this has matured into a 1 or 2 game weekend trip for USPORTS teams to the USA every October as a team building venture and the NCAA teams get a game played prior to their season started against an easy opponent (relatively speaking).

The AUS (USPORTS Atlantic) no longer allows for exhibition during the active season (1st half and 2nd half), just before the season starts and Christmas - this has reduced some of the NCAA games this conference plays. They can no longer play an Ivy team which doesn't start until late October.

The only NCAA-USPORTS game played outside of the normal Fall/Christmas schedule and ignores international travel rules (or has special exemption) is the RMC-Army game that goes back and forth each season.

 

[Hollywood3]

So I have scowered the internet and have not been able to find any confirmation as to if any Usports teams or NCAA teams have gone toe to toe in a game.

I'm brand new to this website so I'm sure this has been discussed numerous times.

Also on another note I truly believe there are Usports clubs that could take on the NCAA and likely win games. I just look at the age, and level of junior each side played.

Obviously the NCAA has had countless more players go on to play in the NHL than Usports but I believe it's because they are younger and still have years to develop whereas Usports guys more often than not have reached or are close to reaching their peak.

Just my thoughts, I'm expecting to get told how wrong I am so this should be a fun first thread on HF.

Welcome!
For this year's results, I included the non-Bison games in the out-of-town scoreboard part of the Bison thread:
Preview 2019-20 Manitoba Bisons/CW Thread
Game 1 2019-20 Manitoba Bisons/CW Thread
Game 2 2019-20 Manitoba Bisons/CW Thread

They used to have an all-star game. I got some information and added it to Wikia:
North American University Hockey Championship

 

[AUS Fan]

I was in Detroit in '97 for the 1st game. I didn't realize it at the time but found out later that the US goalie was Tim Thomas. The 2nd year, Canadian players were allowed to play for the US.

 

[Dingle]

would most Canadian University team not be 1-2 years older? I am guessing NCAA teams like their freshman to be the normal 18/19 year old. Canadian hockey programs can rely heavily on ex-juniors, who are typically 20/21 year old.

I am not sure how much Red Shirting goes on in hockey, but even so, it would mean a red shirted Freshman is 19/20, while a first year U sport is 20/21.

While the skill level may be assumed to be higher at the NCAA, I would have assumed the added year or two of age would balance things out.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

would most Canadian University team not be 1-2 years older? I am guessing NCAA teams like their freshman to be the normal 18/19 year old. Canadian hockey programs can rely heavily on ex-juniors, who are typically 20/21 year old.

I am not sure how much Red Shirting goes on in hockey, but even so, it would mean a red shirted Freshman is 19/20, while a first year U sport is 20/21.

While the skill level may be assumed to be higher at the NCAA, I would have assumed the added year or two of age would balance things out.

Not sure about Canadian University, but most NCAA D1 freshman by far are 20 or 21. (not current but still accurate source: Freshman age limit proposal stirs up college hockey)

The consensus is that NCAA D1 is better than Canadian University because of different avenues of national talent development. Most NHL-bound American players go through college on their way to the pros. Kane, Jack Hughes and Matthews are the exceptions, not the norm. The norm is Tkachuk, Eichel, Quinn Hughes, Turcotte, Mittelstadt, Keller, and Larkin going all the way back to Pacioretty, Parise, Suter, Wheeler, and Kreider. It is the

The truly best Canadian players do not player Canadian University. The truly best play just major junior, with many playing there past their draft year because of the NHL's CHL-AHL development agreement. The NCAA rarely does not get America's high-end talent, Canadian University rarely snags Canada's high-end talent.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Question:
How does USports match up with NCAA Division 1?

Answer:
RMC 3, USMA 2

 

[BOS358]

Question:
How does USports match up with NCAA Division 1?

Answer:
RMC 3, USMA 2

More answers:
Boston University 3, Concordia 0
Vermont 6, Guelph 1

Worth noting that it took Vermont five games to collect six goals against NCAA teams.

 

[MiamiHockey]

More answers:
Boston University 3, Concordia 0
Vermont 6, Guelph 1

Worth noting that it took Vermont five games to collect six goals against NCAA teams.

Every single USports versus NCAA game takes place in the US with the exception of the RMC versus USMA game.

Check out the box scores and post the Power Play opportunities for those games.

The games would be much fairer if half of them were played on Canadian soil.

 

[BOS358]

I didn't know the rules were different between NCAA and USports. You learn something new every day.

But since you asked, BU had three power plays to Concordia's four. Must be those American refs. They also scored two shorthanded goals.

