Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[devo22]

Yep. If I remember correctly, Flames prospect David Eddy wasn't allowed to play in the second half of the 2010-11 season because his grades were not good enough ... it's not like they just play hockey and get a degree for doing nothing else.

[moon]

I don't think yet are just boozing it up and partying all the time but I know ow easy it is to maintain a "solid GPA" and a year or two of college, athlete or not, doesn't likely make someone that much ahead wen it comes to understanding the CBA.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Diverce

You do realize that in order to play they have to keep a solid GPA and go to class unless they have a reason to be excused like a road trip. They do have tutors that go on trips with them so they don't fall behind.

And no, they don't have people that do their homework for them. If any athlete is caught cheating they can get kicked off the team. And the school, and the program can be put under investigation to make sure whether or not it was just an isolated incident.

I saw a Cabbie interview where he asked trivia questions to the top prospects of 2005. Cogliano who attended college for two years couldn't answer what the boiling point of water is.....

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I saw a Cabbie interview where he asked trivia questions to the top prospects of 2005. Cogliano who attended college for two years couldn't answer what the boiling point of water is.....

He also signed a contract in Edmonton.......

[blankall]

Originally Posted by moon

I don't think yet are just boozing it up and partying all the time but I know ow easy it is to maintain a "solid GPA" and a year or two of college, athlete or not, doesn't likely make someone that much ahead wen it comes to understanding the CBA.

You get out of college what you put into it. It'd be pretty easy to stay off academic probation taking 3 courses a year in a BS arts degree. You could float through with a C average, keep your scholarship, and learn very little.

[sketchyt]

I was surprised at that stat (I thought it would be lower by half). The CHL is closer to 50% I believe, but the NCAA route sure doesn't scream 'second rate' to me.

[moon]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

I was surprised at that stat (I thought it would be lower by half). The CHL is closer to 50% I believe, but the NCAA route sure doesn't scream 'second rate' to me.

If the CHL is first in terms of putting people in the NHL and the NCAA is behind it in second wouldn't that mean it is exactly second rate?

I mean it can't be first because the CHL is clearly ahead of it.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by moon

If the CHL is first in terms of putting people in the NHL and the NCAA is behind it in second wouldn't that mean it is exactly second rate?

I mean it can't be first because the CHL is clearly ahead of it.

The CHL is losing % share of players put in the NHL. NCAA is gaining quickly. Your term second rate would imply the NCAA is a much inferior product and you've said as much. It isn't. At this point, it would be like choosing between coke and pepsi.

[sun]

That is a poor analogy as coke is a hugely inferior drink when compared to Pepsi.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by sun

That is a poor analogy as coke is a hugely inferior drink when compared to Pepsi.

It's totally second rate.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by sun

That is a poor analogy as coke is a hugely inferior drink when compared to Pepsi.

You must have a sweet tooth. Pepsi contains more sugar than coke and you can taste it pretty clearly. I'll take coke if I have a choice.

[moon]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

The CHL is losing % share of players put in the NHL. NCAA is gaining quickly. Your term second rate would imply the NCAA is a much inferior product and you've said as much. It isn't. At this point, it would be like choosing between coke and pepsi.

Unless you are saying that one of Coke or Pepsi is far behind the other I don't see the comparison.

The CHL is much better at putting elite players in the league and better at putting overall players in the league as well.

The NCAA is gaining but is still far behind the CHL they are not close right now at all.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by moon

If the CHL is first in terms of putting people in the NHL and the NCAA is behind it in second wouldn't that mean it is exactly second rate?

I mean it can't be first because the CHL is clearly ahead of it.

You should have said second instead of second rate, annnd you know it......but you are having fun and actually have some poster's sucked in, so carry on.

[Calgary4LIfe]

In my humble opinion, the CHL seems much better at putting out 'star' players. Franchise players, if you may. These kids have great upside and ceilings - your Tavares, Stamkos, RNH, Hall, Crosby, etc., etc.,... Players that are 'supposed' to be franchise players. It is a shorter ticket to the NHL - and they are more 'ready' to be players in the NHL.

