Thursday, March 10, 2011 /
By Andrew Chong, editor /
Chicago Blackhawks teammates Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane have a lot in common: NHL All-Stars, Stanley Cup champions, Olympic medalists, video game cover-boys—the list goes on and on.
But perhaps the most distinct difference between the two is where they played when they first launched themselves onto a path of stardom.
Toews, a Canadian, played U.S. college hockey in the NCAA. Kane, an American, played Major Junior in the Ontario Hockey League.
Go figure.
The debate around which is better – the Canadian Hockey League or the NCAA’s Division I ranks – is as hot a topic as ever.
And Toews and Kane represent the tension between the two factions.
Simply put, there are 60 teams on Canada’s Major Junior circuit (the Western Hockey League, the Ontario Hockey League, and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League) and 60 teams within the NCAA’s multiple conferences—and they are all fighting over the same group of elite players.
Both the CHL and the NCAA have impressive alumni to boast about when pitching their case.
The CHL has Crosby, Stamkos, Nash, Getzlaf, Weber, and Luongo. The NCAA has Heatley, Parise, Kesler, Sharp, Keith, and Miller.
So with so many good players having played for both sides, does it matter which path you take?
Well, if you’re as good as Toews and Kane, it probably doesn’t matter.
But only six per cent of all players in the CHL and NCAA actually end-up making the NHL. So for the majority of elite young players, there are a multitude of pros and cons to weigh in the CHL vs. NCAA debate.
THE ELIGIBILITY ISSUE
Since the NCAA views the Canadian Hockey League as “professional,” if a player suits-up for even a single game in the CHL, they become ineligible to ever play in the NCAA.
And with players being drafted into the CHL in their second-year of Bantam, many young players are faced with a potentially life-altering decision before they’re even old enough to get their full driver’s license.
As it stands, eligibility issues are largely a one-way street. You can’t go from the CHL to the NCAA but you can go the other way around. And that includes CHL teams nabbing NCAA players mid-commitment—and that’s a whole other issue in itself.
THE HOCKEY EXPERIENCE
In the debate’s simplest form, the CHL offers arguably the best training ground for the NHL, while the NCAA offers the chance to pursue a second-career in addition to pursuing pro hockey.
Overall, the CHL experience is more NHL-like: a lot of games, a draft, an all-star game, fighting, trades, and half-visors.
In contrast, the NCAA has a shorter schedule, no fighting, no trades, full cages, and strict academic standards (i.e. a successful S.A.T. score).
One aspect of the NCAA that is more NHL-like than in the CHL is the larger spectrum of ages between players (about seven years), and the fact that there are many physically mature 20-something-year-old players. Some who choose the NCAA route cite this fact as an important developmental benefit.
In terms of arena atmosphere, both routes have their share of raucous buildings.
But the hype and electricity in some of the major NCAA centres is like nothing most young Canadian players have ever seen before—rambunctious school chants, live bands, cheerleaders, a sea of team colours, and jam-packed stands, night-after-night.
THE DEVELOPMENT MODEL
Usually, about 50 per cent of the players in the NHL Draft are from the CHL and about 30 per cent are from the NCAA.
So when it comes down to it, both routes work.
But in general (very generally speaking, I might add), players who are further along physically and abilitly-wise might be better off to jump into the CHL while still in high school. They may be ready for this fast-track to the pro game. And by the time their 20-year-old “over-age” season rolls around, they could be well on their way to a pro career of some nature.
On the other hand, sometimes late-bloomers can really benefit from a few years of Junior A, followed by a four-year NCAA career that spans well into their early 20s. They have more time to develop and to demonstrate skills.
In the end, from a development standpoint, the appropriate route really depends on the individual player.
THE EDUCATION FACTOR
A University of Alberta newspaper article notes that approximately 84 per cent of NCAA players earn a degree, while only about 16 per cent of CHL players earn one.
Still, both routes offer the student-player a significant academic opportunity should the player choose to pursue it.
While the NCAA’s typical $100,000-plus scholarships go hand-in-hand with their hockey programs, the CHL offers a year of Canadian post-secondary tuition per year played in the CHL (up to five years), to be pursued once the CHL career is over. But if a CHL player goes on to sign a professional contract, the scholarhips is lost.
Ultimately, as the business side of the game ramps-up, so too will the aggressive nature of recruitment at the preceding levels.
And in turn, young players will experience more and more pressure when it comes to choosing between the two main streams.
Got something to say? Weigh-in online now at hockeynowblog.blogspot.com |
CHL vs. NCAA: What’s The Better Route?
