92.9% of QMJHL players enrolled in school

[fangers]

"Last year, $396,000 were distributed among 98 players,"

Thats @ 4040.00 per player....what does that buy them in terms of classes?

[Marc Foster]

That's a typical number, though I think it's maybe 20% higher than the long term CHL average. I've been making this same point for awhile.

[vahockey]

fangers said:

"Last year, $396,000 were distributed among 98 players,"

Thats @ 4040.00 per player....what does that buy them in terms of classes?

I've seen this argument a few times, but to me it seems like a pretty good deal. All OHL, WHL and QMJHL players are subjected to the education package, correct? In the U.S., only the D-I scholarship players get an education "package." The hundreds of NAHL players who do not get a scholarship pay for their school, same as Joe Student.

I realize the retention of NCAA eligibility is another point in this, but in Canada we all know these players can play Canadian university hockey.

This is an instance where the USHL and the major juniors seem to battle it out for the top 50 kids on a public level, when in reality there are hundreds of players with decisions to make that have nothing to do with future NHL subsidies.

If you don't want to attend Canadian university and play hockey, don't play major junior. I'm quite sure the average scholarship payout in the Major Junior leagues is higher than the average payout in any U.S. league except the USHL.

[fangers]

vahockey said:

fangers said:

"Last year, $396,000 were distributed among 98 players,"

Thats @ 4040.00 per player....what does that buy them in terms of classes?

I've seen this argument a few times, but to me it seems like a pretty good deal. All OHL, WHL and QMJHL players are subjected to the education package, correct? In the U.S., only the D-I scholarship players get an education "package." The hundreds of NAHL players who do not get a scholarship pay for their school, same as Joe Student.

I realize the retention of NCAA eligibility is another point in this, but in Canada we all know these players can play Canadian university hockey.

This is an instance where the USHL and the major juniors seem to battle it out for the top 50 kids on a public level, when in reality there are hundreds of players with decisions to make that have nothing to do with future NHL subsidies.

If you don't want to attend Canadian university and play hockey, don't play major junior. I'm quite sure the average scholarship payout in the Major Junior leagues is higher than the average payout in any U.S. league except the USHL.

I agree and I wasn't being sarcastic or anything, just didn't know what costs were at canadian schools and just looking to find out what (in terms of hours) a student could expect to fund at that average...

[stlfan]

vahockey said:

fangers said:

"Last year, $396,000 were distributed among 98 players,"

Thats @ 4040.00 per player....what does that buy them in terms of classes?

I've seen this argument a few times, but to me it seems like a pretty good deal. All OHL, WHL and QMJHL players are subjected to the education package, correct? In the U.S., only the D-I scholarship players get an education "package." The hundreds of NAHL players who do not get a scholarship pay for their school, same as Joe Student.

I realize the retention of NCAA eligibility is another point in this, but in Canada we all know these players can play Canadian university hockey.

This is an instance where the USHL and the major juniors seem to battle it out for the top 50 kids on a public level, when in reality there are hundreds of players with decisions to make that have nothing to do with future NHL subsidies.

If you don't want to attend Canadian university and play hockey, don't play major junior. I'm quite sure the average scholarship payout in the Major Junior leagues is higher than the average payout in any U.S. league except the USHL.

I see this as a smoke screen by the CHL to try and get players that might otherwise go the college route. The USHL has shown that it can compete with that league. It has shown that it can develop players of NHL quality, actually of NHL star quality. There is no reason for an American to have to go north of the border for the dream of playing in the NHL.

As for financial packages. First, it is a year-for-year thing in the CHL, if memory serves me correctly. Second, it is at a Canadian University. Finally, there are ACHA club schools that have financial aid money to offset the cost of college. So I would imagine that there is money there too.

[vahockey]

[\quote]I see this as a smoke screen by the CHL to try and get players that might otherwise go the college route. The USHL has shown that it can compete with that league. It has shown that it can develop players of NHL quality, actually of NHL star quality. There is no reason for an American to have to go north of the border for the dream of playing in the NHL.

As for financial packages. First, it is a year-for-year thing in the CHL, if memory serves me correctly. Second, it is at a Canadian University. Finally, there are ACHA club schools that have financial aid money to offset the cost of college. So I would imagine that there is money there too. [/quote]

Agreed, except the high-end players are few and far between. The vast majority of Junior players will not get drafted by the NHL (which is why the CHL wants them, along with competition).

