USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
NCAA vs CHL battle for players
- Thread starter Hockey Monk
- Start date
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
Its only a battle if both sides are fighting....right now, only one side is fighting and the other one is laying over playing dead...The CHL has had the edge for quite some time now and its an edge in no small part given to them by the NCAA. The edge is now, however, turning into downright domination by the CHL over the NCAA. How different would all this be if the NCAA revises its policies and makes CHL players eligible? Who would be "poaching" from who then?
Its only a battle if both sides are fighting....right now, only one side is fighting and the other one is laying over playing dead...The CHL has had the edge for quite some time now and its an edge in no small part given to them by the NCAA. The edge is now, however, turning into downright domination by the CHL over the NCAA. How different would all this be if the NCAA revises its policies and makes CHL players eligible? Who would be "poaching" from who then?
Shortofbrillant
New member
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
I am not sure you would see poaching, but you might see a lot of very good hockey players come into the NCAA once they hit 20 or once the promises by CHL organizations turn up dry, that's not to say that NCAA organizations do not make the same promises
.
The problem right now is there is so little allowance to a young man. If he steps on the ice with a CHL team he is done. Therefore, a young man has to make a decision between challenging himself at the highest level in Canada or choosing to play at a lower level just to have a chance at a scholarship. While the latter may be stunting the growth of the player. If the NCAA did lower their restrictions then it might make both teams much better down the road and make NCAA hockey even more competitive.
I am not sure you would see poaching, but you might see a lot of very good hockey players come into the NCAA once they hit 20 or once the promises by CHL organizations turn up dry, that's not to say that NCAA organizations do not make the same promises
. The problem right now is there is so little allowance to a young man. If he steps on the ice with a CHL team he is done. Therefore, a young man has to make a decision between challenging himself at the highest level in Canada or choosing to play at a lower level just to have a chance at a scholarship. While the latter may be stunting the growth of the player. If the NCAA did lower their restrictions then it might make both teams much better down the road and make NCAA hockey even more competitive.
SkinsFan09
New member
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
You can develop fine in either league. The CHL dominates because it is a Candian league in a Canadian-dominated sport even with all the foreign talent in the NHL since the 90s especially.
You can develop fine in either league. The CHL dominates because it is a Candian league in a Canadian-dominated sport even with all the foreign talent in the NHL since the 90s especially.
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
The CHL is a perfectly good place for those hockey players not suited to higher education. I've known quite a few more than my share of hockey players over the last 30 or so years and one thing I can say without reservation is ... there is more than a majority who were definitely not suited for higher education.
The NCAA people who whine about losing kids to the CHL are being selfish in large part. What's the number of "elite" players that bolt from college or their committment? 5 or 6 in a bad year? Is there some known population of CHL players that would suddenly be in the NCAA if the NCAA would let them? Seems to me that I see a lot of Canadian families manage their kids choices toward college because they understand the value of education ... that ethos probably applies proportionally less with the talent level of the player. Still though, families that value education steer their kids to that path. Those that don't (or recognize that their kid ain't gonna cut it at college) have another path.
College hockey would not be made appreciably better by allowing CHL players to play in the NCAA. Quite the opposite could happen. It could hurt the sport. Some leniency or reason could be applied on a case by case basis so as to not shut out kids that made the CHL mistake at 16 but other than that ... I'd like to see things stay pretty much the same.
The CHL is a perfectly good place for those hockey players not suited to higher education. I've known quite a few more than my share of hockey players over the last 30 or so years and one thing I can say without reservation is ... there is more than a majority who were definitely not suited for higher education.
The NCAA people who whine about losing kids to the CHL are being selfish in large part. What's the number of "elite" players that bolt from college or their committment? 5 or 6 in a bad year? Is there some known population of CHL players that would suddenly be in the NCAA if the NCAA would let them? Seems to me that I see a lot of Canadian families manage their kids choices toward college because they understand the value of education ... that ethos probably applies proportionally less with the talent level of the player. Still though, families that value education steer their kids to that path. Those that don't (or recognize that their kid ain't gonna cut it at college) have another path.
