Recruits 2026 and Beyond

[stereax]

If I was the one choosing I would send all of our best recruits to the USHL. It's older, plays the college hockey Friday/Saturday game schedule, and seems more similar to ECAC style hockey (structured and defensive).

The CHL schedule makes it harder for guys to get stronger during the season and the leagues overall are less focused on development and future success than the USHL is.

The CHL, to me, has historically been focused on getting its top guys to the NHL quick and everyone else can kick sand. But yeah, the college hockey schedule of the USHL is definitely a boon. Though aren't the CHL and the USHL both up to 20 years old, with the CHL having a few overagers a year?

[BearLover]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

[stereax]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

CHL's still a cut above the USHL, imo, due to factors like pace and playtime and all.

And don't a bunch of our recruits come from leagues like the BCHL?

My point is - if you're sticking in the CHL, and playing in the lineup consistently, you're probably pretty solid even if you're not putting up the points.

[BearLover]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

It's kind of nonsensical to say CHL>USHL when the CHL is comprised of three different leagues and one of those leagues is considered to be worse than the USHL.

The thread you linked to is full of posts like this one: "The Q has been a worse league than the USHL for at least five years now by just about every single metric."

Which brings me back to my original point (which I guess some people disputed for some reason): the USHL and CHL are comparable. If a recruit is producing zero points in the CHL, that is not a good sign.

And don't a bunch of our recruits come from leagues like the BCHL?

Not anymore really. Prior to CHL NCAA eligibility we would recruit heavily from the BCHL (along with many other schools), and rarely from the other leagues like the OJHL, CCHL. CHL eligibility seems to have changed things. We currently don't have any BCHL recruits outside of players cut from their CHL teams.

[scoop85]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

[stereax]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [pauses to take a deep breath] AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

God. I love remembering that Lafreniere exists. What a bust.

[Trotsky]

NCAA>CHL>USHL>BCHL/NAHL/OJHL/etc.

In CHL: OHL>WHL>QMJHL.

The Q is described by some of my prospect-watching friends as "fake French hockey", if that tells you what regard it's held in. It also has my favorite CHL team, which tells you what regard I hold it in. Here's a recent forum post about the junior leagues that's, imo, pretty accurate.

All that being said, the CHL is a different STYLE of hockey than the USHL. More physical for sure. I'm not sure how the scoring differs, but the disparity can be massive between the haves and have-nots. The Q gets up to crazy shit. The W and O are a lot stronger, though.

The US(HL) hasn't been producing as many top picks as even a year or three ago - the NTDP is not what it once was! A lot of the top picks go to the NCAA for their draft year.

All that being said, lack of scoring in the CHL is not AS big of an issue as the USHL, imo, especially for recruits that are 17 or 18 or whatever. And the fact that you're even getting CHL guys now is big. If they're getting regular reps in the CHL, you can bet they're probably a cut above the USHL guys, and several above other leagues.

Alexis Lafreniere would be the poster boy for how much weaker the Q is than the OHL or WHL.

When I was a lad I served a term
As WHL fan of the Portland firm

And my impression back then, going on 30 years ago, was the Q was firewagon hockey with tremendous skills and finesse, the occasional gifted (and tested) goaltender, and absolutely no defense.

They were not weaker.  Merely different.  They have won 4 of the last 6 Memorial Cups, and 7 of the last 13.

[chimpfood]

Wehmann and Arend have been hot recently, both older guys in their leagues so good to see the scoring still progressing. Emerton picked up a goal and Tuminaro also picked up an assist tonight.

[scoop85]

Wehmann and Arend have been hot recently, both older guys in their leagues so good to see the scoring still progressing. Emerton picked up a goal and Tuminaro also picked up an assist tonight.

Wehmann has 8 points over his last 10 games, and Arend has 9 over that same stretch.

We've had good success with guys who committed late in the process (both Hiscock and Caton Ryan committed fairly late in 2024), and Arend looks like another guy who can be productive for us.