CHL Can Now Play NCAA - Changes Everything

[Bonin21]

I think earlier when I checked there were more NCAA rookies in the playoffs than CHL. I wonder what percent of rookies the last three years were NCAA vs CHL knowing the NCAA number is only going to rise with the cutover. And the CHL number will rise too.

We can start to track this:
NHL players by CHL only
NHL players by NCAA only
NHL players with equal number of CHL/NCAA seasons
NHL players with more NCAA seasons than CHL
Vice versa

 

[Corso]

That's life. And the numbers tell the tale so your personal opinion on the matter means nothing.

There have been more than a few players that have signed their ELC, forgoing the opportunity to play college hockey in the past few months. MSU just lost a player the other day who signed with Seattle. He had been offered and accepted a full package but opted for the pro contract in the end, He will be playing in the AHL next season, as do the majority of players before embarking on a NHL career. Some people though refuse to accept that "fact of life".

 

[Bonin21]

There have been more than a few players that have signed their ELC, forgoing the opportunity to play college hockey in the past few months. MSU just lost a player the other day who signed with Seattle. He had been offered and accepted a full package but opted for the pro contract in the end, He will be playing in the AHL next season, as do the majority of players before embarking on a NHL career. Some people though refuse to accept that "fact of life".

The biggest x factor is if the kid is a complete rock head or simply hates school, even with how easy it is to be a D1 athlete in terms of classes like Sport Management that a 7th grader could pass

 

[Corso]

I think earlier when I checked there were more NCAA rookies in the playoffs than CHL. I wonder what percent of rookies the last three years were NCAA vs CHL knowing the NCAA number is only going to rise with the cutover. And the CHL number will rise too.

We can start to track this:
NHL players by CHL only
NHL players by NCAA only
NHL players with equal number of CHL/NCAA seasons
NHL players with more NCAA seasons than CHL
Vice versa

Do you have the exact numbers as that would be an interesting study.

As for total numbers, according to a Grok search

In the 2025 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs, 205 Canadian Hockey League (CHL) alumni participated, representing over 50% of the 409 total players. This includes 101 graduates from the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), 65 from the Western Hockey League (WHL), and 39 from the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (QMJHL)

In the 2025 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs, 117 NCAA alumni were listed on playoff rosters, representing approximately 28.6% of the 409 total players.

 

[Corso]

The biggest x factor is if the kid is a complete rock head or simply hates school, even with how easy it is to be a D1 athlete in terms of classes like Sport Management that a 7th grader could pass

Trust me, the academic part is way overblown, if a program/school wants you in, they will get you in

As for this player in question, well he already was a former NCAA player so academics were certainly not a part of it. He just wanted to sign his contract. I know that may be difficult for you to understand but it happens and it will continue to happen.

 

[Boonk]

The biggest x factor is if the kid is a complete rock head or simply hates school, even with how easy it is to be a D1 athlete in terms of classes like Sport Management that a 7th grader could pass

This sounds like something a 7th grader who hates school would say.

 

[WarriorofTime]

lol come on now let’s not be disingenuous and pretend one random very late 2nd rounder that thought he had foregone the ncaa path years ago when he signed in CHL is some major litmus test for the future.

 

[MMC]

 

[Bonin21]

This sounds like something a 7th grader who hates school would say.

School was easy for me, but the sport management class I took as a general was by far the easiest class I ever took and it was full of athletes.

My buddy was also recruited by Harvard and the ACT score he needed to get in for hockey was like 10 or more lower than the general public if I recall.

 

[MTU34]

Article is in French but there’s some good stuff in here. Justin Poirier likely to Maine. Maxim Masse staying for another year. Carbonneau/Desnoyers likely going to school next year (obviously we know about Carbonneau already)

 

[landy92mack29]

Trust me, the academic part is way overblown, if a program/school wants you in, they will get you in

As for this player in question, well he already was a former NCAA player so academics were certainly not a part of it. He just wanted to sign his contract. I know that may be difficult for you to understand but it happens and it will continue to happen.

certain schools it's not though. Sampo Ranta was going to go to Wisconsin originally but didn't qualify so went Minnesota instead

 

[Bonin21]

certain schools it's not though. Sampo Ranta was going to go to Wisconsin originally but didn't qualify so went Minnesota instead

95% sure it was his TOEFL so more language than academics

 

[bigdog16]

Ah, so its just your opinion based on emotions and not something thats factual? What a "reality check" that is.