College hockey would not be made appreciably better by allowing CHL players to play in the NCAA. Quite the opposite could happen. It could hurt the sport. Some leniency or reason could be applied on a case by case basis so as to not shut out kids that made the CHL mistake at 16 but other than that ... I'd like to see things stay pretty much the same.
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
How would college hockey be hurt....are you saying that there are more American players who do not really value an education but yet still end up in the NCAA? Would relaxing the rules and making CHL players eligible suddenly drive these players away from the NCAA??? There are currently over 400 former CHLers playing in the CIS(sort of refuting your idea that CHL players are not academically inclined)...if the NCAA could even manage to get half of those players, would it not be better?
How would college hockey be hurt....are you saying that there are more American players who do not really value an education but yet still end up in the NCAA? Would relaxing the rules and making CHL players eligible suddenly drive these players away from the NCAA??? There are currently over 400 former CHLers playing in the CIS(sort of refuting your idea that CHL players are not academically inclined)...if the NCAA could even manage to get half of those players, would it not be better?
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
How do those CIS teams do when they compete against NCAA teams?
How do those CIS teams do when they compete against NCAA teams?
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
There's really less competition between the CHL and the NCAA than perhaps the average person thinks. The "high-profile" cases seem to actually be the majority of times there is direct competition.
One league caters to players who's peak development comes in the 17-20 year range and the other caters to players who's peak development comes in the 19-22 year range. There is perhaps a sort of "ecological balance" that exists between the CHL and NCAA. Is getting some highly sought elite prospect to come to the NCAA for one or two years really the side of the argument on which educational institutions should be coming down?
There's really less competition between the CHL and the NCAA than perhaps the average person thinks. The "high-profile" cases seem to actually be the majority of times there is direct competition.
One league caters to players who's peak development comes in the 17-20 year range and the other caters to players who's peak development comes in the 19-22 year range. There is perhaps a sort of "ecological balance" that exists between the CHL and NCAA. Is getting some highly sought elite prospect to come to the NCAA for one or two years really the side of the argument on which educational institutions should be coming down?
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
It's an obvious advantage for the CHL that player can be recruited earlier and play earlier in juniors, but that's not the current problem. The biggest problem right now is kids who not only verbally commit to NCAA schools, but sign a NLOI and back out at the last minute. Jarred Tinordi left after he had already enrolled at Notre Dame. Oleksiak even played a full season with the Huskies.
CHL teams are obviously sweetening the pot for collegiate signees. Joe Birch, the OHL Director of Recruitment and Education Services, admitted the Winsor Spitfires offered Cam Fowler a $50,000 scholarship, even though the leagues laws state it should have been limited to the cost of state schools nearest the Fowlers' home. The CHL either needs to stop offering incentives for collegiates to switch their commitments or shed their veil of amateurism and become a professional league.
Right now college scholarships are seen as leverage by top prospects. They can help secure a bigger payday or use it to demand a trade to a team closer to their home towns.
It's an obvious advantage for the CHL that player can be recruited earlier and play earlier in juniors, but that's not the current problem. The biggest problem right now is kids who not only verbally commit to NCAA schools, but sign a NLOI and back out at the last minute. Jarred Tinordi left after he had already enrolled at Notre Dame. Oleksiak even played a full season with the Huskies.
CHL teams are obviously sweetening the pot for collegiate signees. Joe Birch, the OHL Director of Recruitment and Education Services, admitted the Winsor Spitfires offered Cam Fowler a $50,000 scholarship, even though the leagues laws state it should have been limited to the cost of state schools nearest the Fowlers' home. The CHL either needs to stop offering incentives for collegiates to switch their commitments or shed their veil of amateurism and become a professional league.
Right now college scholarships are seen as leverage by top prospects. They can help secure a bigger payday or use it to demand a trade to a team closer to their home towns.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
Let's see. You can start playing at a younger age. You're likely to be done with juniors and playing in the AHL by the time you're 20 and in the show by 22 at the absolute latest if you're an elite player. You can spend 9 games with your drafted club at the beginning of the year if they want to see how you're developing and what you should work on before sending you back to the CHL. There's no pressure for grades. You don't have to memorize rules to keep your eligibility.
