Is college hockey better than major junior hockey? It's tough to say. Tony Ferrari explains why. Frank Nazar [https://thehockeynews.com/.image/c_fit,h_600,w_600/MjA0Mzk0NDgyMzA3NzAzODg1/usatsi_22484786.jpg] Frank Nazar The NCAA and CHL have been tied at the hip recently as far as off-ice storylines have gone. The on-again, off-again eligibility debate [https://thehockeynews.com/news/potential-changes-to-chl-ncaa-player-eligibility-could-be-monumental-for-development-streams] was a hot-button issue over the last few weeks, and rumors had been flying behind the scenes for months. The topic became a discussion point yet again as San Jose Sharks coach David Quinn, who previously coached at Boston University between 2013 and 2018, said he was against the idea of granting CHLers eligibility to the NCAA. He even went as far as to say that the NCAA was a better level of hockey. "Don't tell people in Canada," said Quinn, as covered on The Hockey News' Sharks site [https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/san-jose-sharks/news/david-quinn-says-ncaa-is-better-hockey-than-chl-heavily-against-chl-gaining-ncaa-eligibility]. "They don't want to hear that college hockey is at a higher level than the CHL. It just is better hockey. It's deeper. It's older. It's just a man's game." That begs the question, is it really a higher level of play and better hockey? That’s a difficult question to truly answer. They are two different levels of hockey as a whole. The ages of CHL competitors range from 16 to 20, with the odd player turning 21 before the season is completed. The ages in the NCAA range from 17 to 26 this season, as Macklin Celebrini is currently the only 17-year-old. Only 322 out of 1,611 players in the NCAA would be eligible to play in the CHL this season – under 20 percent. The oldest player in the NCAA this year, Zak Galambos, is older than current NHL goal leader and former Hart Trophy winner Auston Matthews. The difference in the physical maturity and age of the players in the NCAA and CHL makes it almost impossible to truly compare the two. There is also a vast difference in actual game action that the two levels of hockey see. No NCAA player played in more than 42 games last year. CHLers can play 68 games before they even begin post-season action. All of this leads to play styles that are incredibly different from each other. The CHL is traditionally a more free-flowing, skilled league that allows players to develop the dynamic elements of their game. The NCAA is a more structured, physical brand of hockey that allows players to develop their all-around game at both ends of the ice. A quick look at the scoring in each league shows exactly that. CHL teams averaged 3.58 goals-for per game, whereas NCAA squads averaged 2.92 goals-for per game. The younger, less structured league has a slightly higher scoring rate, which isn’t a shocking development. All of this brings us back to the original question. Is the NCAA better than the CHL? In some ways, yes. In others, certainly not. The two leagues provide incredibly different platforms for very different age groups of players. That is why the combination of the two – if the NCAA granting CHLers eligibility ever comes to fruition – could ultimately be the best development path for hockey players. It’s why the NCAA route has become increasingly used by young players. As it currently stands, those players must play in other junior leagues before heading to the NCAA. The USHL has quickly become one of the most underrated leagues in the world because it is the most direct path to the NCAA. The BCHL and AJHL have been the chosen path for incredible Canadian talent looking to take advantage of the NCAA route, such as Kent Johnson or Cale Makar. Playing in junior hockey between ages 16 and 18 allows players to develop the dynamic skill in their game. It gives them more time and space to work on the high-end puck skill, open-ice dekes or fancy footwork that has become a difference-making factor for the highest-end players at the NHL level. Although the USHL, BCHL, and other non-major junior leagues are becoming much stronger, and the competition is closing the gap between themselves and the CHL, the Canadian major junior circuit remains the premier under-20 league in North America. Jumping to the NCAA level after those skills and tools are further developed gives those same players a chance to refine them. They can also learn what it takes to play against more physical and structured competition and understand how much of the dynamism they developed in junior can work against competition that is bigger, faster and stronger. This step helps mitigate the reality check many players face jumping from junior to the NHL. If the NCAA were to grant eligibility for CHL players, it could also mean that fewer high-end players would find themselves in the AHL for extended periods of time as they would already have a couple of years of structured hockey that can act as the middle ground between junior hockey and the NHL. So again, we are faced with the question. Which league is better? Yet again, we come again to the answer that they are just different. They provide players with a different element in their development process. Each league has its selling points and benefits developmentally. They could be a super-powered development model if there was any chance of the NCAA and CHL finding a way to work together. Unfortunately, hockey politics play a massive role [https://x.com/DarrenDreger/status/1758296013356347851?s=20] in why the two levels of hockey have never worked together. Until then, the two development routes will continue to provide incredible opportunities to a wide range of players – just not the same players.
