CHL can now play NCAA - change everything !

[Wieters]

Michigan head coach was on spittin chiclets and said its dramatic better path for high end chl player to move ncaa at 19 then stay chl and play against 16-17-18 year kids .

Brandon Naurato has been banging this drum for quite some time. Even before this Spittin Chiclets interview, he had been saying in press conferences etc. how the pitch he makes to kids choosing between college hockey or elsewhere sells itself.

Here's the link with a timestamp in case anyone is curious. He literally looks at the camera and directly addresses prospects in the CHL and tells them to choose college (Michigan) instead.

I'm not sure I've heard other prominent coaches go on the record as explicitly about the competition between the various leagues. But I'm sure other college coaches at least at adjacent programs like BC/BU/NoDak/Minnesota/Denver are making the same pitch behind closed doors.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Michigan head coach was on spittin chiclets and said its dramatic better path for high end chl player to move ncaa at 19 then stay chl and play against 16-17-18 year kids .

Of course he's going to say this—he's angling for his program to attract even better talent.

But what is "better"? Higher level competition, at least in terms of experience of competition and physical maturity, isn't the same thing as better development. That high-end CHL player is getting 20 minutes a game playing 70+ games a year, potentially for a coach they have a good rapport with in a system that works for them, all the while they have access to their NHL club and the development resources that go with that.

This would be more attractive for a lower round draft pick unhappy with their CHL team who is also likely to require 1-2+ years in the AHL for seasoning before they get a legitimate shot at an NHL spot. It is a hard sell to delay for ELC and leave a system that is working for you to go to a brand new spot in a different country.

 

[wetcoast]

Michigan head coach was on spittin chiclets and said its dramatic better path for high end chl player to move ncaa at 19 then stay chl and play against 16-17-18 year kids .

Of course he would say that and for some players sure that might be true but for others not so much.

Like most situations, except for the top players it's probably not a good thing really.

 

[Wieters]

It is a hard sell to delay for ELC and leave a system that is working for you to go to a brand new spot in a different country.

It's really not that hard of a sell when the landing spot is as desirable as some of these colleges are. Watch the video I linked if you can't understand this and are curious; it will be pretty obvious what the appeal would be to a teenage boy.

This is a point I think is lost on a lot of people when they only discuss the development angle. There is a massive curb appeal to the college lifestyle that the CHL/AHL and even NHL can't compete with.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

What I think will happen is the WHL will likely split into two leagues in the CHL making the CHL up to four leagues. Could also see it being five.

 

[hockeykid87]

What I think will happen is the WHL will likely split into two leagues in the CHL making the CHL up to four leagues. Could also see it being five.

Why would they do that

 

[Bubbles]

Cases like these should result in massive CBA changes in terms of how long teams hold CHLers' rights for. Not all will go to the NCAA, some will sign right away (which could result in massive CHL-NHL Agreement changes in regards to AHL eligibility), but most will probably go to the NCAA so teams will ask for a longer rights holding period for them.

Ripple effects across every league will be insane. The NCAA opening up to CHLers will result in altered Clark Cup, Memorial Cup, NCAA Tournament, Calder Cup, & Stanley Cup champions due to these ripple effects from player movement & better/worse development paths.

Well, players from the CHL still only have 2 years. I doubt that they can "double dip" and extend their rights to another 4 years. In Levis' case, his NHL rights expire in 2025, where he will still be eligible to be drafted AGAIN. That's where it gets really confusing, if a team drafts him then would they have 2 or 4 years of rights to Levis? An interesting question.

 

[Strummer53]

I'd make the assumption that like anything else (ie player drafted in Europe then coming to play in the CHL), the draft rights and rules go with where the player was drafted from, not where they currently are playing.

 

[Bubbles]

I think some people just don't really understand that the CHL is very watered down at the moment. They look at the list of players that come out which is really impressive when presented as an all star list, or maybe even watch the Memorial Cup and see entire league's worth of teams trade players over to the best team in the league for draft picks/17 year olds. But there's 60 teams across three CHL leagues. The vast majority of players just aren't that good and aren't borderline NHLers just because they play in the same league as McDavid, little more than anyone is almost an NHL player because they played on the same Atom team as Crosby.

