Monday, March 19, 2007

In Case You Missed It

Chris Heisenberg does a nice job picking apart an article from Canada that complains that scholarships are drying up for Canadian kids.

Technically, Simmons does have a point that fewer Canadian kids are getting NCAA scholarships, but that is only because your average American-born USHL player is better than your average Canadian-born OPJHL player. Most of the potential college hockey players in Ontario end up in the OHL. At least they get to take advantage of the OHL's scholarship prog...hahahahahaha. Sorry, I couldn't make it all the way through that.

Also of note in the NCAA vs. CHL debate, Pat Kane finished with 145 points in 58 games against the "better competition" in the OHL. That seems like a realistic setting to develop in. People score 2.5 points per game in the NHL, right?

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would wager that Kane goes higher in the NHL draft than anyone from the USHL. Your sarcasm will taste good with a large portion of crow.

Anonymous said...

Trevor Lewis finished the season with 73 points and a -8, while last year as the USHL MVP he finished with 75 points and +25. What is your biased take on these numbers? Seeing how inferior you seem to think the OHL is to the USHL, it would be interesting to see how you explain the league MVP one year removed and a year older putting up similar point totals against much less talented opposition. Oh, and why would the LA Kings send their first round pick to play in the OHL and not back to th rarified air of the USHL?

Anonymous said...

Both blogger make good point's. Look around the CIS,

http://cis.infinityprosports.com/2004/index.php?page=standings&sport_name=mhockey

them seem to get players from somewhere...

The US brags about 1 league and 12 teams of players...Canada has 3 league's and 60 teams....

Who has better players?

Anonymous said...

I think the point was that college hockey is better, not the USHL. The + - of Trevor Lewis probably has something to do with the fact that he was on one of the best teams in the USHL and Owen Sound is about .500. Not to mention the fact that he played with Okposo, which will help anyone's +-.

Anonymous said...

There are SO many factual errors and such incredible lack of research about NCAA hockey in the Toronto Sun article that I find the credibility of both the article and author absolutely laughable!!! He totally disregards what Jackson and Berenson have to say. You have to wonder, why did he even bothered to waste their valuable time with an interview to begin with?

The most obvious error is that there are 59 not 60 teams. THAT'S a very, very easy fact to check. You'd think that the author would at least get THAT part right.

Anonymous said...

I have a Canadian son who currently plays in the USHL and has a scholarship to play in the NCAA next season. He had every opportunity to play in the WHL as well but chose the NCAA. We have first hand knowledge of the three leagues. The WHL is far and away a more talented league than the USHL. I love the opportunity my son has with the USHL. It trully is a great league with many an upside and a great stepping stone to college or even to the WHL. The USHL doesn't have the high end 18, 19 or 20 year old players that the WHL has. The better players in the USHL are generally gone to their respective college teams at 18 or 19 at the latest which means the best players or should I say best prospects play as 16, 17 or maybe 18 year olds. Only the late bloomers or those with marginal talent remain in the USHL at 19 or 20 year olds. There are always exceptions so don't get uptight on me. NHL draftees and prospects play in the WHL as 18, 19 or 20 year olds other than the can't miss prospects who leave at 19. You don't have that in the USHL. All of the NHL draftees and prospects from the USHL have gone to college. The WHL has an obvious talent and age gap which makes it better than the USHL. As far as the NCAA vs WHL goes; the debate goes on as to which league is better when in fact they are so different they almost cannot be compared. Both programs have high end players but the NCAA is stronger by virtue of the average age and maturity of the players. That is changing though as rosters are getting younger every year and because of the increasing amount of early departures. College hockey used to be dominated by Juniors and Seniors but that dominance is shifting towards high end Freshman and Sophmores. Each league serves a purpose and each player needs to understand what suits him the best.

Anonymous said...

Second poster, remember that players who have signed contracts cannot play in the USHL to preserve amateurism.

Anonymous said...