Guelph also gave up two shorthanded goals against the tenth-worst team in the NCAA that averages 1.62 goals per game and hasn't scored a shorty since then. Vermont's power play is 10% and their penalty kill is 79.8%. This is a reprehensibly-bad team and somehow they managed to put up six against Guelph...but yeah, it's the reffing.

 

[WildWillie]

In a nutshell:

NCAA 18-22 year old Tier 1 hockey.
CIS 21-26 year old Tier 2 hockey. (tier 2 in a sense that the best available players have moved on to AHL/NHL).

Some NCAA players like Eichel, Gaudreau, Caufield, etc. are head and toes better than guys in the CIS. Some CIS players could have played NCAA easy, and some NCAA would not be that great in CIS, but the vast majority are better, especially for their age.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I didn't know the rules were different between NCAA and USports. You learn something new every day.

But since you asked, BU had three power plays to Concordia's four. Must be those American refs. They also scored two shorthanded goals.

Guelph also gave up two shorthanded goals against the tenth-worst team in the NCAA that averages 1.62 goals per game and hasn't scored a shorty since then. Vermont's power play is 10% and their penalty kill is 79.8%. This is a reprehensibly-bad team and somehow they managed to put up six against Guelph...but yeah, it's the reffing.

With all due respect to your perspective based on two games, I have coached a USports team that played versus NCAA opponents.

There are, in fact, rules differences between USports and the NCAA and - more importantly - differences in how certain rules are enforced.

USports teams must adjust when they go south of the border. With the exception of Army, NCAA teams never have to adjust because they're not allowed to play exhibition games outside of the US (save for applying for one trip every four years, which they almost never do).

The NCAA has many excellent players, and several programs regularly produce good professional hockey players. The NCAA's allure in recruiting, however, is based on the notion that going to the NCAA is a superior route to professional hockey as compared to Major Junior (and USports) .. so it's not in the best interest of NCAA programmes to venture to Canada with the risk of losing. I get it. In fact, I kind of admire the NCAA hype machine.

But, I have happy news for you. collegehockeystats.net has boxscores for all of the USports vs NCAA Games this season.
Welcome to collegehockeystats.net

A quick summary of the Power Plays across 19 games:
USports teams enjoyed 80 Power Plays
NCAA teams enjoyed 118 Power Plays

So, ~ 50% more (4 versus 6 PPS = ~ 4 minutes per game).

Clearly, that difference was not identical across all games, and you selected two where there was no advantage.

 

[MiamiHockey]

In a nutshell:

NCAA 18-22 year old Tier 1 hockey.
CIS 21-26 year old Tier 2 hockey. (tier 2 in a sense that the best available players have moved on to AHL/NHL).

Some NCAA players like Eichel, Gaudreau, Caufield, etc. are head and toes better than guys in the CIS. Some CIS players could have played NCAA easy, and some NCAA would not be that great in CIS, but the vast majority are better, especially for their age.

This is quite a misleading "nutshell." Both the age and "Tier" are a bit off, and thus so is your statement that "the vast majority are better". The vast majority of NCAA players will not get a sniff of Pro Hockey ... A large proportion of USports players are those who have already figured that out after playing 5 years of Major Junior.

First, the "age" question: Many (most?) Division 1 programs are now recruiting 19 year olds heavily in order to remain competitive, so the notion that players enter the NCAA at 18 is very far from reality.

Eliteprospects has a nice summary function in which you can compare rosters:

NCAA: Elite Prospects - Team Comparison in ' . NCAA

USports: Elite Prospects - Team Comparison in ' . USports

The "Average Age" on each NCAA roster ranges from 20.41 (Wisconsin) to 22.59 (AIC). The average age of all rosters is 21.48, which far exceeds your estimate of ~ 20.

The "Average Age" on each USports roster ranges from 21.76 (RMC)to 23.38 (Ottawa). The average age of all rosters is 22.51.

So, the difference between NCAA and USports players, on average, is one year. I'd suggest that difference is largely driven by the "Overage" year in Major Junior.

Second question: what proportion of NCAA players move on to the NHL?

According to the NCAA, it's roughly 7%: Men's ice hockey: Probability of competing beyond high school

Yes, that's higher than USports, which is probably around 1%. But when you flip that number around, you have 93% of NCAA players versus 99% of USports players who'll never sniff the Show.

The difference is not as large as you suggest, and the NCAA is not the path to the NHL that it's made out to be.

