CHL Can Now Play NCAA - Changes Everything

[WarriorofTime]

My guy the CHL wouldve been the best feeder league to the NCAA for 50 yrs just like it was to the NHL and pros if it wasnt for the stupid archaic ban put in place that entire time, do you not realize that?

Right because it's been the default Canadian path, which is where 100% then 80% then 50 % and now around 40 % players over time come from.

That decades experience of development isnt just going to up and disappear with older players leaving. The loss of older players to pros or any higher circuit is an inevitable part of any junior league regardless.

Sure, but if you have less good 19/20 year olds, the quality of play lessens. Just a natural part of it. Backfilling with some more high-end 16 year olds doesn't improve quality of play.

The loss of these players will be offset by the continuous flow of younger guys who wouldve dodged the CHL circuit previously to retain D1 eligbility and high end import players who are looking to go to D1, the depth evens out one way or another.

I don't see how this "evens out". 16 year olds are way less physically developed than older players. Even lower ceiling 19/20 year olds will be a lot better than the highest end 16 year olds.

Youre trying to make it out as the CHL and Hockey Canada being the losers here when really theyre the big winners with the NCAA.

The "loser"... no. Just thinking through everything, good chance the CHL will just have to come to a grips with an ego blow of no longer being atop the amateur hockey pyramid.

Really, the ball is in the USHL and USAH's court to make major moves. Their advantage of being the premier destination for D1 commits is gone

Sure yeah they'll have to deal with that ego blow as well.

and they went from easily competing with the Tier 2/Jr. A CJHL lower level leagues for recruits to having to directly compete with the CHL leagues who are equal or stronger and have more funding, better facilities, and better on/off-ice development, as well as having a contentious and awkward situation brewing with Muskegon and Youngstown whom they might have to fight in litigation court to stop them bolting to the OHL, and ultimately having no dominion or say over the NCAA's decisions for D1 hockey.

There are 4X as many CHL teams as there are USHL teams at the end of the day. To the extent the USHL stays lean, there is likely plenty of room for them to be producing high-end NCAA players, particularly domestic players that don't want to move countries while still being minors unless they feel like they are left no choice.

Thats not to say the USHL and US junior path of development will be obselete, the recent aforementioned securing of NHL subsidies and funding for the USHL will definitely help, and there are no regional recruitment restrictions and league wide tenders can be a useful recruitment tool they can build upon, and they have decades of experience of being an excellent D1 and pro hockey feeder with several worthwhile teams for junior players to develop and play. But they need to do a lot to catch up and be on equal or stronger footing than the CHL as a junior development circuit.

All the USHL really needs to aim for is to say "hey, this is also a viable path towards NCAA, just like it always has been and just like the CHL is. You can still play here, atop the USA Hockey junior pyramid, show out, get NCAA offers from premiere destinations, if you're an American kid, you don't have to move, you can just as easily play in a domestic league and not be disadvantaged from college and eventually pro hockey". It doesn't need to try and be "better" than the CHL. Just like The Finnish Juniors doesn't need to be "better" than Swedish Juniors to still represent a viable path for kids from Finland to be pro hockey players.

It's all just a pathway and stepping stone, it's not a Mini-NHL where players should do everything in their power to secure a spot in the "best" league. If there are multiple pathways to something available, they don't need to play in the "best" league every step of the way, which is largely noise (over zealous parents may think their kid playing for the Don Mills Flyers is participating in the 14 year old Stanley Cup but most everyone there is just going to be a talented beer leaguer one day all the same). To get back to the point, when CHL was the only* (more or less) pathway to the NHL, that's where you had to go. The more pathways that open up, the less imperative it is for players to play in CHL. Of course all else being equal, a Canadian kid would rather play there than United States. The goal for USA Hockey would be to say, if all else being equal, if you are an American kid, you should want to play USHL rather than CHL accordingly.

 

[Boonk]

Your "evidence" is completely moot as the entire structure of the league has now changed.

Lol so guys like Makar, Kent Johnson, Fantilli, Celebrini, Power, Wood, Fabbro, Holloway and many more who were all good non-CHL junior players, all good NCAA players, all good NHL players wouldnt have improved or offset the loss of overagers in the CHL if they played there instead?

