Better hockey major junior vs CIS
View Single Post
10-15-2012, 07:04 AM
Join Date: Jan 2010
Originally Posted by
You miss the point, Colts Fan.
The good CIS teams are predominantly comprised of major junior grads. There are also some players who did their "overage" year in Junior A before going to university.
While NCAA teams recruit heavily from the USHL, they also recruit heavily from Junior A. Many players decline major junior offers and choose instead Junior A in order to preserve their NCAA eligibility.
Accordingly, Junior A players are not necessarily of a lower calibre than all major junior players. It is NOT like comparing the AHL to the NHL, where the players in the AHL all want to be in the NHL but got cut.
You bring up the upper echelon of major junior players. But those guys are spread amongst 60+ teams. This means that only roughly one out of three teams has a Team Canada-calibre player. Very seldom does a major junior team have more then 1 or 2 future NHL-calibre players. You might be interested to know that Team Canada (Juniors) has roughly a .500 record against CIS teams. One year they played a Calgary/Lethbridge combo and one year a Regina/Saskatchewan combo. The games were just after exams, and in fact some players declined the game due to exams. The CIS team had no practices and introduced themselves to one another in the locker room. The Manitoba Bisons split a pair of games against Team Canada in 2004. The AUS guys on here could tell you about the year they told the AUS players not to hit the junior players so hard for fear of injury.
How would an average major junior team do against Team Canada? And how well would they do after taking off two weeks for exams?
Major junior teams don't play CIS teams any more because it would kill their marketing. The last time there was a game the Alberta Golden Bears crushed the Edmonton Oil Kings 9-1 (or something like that).
Major junior teams have probably one future NHL player, a few future minor leaguers or Euro-pros, and a few future CIS players. They also have many who will never play again after junior.
They also have a few 16 and 17 year olds, signed in part to keep them out of the NCAA. Those players would be competing against 21-25 year old players who themselves played major junior from 1 to 5 years ago.
The result is that university teams (outside of a few weaker programs) would win 90% of their games (or more) against major junior teams.
If you don't believe it, ask Harry Neale, Kelly Hrudey, Don Cherry, Barry Trotz, Mike Babcock, and Mike Keenan, all of whom have publicly expressed a similar opinion.
Well said! Perfectly put.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by thook