108 replies to this topic

[St. Michael (the Red Wing)]

Stamkos, Crosby, Lecavalier, Lucic, Getzlaf all newer players that I can think of while drinking come to mind all those players mind Stamkos have won the Cup.

 

And Stamkos could be the purest goal scorer in the league right now too

 

You were saying?

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 24 February 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[FlashyG]

I think the CHL produces better elite talent, but if you were to play the top teams in both leagues against each other, the NCAA would win in a walk.

 

Mostly due to the fact that players are recruited rather than drafted so the talent isn't as spread out. Combined with the fact that the NCAA tends to have a lot more older and more physically developed players.

[St. Michael (the Red Wing)]

I don't see how the NCAA is that physical. Because it isn't. I don't know what everyone is smoking. They get the highest skilled players from Junior A (american), Canada and high school hockey. Meaning those players are with the highest point totals in their respective leagues at the given time. Not how many fights or PIM they have. Unlike the CHL, the CHL draft according to how the they want. Hence forth the CHL leagues are more up to date with the NHL with their rules which is the same as the NHL. NCAA rules are not.

 

I fail to see the point how the NCAA is way more physical than any CHL team sorry. I watch both leagues on a daily basis with a WCHA team in my backyard.

 

Sorry I disagree but according to John my opinon is wrong.  

 

Oh yeah lets not forget the rule changes between the two that everone seems to keep ignoring. WOW.

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 24 February 2013 - 10:28 PM.

[FlashyG]

They don't necessarily play a more physical style, but some guys in the NCAA are 23-25 years old vs the CHL age limit of 19, with the exception of 3 (Max), 20 year olds per team.

 

I agree with you that the better elite talent tends to come from the CHL, but I think the best team in the NCAA would beat the Memorial Cup champs quite easily. 

 

Its basically elite level boys vs an excellent Men's team. The Mens team will win the game, but not because they were more talented. 

[St. Michael (the Red Wing)]

They don't necessarily play a more physical style, but some guys in the NCAA are 23-25 years old vs the CHL age limit of 19, with the exception of 3 (Max), 20 year olds per team.

 

I agree with you that the better elite talent tends to come from the CHL, but I think the best team in the NCAA would beat the Memorial Cup champs quite easily. 

 

Its basically elite level boys vs an excellent Men's team. The Mens team will win the game, but not because they were more talented. 

 

I would love to see it happen and see who wins. Let's say the London Knights vs the Minnesota Gophers.

Also considering that most NCAA teams play against the US under 18 team and lose?

 

What does that mean? Men losing to the all star kids of the the US under 18 national team?

 

I don't buy it and it has been this way for a long long time if you follow the US youth programs...

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 24 February 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[number9]

I think the CHL produces better elite talent, but if you were to play the top teams in both leagues against each other, the NCAA would win in a walk.

 

Mostly due to the fact that players are recruited rather than drafted so the talent isn't as spread out. Combined with the fact that the NCAA tends to have a lot more older and more physically developed players.

If you meant that NCAA players are older and thus farther along in physical growth, then yes you are correct, thats a given. But if you meant that they are more physical players, or better because of that growth, that's dead wrong. Many 16 yr old OHLers would out muscle/grind 21 yr old NCAA players. The physicality of OHL games is far above anything in the NCAA

[FlashyG]

I would love to see it happen and see who wins. Let's say the London Knights vs the Minnesota Gophers.

Also considering that most NCAA teams play against the US under 18 team and lose?

 

What does that mean? Men losing to the all star kids of the the US under 18 national team?

 

I don't buy it and it has been this way for a long long time if you follow the US youth programs...

 

The US under 18 team has a losing record vs the NCAA, and the wins they do have are mostly against division III schools. They did have a big win against Michigan, but these are also exhibition games which are unlikely to produce a full effort from the NCAA squads.

 

I also think the US under 18 team could probably beat the London Knights, just like I think the Gophers would beat them as well.

 

If you were to make a CHL all-star team however, I think you'd tip the scales in the CHL's favor vs both teams. 

If you meant that NCAA players are older and thus farther along in physical growth, then yes you are correct, thats a given. But if you meant that they are more physical players, or better because of that growth, that's dead wrong. Many 16 yr old OHLers would out muscle/grind 21 yr old NCAA players. The physicality of OHL games is far above anything in the NCAA

 

Correct, I meant they would essentially be men facing boys...In many cases more talented and physically gifted boys, but boys all the same.

[number9]

They don't necessarily play a more physical style, but some guys in the NCAA are 23-25 years old vs the CHL age limit of 19, with the exception of 3 (Max), 20 year olds per team.

 

I agree with you that the better elite talent tends to come from the CHL, but I think the best team in the NCAA would beat the Memorial Cup champs quite easily. 

 

Its basically elite level boys vs an excellent Men's team. The Mens team will win the game, but not because they were more talented. 