Yeah no. Sorry bub. Your "opinion" is entirely moot in of itself.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Bonin21 can explain himself on the post where he stated


As for which pathway is preferable, well that all depends on the player and there have been some who have already signed ELCs over spending a couple of years in college before going pro.

I know that it is difficult for some to understand, but the NCAA is not guaranteed to become the top of the pyramid as it was in the USA Hockey amateur development model and I've heard from enough people in the know that the CHL does not want to become the handmaiden of the NCAA. (as the USHL was). There will be many players who will take the CHL to AHL/NHL path, spurning college all together. There will also be many players who will jump from the CHL to the NCAA before going pro.

Then we'll see plenty of CHLers who jump to pro too early completely bust whereas plenty of CHLers who go to the NCAA for a year, two, or even three will have better results. Defensemen and goalies need longer development curves. There are a handful of CHL forwards who can jump straight to the NHL, but it's not many. Francesco Pinelli is a prime example of a guy who would have benefitted from the new rules, going to the NCAA for a couple years would have been very beneficial for him.

 

[Corso]

Then we'll see plenty of CHLers who jump to pro too early completely bust whereas plenty of CHLers who go to the NCAA for a year, two, or even three will have better results. Defensemen and goalies need longer development curves. There are a handful of CHL forwards who can jump straight to the NHL, but it's not many. Francesco Pinelli is a prime example of guy who would have benefitted from the new rules, going to the NCAA for a couple years would have been very beneficial for him.

Signing an ELC from the CHL does not preclude going back to the CHL. Some players will want the pro contract sooner than later and with the impending changes to the CHL-NHL agreement, will have the opportunity to spend some time in both the AHL and CHL over the course of a season; very similar to the European development model.

As I said, there will not be a single defined path that so many of us were accustomed to, but rather different paths playing to the strengths of each player.

Truthfully, this rule change is the best thing that could of happened because it has opened up more possibilities and avenues for even more players to further develop. Many of us will have to shed the notion of the old CHL vs NCAA pathway and come to accept a new reality of player development.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Signing an ELC from the CHL does not preclude going back to the CHL. Some players will want the pro contract sooner than later and with the impending changes to the CHL-NHL agreement, will have the opportunity to spend some time in both the AHL and CHL over the course of a season; very similar to the European development model.

As I said, there will not be a single defined path that so many of us were accustomed to, but rather different paths playing to the strengths of each player.

My point is that most 18 and 19 year olds, and probably most 20 year olds, aren't ready for the A.

 

[Corso]

My point is that most 18 and 19 year olds, and probably most 20 year olds, aren't ready for the A.

Absolutely correct on the vast majority of 18 year olds and most 19 year olds (pretty well much most high end 20 year olds should be, however) and most of those 18 and 19 year olds will spend the majority or at least half of their seasons in the CHL if they choose not to opt for the NCAA before the pros.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Absolutely correct on the vast majority of 18 year olds and most 19 year olds (pretty well much most high end 20 year olds should be, however) and most of those 18 and 19 year olds will spend the majority or at least half of their seasons in the CHL if they choose not to opt for the NCAA before the pros.

They should turn down the ELC and go to the NCAA program that is the best developmental fit for them before turning pro. Would be much more beneficial than rushing themselves into pro straight out of junior.

 

[Corso]

They should turn down the ELC and go to the NCAA program that is the best developmental fit for them before turning pro. Would be much more beneficial than rushing themselves into pro straight out of junior.

Some will and some will not, there is no single superior path. The vast majority of European players have gone straight from their domestic junior leagues to the pros as have most Canadian players. NHL clubs will have a say in the process and if they feel that spending a couple of years in college will be beneficial, then they will say so but that is not going to be the default route for every player.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Some will and some will not, there is no single superior path. The vast majority of European players have gone straight from their domestic junior leagues to the pros as have most Canadian players. NHL clubs will have a say in the process and if they feel that spending a couple of years in college will be beneficial, then they will say so but that is not going to be the default route for every player.

To pro*

 

[kyle44]

https://www.journaldequebec.com/2025/05/29/un-joueur-vedette-de-la-lhjmq-quitterait-pour-la-ncaa-et-il-pourrait-ne-pas-etre-le-seul

Rumour of Justin Poirier committing to Maine.