Every year, a number of very high end CHL players, championship winning 1st line players with great stats, high character, team captain types sign AHL Contracts and try to cling to their life to an AHL lineup spot and avoid getting sent down to the ECHL, which is hard as draft picks are universally prioritized and then you have the veteran players that were typically fringe NHL players themselves (and often do have some varying degrees of NHL experience).

Right now, we're getting overage players with more limited NHL prospects that are going to low level NCAA programs that will very rarely send any players to the NHL. That's kind of how it's always been, just the players are a bit better, but still not the 13 NHL Draft Pick type of scenarios you see with the big teams. This is working the margins right now. We'll really have to wait until the offseason to see if we get any big paradigm shift, like if Michigan is able to poach McKenna or Martone to leaving their CHL teams early. That's the far more interesting scenario at the moment to keep an eye on.

I am unclear what exactly you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs. The CHL is definitely not watered down.

These "rumours" of McKenna and Martone going anywhere are just made up by some overzealous fans. And some people here think automatically that the NCAA > CHL in terms of player development, which is definitely not the case. I'm on neither side, but to think that there will be a wave of 17-19 draft eligible/drafted players jumping to the NCAA is ludicrous.

I have to yet to see any 2025/2026 or highly drafted 2023/2024 head to the NCAA, who weren't already headed towards there way before.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I am unclear what exactly you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs. The CHL is definitely not watered down.

Players with limited pro prospects going to low level NCAA programs instead of USports isn't a big paradigm shift by itself. Players aren't simply really good players (generalized sense) by virtue of being in a CHL league.

 

[coooldude]

I have to yet to see any 2025/2026 or highly drafted 2023/2024 head to the NCAA, who weren't already headed towards there way before.

I agree that the NCAA is not obviously going to be > CHL. However, without an AHL-NHL-CHL transfer agreement, the NCAA may be a better development path for good but not very-top prospects.

For example, two Sharks prospects. Dickinson and Musty. Had Musty the option to play NCAA this year, he probably wouldn't have signed his ELC and would have gone NCAA - as it is, he felt like Sudbury wasn't the right place to develop, tried to hold out, came back, racked up points with a bad attitude, and got injured.

Dickinson (a prospect like him in the future) could have gone back to London or straight to an NCAA program, but next year is the real kicker when he will be probably too good for CHL but not yet good enough for NHL. Unless his birthday falls correctly (I'm not sure it does), he won't be able to xfer from AHL to CHL like, for example, his European teammate Halttunen just did, because he was exempt from the restriction having been drafted to CHL from Europe. Therefore, for a prospect like him in the future, best development path might be to go NCAA either in D+1 or D+2, for 1-2 seasons, then to AHL or NHL.

Now, if the NHL brokers an AHL-CHL transfer agreement, then there's less reason for these "good/great but not extremely elite" prospects to go NCAA. NHL clubs will probably prefer to keep their pro players "in the system" and avoid players holding out for trades to other organizations, like has become more common for NCAA prospects who can't sign ELC's.

 

[Blue and Green]

Unless players are in a bad situation on their team and want out, I doubt the CHL will lose much 18-19 yo to the NCAA.

Of the existing guys, probably not many, But CHL starting next season will accumulate plenty of guys who formerly would've bypassed the CHL because they fully intend to play in the NCAA, and the ones good enough to make the move at 18 or 19 will do so.

 

[Bubbles]

I agree that the NCAA is not obviously going to be > CHL. However, without an AHL-NHL-CHL transfer agreement, the NCAA may be a better development path for good but not very-top prospects.

For example, two Sharks prospects. Dickinson and Musty. Had Musty the option to play NCAA this year, he probably wouldn't have signed his ELC and would have gone NCAA - as it is, he felt like Sudbury wasn't the right place to develop, tried to hold out, came back, racked up points with a bad attitude, and got injured.

Dickinson (a prospect like him in the future) could have gone back to London or straight to an NCAA program, but next year is the real kicker when he will be probably too good for CHL but not yet good enough for NHL. Unless his birthday falls correctly (I'm not sure it does), he won't be able to xfer from AHL to CHL like, for example, his European teammate Halttunen just did, because he was exempt from the restriction having been drafted to CHL from Europe. Therefore, for a prospect like him in the future, best development path might be to go NCAA either in D+1 or D+2, for 1-2 seasons, then to AHL or NHL.