I see the CHL packages as aimed more at their own (Canadian) players who choose to play Tier II Jr. A (in Canada) to preserve their NCAA eligibility. The few top-end players have been going from U.S. to the CHL for years (Roenick, Langebrunner, etc.) and will continue to do so. Not en masse, but they just will. The CHL route is not a bad route, it's just not for everyone.

Any student can apply for financial aid in the U.S. Playing NCAA D-III or ACHA hockey has nothing to do with that. It's all income-driven. Any student can also apply for non-income-related scholarships, but again, these have nothing to do with participation in varsity or club athletics.

Not condoning the CHL over US Junors by any stretch, but this seems to get painted in a sinister fashion. Sometimes it seems an arrogant stance to look at the CHL and claim that our system is better. The CHL operated for years without U.S. players. As the U.S. developed its hockey, they naturally see a market for some of those players.

[stlfan]

vahockey said:

[\quote]I see this as a smoke screen by the CHL to try and get players that might otherwise go the college route. The USHL has shown that it can compete with that league. It has shown that it can develop players of NHL quality, actually of NHL star quality. There is no reason for an American to have to go north of the border for the dream of playing in the NHL.

As for financial packages. First, it is a year-for-year thing in the CHL, if memory serves me correctly. Second, it is at a Canadian University. Finally, there are ACHA club schools that have financial aid money to offset the cost of college. So I would imagine that there is money there too.

Any student can apply for financial aid in the U.S. Playing NCAA D-III or ACHA hockey has nothing to do with that. It's all income-driven. Any student can also apply for non-income-related scholarships, but again, these have nothing to do with participation in varsity or club athletics.

Not condoning the CHL over US Junors by any stretch, but this seems to get painted in a sinister fashion. Sometimes it seems an arrogant stance to look at the CHL and claim that our system is better. The CHL operated for years without U.S. players. As the U.S. developed its hockey, they naturally see a market for some of those players. [/quote]

Ust to address two comments. First, you'd be surprised what teams can get accomplished with school administration in order to get kids to play ACHA and NCAA DIII.

Second, I agree. My problem is that they paint this pretty picture about education, when at the end of the day, it isn't as pretty as they would have you believe (IMHO). I hope they continue to operate without American players because at the end of the day, they are not going to make money playing hockey (or at least enough to survive).

Finally, it drives me crazy!! I'll use empirical examples. Two players from the St. Louis area were drafted in the OHL. One was a 2nd round (I think) and ended up playing for 2 years in the OHL only to be dropped and picked up by a USHL team. A league that was interested in him back then already. So now he is done with college (to play and receive scholarship money). The other went up because his dad thought he would make the "show." He ended up in the NAHL after playing only about 10 game last year. So, any chance at collegiate money is now gone. I hate to see kids with a collegiate future (something that will take them far beyond hockey), throw it away for the CHL. That is why I would demonize or show it in a sinister manner. Because they sell the illusion that it is comparable to the USA Junior hockey. So, I'm off my soapbox now!! ;D

[vahockey]

I'm not arguing you directly on this, I think it's a healthy discussion. We just happen to be the only two discussing at this point.

Again, I am not a proponent of the CHL by any stretch. Personally, I see no point in a USA Hockey kid going up there unless his grades are so poor that he can't qualify for D-I hockey via NCAA Clearinghouse. However, because you and I think a certain method is best doesn't make it so.

I think your point is well made, but I feel the players and parents in your specific examples should bear the responsibility of their decisions. The CHL didn't change its tune after all these years. It's been 25+ years that the NCAA has considered CHL teams "professional."

If they chose it, and it didn't work out, I don't think it's the CHL's fault. They knew what they were getting into. They're big boys at this age and MOST of the world likes accountability for one's actions.

No soapbox-stepping-down necessary. You make good points and a lot of kids would be well served to listen to them.

[Marc Foster]

Since I posted a story about this on the blog this morning I'm moving this to the other forum. Sorry for the inconvenience...

Fanny makes a point and I'll back it - there's no financial reason anyone can't get into just about any college/university in the USA. I work for a graduate-level health science center (medical school, biomed research, public health, etc...), and we tell prospective medical students there's no financial excuse for not being able to attend.

Of course, if you want to get out of school debt-free, that's another issue...