Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

CIS/NCAA Comparasion

Expand Messages
  • craig_1965ca
    In the past there have been some discussions on the caliber of play in the NCAA and CIS. I came across this outstanding article which I believe does a very
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In the past there have been some discussions on the caliber of play
      in the NCAA and CIS. I came across this outstanding article which I
      believe does a very good job comparing the two systems.

      I have a couple of questions based on this.

      1. When did the NCAA ban players who played Major Junior hockey?

      2. What was the logic behind this move? I am assuming this was due to
      Major Junior players receiving a small "stipend" towards living
      expenses. If this is the case how did the US Olympic committee and
      NCAA justify having players who played Major Junior on their Olympic
      team if Major Junior players were considered "pro" by them? If they
      accepted the IOC ruling that they were not pros how did the NCAA then
      justify their decision? Also don't NCAA players receive compensation
      (room and board, tuition, etc) We know this is the case so again
      where is the logic behind banning Major Junior players?

      3. Finally what do we think of the idea of a North American
      championship series between the CIS and NCAA champs? One point that
      is very valid in this article is the best CIS programs traditionally
      do okay against good NCAA teams and that is in a situation where they
      are always on the road and usually playing a very hectic road
      schedule and on a bigger ice surface. That being said they do okay.
      (The weaker CIS programs usually get killed.) As an aside the fact
      that NCAA teams won't come up here is disappointing. Back in 1984
      Harvard with several members of the 1984 US Olympic team toured
      Ontario playing OUA schools, like University of Western Ontario,
      University of Toronto, York University, etc. The games were played in
      late November with front line line-ups going all out (I went to two
      of the games) and the hockey was fantastic


    • William Underwood
      I know that the ban was there in the 70 s. Major Junior as we know it was not a separate category until then. Now I recall a court case that was I THINK
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I know that the ban was there in the 70's. Major Junior as we know it was
        not a separate category until then. Now I recall a court case that was I
        THINK 1969.Given that guys had come out of junior throughout the 60's it
        must have been around the early WCHL era and junior structure changed. I'll
        have to do more research.

        Now on to why.it was the amateurism issue. As to why what the NCAA doing
        differently does not count.because the NCAA says so. They say that it is
        part of a scholarship not payment. Are we slicing definitions thin? Yes. And
        people have said so for years including a lot of friends that I have who
        coach in the NCAA. The NCAA has a mission that really is pretty much
        impossible to execute these days. In a by gone halcyon era when student
        athletes were just that, there were no billion dollar TV deals at stake and
        there was no mass interest in how State U did in the big football game it
        was EASY. Not today. Today you have cash cow sports in some schools being
        governed by the same body and essentially the same rules as tiny ones lower
        divisions and sports with no major revenue being governed too. Now there ARE
        SOME differences between the rules of the various bodies. BUT they have to
        take care VERY carefully and be able to possibly justify any differences IN
        COURT. Now if you allow hockey players to make money and in the CHL players
        get more money than just a living stipend in some cases and if you add in
        educational packages the money can get potentially get substantial you could
        open the doors to issues in football and basketball. Add on that the CHL
        gets development money from the NHL AND players under NHL contract can play
        in it the worries get even bigger. Say football and basketball players say
        "wait a darn minute, how come they can get pro deals and I can't. I want to
        try out for the Giants, Lakers etc next year and if I don't cut it, I want
        to come back." If a player could win a court case and have that opened up
        there would be HAVOC in those big money sports. And if such a case was won
        it would impact the small schools that NFL guys sometimes come out of. So
        there are a plethora of professionalism issues that they have., It is one
        of those rules that outside of Red Berenson I don't know anyone in hockey on
        EITHER side CHL or NCAA who would not like to see it changed. The CHL would
        then sign EVERY SINGLE player, there would be NO reason to NOT sign and
        there would be less mischief at draft time when we see the "I only wanted to
        be drafted by." game each year. As for the NCAA.to quote a buddy of mine who
        coaches there "You're darn right I'd like to see it changed, I'd have 1200
        more top kids to recruit." Yes some top stars would never get to the NCAA
        but they WOULD get a lot of stars who are great juniors with limited pro
        potential or need to market themselves more to get into the pros. They STILL
        would get the late bloomer. And keep in mind right now a lot of those top
        guys are leaving very early, a good many to major junior others go pro. So
        it is a rule that most hockey folks would like to see dumped. Red is the
        only shrill voice that I have heard the other way.and I have no idea why as
        he would have been banned if there was a similar rule in the 50's! :-)

        Now one spin off and after thought in the 60's/70's was that it would mean
        more jobs for American kids. And that was TRUE back then. I think now
        Americans hold their own MUCH better! US Hockey has improved. I think we see
        that with Americans holding their own across the board. Hell, in the CHL
        there are over 100 Americans playing!

        On issue three.NO WAY! Craig, I have yet to see CIS teams really show me the
        stuff to take on NCAA teams under really live fire. College exhibitions are
        meaningless as is ANY inter conference play. I GO to these games EVERY YEAR.
        They are, well, BAD! The better team NCAA over CIS or higher division
        usually plays all of the kids, sits upper classmen, switches goalies and the
        vets are allergic to the corner and there is no fire. The lesser team comes
        out like the Bengal Lancers. The CIS just doesn't get the better guys! They
        lack the scholarships, facilities and the traditions even the atmosphere.
        They just are not the same level. On an NCAA championship team there are
        generally a couple of really legit NHL prospects and some times more than a
        couple.CIS teams are lucky to put so much as ONE GUY into the NHL. They
        would get smeared! Top tier two and the majority of top US guys go NCAA
        while the top major junior guys go pro.they simply don't get enough top
        players. Keep in mind Craig that the Harvard team that you saw was not the
        best NCAA team.that was the era of RPI in their league. Harvard actually is
        closer to a Canadian school in philosophy.there are no guts and they
        emphasize SCHOOL. They lack the depth that other institutions do. Now the
        gap may well close a bit as more top US players opt for major junior and
        less numbers of really top Canadians go NCAA as has been the general trend.
        But right now I think that there is a real gap between the top teams. When
        has a CIS team had a Stastny or a Vanek? They just don't get them.It would
        be fun but the NCAA has more to lose than the CIS and there would be just a
        ton of issues not the least of which that it would have to played well into
        April over at least two weekends after the Frozen Four.I don't see it
        happening. And if the major junior rule changes? The NCAA will get the
        better kids with their bigger budgets. Unless and until either the NCAA gets
        more purist ala the CIS or the CIS more mercenary like the top NCAA sports
        programs which has a spill off effect to lesser sports, there is a major

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.