CHL can now play NCAA - change everything !

[Golden_Jet]

It's irrelevant. There is no reason a 19 year old shouldn't be able to play pro hockey. The rule is for CHL owners, not for Canadian NHL prospects.

Bad take. NTDP counts... almost all of them go NCAA (which tells you they would've played in the USHL anyways). (honest to god... why would you say the NTDP doesn't count? lol It's always hilarious reading insecure Canadians try to say its doesn't count.)

• Kingpin794 Once again the real question is why would an 18/19 year old 1st or 2nd round pick play against 16/17 year olds?​

The best development path moving forward is the 4 tier 1 Jr leagues feeding into the 3 top conferences in the NCAA. I don't even see how this is a debate. In 5 years it will be the norm. It might take a year or 2 to get the ball rolling, but it will happen because the answer is obvious.

More 16-17 year olds go to the CHL , and the USHL gets weaker, we can assume that.

Currently about 3 CHL’ers drafted to one USHL (includes NTDP)

 

[OSA]

The NCAA is a nonprofit and is comprised of universities. The "labor" you're referring to is ostensibly there as much to play sports as they are to get an education and socialization to prepare them for the rest of their lives. And the vast majority of Division I hockey prospects (at least beginning next year with the change in rules) are getting a full-ride to do that. This matters because most of the kids in both the CHL and the NCAA aren't going to play professional hockey for the rest of their lives. By leaving out this pretty significant context, you're equivocating the worker rights dynamic of the NCAA vs. CHL.

…and the NCAA President makes millions
….and the NCAA Board of Directors make $$
….and the Deans of Universities get paid millions
…..and the coaches gets paid millions
…..and on and on

“Not for Profits” still have a funny way of lining the pockets of all kinds of people affiliated with “Not for Profits”

I dare say their pockets are lined much more handsomely than they are in the “For Profit” (loosely lol) CHL.

And just to reiterate, CHL players’ post-secondary education expenses are covered by the league based on the number of years they play. Effectively no different than the NCAA. So, these players, if they so choose, do not miss out on any of the socialization and schooling aspects they would otherwise need to prepare them for a life outside of hockey.

 

[S E P H]

Not true. This is without NTDP players.

I am not talking about players produced in the NHL, what I am talking about is a good amount of USHL's relevance is based on NTDP players. I don't really see a reason to compare non-NTDP USHL players because of how much the league relies on the organisation to be relevant.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I am not talking about players produced in the NHL, what I am talking about is a good amount of USHL's relevance is based on NTDP players. I don't really see a reason to compare non-NTDP USHL players because of how much the league relies on the organisation to be relevant.

It’s a better league than Q even without NTDP players. Compared to OHL or WHL? Sure, I don’t disagree, but I wouldn’t say the overall product relies on the NTDP to an extent that the rest of the product is complete crap, otherwise.

 

[Wieters]

…and the NCAA President makes millions
….and the NCAA Board of Directors make $$
….and the Deans of Universities get paid millions
…..and the coaches gets paid millions
…..and on and on

“Not for Profits” still have a funny way of lining the pockets of all kinds of people affiliated with “Not for Profits”

I dare say their pockets are lined much more handsomely than they are in the “For Profit” (loosely lol) CHL.

And just to reiterate, CHL players’ post-secondary education expenses are covered by the league based on the number of years they play. Effectively no different than the NCAA. So, these players, if they so choose, do not miss out on any of the socialization and schooling aspects they would otherwise need to prepare them for a life outside of hockey.

Unlike most posters here, I'm not trying to pick a side and plant my flag, and I'm not trying to get on a soap box and wax poetic about the injustices the other side perpetrates. I'm simply pointing out that the NCAA and the CHL cannot be compared apples-to-apples as the poster I responded to (and now you) was doing without taking into consideration that they are fundamentally different entities. Neither the NCAA nor the individual universities employ the student-athletes who play college hockey; they're not "labor" as was being suggested in the same way that CHL players aren't student-athletes as you're seemingly trying to suggest.

 

[Kingpin794]

Unlike most posters here, I'm not trying to pick a side and plant my flag, and I'm not trying to get on a soap box and wax poetic about the injustices the other side perpetrates. I'm simply pointing out that the NCAA and the CHL cannot be compared apples-to-apples as the poster I responded to (and now you) was doing without taking into consideration that they are fundamentally different entities. Neither the NCAA nor the individual universities employ the student-athletes who play college hockey; they're not "labor" as was being suggested in the same way that CHL players aren't student-athletes as you're seemingly trying to suggest.

You don't have to be employed to be the labor. If you are the ones producing the thing that generates the revenue, you are labor. Athletic departments rely on tv deals, ticket sales, boosters. And they tend to get that revenue from those sources based on the work put in by the athletes. They are the labor. No employment needed. On top of that, not all student-athletes are the same. A field hockey player at a D3 college is far more student than athlete. But a first line C at Michigan? That's an athlete that happens to be a student. The people all of us are typically talking about in this thread are more athlete than student. So they fit into the labor definition even more so than most.

 

[bigdog16]

Can someone please explain why Katzin is scoring at a significantly higher rate in the OHL than the USHL? If the OHL is so far superior?