The real question might be "Why would an early draft pick who knows he's going to get a max ELC go the NCAA route?" The NCAA is bringing a knife to a gunfight. Sure, you rarely could get lucky and throw the knife and sever an artery, but in general we all know how it usually ends.
Let's see. You can start playing at a younger age. You're likely to be done with juniors and playing in the AHL by the time you're 20 and in the show by 22 at the absolute latest if you're an elite player. You can spend 9 games with your drafted club at the beginning of the year if they want to see how you're developing and what you should work on before sending you back to the CHL. There's no pressure for grades. You don't have to memorize rules to keep your eligibility.
The real question might be "Why would an early draft pick who knows he's going to get a max ELC go the NCAA route?" The NCAA is bringing a knife to a gunfight. Sure, you rarely could get lucky and throw the knife and sever an artery, but in general we all know how it usually ends.
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
The better ones, those with rosters comprised mainly of former CHLers, hold their own.....last year Western Ontario beat both LSSU and MSU while losing to Michigan by a 2 goal margin..I believe U.N.B. was 3-1 against NCAA competition. The point is there are a lot of good players in the CIS that could have been playing in the NCAA were it not for some stupid rule that is no longer serving anyone.
The better ones, those with rosters comprised mainly of former CHLers, hold their own.....last year Western Ontario beat both LSSU and MSU while losing to Michigan by a 2 goal margin..I believe U.N.B. was 3-1 against NCAA competition. The point is there are a lot of good players in the CIS that could have been playing in the NCAA were it not for some stupid rule that is no longer serving anyone.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
Why should they? What incentive is there for them in not doing that? The end result is in their favor: They get the player. I don't like it, but the NCAA basically shoots themselves in the foot over it. The same is true with local road races vs. NCAA Track and Field. If you win a local road race and accept a prize that happens to include cash, bang, you can't run for the school, because the NCAA sees you as a professional.
The only way the NCAA will get anywhere is if they get off their amateur high horse. Or at least take a look at what Major Junior offers compared to the USHL.
Why should they? What incentive is there for them in not doing that? The end result is in their favor: They get the player. I don't like it, but the NCAA basically shoots themselves in the foot over it. The same is true with local road races vs. NCAA Track and Field. If you win a local road race and accept a prize that happens to include cash, bang, you can't run for the school, because the NCAA sees you as a professional.
The only way the NCAA will get anywhere is if they get off their amateur high horse. Or at least take a look at what Major Junior offers compared to the USHL.
Last edited:
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
I don't see the big deal. Some kids will play MJ and some will play NCAA. I don't think baseball fans get all worked up over the same scenarios. I don't think the NCAA rules need to be changed-------but if we are doing that, I would allow HS players in MJ to retain their NCAA eligibility....that way they can get thru their draft year and see where they stand as players, and then make the best decision
I don't see the big deal. Some kids will play MJ and some will play NCAA. I don't think baseball fans get all worked up over the same scenarios. I don't think the NCAA rules need to be changed-------but if we are doing that, I would allow HS players in MJ to retain their NCAA eligibility....that way they can get thru their draft year and see where they stand as players, and then make the best decision
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
I agree 100%.
The NCAA makes a random arbitrary rule calling for a loss of eligibility for a player who plays in the CHL -- but not, absurdly enough -- for a player who plays Tier-I juniors. Now, the USCHL and OHA kids play almost as many games. Play for professional coaches. Play of paying crowds. Are given a stippend for billiting and food. Have their equipment provided to them by the team. And in the Junior-A leagues in Canada, the teams present scholarships to players. Players in all Junior-A leagues are subjec to being traded. The rules that govern Canadian Junior A regarding school, housing, food, travel, and gear are the same rules the CHL must operate under. And the USHL uses the Canadian Junior-A regulations regarding those requirements.
What is the damage caused by the NCAA cutting off the CHL players while accepting the OHA, or the USHL players -- is that kids must make a hard choice, without a hired agent, at age 14-15.
