Reply To: Junior / CIS / NCAA / ACHA/ ACAC

[hockeygod]

Abredeen,

I too see both sides. I don't like seeing kids make a commitment and then back out. I also question whether either side (NCAA or CHL) should be allowed to 'force' a kid to make a commitment at such a young age. I didn't even 'know' what I wanted to study in university when I got there; I took interesting courses that were 'easy' because I was playing hockey and working. I wish I 'knew' what I wanted to study instead of taking the path of least resistance and getting a relatively useless BA degree!

Right now, the CHL can recruit NCAA players and they don't have any repurcussions if they choose to do so. If it were the other way, I am sure the NCAA would do the same. At the end of the day, it is a competitive business for the CHL teams / NCAA programs and they must do whatever is best for their own programs. They don't care about the opposition. That's reality and a competitive market!

I think the rules must be re-examined, discussed and then all parties must abide by them (CHL / NCAA / USA Hockey / Hockey Canada / IIHF / CIS, etc.) In my own personal world, these would level the playing field for both systems and not allow for immediate transfer – they must complete a year or sit out a year before being able to play – among other things.

I played for Spokane while attending school in the US but upon my graduation from junior, I moved back to Canada to finish school (I was recruited by CIS teams) but focussed on coaching instead. Later, I coached in the Tier 2, WHL, Canadian College and University ranks, so my experiences are based on those leagues. The only places I haven't coached are in the NCAA (would like to one day!) and in the US junior league (USHL – maybe coach there one day too?) I was always a fan of the WHL and CIS because that is what I knew best.

If someone was to ask me my opinion on what direction their son should take, I would say, "if the kid is big for his age (an early developer) and isn't academically inclined, lean towards the CHL. If he is average (or small) for his age and is average or better at school, lean towards Tier 2 with the goal of an NCAA / CIS scholarship." After coaching at Tier 2 and in the WHL, I would also tell the kids / parents to do their homework on the individual programs. Tier 2 seems to be more 'unprofessional' than the CHL; but while the CHL is run like a pro league, that can also have a negative impact. The old cliche: "Sometimes your greatest strength is your greatest weakness – and vice versa!" Caveat Emptor!

Today, I have similar feelings but truly appreciate putting the education and hockey option first wherever possible (Tier 2 / NCAA or CIS). Hockey is only a game and a very small number play in the NHL. More play in the minors, Europe and at college / university. At the end of the day, the game ends and it is time to 'reintegrate' into society; most likely needing to work and 99.9% of the time, you need at least an undergraduate education to be considered. Kind of like in the 1950's / 1960's – a high school education was needed. Now it's an undergraduate degree or technical diploma… and even now, many places are advertising requirements asking for advanced degrees / diploma standing! I think as time goes by, it will become even more competitive so far as school credentials go.

Ultimately, I think the CHL has done a number of things that hurt it's credibility and perception when it is compared side by side with the NCAA – either through arrogance or stupidity. The more I see / hear, the more I like the CIS and NCAA. If I was advising my own kids, (if they were to play hockey), I would encourage academics first and this means Canadian university or NCAA.

Dean
M.Ed (Coaching)
Ch.P.C. (Chartered Professional Coach)
Game Intelligence Training
"Great education depends on great teaching."