 

[Wieters]

You don't have to be employed to be the labor. If you are the ones producing the thing that generates the revenue, you are labor. Athletic departments rely on tv deals, ticket sales, boosters. And they tend to get that revenue from those sources based on the work put in by the athletes. They are the labor. No employment needed. On top of that, not all student-athletes are the same. A field hockey player at a D3 college is far more student than athlete. But a first line C at Michigan? That's an athlete that happens to be a student. The people all of us are typically talking about in this thread are more athlete than student. So they fit into the labor definition even more so than most.

I actually think that given the focus of this board being on top prospects, it’s worth remembering when discussing the general dynamics that the majority of the kids in the NCAA won’t play in the NHL. Whether student-athletes are considered employees going forward is a bit more of an open question than it was in the past since there has been litigation to this effect very recently. And if they are afforded that legal status, then it becomes a more apt comparison. But historically they have not been employees, in which case they shouldn’t be subjected to a worker rights analysis.

 

[Boonk]

Can someone please explain why Katzin is scoring at a significantly higher rate in the OHL than the USHL? If the OHL is so far superior?

The USHL is a lower scoring league. Guelph is absolutely terrible in the OHL this year but it seems his linemates are finishing and scoring off of his plays more than his teammates in Green Bay, so ice time and deployment by the coach could also be a factor.

 

[Kingpin794]

I actually think that given the focus of this board being on top prospects, it’s worth remembering when discussing the general dynamics that the majority of the kids in the NCAA won’t play in the NHL. Whether student-athletes are considered employees going forward is a bit more of an open question than it was in the past since there has been litigation to this effect very recently. And if they are afforded that legal status, then it becomes a more apt comparison. But historically they have not been employees, in which case they shouldn’t be subjected to a worker rights analysis.

You're conflating labor and employee. Those aren't the same thing. I was also speaking outside of the current legal framework and more in a philosophical sense.

 

[OSA]

Unlike most posters here, I'm not trying to pick a side and plant my flag, and I'm not trying to get on a soap box and wax poetic about the injustices the other side perpetrates. I'm simply pointing out that the NCAA and the CHL cannot be compared apples-to-apples as the poster I responded to (and now you) was doing without taking into consideration that they are fundamentally different entities. Neither the NCAA nor the individual universities employ the student-athletes who play college hockey; they're not "labor" as was being suggested in the same way that CHL players aren't student-athletes as you're seemingly trying to suggest.

Come on @Wieters

I’ve read through this thread pretty thoroughly. You planted your flag a long time ago.

I have too, to be fair

In this respect, I think you are employing more than a pinch of semantics; the two entities, while differing in some aspects (like age timeline), from a hockey player’s standpoint, are not really as fundamentally different or as apples to oranges as you’re making them out to be. Both entities seek the athletic services of players and both compensate said players with post-secondary funding. Fundamentally, there is a form of labour exchange happening - academic compensation for athletic services rendered. (You seem to be implying - and perhaps I misunderstood - that this labour aspect is different with CHL players. If that’s your claim, how so?)

So I have to ask then, what negating difference is there if I were to play from age 16-20 for the Ottawa 67’s, then from age 20-24, I head 10 mins downtown to attend the University of Ottawa (all paid for) and play USports hockey while I get my undergraduate degree? (Bear in mind that if I severely injure myself and can no longer play hockey for the GeeGees, I still get my funding for school. I don’t think that applies in the NCAA). I mean, it looks different, but isn’t the outcome with respect to “student” + “athlete” still pretty darn similar? I’d still need to have gotten the grades to get in and maintain the grades whilst there.

 

[Wieters]

Come on @Wieters

I’ve read through this thread pretty thoroughly. You planted your flag a long time ago.

I have too, to be fair

I think there are some people who feel insecure about any potential change to the status quo and react by making this a zero-sum game where they have to put down any alternatives to their pledged allegiance. And then I think there are others who are willing to entertain the idea that the way this shakes out is unclear but that the varying interests can co-exist and will appeal to different people involved in the process. I admit I am in the latter camp.

In this respect, I think you are employing more than a pinch of semantics; the two entities, while differing in some aspects (like age timeline), from a hockey player’s standpoint, are not really as fundamentally different or as apples to oranges as you’re making them out to be. Both entities seek the athletic services of players and both compensate said players with post-secondary funding. Fundamentally, there is a form of labour exchange happening - academic compensation for athletic services rendered. (You seem to be implying - and perhaps I misunderstood - that this labour aspect is different with CHL players. If that’s your claim, how so?)

So I have to ask then, what negating difference is there if I were to play from age 16-20 for the Ottawa 67’s, then from age 20-24, I head 10 mins downtown to attend the University of Ottawa (all paid for) and play USports hockey while I get my undergraduate degree? (Bear in mind that if I severely injure myself and can no longer play hockey for the GeeGees, I still get my funding for school. I don’t think that applies in the NCAA). I mean, it looks different, but isn’t the outcome with respect to “student” + “athlete” still pretty darn similar? I’d still need to have gotten the grades to get in and maintain the grades whilst there.

Choosing to enroll at a university of your choice as a student who will also play a sport is fundamentally different than entering your name into a draft lottery and then accepting your assignment to a sports organization. The purpose of the two entities is different, the day-to-day experience is different, and the outcomes are different. The CHL offering to match tuition payments at a later date and at a separate institution based on certain conditions being met is not a stand-in for being a student-athlete at a university.