PDA

View Full Version : More reason to debunk the Canadian Junior myth.



Pages : [1] 2

UMICH
04-13-2012, 04:56 PM
http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/958-what-is-the-most-proven-route-to-the-nhl-for-the-american-player.html

redwing61
04-13-2012, 06:16 PM
"89 players from Michigan left the U.S. to play primarily in the OHL. Of these players, five have made it to the NHL for at least 41 games.... During the same period, 21 Michigan players who played NCAA hockey made it to the NHL for at least 41 games."

Okay, but unless we know how many players from Michigan played NCAA hockey, we can't make a comparison.

5/89 = 5.6%
21/? = ?

Repeat for the other nine states listed.

Fighting Sioux 23
04-13-2012, 06:23 PM
"89 players from Michigan left the U.S. to play primarily in the OHL. Of these players, five have made it to the NHL for at least 41 games.... During the same period, 21 Michigan players who played NCAA hockey made it to the NHL for at least 41 games."

Okay, but unless we know how many players from Michigan played NCAA hockey, we can't make a comparison.

5/89 = 5.6%
21/? = ?

Repeat for the other nine states listed.

The point though is that the OHL is supposed to be the route that gets you to the NHL. What they were showing was that more often than not, the OHL does not get you into the NHL.

As for why they even mention college hockey (which is not solely about getting you to the NHL)...I'm not sure. It is probably done to highlight the players that did make it to the NHL, but assuredly the percentage is lower than 5.6% (to be higher would be to assume that Michigan only produced 373 (or fewer) NCAA hockey players over a 10 year span...highly unlikely). That being said, I wouldn't have even brought up the NCAA facts as NCAA hockey is not solely about getting the kid to the NHL.

redwing61
04-13-2012, 07:35 PM
The point though is that the OHL is supposed to be the route that gets you to the NHL.

If that were the case, they would have titled the article "Is the CHL a proven route to the NHL for the American player?" Instead, it's titled "What is the most proven route...?" From the information the article provides, we don't know. (Although one suspects a greater percentage of CHL players make it, else they would have provided all the data.)

5mn_Major
04-14-2012, 06:09 AM
I spent quite a bit of time on this topic a few years back. There is alot of evidence that the level of play in the NCAA is higher than it is in the juniors...just by age alone. I did not find any evidence on whether its a better route or not.

Having said that, that study is somewhere between misleading and not relevant.

Drew S.
04-14-2012, 09:54 AM
The point though is that the OHL is supposed to be the route that gets you to the NHL. What they were showing was that more often than not, the OHL does not get you into the NHL.

As for why they even mention college hockey (which is not solely about getting you to the NHL)...I'm not sure. It is probably done to highlight the players that did make it to the NHL, but assuredly the percentage is lower than 5.6% (to be higher would be to assume that Michigan only produced 373 (or fewer) NCAA hockey players over a 10 year span...highly unlikely). That being said, I wouldn't have even brought up the NCAA facts as NCAA hockey is not solely about getting the kid to the NHL.

You would need to break the college players into separate groups. Not all of them are trying to get to the NHL and for a bunch hockey is second to education. There basically isn't a reason you would play in the OHL other than to try to get into the NHL.

Caustic Undertow
04-14-2012, 02:55 PM
You would need to break the college players into separate groups. Not all of them are trying to get to the NHL and for a bunch hockey is second to education. There basically isn't a reason you would play in the OHL other than to try to get into the NHL.

That's an oversimplification. I think that in some large measure an American going to the OHL is more likely to be thinking about their hockey careers first, but the family of the average OHL player (and the average OHL player is from Ontario) is also concerned about their future in other areas, and many do wind up in college. Remember, a lot of NCAA players also stick around in lower level pro hockey for years; Michigan's active alumni list is full of NHL players, but also guys who have kicked around Europe and the ECHL their entire pro careers.

Simply put, the hockey culture and hockey system is different in Canada than it is here. It is perfectly respectable, even laudable, for a hockey player with good character and some academic interest to go to Junior and start playing from age 16. It seems weird to us, but it has been the normal course of hockey life for <b>decades</b> in Canada.

What <b>is</b> illustrated here is that your average American player is not necessarily improving their professional future by going to Major Junior. This is an issue for the mid-range guys who are considering their options, not the stars. There are enough Patrick Kanes floating around to demonstrate the advantage to the Junior route. However, a guy like Robbie Czarnik isn't going to get to the NHL any faster by skipping out on college.

I suspect a large reason the mid-range guys do it is not related to <b>improving</b> their NHL draft stock, but rather a preference for the environment. And a decreased emphasis on academics. Jerry York, Don Lucia, and Red Berenson make you do well in class; Bob Boughner is not quite so focused.

bronconick
04-14-2012, 03:44 PM
The myth is going to be there as long as the NHL is a Canadian dominated league at the scout and GM levels. You hear it every year at the draft when the toolbags at TSN discuss how each American drafted could or should be urged to sign with a CHL squad ASAP.

Our college guys who don't go on to long, lengthy NHL careers need to start taking those jobs with their degrees.

SteveP
04-14-2012, 04:24 PM
A very good posting by caustic. Yes, the culture is different in Canada than in the US and that won't change. However, more and more Canadian families are realizing the NCAA route can get their sons a good education and a route to NHL. Not a guaranteed route, but a potential one.

As for Bronconick's position on GMs and scouts, I think the number of US execs has grown to the point that your argument is less valid today.

burd
04-14-2012, 06:37 PM
I think it is true that the calculus is a little different for high draft picks than it is for others. Seth Jones probably feels he will get to the NHL either way but may base his choice on which will prepare him to get there quicker. I"m sure Parise looked at it that way. For a guy like Chay Genoway, the dynamics change. I also wonder if the NHL scouts and management see juniors experience as a better predictor of NHL success. Many hobey winners experience little success in the NHL. I have no idea what the numbers are with regard to MVP type players in juniors.