18 year old Lemeuix > 22 year old Backes

The US under 18 team has a losing record vs the NCAA, and the wins they do have are mostly against division III schools. They did have a big win against Michigan, but these are also exhibition games which are unlikely to produce a full effort from the NCAA squads.

 

I also think the US under 18 team could probably beat the London Knights, just like I think the Gophers would beat them as well.

 

If you were to make a CHL all-star team however, I think you'd tip the scales in the CHL's favor vs both teams. 

 

Correct, I meant they would essentially be men facing boys...In many cases more talented and physically gifted boys, but boys all the same.

Again, 18 yr old Crosby > 24 year old Parise

[St. Michael (the Red Wing)]

The US under 18 team has a losing record vs the NCAA, and the wins they do have are mostly against division III schools. They did have a big win against Michigan, but these are also exhibition games which are unlikely to produce a full effort from the NCAA squads.

 

I also think the US under 18 team could probably beat the London Knights, just like I think the Gophers would beat them as well.

 

If you were to make a CHL all-star team however, I think you'd tip the scales in the CHL's favor vs both teams. 

 

I like to see that record vs NCAA teams. Cause everytime I see them play a WCHA team its not in their favor. And until next year the WCHA is arguably the best college hockey league in the land. Arguably.  Also almost everyone on the US under 18 national team is already picked up by a D-I school. Wow that's funny.

 

BTW the US under 18 team plays against D-III schools? That's news to me. Care to show me some proof please.

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 24 February 2013 - 11:02 PM.

[ogreslayer]

I like to see that record vs NCAA teams. Cause everytime I see them play a WCHA team its not in their favor. And until next year the WCHA is arguably the best college hockey league in the land. Arguably.  Also almost everyone on the US under 18 national team is already picked up by a D-I school. Wow that's funny.

 

BTW the US under 18 team plays against D-III schools? That's news to me. Care to show me some proof please.

This season vs. NCAA as a sample:

 

Wisconsin 5   US-U18 0  

Notre Dame 1   US-U18 1  

North Dakota 6  US-U18 4  

Bemidji State 4  US-U18 3

Cornell 6   US-U18 2

Oswego State 0   US-U18 2  (Div III)

Minnesota 2   US-U18 2  

St Thomas 1   US-U18 8   (Div III)

St Marys 4   US-U18 10   (Div III)

Alabama-Huntsville 2  US-U18 6

Alabama-Huntsville 1   US-U18 1

Merrimack 1   US-U18 3 

New Hampshire 2   US-U18 2

Michigan 3  US-U18 5

Milwaukee School of Engineering 2   US-U18 7  (Div III)

Penn State 5   US-U18 2

Penn State 0  US-U18 3

Michigan State 0   US-U18 3

Minn-Duluth 3   US-U18 1

Wisconsin-Superior 1   US-U18 7  (Div III)

Nebraska-Omaha 2   US-U18 3

 

Proof enough that they play Division III teams?  Google is your friend....   Take out their 5 wins vs. Division III competition & they're 6-6-4 against Division I.  

[Johnz96]

18 year old Lemeuix > 22 year old Backes

Again, 18 yr old Crosby > 24 year old Parise

you comparing 1 player to another and there have been a few OHL olayers that are better than anybody playing in the NCAA at the time but the 20+ yr olds playing on the 3rd and 4th lines and the 2nd and 3rd pair on defense in the NCAA are a lot better than the 16 and 17 yr olds in jr.

That is why every single player that has played in both leagues scores a lot more in jr despite the fact scoring  in the leagues is similar.

Edited by Johnz96, 25 February 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[FlashyG]

18 year old Lemeuix > 22 year old Backes

Again, 18 yr old Crosby > 24 year old Parise

 

You seem to be missing my point entirely, I already conceded that the best elite talent would come from the CHL.

 

What I'm saying is that the top NCAA teams like the 2005/2006 University of North Dakota would mop the floor with Sidney Crosby's Rimouski Oceanic, despite the fact that the best player on either team would be playing for Rimouski. 

 

The talent in the CHL gets spread out by the draft process, and even the best teams are lucky to have a couple elite talents with the rest of the team made up with 16-19 year old kids. With the recruiting process in NCAA sports the best programs almost always get the best talent available and the remainder of their teams are normally fully grown men in their mid 20's.

[LeftWinger]

18 year old Lemeuix > 22 year old Backes

Again, 18 yr old Crosby > 24 year old Parise

 

You cannot score when you are lying on your ass.... Backes would have (Lemieux at 18)  and has (Crosby) destroyed both of them physically virtually evening the playing field.  If players were allowed to breathe on Lemeiux or Gretzky let alone hit them without getting a penalty, they would not have scored near as much as they did. Crosby just dives around like a pansey, but yet, players still get called for penalties...

 

On my team, I will take a full team of Backes'  and Parise's than a one full of Crosby's and Lemieux's....