 

[SpeedyCerviche]

It seems there are way too many people picking idealistic sides while cherry picking the truths/cases/feelings/opinions that justify their side.
Ultimately it's always going to be a personal decision of the player and each individual is different. It's easy to say push that ELC and go to NCAA, when you are one hit away or one bad season away from never seeing that paper again.
It's also easy to go say that it's better to go NCAA as a better development model to grow skills and size, while enjoying the lifestyle (just don't enjoy it too much). And then in the end you will be easy not prepared for pro hockey.
Or that the CHL will need to adapt a bit, likely be a bit younger but really isn't going anywhere and the quality of a younger top end player that would never be in the league vs some good/great 19s and high end 20s will for a large part even itself out.
I read this thread and can't help think that at the base, most people are right because the kids have options and each one will make the best decision for themselves.

 

[Bonin21]

Lol so guys like Makar, Kent Johnson, Fantilli, Celebrini, Power, Wood, Fabbro, Holloway and many more who were all good non-CHL junior players, all good NCAA players, all good NHL players wouldnt have improved or offset the loss of overagers in the CHL if they played there instead?

Yeah no. Sorry bub. Your "opinion" is entirely moot in of itself.

Two or three 17 year old big guns a year vs all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds now heading to the NCAA...

 

[Corso]

It seems there are way too many people picking idealistic sides while cherry picking the truths/cases/feelings/opinions that justify their side.
Ultimately it's always going to be a personal decision of the player and each individual is different. It's easy to say push that ELC and go to NCAA, when you are one hit away or one bad season away from never seeing that paper again.
It's also easy to go say that it's better to go NCAA as a better development model to grow skills and size, while enjoying the lifestyle (just don't enjoy it too much). And then in the end you will be easy not prepared for pro hockey.
Or that the CHL will need to adapt a bit, likely be a bit younger but really isn't going anywhere and the quality of a younger top end player that would never be in the league vs some good/great 19s and high end 20s will for a large part even itself out.
I read this thread and can't help think that at the base, most people are right because the kids have options and each one will make the best decision for themselves.

Very well said and as I've been saying; there will not be one single path. Some will sign ELCs at the first opportunity and some will go to the NCAA. In the end, players will have more paths to the pros and that is a very positive development.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Two or three 17 year old big guns a year vs all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds now heading to the NCAA...

Pretty unrealistic to think like 1-2 kid per year spread over 60 teams will have that big of an effect on quality of play.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Two or three 17 year old big guns a year vs all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds now heading to the NCAA...

Wait do you really think "all" 18-20 year old player are leaving the CHL?

 

[Corso]

Wait do you really think "all" 18-20 year old player are leaving the CHL?

To the best of my knowledge right now, there will be very few 18 year old players leaving for the NCAA and perhaps a dozen or so 19 year old players; so no most are not leaving at 18 or 19. Where the CHL will feel it most is with the O/A players as there will not be very many quality 20 year old players left over.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Wait do you really think "all" 18-20 year old player are leaving the CHL?

Not how I read that. Compared to "the much higher number of 18-20 year olds".....

 

[Boonk]

Right because it's been the default Canadian path, which is where 100% then 80% then 50 % and now around 40 % players over time come from.

So one circuit with 3 leagues still developed 40% of the NHLs domestic and international talent vs the several dozens of others around the world in an era where the game and its development have grown internationally? Thats still a pretty good number if you math the math

Sure, but if you have less good 19/20 year olds, the quality of play lessens. Just a natural part of it. Backfilling with some more high-end 16 year olds doesn't improve quality of play.

I don't see how this "evens out". 16 year olds are way less physically developed than older players. Even lower ceiling 19/20 year olds will be a lot better than the highest end 16 year olds.

Not every new CHL player coming is an inexperienced 16 year old, and not every 18-20 yr old is going to leave or go D1 if they sign an ELC or pro-contract, If those 16-18 year olds are like Power, Celebrini, Fabbro, K. Johnson, M. Wood, Makar, Holloway, M. Hage, Newhook (and whoever else) choosing to stay within the CHL instead of elsewhere, a couple 19-20 yr old dudes heading to D1, USports or low level pro isnt going to be a devastating loss in play competition or quality you think it is. Sorry; but the league isnt getting all that weaker if players like those aforementioned guys offset the older talent loss even if they are physically underdeveloped or whatever compared to older college players or juniors playing pros somewhere.

The "loser"... no. Just thinking through everything, good chance the CHL will just have to come to a grips with an ego blow of no longer being atop the amateur hockey pyramid.