Caustic Undertow
04-14-2012, 10:33 PM
There are some top scorers in the OHL who are not expected to do well in the NHL and meet that expectation. The different in Major Junior is that the guys who are hot prospects inevitably produce to their expectation. You don't have situations like Jeff Tambellini of Michigan going scoreless for half the year. Players like Jason Spezza, Corey Perry, and Taylor Hall rise to the top with three-figure scoring totals.

You do get guys like Corey Locke and Peter Salbo that hit the charts without drawing a lot of expectation, often due to the teams they play on, or their age as they get experience without going pro.

The stinging blow to the NCAA was when Patrick Kane elected to jump to London for one year, scored 145 points (the runaway leader) and became a star in the NHL almost instantaneously. College was in play for him, and he had already waited a year. He would have been fabulous in college--yet, playing on a great London team in front of 10,000 fans 35 times a year, scoring in bunches, and getting paid, what did he lose?

The chance of him "underperforming" against the older stock in the NCAA was far higher, and there are fewer games to catch up to a slow start (he trailed his teammate Sam Gagner for half the season before the points really started coming).

His success conclusively demonstrated that even the top Americans who have one year to play at either place, the OHL is not only valid but probably preferable. For the top prospects.

That aren't goaltenders like Jack "Mr .890" Campbell.

5mn_Major
04-15-2012, 05:15 AM
The stinging blow to the NCAA was when Patrick Kane elected to jump to London for one year, scored 145 points (the runaway leader) and became a star in the NHL almost instantaneously. College was in play for him, and he had already waited a year. He would have been fabulous in college--yet, playing on a great London team in front of 10,000 fans 35 times a year, scoring in bunches, and getting paid, what did he lose?


Which gets back to your experience issue. Understanding he did study in CA, Kane metaphorically dropped out of school at 17 to go to work. Others might go on to regret that decision.

The leagues are just different. One has to wait a bit longer to get into college...but once in the development curve is much steeper. You almost never see a 17 yo make much of an impact in the NCAAs...whereas in juniors it happens all the time. The timing of the draft process can benefit some MJ players is all.

Happy
08-03-2012, 07:25 PM
the CHL has a rule that states that each team must dress and play their first two draft picks in every game. Now thats a lot of pandering to get the kids into the CHL.

uaafanblog
08-04-2012, 01:44 AM
Why does this always have to be said ...

Different developmental paths serve different players differently. None of these head to head comparisons between the NCAA and CHL are ever going to be relevant because the two leagues are so fundamentally different. Age isn't the only component. One league focuses heavily on playing experience and the other focuses on physical development. Different players at different ages benefit differently from either situation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc

Goon
08-07-2012, 10:43 AM
I think that both leagues have their strong points - I think that college hockey gives the late bloomers a chance to develop. I think if your a can't miss and only going to play for like a year the CHL is a great place for you.

The Exiled One
08-08-2012, 09:56 AM
I think that both leagues have their strong points - I think that college hockey gives the late bloomers a chance to develop. I think if your a can't miss and only going to play for like a year the CHL is a great place for you.
You've hit on the EXACT problem though: What 16 year old hockey player DOESN'T think he'll be in the NHL at age 19?

I think that us college hockey fans are only asking of the players (especially American players ) is to keep their options open until they graduate high school, THEN decide if you want to play in the CHL. I don't think that's asking too much.

SCSU Euro
08-08-2012, 10:24 AM
You've hit on the EXACT problem though: What 16 year old hockey player DOESN'T think he'll be in the NHL at age 19?

I think that us college hockey fans are only asking of the players (especially American players ) is to keep their options open until they graduate high school, THEN decide if you want to play in the CHL. I don't think that's asking too much.

By that token we're asking kids in their mid teens to be logical, reasonable and make well-informed, educated decisions. Uh oh....

Hokydad
08-08-2012, 10:57 AM
By that token we're asking kids in their mid teens to be logical, reasonable and make well-informed, educated decisions. Uh oh....

No, they are asking parents to. Any 16 year old who is telling his parents what to do is in trouble...

Goon
08-10-2012, 08:05 AM
You've hit on the EXACT problem though: What 16 year old hockey player DOESN'T think he'll be in the NHL at age 19?

I think that us college hockey fans are only asking of the players (especially American players ) is to keep their options open until they graduate high school, THEN decide if you want to play in the CHL. I don't think that's asking too much.
Yeah that's a good point as well. Some in hockey are all for letting kids play in the CHL before they hit their 18th birthday and then let them play in the NCAA if they want to.

The Exiled One
08-10-2012, 11:43 AM
Yeah that's a good point as well. Some in hockey are all for letting kids play in the CHL before they hit their 18th birthday and then let them play in the NCAA if they want to.
I prefer the HS standard rather than a specific age for a few reasons, like; 1)The player will know if they can even GET into the college of their choice, 2)Different states/provinces graduate kids at different ages plus some will choose to accelerate, 3)The issue of finishing HS near the home rink becomes irrelevant.

In other news, it looks like Windsor got caught with their hand in the cookie jar (http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/article/ohl-announces-fines-sanctions/125102). Though I don't expect improper compensation to STOP entirely, I do expect that this could help curtail it somewhat in the near term. That could be helpful for college hockey. Ultimately though, I think they'll finally decide to own up to the fact that they are a professional league and change the rules to actually ALLOW the players to be compensated at their actual worth. When that happens, the players win, the CHL loses slightly, and college hockey is slightly worse off than it is now.