 

[WildWillie]

This is quite a misleading "nutshell." Both the age and "Tier" are a bit off, and thus so is your statement that "the vast majority are better". The vast majority of NCAA players will not get a sniff of Pro Hockey ... A large proportion of USports players are those who have already figured that out after playing 5 years of Major Junior.

First, the "age" question: Many (most?) Division 1 programs are now recruiting 19 year olds heavily in order to remain competitive, so the notion that players enter the NCAA at 18 is very far from reality.

Eliteprospects has a nice summary function in which you can compare rosters:

NCAA: Elite Prospects - Team Comparison in ' . NCAA

USports: Elite Prospects - Team Comparison in ' . USports

The "Average Age" on each NCAA roster ranges from 20.41 (Wisconsin) to 22.59 (AIC). The average age of all rosters is 21.48, which far exceeds your estimate of ~ 20.

The "Average Age" on each USports roster ranges from 21.76 (RMC)to 23.38 (Ottawa). The average age of all rosters is 22.51.

So, the difference between NCAA and USports players, on average, is one year. I'd suggest that difference is largely driven by the "Overage" year in Major Junior.

Second question: what proportion of NCAA players move on to the NHL?

According to the NCAA, it's roughly 7%: Men's ice hockey: Probability of competing beyond high school

Yes, that's higher than USports, which is probably around 1%. But when you flip that number around, you have 93% of NCAA players versus 99% of USports players who'll never sniff the Show.

The difference is not as large as you suggest, and the NCAA is not the path to the NHL that it's made out to be.

Appreciate the work you put in to support your argument. I guess I will start at the top and work my way down:

The age they enter. I was just giving a range. the best players do graduate from the USHL and play as 18 YO's and generally move on younger. I will concede that it is closer than I thought overall.

In the CIS, their are only a handful of teams that are made up entirely of Major Junior regulars. The average team has roster makeup is a pretty high % of Junior A guys. Some Junior A guys with that have some experience as fringe Major Junior players and some that don't. This just isn't the case in NCAA div 1 hockey.

I may have been a bit misleading in my original statement but I stand by the statement that the "vast majority are better for their age". Simply look at the head to head games where it doesn't get any clearer. UNB is perennially 1 of the top (and often the top) CIS programs. in exhibition games and tournaments they have been to over the last decade, they generally lose far more than they win. Just looking at exhibition games I could find dating back to 2012-13. UNB is 3-8 against NCAA competition. I think that is a clear indication.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Appreciate the work you put in to support your argument. I guess I will start at the top and work my way down:

The age they enter. I was just giving a range. the best players do graduate from the USHL and play as 18 YO's and generally move on younger. I will concede that it is closer than I thought overall.

In the CIS, their are only a handful of teams that are made up entirely of Major Junior regulars. The average team has roster makeup is a pretty high % of Junior A guys. Some Junior A guys with that have some experience as fringe Major Junior players and some that don't. This just isn't the case in NCAA div 1 hockey.

I may have been a bit misleading in my original statement but I stand by the statement that the "vast majority are better for their age". Simply look at the head to head games where it doesn't get any clearer. UNB is perennially 1 of the top (and often the top) CIS programs. in exhibition games and tournaments they have been to over the last decade, they generally lose far more than they win. Just looking at exhibition games I could find dating back to 2012-13. UNB is 3-8 against NCAA competition. I think that is a clear indication.

Thank-you for the respectful response.

I have a great deal of experience scouting and recruiting (and competing with NCAA Programs), and I know USports inside and out. I've often been asked by parents about the different paths.

The idea that NCAA hockey players are "better at a young age" is both true and false. Here's why:

For good young hockey players who want a college degree, the decision to go Major Junior versus NCAA is complicated, and requires a long-term view. In essence, it comes down to their physical maturity when they are 16/17. Going Major Junior at that age requires them to play against elite young men: 19-20 year olds who are on the cusp of the NHL. Pursuing NCAA means they can play in a Tier II Junior A loop against lesser competition.

So, when you see USports rosters littered with guys who played 5 years of Major Junior, remember that at age 16/17 those men were playing the highest possible level of hockey. They were, in fact, "better at a young age" than their NCAA counterparts who were playing Junior A.

This physical maturity is reflected in the fact that USports rosters have heavier average weights and taller average heights that NCAA rosters.

By contrast, the NCAA route is better for players who are "late-bloomers", so to speak, or smaller players. My cousin plays in Hockey East, and he's around 5'4 and 150 lbs. He could not have played Major Junior at a young age, but now that he's 22 he can handle the tougher competition. He's a good Div 1 NCAA player, but he has no illusions about making the AHL or NHL.

