CHL execs using media to persuade 2012 prospects
View Single Post
10-28-2011, 10:31 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Just so people know, in the OHL for example, teams have educational consultants who set up each player in either high school or college / University with a very specific learning regimine, and are regularly monitored for attendance, preformance etc. In Kitchener as an example, it IS priority that all players are enrolled in either full-time (modified to fit the OHL schedule, but still full class load) or part-time college/university classes.
This notion that the NCAA graduates more doctors, business owners etc then the CHL may very well be true, but show me some statistics to prove it. You act like kids that go to the CHL are dummies and they're only hope at success is the NHL.
Players have choices, NCAA, CHL, USHL etc. Those who are arguing that the NCAA or USHL are better development leagues as a whole (not just one off examples) are statistically incorrect. The numbers speak for themselves, and of course each league (More particularly CHL vs. NCAA) is more suited for a different type of player or skill set at the time. Alot of people who pursue NCAA, aside from the obvious high end prospects from the start, wouldnt make a CHL team until later in their careers.
CHL - Better for players of higher caliber and who appear to be on standard developmental pace (ie can make a CHL roster at 16-17). (Skinner, Richards etc etc
NCAA - Better for players a little behind the typical development curve that would benefit from a prolonged development curve that is offered in the NCAA. (matt read, Gilroy etc)
I stand by the CHL being the better of the two simply based on a closer representation of the Pro game from media, practice schedule, game schedule etc and the sheer numbers in comparison to the CHL. Not only do fewer NCAA players make the NHL, but there are many more of them aswell which further strengthens my argument about the success rates of each league.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ORYX