NCAA hockey has way more hooking and holding than the CHL. The CHL is calling the game via pro hockey rules, which are very difficult for defending and result in higher scoring games. The CHL's primary purpose is to develop players for pro hockey, that is not the NCAA's primary purpose (or so they say) and so they choose to play by a somewhat different interpretation and lesser enforcement of the new rules. Primary reason why Kane had 145 points (lots of PP time in OHL)

Anonymous said...

Kane is amazing and would have put up 50-60 points in NCAA as a freshman this season if he had chosen that route. Don't forget, he played twice as many games as would have in NCAA as well!

Anonymous said...

since you decided to throw the 1st stone at the OHL I'd now like to take the opportunity to criticize the NCAA. Can anyone tell me the logic as to why the Atlantic League winner (RIT) cannot participate in its league's playoff tournament? I thought each league wants to send its BEST team to the NCAA tourney? What a joke! And how does Maine get a higher seed than UMASS after UMASS just swept them 4 games straight? I mean c'mon what kind of league are they running? Also, you poke fun at Pat Kane and the OHL not being good for his development, what kind of developmental league is the NCAA with its single elimination playoff format? Last I look, playoffs in hockey were 4 out of 7 and that's what Pat Kane is getting ready for now, while most of the NCAA players are on Spring Break partying this time of year and even the successful teams have no mkore than 4 games left! Perhaps, you should look at the shortcomings of the NCAA before you poke fun at the CHL/OHL?

Anonymous said...

Considering that Kane ripped it up in the NTDP and against college teams as well, its no surprise that he did as well as he did in the OHL.

Remember, Kane had more points in while playing for the NTDP than Kessel did and it's safe to assume that he would have put up better points as a college freshman than Kessel did.

Kane made the right choice by going the O route, he proved he can play a pro style game, and a more physical game than college, and will be a top three selection in this year's draft.

Laugh all you want about the CHL but the fact of the matter is that more high end Americans are choosing that route and less high end Canadians are choosing the NCAA.

The result will be a much weaker U.S. college hockey system.

Anonymous said...

Please read Canadian dad again. He has well described the situation im my opinion. My son plays D-1 college, he also played Jr. in Canada, and USHL. He was drafted and attempts were made to persuade him to play Major Jr. in Canada. He chose the college route. He may get a shot later. He may be lucky enough to beat the 1:60,000 odds of becoming a professional athlete. (Yes those are the odds). BUT if it doesn't happen he will have a degree and won't have to worry about learning how to drive a Zamboni. For Crosby, maybe Kane, amd a few select others "hockey school" in the major Jrs. may be the quickest route. But beware...you better make it or its vrrooom vrrrrroooom on the Zamboni until your 65. Good Luck to your son Canadian Dad. Hope he makes it to the show and if not, gets that degree and an opportunity for a successful profession outside of hockey.

Anonymous said...

I am so sick and tired of hearing that "you better make it to the NHL from the CHL or you'll be pumping gas" crap. Haven't you clowns heard that the CHL offers a pretty good education package to its players???
There are currently over 500 former CHL alums playing University hockey in Canada. That number does not include the hundreds more who went on to community colleges, trade schools or university without playing hockey.
The fact is you can just as easily earn a degree going the CHL route as you could if you went the USHL way.

Anonymous said...

Typical NCAA response about pumping gas if you go to the CHL. How many college grads even get jobs when they get a degree and how many of the NCAA players even get degrees. Very difficult to go to school full time while trying to pursue a professional hockey career, especially if only 18. Lots of time to earn a college degree or to learn a trade, which seem to be more valuable then a college degree these days if you ask me, not much time to make it as a hockey player. I too see level of NCAA about to decline with all the pro signings and top end players playing Major Junior because they don't have 4 years to wait to become a pro. In my opinion, NCAA is better suited for 20-24 year-olds who haven't been drafted and are seeking a degree and still playing competitive hockey with a hope of still playing pro. Drafted 18 and 19 year-olds should take their best shot by playing CHL and get a educational package secured on the back-end if it doesn't work out.

Anonymous said...