Why is it OK for a kid from Royal Oak, Michigan, to pack up and move 2,000 miles to Alberta to play Junior-A until he is 18 and then enter college? He is given room and board, travel costs, gear, training, plays for a professional coach, plays before paying customers. What is the difference between playing for a Junior-A team in Alberta, or playing for the Red Deer Rebels?
Nothing.
And folks, if you think for one minute that the coaches and players at the Junior-A level care about school more than the CHL people, you are just delusional. The boys in Junior-A couldn't care any less about schooling than the boys in the CHL.
Imagine the world without the NCAA random, baseless line-drawing against the CHL: The talent level in the NCAA would be greatly increased. Kids could play a year or two in the CHL, and then move to college when they are 18-19. Now college hockey is truly a major stepping stone to the NHL, and presenting great hockey. By removing the silly restiction, the NCAA would open up its league to hundreds of highly-talented and experienced players.
The NCAA started this phony war with Canadian Major Juniors so many years ago, I believe we would be hard pressed to know when and how this nonsense all began.
But what the NCAA's obtuse decision to punish CHL players, and look the other way for all other Junior-A players -
I agree 100%.
The NCAA makes a random arbitrary rule calling for a loss of eligibility for a player who plays in the CHL -- but not, absurdly enough -- for a player who plays Tier-I juniors. Now, the USCHL and OHA kids play almost as many games. Play for professional coaches. Play of paying crowds. Are given a stippend for billiting and food. Have their equipment provided to them by the team. And in the Junior-A leagues in Canada, the teams present scholarships to players. Players in all Junior-A leagues are subjec to being traded. The rules that govern Canadian Junior A regarding school, housing, food, travel, and gear are the same rules the CHL must operate under. And the USHL uses the Canadian Junior-A regulations regarding those requirements.
What is the damage caused by the NCAA cutting off the CHL players while accepting the OHA, or the USHL players -- is that kids must make a hard choice, without a hired agent, at age 14-15.
Why is it OK for a kid from Royal Oak, Michigan, to pack up and move 2,000 miles to Alberta to play Junior-A until he is 18 and then enter college? He is given room and board, travel costs, gear, training, plays for a professional coach, plays before paying customers. What is the difference between playing for a Junior-A team in Alberta, or playing for the Red Deer Rebels?
Nothing.
And folks, if you think for one minute that the coaches and players at the Junior-A level care about school more than the CHL people, you are just delusional. The boys in Junior-A couldn't care any less about schooling than the boys in the CHL.
Imagine the world without the NCAA random, baseless line-drawing against the CHL: The talent level in the NCAA would be greatly increased. Kids could play a year or two in the CHL, and then move to college when they are 18-19. Now college hockey is truly a major stepping stone to the NHL, and presenting great hockey. By removing the silly restiction, the NCAA would open up its league to hundreds of highly-talented and experienced players.
The NCAA started this phony war with Canadian Major Juniors so many years ago, I believe we would be hard pressed to know when and how this nonsense all began.
But what the NCAA's obtuse decision to punish CHL players, and look the other way for all other Junior-A players -
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
The problem is kids are committing to colleges at 15 up to 6 years before they arrive on campus. When the kid develops at 17 or so, he realizes that he is an stud and can develop faster in the CHL.
So why, in heaven's name, are colleges tying up scholarships for 15 year olds? Better if they wait until 17 and see which way the kid is leaning. It's a lot less disruption.
The problem is kids are committing to colleges at 15 up to 6 years before they arrive on campus. When the kid develops at 17 or so, he realizes that he is an stud and can develop faster in the CHL.
So why, in heaven's name, are colleges tying up scholarships for 15 year olds? Better if they wait until 17 and see which way the kid is leaning. It's a lot less disruption.
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
Ask John Mariucci. He wanted to protect the USA player.
Ask John Mariucci. He wanted to protect the USA player.
aparch
Well-known member
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
CHL is from 16 to 20 years old. Which covers both USHL/BCHL recruiting (16, 17) and NCAA (17, 18+). That's why scholarships are tied up already on 15 year olds.
