Mark "Fricken" Jankowski (aka The Big Jankowski)

[FAN]

Originally Posted by kehatch

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.

I disagree. Players drafted out of the CHL were declining prior to the 2005 lockout but experienced a significant spike afterwards and the CHL has remained dominant since and that's not counting the number of college bound draft picks that end up playing in the CHL. There's a good reason for that. Teams have placed a heavier emphasis on player development and being more hands on in terms of training programs prospects develop under. Most GMs have spoken openly about the need to develop prospects and get them to the NHL more quickly than before. That means getting them signed and trying to control where they go. This is why we've seen GMs steer their first round picks away from the NCAA and towards the CHL. This is why there is a Russian factor. European players benefit from playing in the CHL as far as NHL teams are concerned.


If I was an NHL GM, I wouldn't be doing my job if I wasn't looking into where my a potential draft pick would likely play next year. Will he be playing in the 2nd tier Swedish Elite league or getting top minutes on an SEL team? Will he be redshirted? Playing in the USHL? Getting burried on a deep team? If there is something that can be done to improve player development, then the development program has to matter.


If I was an NHL GM, I will never risk a top prospect taking advantage of the Mike Van Ryn or Justin Schultz loophole. I don't mind a prospect getting one to two years of NCAA experience, but I prefer having my prospect signed and playing in the CHL or AHL. A prospect's willingness to not play 4 years in the NCAA is extremely important. Take a look at the top picks that wasn't drafted out of the CHL. How many guys have played or are still playing in the NCAA? Not many of them. Factor in the fact that most NCAA prospects can't and don't pay their way and attend an NHL team's training camp and there is a significant edge to drafting a CHL prospect over someone from the NCAA if the prospect is anywhere close to being NHL ready sooner rather than later.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

I agree with your points except the bolded part. I would bet that almost every elite level prospect and their parents would have contemplated entry into college or university by the time they have been identified and drafted into Major Junior. It's a very much an informed process nowadays. By the time I entered high school, I have thought about university. I would assume that most kids entering high school nowadays would have thought about going to university or college. It would be silly to assume that high level prospects have never given the university or college route some thought by the time they are identified and drafted into Major Junior.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FAN

I agree with your points except the bolded part. I would bet that almost every elite level prospect and their parents would have contemplated entry into college or university by the time they have been identified and drafted into Major Junior. It's a very much an informed process nowadays. By the time I entered high school, I have thought about university. I would assume that most kids entering high school nowadays would have thought about going to university or college. It would be silly to assume that high level prospects have never given the university or college route some thought by the time they are identified and drafted into Major Junior.

Maybe you are missing my point, or maybe I didn't state it very clearly. My point os not that prospects have not opted out of the college route, it is rather that the CHL presents their only option to play elite level hockey as a 16–17-year-old: an option that is unavailable at the college level. I believe that a primary contributor to the higher number of "high-end" prospects graduating from the CHL compared with NCAA is not a product of prospects CHOOSING the CHL over college so much as it is the product of the CHL being the ONLY good choice for 16-year-old players. Again, if NCAA eligibility were the same as the CHL, I think it is reasonable to expect a dramatic shift in the numbers to their favour. But as the system is currently structured, by the time young players are ready to go to college, a high number of the elite prospects are already preparing to make the move directly from Juniour to the NHL. When was the last time a top-five draft pick coming out of the CHL opted to spend +3 years in college at the expense of one more year of Juniour, or a NHL roster spot? Has it ever happened?

[moon]

Blake Wheeler spent 3 years in college but he wasn't exactly a top prospect at that point even though he was drafted 5th overall. Plus he was trying use the loophole which likely had a lot to do with his staying in school.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by moon

Blake Wheeler spent 3 years in college but he wasn't exactly a top prospect at that point even though he was drafted 5th overall. Plus he was trying use the loophole which likely had a lot to do with his staying in school.

Yeah, he got the choice of which city to play in. How's that working out for him now?

To answer my own question, he's not on a flight to Hawaii.

[icarus]

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.....

Maybe he's so smart that he was waiting for Cabbie to specify whether this was to be under IUPAC standard conditions or not. It would make about a 2 degree Celcius difference when compared to ambient conditions in Edmonton.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by icarus

Maybe he's so smart that he was waiting for Cabbie to specify whether this was to be under IUPAC standard conditions or not. It would make about a 2 degree Celcius difference when compared to ambient conditions in Edmonton.

Cogliano knows, as many people do, that the boiling point of water changes with atmospheric pressure. By not answering Cabbie's question he subtley called attention to the fact that Cabbie has no business asking 'real' questions.

WTF is this thread about again?

[Komskies]

Water boils at 71*C on top of Mount Everest.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe you are missing my point, or maybe I didn't state it very clearly. My point os not that prospects have not opted out of the college route, it is rather that the CHL presents their only option to play elite level hockey as a 16–17-year-old: an option that is unavailable at the college level. I believe that a primary contributor to the higher number of "high-end" prospects graduating from the CHL compared with NCAA is not a product of prospects CHOOSING the CHL over college so much as it is the product of the CHL being the ONLY good choice for 16-year-old players. Again, if NCAA eligibility were the same as the CHL, I think it is reasonable to expect a dramatic shift in the numbers to their favour. But as the system is currently structured, by the time young players are ready to go to college, a high number of the elite prospects are already preparing to make the move directly from Juniour to the NHL.