I agree... Hey Canadian boys.. stay over there and play hockey at York...You don't need a stinkin degree from the States.....(dirty Americans)

Anonymous said...

perfect world would have a 19 year-old age limit in CHL and permit former players into the NCAA at age 20 like it used to be. Those not signed by pro teams could then choose what schools to attend like they do in Canada (CIS). NCAA has their head up their ass about this issue as usual, same as with other issues mentioned on previous posts. USHL stepped in and is trying to create this environment, but level of play in that league has a way to go before it reaches the calibre of CHL. Perhaps, as more and more underclassmen leave to sign pro contracts, this will create positive changes by the NCAA, like what I've mentioned above.

Anonymous said...

Kane led the OHL in scoring.

Two undrafted 20 year olds that nobody outside the USA knows led the USHL in scoring.

Not even worth comparing.

444 said...

How many Candian fans have even watched an USHL game?

Many NHL scouts have said, within 5 to 7 years the USHL could easily win the Memorial Cup. Today I see the top USHL clubs finishing in the bottom half of any CHL league.

Anonymous said...

Since the author chose to mock it, does he know anything about the CHL scholarship program??

Pretty good program if your career choice beyond hockey is engineer, doctor etc.

You aren't required to play hockey while using the CHL scholarship money. You can take an intensive program and choose not to play hockey if you like.

Anonymous said...

444,

You are in fantasy land if you believe that a USHL team could win a Memorial Cup...ever!

As was already mentioned by someone who has a son playing in the USHL (gee he must have actually seen a few U games,no?) the USHL does not come close to the CHL.

Anonymous said...

The inferiority complex of the USHL / NCAA is starting to get a little bit pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Lets see some numbers on the CHL % of "Doctors Emgineers etc."....thats what I thought

Anonymous said...

To the individual that posted this:



[since you decided to throw the 1st stone at the OHL I'd now like to take the opportunity to criticize the NCAA. Can anyone tell me the logic as to why the Atlantic League winner (RIT) cannot participate in its league's playoff tournament? I thought each league wants to send its BEST team to the NCAA tourney? What a joke! And how does Maine get a higher seed than UMASS after UMASS just swept them 4 games straight? I mean c'mon what kind of league are they running? Also, you poke fun at Pat Kane and the OHL not being good for his development, what kind of developmental league is the NCAA with its single elimination playoff format? Last I look, playoffs in hockey were 4 out of 7 and that's what Pat Kane is getting ready for now, while most of the NCAA players are on Spring Break partying this time of year and even the successful teams have no mkore than 4 games left! Perhaps, you should look at the shortcomings of the NCAA before you poke fun at the CHL/OHL?]

Have you ever heard of a little known thing called research?

NCAA has set rules governing teams that move from D-II to D-I including post-season eligibility. That is why RIT is not in the NCAA Tournament. If you did the research, you'd know that.

Why was Maine slotted higher than UMass? Because of the way the PWR works. Again, had you done the research, you'd know that.

Most NCAA sports are single-elimination. Again, it's about doing your homework.

Answers to all of this isn't difficult to find. Try it sometime.

Anonymous said...

One correction to my last post should read...

"NCAA has set rules governing teams that move from D-II and III to D-I..."

Anonymous said...

the point is...what sense do the rules make?...not that these rules exist. I played NCAA hockey so don't preach about doing research and such...Tell me do these rules make logical sense to you....I'd love to hear a logical explanation to these rules...or perhaps you can tell me where to look to RESEARCH their origin?

Shirtless Guy said...

The rules exist to create stability...the NCAA does not want programs moving up and down divisions depending on which way the win is blowing, so as a requirement for moving up to Division 1 from Division 2, there is a probationary period where the program is not eligible for NCAA playoffs.

As for the education discussion, the NCAA requires athletes to meet academic requirements and work towards a degree (granted not every player takes full advantage of this with leisure studies majors, etc) and if you don't get decent grades, you won't play. I think this is a far better route for the majority of hockey players because at least they will have something to fall back on after their playing days are done. By the time a player is done trying to get to the NHL, there may not be time to go back to school and work at subway to pay the bills. I know I would have a hard time going back to college now after being out for only 2 short years. If you are good enough to make the NHL, you might as well go play Major Juniors, but how many guys are that good right now?

