Why not take the Blake Wheeler/ Justin Schultz NCAA route?

[King King]

"Assuming you're a star prospect"

Not every star prospect lives up to the hype around them in their teens. That's without the risk of getting a serious injury.

A college education is no guarantee of a good job these days either.

If you're given the opportunity to pursue an NHL career right away with a guaranteed payoff, I think it's the safer bet to chase that than to hold on the scenario you've come up with OP.

 

[Hisch13r]

You don't want to wait until 22 years old

 

[MuckOG]

Few colleges give out free rides for hockey scholarships.

Also, the CHL is firmly entrenched in Canadian hockey development. There's a strong pull (especially for young Canadian players) to play in the CHL. Growing up as a promising hockey player, it's likely that many of your friends and/or relatives will have been in the CHL.

There was an interesting discussion regarding Ryan Johansen who was strongly considering the college route but was persuaded by the Portland Winterhawks that he was good enough for the CHL and could better translate that into an NHL career.

I can't think of a major D1 NCAA school that doesn't give free rides for hockey for their top players. I know the Ivy League school operate a little differently, but even those players aren't paying to go.

Regarding which league best prepares a kid (CHL vs NCAA), there's a big debate there. While you play more games in the CHL, in the NCAA you are playing against men and tougher competition, albeit fewer games. In the CHL, you are playing against 16-20 year olds. In the NCAA, you are playing against 18-24 year olds.

So it comes down to: More games (CHL) vs tougher competition (NCAA).

The other advantage the NCAA has is it gives the "late bloomers" an opportunity to sign in the NHL as a free agent. Not so much in the CHL as you're done by the age of 20. In the NCAA, you still have a few more years to develop and improve as a player. As an example, the Wild signed Christian Folin out of UMass-Lowell last year after being courted by many other teams....Now he's playing meaningful minutes in the NHL. Doubtful he would be here had he played in the CHL.

 

[ThatGuy22]

For star prospects, it doesn't make much sense.

But for late 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, guys who aren't likely to be NHL ready for 3 or 4 years it does make a ton of sense. Those guys would all be highly coveted come UFA time, everyone wants free prospects.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

If you're a star prospect, you're likely not going to play an extra year in the USHL or Canadian Junior A.

Even if you're a project who blossoms in college, there's a bit of risk involved by going to UFA. Wheeler and Schultz both hit RFA a year later than they could have, there's definitely an argument they left money on the table in the process. Wheeler ended up being traded by his choice anyway, and Schultz probably really shot himself in the foot. IMO you're better off just going with who drafted you and letting it play out.

 

[NeverForget06]

here are a few reasons I can think of:

- risk of injury playing in college instead of the pros (although this isn't all that likely)
-The CHL has a schedule that is closer to the 82 games played in the NHL. Players in college will play fewer games in a season so perhaps conditioning for a long season would be an issue.
- there will always be the argument that the CHL is a higher skill level than the NCAA
- The CHL does not effect eligibility for CIS (Canadian NCAA) so those who don't go pro would still have the chance of getting a scholarship to a Canadian school after they finish junior.

I am sure we will see more and more players going the NCAA route as hockey continues to become more popular in the USA.

 

[ronnyweed]

Crosby and Toews hoisted the cup as 19 year old NHL captains...

Yet you propose waiting until 22 to even join the league, even though players seem to be peaking offensively at around that age now.

 

[30Yonge]

I can't think of a major D1 NCAA school that doesn't give free rides for hockey for their top players. I know the Ivy League school operate a little differently, but even those players aren't paying to go.

There are no athletic scholarships at Ivy League schools (nor at Union and RIT). Hockey players like other athletes will get some consideration for admissions but if enrolled aid is based solely on financial need.
However, at the six Ivy League schools families earning under ~$65K are not asked to pay toward the student's education and families earning up to ~$180K can expect generous aid from the schools with large endowments - Harvard, Princeton and Yale.