Now, if the NHL brokers an AHL-CHL transfer agreement, then there's less reason for these "good/great but not extremely elite" prospects to go NCAA. NHL clubs will probably prefer to keep their pro players "in the system" and avoid players holding out for trades to other organizations, like has become more common for NCAA prospects who can't sign ELC's.

This is highly subjective. You believe the NCAA is the better place for D+1, or D+2 prospects, when the CHL has been an equal if not better path for those players. Many, many players have played in the D+1 or more in the CHL and have turned into great players.

No one has given any definitive reason why the NCAA is a "better" path, other than the age thing. Age does not equal quality.

In your example, didn't Musty choose to go the CHL instead of staying in the US and going the college route? Seems like he doesn't like Sudbury, maybe he'll do better at another OHL team.

As for Dickinson, the London Knights are the premier CHL development team with a long, long list of alumni in the NHL. No NCAA team can beat that, even now.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

These "rumours" of McKenna and Martone going anywhere are just made up by some overzealous fans.

Bogus or not, it came from Frank Seravalli.

 

[Bubbles]

Bogus or not, it came from Frank Seravalli.

He may be an NHL insider, but I find his junior hockey knowledge lacking. There was an article I read from his concerning all this CHL/NCAA and there was so many factually incorrect things in it.

Players with limited pro prospects going to low level NCAA programs instead of USports isn't a big paradigm shift by itself. Players aren't simply really good players (generalized sense) by virtue of being in a CHL league.

Those are your words...I only said in the case of Levis, he will make a big impact on Bowling Green. A lot of those 20 year olds from the CHL that have 4 years of extremely high quality hockey experience are going to make an impact on the quality of the NCAA teams.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Those are your words...

I know that's why I wrote them

 

[coooldude]

This is highly subjective. You believe the NCAA is the better place for D+1, or D+2 prospects, when the CHL has been an equal if not better path for those players. Many, many players have played in the D+1 or more in the CHL and have turned into great players.

No one has given any definitive reason why the NCAA is a "better" path, other than the age thing. Age does not equal quality.

In your example, didn't Musty choose to go the CHL instead of staying in the US and going the college route? Seems like he doesn't like Sudbury, maybe he'll do better at another OHL team.

As for Dickinson, the London Knights are the premier CHL development team with a long, long list of alumni in the NHL. No NCAA team can beat that, even now.

Everything in this thread is highly subjective.

Yes, Musty chose CHL and regrets it, specifically because he's stuck there. With a transfer agreement, he wouldn't have had to make a decision 2 years ago that locks him in. He could have had a good D+1 in Sudbury and then moved onto an NCAA program since Sudbury couldn't/didn't trade him.

Dickinson is crushing it at London in his D+1. A NCAA program may not match the volume of competition, but best-on-best in NCAA is very arguably as good or better as CHL and the schedule might actually be better for his development. I think the best outcome for him is AHL next year, but if that's not possible for him/others in the future, then it is very possible that some players might choose NCAA over spending D+2 even more dominantly in e.g. London.

The alumni list of the Knights is great, and all the past stats of how great the CHL is, but that doesn't mean it will always be the only and obviously best route for good to great prospects. Note that nothing in my post ever said "this is definitively going to become the #1 route for players." I was only making cases for where it might be the best route. Surely you can see that more options might be better for some. Or maybe I'm overestimating and you just think the CHL is best and will always be best for every prospect.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I find it a little funny how all of us have wasted so much time and energy arguing 31 pages and not one player that is likely to play an NHL game has done anything of any note, whether that's commit to the NCAA or jump ship to the CHL.

This topic is so far the greatest scam on earth by NCAA, CHL, and all the "hockey insiders" to buy their product.

Maybe one day in five years something important will happen when this thread is on page 310.

 

[Kingpin794]

Players with limited pro prospects going to low level NCAA programs instead of USports isn't a big paradigm shift by itself. Players aren't simply really good players (generalized sense) by virtue of being in a CHL league.

and most of those guys in the early to mid 20's in the NCAA aren't any better than these CHLers going to mid level programs. Both of those groups have very little chance to be full time NHL players. Its the exact same amount of "watered down". The majority of players at the CHL and NCAA levels will max out as AHL lifers if they are lucky.