Anonymous said...

Shirtless guy..is your assumption that CHL players are not attending classes? If so, that is a false assumption. My son plays in the OHL and takes 2 university classes per semester, which are paid for by his team. It will take him longer to graduate than it would if he played NCAA, but he feels it gives him his best opportunity to devote more time toward his primary goal of playing professional hockey. I look at it as a Trade School/job/internship in hockey, while attending classes part-time as a back-up insurance policy. He is 18 years old and has been drafted by an NHL team. If his hockey dream is not realized, he can go back to school full time, for free, at age 21 and at that pace he probably will get his degree at age 24. So tell me, how much different is that than what so many of the NCAA Seniors who are currently age 24 or 25 throughout the US are doing? Does that sound like he'll be pumping gas or working at Subway because he's in the OHL instead of NCAA?

TheTruth said...

Don't shatter their myth.

The belief that former CHL playes become 'Zamboni drivers' and Sporting Goods store owners is all they have to lean on.

The more they hear themselves say it, the more it helps them believe it is true.

Anonymous said...

ncaa division 1 student athlete graduation rate is 77%. This jumps to 81% figure in the "other sports" category of which men's hockey is placed (outside of basketball, football, and baseball categories).

Your turn.....

Anonymous said...

who cares...The CHL graduation rate for those who choose to go on is probably higher than 81%. One other thing to think about...in NCAA, the scholarship is almost always based on the player remaining on the hockey team, in other words their free education is tied to them playing hockey. In contrast, the CHL players who go on to college after their major junior careers do NOT have to play hockey at the school if they choose not to (no choice if in a US college due to NCAA ineligibility), due to the fact that their former Major Junior team is paying the education costs, and not the college or university, at least in many cases. Hence, if school work is too consuming, they can decide to not play hockey without having their scholarship/school funding revoked. Leaving a NCAA hockey team while staying in school could get quite expensive!

Anonymous said...

Shirtless guy explained 1 of my questions with logic, but still no one can explain why Maine is seeded higher than UMASS. The response given by "Its the Rules" guy is incorrect as Pairwise did not have Maine higher ranked than UMASS!

Anonymous said...

to anonymous 3:35 What?
"The CHL graduation rate for those who choose to go on is probably higher than 81%."????? What 81% of the X% that actually go to University after their washed up at the age of 21, 22...25 (or what ever.)
AND you going to tell me that if they quit playing for the CHL team their still going to get their hahahahaa..."Scholarship" money? Ahhh NO.I don't think so. Your in way over your head buddy.... Let's just forget about it. There's no use trying to talk some sense into you...(I hope your not your son's advisor)

Anonymous said...

Yes they do, it is in thier contract. If they don't sign a Pro Contract they get thier FULL Package. You sir have no idea, call an advisor, a CHL team OR a NCAA coach, they all will tell you.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 8:13 PM: Learn how to read. I said nothing about quiting on their CHL team or contract. I do have experience and knowledge about what we are discussing here so don't tell me I'm way over my head. I've lived this thing from both sides. If you choose not to listen and respect what I say from personal experience than so be it, but back off with the negative commentary and try acting like an adult.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 2:44 PM: I have to laugh that you refer to PWR for the reason Maine is seeded higher than UMASS and you say I would have known that if I did some research realizing that you could not have done any research on this yourself, since UMASS had a higher PWR ranking then Maine! Perhaps, you should listen to your own advice next time before you go spouting off on here and making an A** of yourself?

Shirtless Guy said...

Maine vs UMass, the answer is that PWR is something created by USCHO.com to mimic what the NCAA has says are the criteria. That does not guarantee the results of USCHO's PWR is completely accurate. No one knows what the actual Quality Road Win bonus is beside the committee and no one really knows how the committee decides to break a tie. Therefore the reason that Maine is above UMass is because based on the way the NCAA Selection Committee decides things (based on the whole season of results, not just the last 4 games) Maine was higher...
note if you go to the PWR page on uscho.com and enter 0.004 into the bonus, Maine is higher than UMass, so maybe that is the number the committee went with.