The CHL has been lobbying for this rule change for decades now so I dont see how their ego gets hurt from them becoming the undisputed premier destination for all of junior hockey to feed to all higher levels like they wanted. Oh well for them.

All the USHL really needs to aim for is to say "hey, this is also a viable path towards NCAA, just like it always has been and just like the CHL is. You can still play here, atop the USA Hockey junior pyramid, show out, get NCAA offers from premiere destinations, if you're an American kid, you don't have to move, you can just as easily play in a domestic league and not be disadvantaged from college and eventually pro hockey". It doesn't need to try and be "better" than the CHL. Just like The Finnish Juniors doesn't need to be "better" than Swedish Juniors to still represent a viable path for kids from Finland to be pro hockey players.

The USHL cant just sit there and be complacent with being solely a viable D1 feeder path now that the CHL is in direct competition not only for recruits, but apparently their junior franchises too. It will always remain a viable path to D1 and pros but it needs to grow to be an exceptional path that all top end junior players from anywhere want to go to, not just the best U17-U18 Americans gunning for a spot on the NTDP or the late bloomers from Prep/AAA/Tier 2. The OHL and WHL are going to be gunning hard for all the top recruits in the mid-west region that the USHL looks through and they have many developmental and recruiting advantages. You cant just sit there as a league commish of the only Tier 1 junior league in the US and not try to improve your league beyond being a D1 feeder and risk being relegated to a CHL farm league or Tier 2 larping as Tier 1, especially with Muskegon and Youngstown making their play to jump ship. This ruling has completely changed how teams and leagues are going to recruit junior players and the USHL needs to do a lot to catch up, but they certainly have the ability and clout to be able to.

 

[Boonk]

Two or three 17 year old big guns a year vs all the 18, 19, and 20 year olds now heading to the NCAA...

They will if they are elite junior players at that level who develop into NHLers or good pro players elsewhere, and if there are more spots open to them.

 

[Blue and Green]

I fail to see how the CHL --> AHL --> NHL pathway is preferrable to the CHL --> NCAA --> NHL pathway for any caliber of prospect.

The vast majority of NHLers from D1 have spent time in the AHL. Omitting the AHL from that pathway is specious. AHL is far superior to D1 and is a necessary step for most guys.

 

[Wieters]

The vast majority of NHLers from D1 have spent time in the AHL. Omitting the AHL from that pathway is specious. AHL is far superior to D1 and is a necessary step for most guys.

The context here is that we're specifically talking about kids who have been in the CHL for a few years and are now suddenly NCAA eligible. Meaning 18-20 year olds. The sample size you're referencing of NHL players who went NCAA --> AHL is largely composed of prospects who have already spent time in the NCAA and graduated from the level but aren't ready for the NHL. That's not what we're talking about when we talk about an 18 year old who has outgrown the CHL but isn't ready for the NHL. And in that case, I maintain that the NCAA makes more sense than the AHL from both a developmental and quality of life standpoint.

 

[Blue and Green]

The context here is that we're specifically talking about kids who have been in the CHL for a few years and are now suddenly NCAA eligible. Meaning 18-20 year olds. The sample size you're referencing of NHL players who went NCAA --> AHL is largely composed of prospects who have already spent time in the NCAA and graduated from the level but aren't ready for the NHL. That's not what we're talking about when we talk about an 18 year old who has outgrown the CHL but isn't ready for the NHL. And in that case, I maintain that the NCAA makes more sense than the AHL from both a developmental and quality of life standpoint.

Re-read your own post. You said "for any calibre of prospect."

 

[bigdog16]

So one circuit with 3 leagues still developed 40% of the NHLs domestic and international talent vs the several dozens of others around the world in an era where the game and its development have grown internationally? Thats still a pretty good number if you math the math

And 33% played NCAA. With 70% of that 33% coming from 12 teams.

Not every new CHL player coming is an inexperienced 16 year old, and not every 18-20 yr old is going to leave or go D1 if they sign an ELC or pro-contract, If those 16-18 year olds are like Power, Celebrini, Fabbro, K. Johnson, M. Wood, Makar, Holloway, M. Hage, Newhook (and whoever else) choosing to stay within the CHL instead of elsewhere, a couple 19-20 yr old dudes heading to D1, USports or low level pro isnt going to be a devastating loss in play competition or quality you think it is. Sorry; but the league isnt getting all that weaker if players like those aforementioned guys offset the older talent loss even if they are physically underdeveloped or whatever compared to older college players or juniors playing pros somewhere.