NCAA is seems to be much better for players that are not quite ready to jump into the NHL. That league seems to be better for players that are physically not ready to compete in the near future. Players for the Flames like Gaudreau and Jankowski - players that need a bit more time for size and/or more of a focus on systems play.

For the sake of argument, if I happened to be an elite prospect, I would much rather choose the CHL over the NCAA every day of the week. If I was a borderline player, or someone with a high ceiling but needing more time, I would seriously be considering the NCAA.

In short, what makes one league 'superior' to the other? Superior to me means "how likely is that league going to turn me into an NHL player?".

More and more prospects are choosing the NCAA over the CHL because of the development time, more focus on practices and more focus on systems play. Conversely, more 'stars' seem to prefer the CHL as it gives them more exposure - more games to showcase how they are, and in a league that is more closely followed by scouting.

There is no question that the CHL puts out many more NHL players than the NCAA, but more players are looking at the NCAA as a very viable option. What is second rate? Depends on what prospect you ask, and what their circumstances are. A Yakupov is never going to NCAA - what would be the point? A Gaudreau, Jankowski, or other such player would benefit more from the NCAA than the USHL or the CHL, in my opinion, due to more emphasis on practices, more time to hit the gym, and at least gives them the option of pursuing an additional career if their NHL dreams don't quite pan out.

I am only making a guess here, but if the NCAA suddenly expanded substantially in terms of available teams, and started awarding scholarships, you would see a lot of Canadian kids start opting to go the NCAA route instead of the CHL route - borderline players (who vastly outnumber the 'stars' to say the least) would flock to the NCAA.

You can't really definitely say one is better over the other in terms of a development league. Even looking at the percentages of players from the CHL and the NCAA that make it to the NHL, it would still be biased as the NCAA doesn't offer scholarships for just any player either.

It all comes down to each individual prospect and what his needs are, and how 'close' he is to making the NHL, and if not, is he 'good enough' to get an NCAA scholarship. Just what I think...

To go back on track, does anyone know how long Jankowski is going to be playing wing for? Are they waiting for him to 'catch up' with the systems side of hockey? For him to fill out more? Or just to get his ears wet for a short time before transitioning back to center? Curious to see how long he stays on wing. I really hope they don't just keep him at wing for the entire season (though it would make sense if they want him to bulk up a bit more).

Also, how is his skating compared to the other NCAA guys? Is he 'average', or better/worse? Seemed to be fine in the Flames camp, though tough to tell sometimes from such a small sample size.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by moon

If the CHL is first in terms of putting people in the NHL and the NCAA is behind it in second wouldn't that mean it is exactly second rate?

I mean it can't be first because the CHL is clearly ahead of it.

It doesn't necessarily mean it is second rate in terms of developing NHLers. You'd have to take a look at the numbers of players and percentages of players. The CHL may produce more players simply because more elite Canadian athletes choose hockey and thus the player pool is much larger. That wouldn't necessarily make the CHL the best development league but would merely mean that Canada funnels more high end athletes into hockey.

If your argument is that Canada produces the most NHLers then you are right. But that doesn't necessarily correlate with the CHL being the best group of leagues for developing all players that play in those leagues.

[Forever Flames]

WTF thread am I in, isn't this supposed to be about Jankowski? Start a different thread, this highjacking needs to end.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by moon

Unless you are saying that one of Coke or Pepsi is far behind the other I don't see the comparison.

The CHL is much better at putting elite players in the league and better at putting overall players in the league as well.

The NCAA is gaining but is still far behind the CHL they are not close right now at all.

Again that doesn't necessarily mean that the CHL develops players best. It could merely mean that a greater number of high end athletes play in the CHL because hockey is a much more popular sport in Canada than in the US. You have to look at the inputs into these leagues if you're judging them on the outputs.