I see. I suppose I agree with your points, but for now your points are rather pointless IMO. The NCAA is a college assocation and you need to be college eligible to be in college. So I'm not really sure how useful and relevant it is to argue hypotheticals that will simply never happen. Of course, there's a chance that the USHL will someday match the CHL in quality, but the NCAA isn't going to allow players who haven't graduated from high school to go to college and play on college teams.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When was the last time a top-five draft pick coming out of the CHL opted to spend +3 years in college at the expense of one more year of Juniour, or a NHL roster spot? Has it ever happened?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at. As soon as a teenager plays a single exhibition game for a CHL team that teeanager is no longer eligible for the NCAA. So of course there isn't a top-five draft pick coming out of the CHL who opted to spend +3 years in college at the expense of one more year of Junior or a NHL roster spot. It's an impossibility, unless you're referring to Canadian colleges and universities.

[Diemenz]

I came into this thread to post something but read 4 posts and forgot what this thread was about.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

I came into this thread to post something but read 4 posts and forgot what this thread was about.

It's clearly about the boiling point of water and how you need to suffer mental deficiencies to willing sign with Edmonton

[Hockey_Ninja]

[Joborule]

Hahaha, nice one. The expression of his face is perfect.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Shop some hipster glasses on him, and it suddenly becomes a lot funnier...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FAN

...I'm not really sure how useful and relevant it is to argue hypotheticals that will simply never happen. Of course, there's a chance that the USHL will someday match the CHL in quality, but the NCAA isn't going to allow players who haven't graduated from high school to go to college and play on college teams.

Of course not. But the point is relevant in that it demonstrates why most of the top players graduate from the CHL than the NCAA. It has much less to do with any supposed discrepancy between these Leagues' ability to develop players, and much more to do with circumstances. In short, I don't think this counts as an argument in favour of the supremacy of the CHL's training programs.

Originally Posted by FAN

...As soon as a teenager plays a single exhibition game for a CHL team that teeanager is no longer eligible for the NCAA. So of course there isn't a top-five draft pick coming out of the CHL who opted to spend +3 years in college at the expense of one more year of Junior or a NHL roster spot. It's an impossibility, unless you're referring to Canadian colleges and universities.

This is something of which I was unaware, but I think it actually helps to demonstrate my point, which is simply this: The NCAA is NOT an an inferior development program to the CHL; it only appears that way because the talent-pool available to the NCAA is alot smaller than for the CHL.

Anyways, with respect to the topic of discussion, I think that any concerns about how Jankowski performs relative to the perceived level of competition in the NCAA are irrelevant, and in the end, I expect that we will agree that the NCAA was the best choice for his development.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The NCAA is NOT an an inferior development program to the CHL; it only appears that way because the talent-pool available to the NCAA is alot smaller than for the CHL.

But isn't quality of competition important? It's like arguing that some obscure hockey league's player development program isn't inferior to the CHL and that it only appears that way because the talent-pool is a lot smaller. At some point, disadvantages matter.



There are obviously good things going for both the CHL and NCAA. But the talent playing NCAA hockey has been getting worse the past few years. As mentioned, many NHL teams have been actively steering their prospects towards the CHL. Our very own Patrick Sieloff decided to play for Windsor instead of for Miami (I assume Flames management had something to do with that).



I do think the CHL is a superior development program and it has to do with quality of competition, quality of teammates, and the number of games they play. The problem with the NCAA is that if you're not on a good team you're going to be stuck in a losing environment. Providence has a new coach now, but their program has sucked for years and it's not easy turning around a program or building up a program in the NCAA (although the current incoming glass with Jankowski and Gillies is a good start). The only hope is that Jankowski carries his team to success, but if he fails to do that you can bet he'll be stuck on a losing program for the next few years. That's not the case for players in the CHL, the existence of an entry draft can translate to success on the ice being cyclical. There's also the fact that older players stuck on bad teams are frequently traded to better teams and get to experience playoff hockey. CHL players don't get to play against 22-23 year olds, but they get to play against much higher quality talent on a night to night basis.


While the NCAA has benefitted from the US producing better hockey players both in quantity and quality, top players forgoing college and playing in the CHL has become a real problem for the NCAA in recent years and I don't think this can be dismissed. At some point, lack of competition is going to seriously hamper player development.

[Forever Flames]

Can we please lock this thread until some has something to say about Jankowski?

[Trailer Fire]

I like Mark Jankowski. There.

[FanningTheFlames]

Yeah, I agree. The debate about the relative merits of the CHL versus college has derailed this thread. If you wish to continue this debate, please start a new thread. Enough already!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by FAN

But isn't quality of competition important? It's like arguing that some obscure hockey league's player development program isn't inferior to the CHL and that it only appears that way because the talent-pool is a lot smaller. At some point, disadvantages matter.

This point (less high end talent) is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that the talent in the NCAA is older and thus more developed. So Jankowski may not be playing against the best 18 and 19 year olds in the world but he is playing against some 21, 22, 23 year old men who have had more development time than CHL players.