There will be way more 19-20 year old talent leaving than blue chip 16-18 year old prospects coming in. You might get 1 blue chip for every 10 19-20 year old leaving. It will certainly effect the competition, pretty substantially. A bad 19 year old is light years better than an above average 16 year old

The CHL has been lobbying for this rule change for decades now so I dont see how their ego gets hurt from them becoming the undisputed premier destination for all of junior hockey to feed to all higher levels like they wanted. Oh well for them.

Source that CHL has been lobbying this? The competition is going to worse than it has in the past. Thats why their ego gets hurt

The USHL cant just sit there and be complacent with being solely a viable D1 feeder path now that the CHL is in direct competition not only for recruits, but apparently their junior franchises too. It will always remain a viable path to D1 and pros but it needs to grow to be an exceptional path that all top end junior players from anywhere want to go to, not just the best U17-U18 Americans gunning for a spot on the NTDP or the late bloomers from Prep/AAA/Tier 2. The OHL and WHL are going to be gunning hard for all the top recruits in the mid-west region that the USHL looks through and they have many developmental and recruiting advantages. You cant just sit there as a league commish of the only Tier 1 junior league in the US And not try to improve your league beyond being a D1 feeder and risk being relegated to a CHL farm league or Tier 2 larping as Tier 1. This ruling has completely changed how teams and leagues are going to recruit junior players and the USHL needs to do a lot to catch up, but they certainly have the ability and clout to be able to.

They are complacent if they still send a lot of their kids D1. That has been their bread and butter since inception. They have never been a league that aims higher than that and I think they know they never will be

 

[WarriorofTime]

The CHL has been lobbying for this rule change for decades now so I dont see how their ego gets hurt from them becoming the undisputed premier destination for all of junior hockey to feed to all higher levels like they wanted. Oh well for them.

A fradulent insider on here has been insisting that the CHL is going to try and let 19 year olds be AHL eligible. Something they have prevented for DECADES due to insistence that it would "kill their brand", which would have the effect of even MORE 19 year olds leaving the CHL early, as some go NCAA, some (although I'd suspect only top 20 picks fall into the ready for this anyways bucket) play in the AHL, all out of a desire to spite NCAA because their egos wouldn't be able to handle an intermediate step between CHL and Pro Hockey, removing them from atop the amateur pyramid. Maybe some thought they'd get a scenario where they just kept everyone and only 21 year old pro hockey rejects went to NCAA (the fraudulent insider claimed this is what was going to happen initially), but that doesn't appear to be playing out.

 

[4thline]

They should turn down the ELC and go to the NCAA program that is the best developmental fit for them before turning pro. Would be much more beneficial than rushing themselves into pro straight out of junior.

That depends very much on the change to the CHL-NHL agreement and what AHL exposure is allowed. Assume it's something like- players can have up to 19 pro games without burning a year (NHL 9 counts towards it, or play the full season in the A and burn a year. The massive thing is that it opens up significant flexibility relative to the current status quo, and an absolute chasm relative to the NCAA path.

Sign NCAA, two routes for the year A- attend development camp, play NCAA season. B- attend development camp, play NCAA season, finish the year in pro.

Sign ELC - go to dev camp, go to main camp,

• Surprise and make team for 9 games
  • Surprise and stay with team
  • Get sent straight back to CHL after 9
  • Get sent to A after 9 for additional 10
    • Get sent down to CHL after 10
    • Stay and finish the year in the A, no more call ups
    • Impress and get called back up the N
• Get cut from main camp, sent to AHL camp- excellent learning experience against pro's
  • Get cut from A camp and sent to CHL
  • Play 19 game trial, then get sent to CHL
  • Play through 19 game trial, spent entire season in AHL
  • Play through 19 game trial, earn NHL call up(s)
• Get cut from main camp and sent straight to CHL

Now if you're a long term project pick, have size, skating, conditioning concerns etc etc. Yeah, the NCAA makes a lot of sense, especially for D & G. But if you're a top 60 pick with anything resembling pro tools and game - get paid while collaborating with with your drafting teams development staff and using their resources for an additional number of weeks/months while giving yourself a chance to make the show?