Given their population sizes one could argue that in a country like the Slovakian their junior leagues produce a great number of high end players per capita. Slovakia has some high end NHLers for a country as small as it is (5.5 million) and many of its top athletes choose soccer.

So judging the CHL just based on sheer number of NHLers doesn't really tell us that it is the best development league in the world or not. It could mean that it is. Or it could simply mean that the CHL receives the highest number of talented bantam aged players in the world and that obviously some of those will turn out.

[moon]

People want this to go away so I will try to be brief.

I have said many times that the NCAA is a good route for many kids to go but overall the CHL is better. The CHL for whatever reason doesn't get near enough credit for developing guys that aren't studs coming into the league and for developing guys that are lower level draft picks in the NHL. They actually do fine at both.

For whatever reason lately it seems cool to bang on hockey Canada and the CHL but the fact is they are the best at producing NHL players whether elite or not. This doesn't mean that the NCAA is a bad route to go but it still is second best (maybe 3rd after Europe) at developing players whether elite or not.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by moon

People want this to go away so I will try to be brief.

I have said many times that the NCAA is a good route for many kids to go but overall the CHL is better. The CHL for whatever reason doesn't get near enough credit for developing guys that aren't studs coming into the league and for developing guys that are lower level draft picks in the NHL. They actually do fine at both.

For whatever reason lately it seems cool to bang on hockey Canada and the CHL but the fact is they are the best at producing NHL players whether elite or not. This doesn't mean that the NCAA is a bad route to go but it still is second best (maybe 3rd after Europe) at developing players whether elite or not.

I think the winds may be changing though. My kid plays hockey in Canada but most his friends do not. The cost, politics, time investment, pressure, silly locals and times, etc make it difficult to support a kid in hockey. I heard a stat that less then 10% of Canadian children play the game. That is horrible.

My kid is in a decent area. But one of the larger areas in Calgary has had to hire evaluators to supervise the evaluators to keep it fair. And now lawyers have joined the group. Its silly and most parents just don't see the point when their kid can play soccer or another sport.

The CHL pays kids a paltry 50 per week and forces them to billet with strangers. They only get to play to 19 or 20 and the focus is as much on winning as it is development. The scholarships they get are time dated so if they actually decide to play pro hockey (and take their shot at the NHL) they lose out on it.

Meanwhile the NCAA provides an education while playing in a league dedicated to development. It is a league that puts out top athletes in other sports. The players are given more dedicate conditioning programs and off ice support, live in their dorms, and get to participate in a more static environment in terms of roster turn over. They also get to play against adults.

There are pros and cons to both leagues. And I would agree that for now the CHL is the better development league. But it hockey development in Canada is rapidly falling off and the European and American development systems are catching up quickly. If it keeps up I don't think we will be able to say that the CHL is the top division in 10 or even 5 years.

And in the scheme of things they are close to parity now. In terms of a player like Jankowski I don't give a second thought to him being developed in the NCAA versus the CHL. They are both very effective programs. It really doesn't matter. It is about finding the best player, not the best development system. Pure and simple.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Again that doesn't necessarily mean that the CHL develops players best. It could merely mean that a greater number of high end athletes play in the CHL because hockey is a much more popular sport in Canada than in the US. You have to look at the inputs into these leagues if you're judging them on the outputs...

Furthermore, I would think that the numbers skew towards the CHL as a result of how minor hockey is organized in Canada. It was mentioned that the CHL produces many more "high-end" players, but that is likely a product of the decisions these kids and their parents make when they are already 14 or 15-years-old. The simple reason the CHL seems to produce more high end players is because elite level prospects are primarily already identified and drafted into Major Juniour at the age of 16—long before most of them contemplate entry into college or university.

I expect that if NCAA were to include 16 and 17-year-old kids in their programs, then the development rates would level out considerably even more so. The point is that the CHL is currently the only elite level training programme for kids this age, so by the time a large number of them are eligible for NCAA entry, their course has already been set.