Edited by LeftWinger, 25 February 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[St. Michael (the Red Wing)]

This season vs. NCAA as a sample:

 

Wisconsin 5   US-U18 0  

Notre Dame 1   US-U18 1  

North Dakota 6  US-U18 4  

Bemidji State 4  US-U18 3

Cornell 6   US-U18 2

Oswego State 0   US-U18 2  (Div III)

Minnesota 2   US-U18 2  

St Thomas 1   US-U18 8   (Div III)

St Marys 4   US-U18 10   (Div III)

Alabama-Huntsville 2  US-U18 6

Alabama-Huntsville 1   US-U18 1

Merrimack 1   US-U18 3 

New Hampshire 2   US-U18 2

Michigan 3  US-U18 5

Milwaukee School of Engineering 2   US-U18 7  (Div III)

Penn State 5   US-U18 2

Penn State 0  US-U18 3

Michigan State 0   US-U18 3

Minn-Duluth 3   US-U18 1

Wisconsin-Superior 1   US-U18 7  (Div III)

Nebraska-Omaha 2   US-U18 3

 

Proof enough that they play Division III teams?  Google is your friend....   Take out their 5 wins vs. Division III competition & they're 6-6-4 against Division I.  

 

Nice. Not a ton of D-III teams but that's what I needed to know. 1-4-1 against WCHA teams mind you : ) I did google it last night but couldn't bother posting the US under 18 schedule. My bad. Looking at the schedule now at the US under 18 schedule they play all Junior A teams the rest of the way out? I guess it makes sense since the NCAA league playoffs are not too far off.

 

6-6-4 isn't that bad against D-I teams tbh. Considering the players for the US under 18 team are maybe 5-6 years younger than some guys from the NCAA teams. Not too shabby.

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 25 February 2013 - 11:26 AM.

[number9]

you comparing 1 player to another and there have been a few OHL olayers that are better than anybody playing in the NCAA at the time but the 20+ yr olds playing on the 3rd and 4th lines and the 2nd and 3rd pair on defense in the NCAA are a lot better than the 16 and 17 yr olds in jr.

That is why every single player that has played in both leagues scores a lot more in jr despite the fact scoring  in the leagues is similar.

Still disagree. 3rd and 4th line CHLers play way more physical and aggressive than 3rd and 4th line NCAAers. As 3rd and 4th lines are supposed to do. Not every 16 yr old is 5'9" 150 lbs as you guys seem to think. And not every 22 yr old is 6"5" 220 lbs either. Age is a number.

[wingslionstigers]

OHL is better to watch hands down. It's also where way better players come from; although, a college team would beat an OHL team in a head-to-head match up more times than not. Got to think OHL is ages 16-20 though. College is where guys go who likely aren't going to the NHL. Even players already drafted who are unsure they will ever make a career in the NHL who want an education.

College hockey is horrible I can't even watch that crap. Dump and chase, back and fourth, horrible. I honestly enjoy going to high school games more than college. After I watch a college game I am just annoyed. The defensive strategies and athleticism are way dominant over the skill and talent of those players which makes for a very horrible game to watch.

[Johnz96]

Still disagree. 3rd and 4th line CHLers play way more physical and aggressive than 3rd and 4th line NCAAers. As 3rd and 4th lines are supposed to do. Not every 16 yr old is 5'9" 150 lbs as you guys seem to think. And not every 22 yr old is 6"5" 220 lbs either. Age is a number.

Why does ever player that played in both leagues score so much more in jr. then?

[number9]

Why does ever player that played in both leagues score so much more in jr. then?

Because an 20 yr old Duncan Keith is better than a 19 yr old Duncan Keith

[ogreslayer]

Sporting News article on the NCAA vs. the CHL from a couple of years ago. It does focus more on the business of colleges losing recruits to the Canadian junior leagues mostly, but does have a few quips that are relevent to this conversation:

http://aol.sportingn...y-ohl-whl-qmjhl

Can't seem to track it down, but I also remember an article from around the same time describing a survey done about parents being more willing now to send their kids the college route instead of the CHL as the NCAA was closing the gap in developing NHL ready prospects with the CHL.

Edited by ogreslayer, 25 February 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[number9]

Sporting News article on the NCAA vs. the CHL from a couple of years ago. It does focus more on the business of colleges losing recruits to the Canadian junior leagues mostly, but does have a few quips that are relevent to this conversation:

http://aol.sportingn...y-ohl-whl-qmjhl

Can't seem to track it down, but I also remember an article from around the same time describing a survey done about parents being more willing now to send their kids the college route instead of the CHL as the NCAA was closing the gap in developing NHL ready prospects with the CHL.

As a parent I would always send my kid the NCAA route. Even if my kid was Crosby. You just never know how someone will pan out, e.g. Daigle. Much better to have an education to fall back on... plus it's good to have a college education, even if you never need to formally use it.