It is factual that the CHL is not the overwhelming majority anymore. And it will be factual that in 5 years, the NCAA will churn out more NHL players than the CHL. CHL is only a stepping stone to NCAA now

 

[4thline]

The issue being discussed was whether there will be some CHL prospects who opt to forego the NCAA entirely and instead go directly to the AHL. I was making the case that going through the NCAA makes sense for CHL players of any caliber--assuming they can't make the NHL directly out of the CHL--whether they eventually go to the AHL after that or make the jump from the NCAA directly to the NHL. Obviously the AHL is a necessary step for many NCAA prospects simply because there will be many who aren't good enough to make the NHL directly from the NCAA.

But yes, I ultimately think going to the NCAA for some period of time makes sense for any caliber of prospect after their time in the CHL. Obviating the NCAA in favor of the AHL makes sense for clubs that want to control the prospects and leagues that want to maintain leverage, but not for the prospects/players themselves.

Bolded - why? In terms of readiness to spend the season in A. There are 5-10 guys that are ready each season under current rules. It stands to reason that there are multiple times that number held back by the current agreement.
Gameplay - If the (wholly correct) argument for NCAA over CHL is that the players' development is best served by playing against the highest level possible that they can play "their game" at (not be completely overmatched and forced in survival mode)- it stands to reason that most players that can play pro at a top 9F/5D level should do so.
Development focus - if the argument is that at U20 they're not ready for the pro grind and would be best served by the NCAA's unique mix of lower games and increased gym/dev/practice time- AHL rosters don't have roster limits, and are often rotating guys in and out for 3 in 3's already. There's is nothing keeping the NHL dev staff from proscribing an "NCAA season" for an AHL assigned prospect- with the added benefit of those 40 games being at a pro level, with pro dev resources, no academic distraction, and a pay cheque
Social - potentially a factor, but I think overstated. Average NCAA team age is 22-23+, average AHL age is 24.5-25.5. A U20 is going to be the youngest on the team anyway, and in both cases teams all have a strong cadre of 20 and 21 year olds for them to chum around with. It's not like they would be the sole U23 on teams of 25-30 year olds

Under the status quo today- I agree that it's likely that the shift will be towards a CHL -> NCAA - > Pro dev path. But if the CHL/NHL modify the agreement to allow for a potential standard of U19's - Pro Sept/October (November if they stretch out the games played) -> back to junior, U20 - pro, it changes that calculus entirely.

Edit- but then there is the consideration of downstream second order effects- can a CHL sans OA's that go NCAA and U20's that go pro still prepare players to go pro at U20?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Point people keep forgetting is the burn year after college season ends, which can also be an ATO delayed ELC starting following year for lesser high end guys. It’s likely a lot better to play those pro games at end of year when you have the full college year under your belt and if nhl team isn’t competitive that season, they’re happy to oblige with opportunity more than teams coming in fresh out of camp with a full slate of signed vets.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Bolded - why? In terms of readiness to spend the season in A. There are 5-10 guys that are ready each season under current rules. It stands to reason that there are multiple times that number held back by the current agreement.
Gameplay - If the (wholly correct) argument for NCAA over CHL is that the players' development is best served by playing against the highest level possible that they can play "their game" at (not be completely overmatched and forced in survival mode)- it stands to reason that most players that can play pro at a top 9F/5D level should do so.
Development focus - if the argument is that at U20 they're not ready for the pro grind and would be best served by the NCAA's unique mix of lower games and increased gym/dev/practice time- AHL rosters don't have roster limits, and are often rotating guys in and out for 3 in 3's already. There's is nothing keeping the NHL dev staff from proscribing an "NCAA season" for an AHL assigned prospect- with the added benefit of those 40 games being at a pro level, with pro dev resources, no academic distraction, and a pay cheque
Social - potentially a factor, but I think overstated. Average NCAA team age is 22-23+, average AHL age is 24.5-25.5. A U20 is going to be the youngest on the team anyway, and in both cases teams all have a strong cadre of 20 and 21 year olds for them to chum around with. It's not like they would be the sole U23 on teams of 25-30 year olds

Under the status quo today- I agree that it's likely that the shift will be towards a CHL -> NCAA - > Pro dev path. But if the CHL/NHL modify the agreement to allow for a potential standard of U19's - Pro Sept/October (November if they stretch out the games played) -> back to junior, U20 - pro, it changes that calculus entirely.

The development focus point is an interesting one. The case that the CHL to AHL to NHL development route makes sense over CHL to NCAA to AHL/NHL is that NCAA coaches don't care as much about developing players for pro, their sole focus is on winning league titles and maybe a national championship for those with a realistic shot at that. In the NCAA, head coaches won't automatically give enough ice time to young talent, as there is obvious favoritism towards older veterans in many cases. Development has gotten a lot better in the NCAA, but some guys still don't get properly developed for sure.