So, your average 22 year old NCAA player might be a better player at 22 than your average USports player, but he was not a better player at 17.

They are different paths.

 

[Jack Flask]

Thank-you for the respectful response.

I have a great deal of experience scouting and recruiting (and competing with NCAA Programs), and I know USports inside and out. I've often been asked by parents about the different paths.

The idea that NCAA hockey players are "better at a young age" is both true and false. Here's why:

For good young hockey players who want a college degree, the decision to go Major Junior versus NCAA is complicated, and requires a long-term view. In essence, it comes down to their physical maturity when they are 16/17. Going Major Junior at that age requires them to play against elite young men: 19-20 year olds who are on the cusp of the NHL. Pursuing NCAA means they can play in a Tier II Junior A loop against lesser competition.

So, when you see USports rosters littered with guys who played 5 years of Major Junior, remember that at age 16/17 those men were playing the highest possible level of hockey. They were, in fact, "better at a young age" than their NCAA counterparts who were playing Junior A.

This physical maturity is reflected in the fact that USports rosters have heavier average weights and taller average heights that NCAA rosters.

By contrast, the NCAA route is better for players who are "late-bloomers", so to speak, or smaller players. My cousin plays in Hockey East, and he's around 5'4 and 150 lbs. He could not have played Major Junior at a young age, but now that he's 22 he can handle the tougher competition. He's a good Div 1 NCAA player, but he has no illusions about making the AHL or NHL.

So, your average 22 year old NCAA player might be a better player at 22 than your average USports player, but he was not a better player at 17.

They are different paths.

How do the top D3 teams stack up against D1 or Usports? While its clear many d3 programs are not even close in terms of talent ive heard programs like Utica, Geneseeo , Oswego are quite competive. Any other d3 programs that would be considered at the top? Any insight is appreciated.

 

[MiamiHockey]

How do the top D3 teams stack up against D1 or Usports? While its clear many d3 programs are not even close in terms of talent ive heard programs like Utica, Geneseeo , Oswego are quite competive. Any other d3 programs that would be considered at the top? Any insight is appreciated.

There have not been (to my knowledge) games featuring Div I vs Div III NCAA teams, and the most recent USports vs NCAA Div III games were about a decade ago.

I think it's fair to say that the top Div III teams would give lower-end Div I teams a run for their money.

Whereas top-end USports teams would wipe the ice with any Div III teams, the lower-end USports teams would be challenged by the top-end Div III teams.

Some of the lower-end Div III teams are pretty weak, though.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

There have not been (to my knowledge) games featuring Div I vs Div III NCAA teams, and the most recent USports vs NCAA Div III games were about a decade ago.

I think it's fair to say that the top Div III teams would give lower-end Div I teams a run for their money.

Whereas top-end USports teams would wipe the ice with any Div III teams, the lower-end USports teams would be challenged by the top-end Div III teams.

Some of the lower-end Div III teams are pretty weak, though.

There have been occasional games between DI and DIII teams. One very well known exhibition game is when Adrian beat Princeton at the start of last season (source: https://www.uscho.com/2018/10/15/th...exhibition-over-d-i-school-alex-berardinelli/). And that was with Princeton playing, and then most of the game riding, an embarrassingly high number of their top players.

These matchups don't happen often because the DI teams have nothing to gain. If they lose, which is possible considering the Top 5/10 DIII teams can easily compete with the bottom 5/10 DI teams, then it looks really bad. If they do beat them, then they're expected to and it's not a big deal.

But that is only the top few DIII teams. Like you said, DIII has a big drop off in talent with the bottom teams. The usual bottom feeders like Post and Framingham would get easily handled by the top end ACHA D1 teams like Minot State, Liberty, and Lindenwood.

 

[BOS358]

The NCAA's allure in recruiting, however, is based on the notion that going to the NCAA is a superior route to professional hockey as compared to Major Junior (and USports) .. so it's not in the best interest of NCAA programmes to venture to Canada with the risk of losing. I get it. In fact, I kind of admire the NCAA hype machine.

I work in midget/ prep hockey and see the dueling "hype machines" more than is healthy for any individual. The CHL's "hype machine" is promoting it as the fastest/ best route to the NHL. The NCAA's is education along with development. In 15 years in the swamp known as recruiting, I have yet to see a single representative from a USports team at any rink. They don't try to pull the academically-minded players from the States for some reason...