I find it a little funny how all of us have wasted so much time and energy arguing 31 pages and not one player that is likely to play an NHL game has done anything of any note, whether that's commit to the NCAA or jump ship to the CHL.

This topic is so far the greatest scam on earth by NCAA, CHL, and all the "hockey insiders" to buy their product.

Maybe one day in five years something important will happen when this thread is on page 310.

Sorry this isn't happening on your arbitrary expected timeline in the middle of the season.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Brandon Naurato has been banging this drum for quite some time. Even before this Spittin Chiclets interview, he had been saying in press conferences etc. how the pitch he makes to kids choosing between college hockey or elsewhere sells itself.

Here's the link with a timestamp in case anyone is curious. He literally looks at the camera and directly addresses prospects in the CHL and tells them to choose college (Michigan) instead.

I'm not sure I've heard other prominent coaches go on the record as explicitly about the competition between the various leagues. But I'm sure other college coaches at least at adjacent programs like BC/BU/NoDak/Minnesota/Denver are making the same pitch behind closed doors.

LOL, Minnesota almost never recruits anyone from outside their state borders, let alone Canadians, especially high end ones who lean major junior over the NCAA. Their recruitment of Hayden Reid (shitty depth player from Ontario) was a big head scratcher because it didn't fit their MO.

 

[Bjorn Le]

It's really not that hard of a sell when the landing spot is as desirable as some of these colleges are. Watch the video I linked if you can't understand this and are curious; it will be pretty obvious what the appeal would be to a teenage boy.

This is a point I think is lost on a lot of people when they only discuss the development angle. There is a massive curb appeal to the college lifestyle that the CHL/AHL and even NHL can't compete with.

You act like these kids aren’t already treated like kings in the places they already play.

For the truly elite players who have already been drafted and are guaranteed an ELC, the attractiveness of college is significantly diluted by the fact they are trying to make the show and in many cases college does not help them get there faster. As I said, yes for lower round players who are going to have to ride the bus it might be more attractive. But that first or second round pick that’s going to compete for an NHL roster spot at 20? Unlikely. Especially for Canadians who can’t benefit from NIL.

 

[Corso]

You act like these kids aren’t already treated like kings in the places they already play.

For the truly elite players who have already been drafted and are guaranteed an ELC, the attractiveness of college is significantly diluted by the fact they are trying to make the show and in many cases college does not help them get there faster. As I said, yes for lower round players who are going to have to ride the bus it might be more attractive. But that first or second round pick that’s going to compete for an NHL roster spot at 20? Unlikely. Especially for Canadians who can’t benefit from NIL.

And this is exactly what the CHL is banking on. Their aim is to attract the absolute best 16 and 17 year old players and keep the large majority of the better 18- and 19-year-old ones.

The next shoe to drop is the changing of the NHL-CHL agreement....

 

[MeHateHe]

No one has given any definitive reason why the NCAA is a "better" path, other than the age thing. Age does not equal quality.

More than this, there’s good reason to believe that some players will develop better by being dominant in their peer group than they will by being challenged by stronger competition. Being able to be creative at speed against slightly weaker opposition can make you better as you age and develop physically, whereas having to fight through tougher competition (especially as part of a more structured system) could stunt that creative development.

 

[Kingpin794]

More than this, there’s good reason to believe that some players will develop better by being dominant in their peer group than they will by being challenged by stronger competition. Being able to be creative at speed against slightly weaker opposition can make you better as you age and develop physically, whereas having to fight through tougher competition (especially as part of a more structured system) could stunt that creative development.

This is a good point that I think gets lost when people bring up the CHL-NHL agreement changing in the future. Some think that if the agreement changes so that CHLers can join the AHL right away that every single 1st and 2nd rounder will move up at 18. There are 1 or 2 guys every year that would do well in the AHL before 20. But for the most part, the only thing that would happen with most players if they joined the AHL early, is that they would learn how to survive in the AHL. They wouldn't develop their games. No one has ever been hurt by an extra year of junior hockey. Plenty has been hurt by being rushed up a level because of impatience.

 

[covfefe]

"Hey Andrew Cristall, I know you enjoy your free Porsche, golf membership and waterfront apartment in Kelowna. So let me tell you about life at St. Cloud State University."