The CHL & AHL have always put development of top end guys at/near the top of the priority list. I still think 98% of CHLers need to play some in the NCAA before going to pro, but this is the other side of the argument which does make sense.

 

[Boonk]

It is factual that the CHL is not the overwhelming majority anymore. And it will be factual that in 5 years, the NCAA will churn out more NHL players than the CHL. CHL is only a stepping stone to NCAA now

Who cares? The game grew internationally so its bound to happen when other countries step up their game. Big duh moment there.

Its not going to matter when majority of D1 is full of CHLers too, so really that just reinforces the fact that the CHL strengthened its position in all paths of hockey and makes your whole opinion an oxymoron based on your ego needing reaffirmation for some reason? Not my problem or something anyone who follows CHL hockey is upset about or interested in stroking. Lol.

 

[4thline]

The CHL & AHL have always put development of top end guys at/near the top of the priority list. I still think 98% of CHLers need to play some in the NCAA before going to pro, but this is the other side of the argument which does make sense.

I think we're talking about two different groups of players here.
I fully agree, the majority of *all CHLers* would be best served by further developing in the NCAA. It's a more natural, incremental step, and I'm very curious to see if this change enables more late bloomers. I've never fully believed the whole "the cream will rise, if a player has it he will make it" stance, decisions, timing, circumstance- not all players become the best they can be.

But if we're talking about legitimate prospects- it's very rare that a CHL grad on the NHL track isn't AHL ready at U21. If a player isn't it's a major knock against their viability- hence there being so few NHLer's that touch ECHL ice or play an OA season. Many of them are also ready at U20 but not allowed, as evidenced by their peers (who are allowed based on technicality) succeeding, and by they themselves succeeding during end of year ATO's/ call ups.

So three groups of CHL grads from the status quo
The non-prospects ->Guys who simply aren't pro ready after full junior eligibility.
The fringe prospects -> guys that will have some sort of pro career if they want it, but would be better served using the NCAA to develop before going pro (previously orphaned by the rules and left to sink or swim.)
The legitimate prospects -> guys who are definitely pro ready at U21, with a lot being ready earlier but held back by the CHL/NHL agreement

We've already seen an absolute avalanche of groups A and B going to NCAA after graduating. That will continue, and the NCAA will be stronger for it. The Question, how many of the group B "fringe" guys are ready for the NCAA (what the NCAA will become when it's full of CHL grads)/ too good for the CHL prior to their OA year?

But the battleground is the legitimate prospects- a pool that will likely get larger as more players enter the CHL and maintain their NCAA eligibility. If the CHL/NHL agreement stays as is, the NCAA is going to clean up here. If the CHL adapts- I don't think see much change from what we've seen this year. High end late born's is one area I think the NCAA will make huge gains on regardless. A guy like McKenna that would be a top 3 pick and challenge for an NHL roster spot in his U19 if he were born 3 months earlier has nothing to gain with a 3rd CHL season.

 

[landy92mack29]

Who cares? The game grew internationally so its bound to happen when other countries step up their game. Big duh moment there.

Its not going to matter when majority of D1 is full of CHLers too, so really that just reinforces the fact that the CHL strengthened its position in all paths of hockey and makes your whole opinion an oxymoron based on your ego needing reaffirmation. Not my problem or something anyone who follows CHL hockey is upset about or interested in stroking. Lol.

yup the majority of the NHL draft(1st round at least) will be mostly CHL and mostly developed in the CHL but hey if the NCAA can claim some 1 and dones as they "developed" them so be it

 

[Boonk]

yup the majority of the NHL draft(1st round at least) will be mostly CHL and mostly developed in the CHL but hey if the NCAA can claim some 1 and dones as they "developed" them so be it

Even if the majority of players come from the NCAA as an intermediary step in the future...they seem to brush over the fact that the same gap and majority will form from CHL commits in D1 instead of Tier 1&2 US junior league players, meaning most of the best players at the higher levels will still be developing and coming from there.... Yet that somehow makes the CHL "weaker" and "upset" to some posters here lol. So be it indeed.

 

[bigdog16]

Who cares? The game grew internationally so its bound to happen when other countries step up their game. Big duh moment there.