The hockey community is a small one. If the NHL were looking at USports players, people would be choosing McGill over Harvard, Waterloo over Clarkson, Dalhousie over Michigan, etc. Having seen the hype machines at the junior level, I know just how irrelevant they are in the long run.

A quick summary of the Power Plays across 19 games:
USports teams enjoyed 80 Power Plays
NCAA teams enjoyed 118 Power Plays

So, ~ 50% more (4 versus 6 PPS = ~ 4 minutes per game).

Clearly, that difference was not identical across all games, and you selected two where there was no advantage.

I selected those two before looking at the penalty stats. I picked the BU game because I saw a team that couldn't change lines properly and had two goalies who hadn't played an NCAA game before win despite an overall sloppy effort. I picked the Vermont game because UVM has less firepower than Andorra's (non-existent) standing army.

Feel free to question my reasoning, but when I see teams getting shut out on power plays and giving up shorthanded goals, it doesn't matter to me how much time they had with the man advantage. If you can't put the puck in the net, it's not the reffing.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I work in midget/ prep hockey and see the dueling "hype machines" more than is healthy for any individual. The CHL's "hype machine" is promoting it as the fastest/ best route to the NHL. The NCAA's is education along with development. In 15 years in the swamp known as recruiting, I have yet to see a single representative from a USports team at any rink. They don't try to pull the academically-minded players from the States for some reason...

The hockey community is a small one. If the NHL were looking at USports players, people would be choosing McGill over Harvard, Waterloo over Clarkson, Dalhousie over Michigan, etc. Having seen the hype machines at the junior level, I know just how irrelevant they are in the long run.



I selected those two before looking at the penalty stats. I picked the BU game because I saw a team that couldn't change lines properly and had two goalies who hadn't played an NCAA game before win despite an overall sloppy effort. I picked the Vermont game because UVM has less firepower than Andorra's (non-existent) standing army.

Feel free to question my reasoning, but when I see teams getting shut out on power plays and giving up shorthanded goals, it doesn't matter to me how much time they had with the man advantage. If you can't put the puck in the net, it's not the reffing.

You may not be aware of this, but the CHL has an education package that covers a year of post-secondary for each year played in the league. The notion that it does not promote education is false.

The CHL rightly promotes itself as the fastest route to the NHL ... it is exceedingly rare for a draft-eligible player to even be in the NCAA, much less make the jump to the NHL in his Draft + 1 year.

Whether it is the "best" depends on the individual. The CHL is by far a better league than any Tier II Junior league (e.g., USHL, NAHL, BCHL) ... and, as I previously stated, the CHL is the better option for athletes who have physically developed at a younger age (e.g., Aaron Ekblad) whereas those who are late-bloomers physically are better suited to the NCAA path (see, e.g., Cale Makar). I do find it telling that Auston Matthews, clearly NOT a late-bloomer, opted to play in Europe rather than the NCAA in his Draft Year.

I was not questioning your reasoning, just your sample size of two games. I have personally experienced a larger sample size, and I know that the refereeing is different. It would also be different in Europer. Of course, we'll never know how poorly NCAA teams would adjust to USports refereeing because, outside of Army vs RMC, they never subject themselves to it. I can't blame them ... if your recruiting tool is based on the argument that you offer a better level of hockey than the CHL / USports route, then there's no upside to allowing yourself the chance to be proven wrong.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Whether it is the "best" depends on the individual. The CHL is by far a better league than any Tier II Junior league (e.g., USHL, NAHL, BCHL) ... and, as I previously stated, the CHL is the better option for athletes who have physically developed at a younger age (e.g., Aaron Ekblad) whereas those who are late-bloomers physically are better suited to the NCAA path (see, e.g., Cale Makar). I do find it telling that Auston Matthews, clearly NOT a late-bloomer, opted to play in Europe rather than the NCAA in his Draft Year.

I'm not sure that the QMJHL as a whole is better than the USHL as a whole. The WHL and OHL certainly, but the talent level in the QMJHL has decreased this past decade.

And Auston Matthews also opted to play in Europe over the NCAA and CHL. The Everett Silvertips had his rights and were one of the better teams in the WHL that season. It should be just as telling as Matthews avoided the WHL as much as he did the NCAA.

 

[JMCx4]

... And Auston Matthews also opted to play in Europe over the NCAA and CHL. The Everett Silvertips had his rights and were one of the better teams in the WHL that season. It should be just as telling as Matthews avoided the WHL as much as he did the NCAA.

According to this Edmonton Journal piece from May 2015, Matthews' decision was far more complex than the levels of play in his North American amateur options.