I would think that a stud kid would want to go the NCAA route if he's looking for a paycheck. Play two years at the USHL level in High School, play a year in College, and move on to the AHL or NHL. NHL teams would love that because they could have stud kids develop in the AHL at 19 years of age.
What I'd like to see is that kids can leave the CHL at age 18 (or after two years of CHL play) and play NCAA hockey. After two years of CHL play, they're now considered pro, but not sooner. This would give a chance for kids to "correct their wrongs" or to change their minds if CHL isn't a fit. The CIS is made up of a lot of kids pressured into CHL play but never advanced beyond that.
Hell, I'd even open it up and allow the CHL. Are kids given per-diem's for a meal really considered pro-athletes?
Because at 17, the kid already has a year, or even two, under his belt in the CHL.
CHL is from 16 to 20 years old. Which covers both USHL/BCHL recruiting (16, 17) and NCAA (17, 18+). That's why scholarships are tied up already on 15 year olds.
I would think that a stud kid would want to go the NCAA route if he's looking for a paycheck. Play two years at the USHL level in High School, play a year in College, and move on to the AHL or NHL. NHL teams would love that because they could have stud kids develop in the AHL at 19 years of age.
What I'd like to see is that kids can leave the CHL at age 18 (or after two years of CHL play) and play NCAA hockey. After two years of CHL play, they're now considered pro, but not sooner. This would give a chance for kids to "correct their wrongs" or to change their minds if CHL isn't a fit. The CIS is made up of a lot of kids pressured into CHL play but never advanced beyond that.
Hell, I'd even open it up and allow the CHL. Are kids given per-diem's for a meal really considered pro-athletes?
FreddyFoyle
AUS & CIS Hockey Nut
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
For me the crux of the issue is the NCAA in their infinite wisdom somewhere along the line deciding that Junior 'A" hockey is "amateur" and Major Junior is "professional" hockey. No one in Canada sees that distinction (other that a couple of misinformed Toronto columnists). 'Lakerblue' pretty well lays out how little difference there when it comes to how player expenses are paid.
College Hockey Inc. needs to find a way to change or improve their message, echoed here, that only the NCAA is focused on education. Because that is BS. How many of those UND players in recent years who are now NHL players, or even stars, actually played their four years of eligibility? Any? As 'Jnacc' has pointed out, hundreds of CHL alumni are using their education packages to attend CIS schools ... and many of them aren't even playing hockey while there. But they're getting an education, on scholarship, and the CHL does a good job of communicating that to parents and players as 'Plan B' for when you don't get that NHL contract (which of course is most players in the real world).
CIS is not the same as NCAA hockey. Apples and oranges. The top tier CIS teams have rosters made up mostly of CHL alumni - using their education packages. So the average CIS player is a little older, a little more experienced, and most definitely not a "prospect". They've been scouted, sometimes drafted, but not signed, as so choose to go the CIS route instead of going directly to the minor pros. There were only two CIS players in the NHL last year: Joel Ward (University of Prince Edward Island) then with Nashville and now with Washington and Daryl Boyce (University of New Brunswick) with Toronto. The top CIS teams, like the UNB Varsity Reds, can compete with and beat Hockey East and ECAC teams. Yes, even teams like Boston College. Not often, but sometimes.
I love CIS hockey. I love NCAA hockey. The QMJHL Saint John Sea Dogs are the CHL champs and play just over an hour away, but I didn't attend any of their games - just watched them on TV. I was most interested in watching the Sea Dogs player who were rumoured to be recruited by UNB. Sadly, both signed AHL contracts so they won't be coming to Fredericton. If the NCAA could get off their high horses about professionalism then we could all watch CHL hockey and debate if a player will next play NCAA, CIS or pro hockey. But that's fantasy land, and as long as events stay as they are, the CIS will be the richer thanks to all of the CHL alumni coming to play varsity hockey.
Please don't change a thing NCAA!
For me the crux of the issue is the NCAA in their infinite wisdom somewhere along the line deciding that Junior 'A" hockey is "amateur" and Major Junior is "professional" hockey. No one in Canada sees that distinction (other that a couple of misinformed Toronto columnists). 'Lakerblue' pretty well lays out how little difference there when it comes to how player expenses are paid.