Its not going to matter when majority of D1 is full of CHLers too, so really that just reinforces the fact that the CHL strengthened its position in all paths of hockey and makes your whole opinion an oxymoron based on your ego needing reaffirmation for some reason? Not my problem or something anyone who follows CHL hockey is upset about or interested in stroking. Lol.

You care, that was my whole point lol

 

[Static]

 

[Boonk]

You care, that was my whole point lol

Where do I care tho? Is international growth of the game and development a bad thing that Im supposed to be upset over for your argument to work? Your logic doesnt logic unless youre a literal strawman. The CHL got what they wanted and are happy with it. So are CHL and NCAA fans. Seems like the USHL, USAH and some US fans like you in here care more and are projecting their hurt feelings. Lol.

 

[WarriorofTime]

So three groups of CHL grads from the status quo
The non-prospects ->Guys who simply aren't pro ready after full junior eligibility.
The fringe prospects -> guys that will have some sort of pro career if they want it, but would be better served using the NCAA to develop before going pro (previously orphaned by the rules and left to sink or swim.)
The legitimate prospects -> guys who are definitely pro ready at U21, with a lot being ready earlier but held back by the CHL/NHL agreement

We've already seen an absolute avalanche of groups A and B going to NCAA after graduating. That will continue, and the NCAA will be stronger for it. The Question, how many of the group B "fringe" guys are ready for the NCAA (what the NCAA will become when it's full of CHL grads)/ too good for the CHL prior to their OA year?

Similar to how you have the Group A getting a benefit from NCAA in their age 20/21/22/23 to go NCAA to boost their chances at AHL Contract (AHL/ECHL, maybe then some slightly lower level Euro league player), Group B benefitting from NCAA in their age 19/20/21 in order to increases chances of making NHL in some capacity, you can likely carry that down into players in Group C benefitting from playing NCAA in their 18/19... although to your point they are likely "fine either way" because great players are great players. Then you can even carry that further to the uber-elite (1st/2nd overall calibers) benefitting from NCAA in their age 17 or 18 (depending on their birthday) Draft Year as a way to signal to NHL teams "I'm good enough to play in NHL right away after getting drafted" as having "conquered" what likely already is, and almost assuredly will be, the best amateur North American league to play in.

*Best meaning highest caliber of play, regardless of number of players in NHL that passed through there on the journey.

I don't think you ever run into a scenario where a player is hurt by playing NCAA, which is a big thing to not overlook here. Previously, people would at least make the argument that since you're not going up against "the best of the best" when you're 17, you are facing lesser competition and that in turn the NCAA path was filled with nerds, not serious hockey players and lower ceiling fringe guys but that if you wanted to be the next Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid, you had to go the pathway where you would forego the possibility of ever playing NCAA entirely.

It is likely the case that a player isn't hurt by never going NCAA, but now a bit less uncertainty over that, and will largely depend on what most of the herd of Major Junior players end up doing... and so path of least resistance could just lead a lot to go to NCAA for that reason.

 

[4thline]

Similar to how you have the Group A getting a benefit from NCAA in their age 20/21/22/23 to go NCAA to boost their chances at AHL Contract (AHL/ECHL, maybe then some slightly lower level Euro league player), Group B benefitting from NCAA in their age 19/20/21 in order to increases chances of making NHL in some capacity, you can likely carry that down into players in Group C benefitting from playing NCAA in their 18/19... although to your point they are likely "fine either way" because great players are great players. Then you can even carry that further to the uber-elite (1st/2nd overall calibers) benefitting from NCAA in their age 17 or 18 (depending on their birthday) Draft Year as a way to signal to NHL teams "I'm good enough to play in NHL right away after getting drafted" as having "conquered" what likely already is, and almost assuredly will be, the best amateur North American league to play in.

*Best meaning highest caliber of play, regardless of number of players in NHL that passed through there on the journey.

I largely addressed that group C dynamic in the last unquoted paragraph- though I did add that on after. Under the new status quo it makes absolute sense for drafted U20's that don't believe they're now NHL ready to jump to the NCAA. But the best of those would be absolutely better served by the AHL- if it was available to them. Similarly I think it makes sense for any high end late born to spend their draft year in the NCAA - if they're good enough. Fast tracking highschool- I'm not sure if that's going to take off though.

But I think many underestimating the upward effect on NCAA league play from A and B, how it is going to limit the actual NCAA desire to nab U19/U20 one and done's, and indeed how it's going to push out a lot of the current U20 NCAA player base. I also think some are underestimating the effect the reverse flow will have on negating the OA loss for CHL quality of play. The CHL is going to get more of the high end U17/U18 players, and less of them are going to be wanted prior to U21/U22