Until 2012, four year guaranteed scholarships were not permitted by the NCAA. IDK about hockey schools, but the vast majority of D1 athletic scholarships are on a year to year basis.


Crosby was 21 and Toews was 22 when their teams won the Cup.

 

[TaLoN]

you lose out on 2-3 years of salary (potentially nhl salary).

If you get hurt you make 0. If your play dips your senior year you get 0.

bingo!

 

[MuckOG]

here are a few reasons I can think of:

- risk of injury playing in college instead of the pros (although this isn't all that likely)
-The CHL has a schedule that is closer to the 82 games played in the NHL. Players in college will play fewer games in a season so perhaps conditioning for a long season would be an issue.
- there will always be the argument that the CHL is a higher skill level than the NCAA
- The CHL does not effect eligibility for CIS (Canadian NCAA) so those who don't go pro would still have the chance of getting a scholarship to a Canadian school after they finish junior.

I am sure we will see more and more players going the NCAA route as hockey continues to become more popular in the USA.

Jack Eichel has 18 goals through 32 games in NCAA play....he would most likely have close to twice that many playing in the CHL...and you believe the CHL has the higher skill level?

I'll grant you that the CHL has more 17-18 year old high-end draft talent...but the overall strength of competition, top to bottom, is stronger in the NCAA. Jack Eichel is playing against men, Connor McDavid is playing against boys.

 

[Voight]

CHL is much better for your development, it prepares you for the rigours of an 82 game season (including playoffs some players end up with 80-90 GP) and your playing against higher skills players than you would in the NCAA.

 

[Voight]

- Have less wear and tear on your body, so there's a decent chance you'll be a good player for longer and make more money over your career than the average player

You'll also miss out on 2-6 years of pay. A CHL top prospect can start out in the NHL at 18/19 and by the time they would've finished college hockey they could have a couple million in the bank. Plus you can start UFA earlier and thus get more big contracts over the course of your career, and have an extra few years of NHL development to make you better.

 

[MuckOG]

... and your playing against higher skills players than you would in the NCAA.

ummmm....no. The strength of competition is higher in NCAA hockey than the CHL. In NCAA, you are playing against grown men. Most NCAA freshman are 19-20 years old with a year or two of junior hockey already under their belt. In the CHL, you are playing against boys that are under the age of 20, including even 16-17 year olds..


The only thing the CHL has is more games. But as we're learning, more games doesn't always mean better development.

 

[Knave]

4 years of NCAA sounds like a lot.

Why not do 1-2 years, try to make the pros and then go back to school after you retire?

I'm assuming universities would give you credit for your courses or let you continue your degree...

 

[AmericanDream]

CHL is much better for your development, it prepares you for the rigours of an 82 game season (including playoffs some players end up with 80-90 GP) and your playing against higher skills players than you would in the NCAA.

the average NCAA team would destroy most of the top CHL teams in any 5-7 game series...it really isn't debatable at all as many of the best CHL posters that I respect acknowledge this as well.

both leagues are different and set up differently. there isn't a bad choice on which way to go...but the NCAA is stronger overall as the level of player you are competing against is in the 20-23 year old range on majority of teams...in the CHL 18-19 seems to be the norm which is a big difference in strength and size.

I am a fan of both the CHL and NCAA, but the arguments on here dismissing the NCAA are ludicrous at times.

as for the main point of this thread, it has already been explained to death, too much risk to wait 4 years when you can sign and start your professional career sooner..some guys will do it but they will never be the star players, they will be borderline high end guys like Schultz and Hayes who needed all those years to improve their game and simply do not like the situation they are in with playing time or just not liking the organization.

 

[Mr Positive]

Imo the NCAA is the way to go. Most players do not make the NHL at all, so it makes sense to at least be working towards a degree as a fallback option.

If you are really so good that you can make the NHL right away, you can opt out of it just like Eichel will likely do. If you are likely to need development anyway, then why not do it in a way that you are a free agent in the end?