College Hockey Inc. needs to find a way to change or improve their message, echoed here, that only the NCAA is focused on education. Because that is BS. How many of those UND players in recent years who are now NHL players, or even stars, actually played their four years of eligibility? Any? As 'Jnacc' has pointed out, hundreds of CHL alumni are using their education packages to attend CIS schools ... and many of them aren't even playing hockey while there. But they're getting an education, on scholarship, and the CHL does a good job of communicating that to parents and players as 'Plan B' for when you don't get that NHL contract (which of course is most players in the real world).
CIS is not the same as NCAA hockey. Apples and oranges. The top tier CIS teams have rosters made up mostly of CHL alumni - using their education packages. So the average CIS player is a little older, a little more experienced, and most definitely not a "prospect". They've been scouted, sometimes drafted, but not signed, as so choose to go the CIS route instead of going directly to the minor pros. There were only two CIS players in the NHL last year: Joel Ward (University of Prince Edward Island) then with Nashville and now with Washington and Daryl Boyce (University of New Brunswick) with Toronto. The top CIS teams, like the UNB Varsity Reds, can compete with and beat Hockey East and ECAC teams. Yes, even teams like Boston College. Not often, but sometimes.
I love CIS hockey. I love NCAA hockey. The QMJHL Saint John Sea Dogs are the CHL champs and play just over an hour away, but I didn't attend any of their games - just watched them on TV. I was most interested in watching the Sea Dogs player who were rumoured to be recruited by UNB. Sadly, both signed AHL contracts so they won't be coming to Fredericton. If the NCAA could get off their high horses about professionalism then we could all watch CHL hockey and debate if a player will next play NCAA, CIS or pro hockey. But that's fantasy land, and as long as events stay as they are, the CIS will be the richer thanks to all of the CHL alumni coming to play varsity hockey.
Please don't change a thing NCAA!
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
One thing I think we're all forgetting is that anyone who is coming to the NCAA is first and foremost getting an education. Sports (even football and basketball, no matter how much ESPN tries to shove it down our throats) are secondary to the education. Last year we had this whole spat about how the students were one-and-done in college to go to the AHL. Obviously in those cases, they were probably better off going to Major Junior in the first place, but that'd be like any student that wanted to transfer colleges for whatever reason. Obviously for the Major Junior flops, there's always a Canadian college to receive an education. I realize that the NHL star that wants a four-year education (like Joé Juneau) is very rare these days, and it's sad to see sports first and education second, but I suppose that's the way the cookie crumbles.
One thing I think we're all forgetting is that anyone who is coming to the NCAA is first and foremost getting an education. Sports (even football and basketball, no matter how much ESPN tries to shove it down our throats) are secondary to the education. Last year we had this whole spat about how the students were one-and-done in college to go to the AHL. Obviously in those cases, they were probably better off going to Major Junior in the first place, but that'd be like any student that wanted to transfer colleges for whatever reason. Obviously for the Major Junior flops, there's always a Canadian college to receive an education. I realize that the NHL star that wants a four-year education (like Joé Juneau) is very rare these days, and it's sad to see sports first and education second, but I suppose that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: NCAA vs CHL battle for players
As has been stated in this thread and others, what needs to change is the "profesional" status of players that choose the CHL at 16,17,18 and can never change their minds and go the NCAA route. Why should a kid like Kyle Turris have to choose the BCHL over the WHL? Granted he did...and he played at Wisconsin after...but is college hockey really better off with having Turris for one year? How can they claim to be serious about academics and allow a player to bolt after 1 season?
I don't think you will ever see the NCAA allow a 20-21 year old CHL player to choose an NCAA school. Although it would be funny to get CHL players to come to an NCAA school on CHL scholarship
As has been stated in this thread and others, what needs to change is the "profesional" status of players that choose the CHL at 16,17,18 and can never change their minds and go the NCAA route. Why should a kid like Kyle Turris have to choose the BCHL over the WHL? Granted he did...and he played at Wisconsin after...but is college hockey really better off with having Turris for one year? How can they claim to be serious about academics and allow a player to bolt after 1 season?