CHL/NCAA

[donjohnson]

I posted something on the Spirit message board a while back before many of the higher-profile players have announced NCAA commitments. This is going to be chaos for at couple of years but I think it's in the best interest of hockey (all levels) for everyone to get on the same page and it starts with the NHL. The NHL can (and should) (1) allow 19 year olds to play in the AHL if they are ready and (2) standardize the number of years that NHL teams can hang on to draft picks before they become free agents.

Here is how I see things shaking out:

16-18yo Players:
Tier 1 players - CHL (top league)
Tier 2 players - USHL / CJHL (Junior A leagues...USHL considers itself equal to the CHL but it won't be anymore)
Tier 3 players - Junior B Leagues like the NAHL
**Teams will be able to sign more 16yo than they do now because of the lack of 20 year olds.

19yo Players:
AHL - If NHL team thinks they are ready to play there
NCAA/Usports - If they want to make the jump to college
CHL - They will be considered overagers and each team can have X amount of players (somewhere like 3-5)

20yo Players:
No longer in the CHL...they can choose College/Pro/Europe like they have the ability currently. They will not be eligible for Junior Hockey anymore at this age.

Curious to know your thoughts on this setup.

 

[coolhandluc44]

I posted something on the Spirit message board a while back before many of the higher-profile players have announced NCAA commitments. This is going to be chaos for at couple of years but I think it's in the best interest of hockey (all levels) for everyone to get on the same page and it starts with the NHL. The NHL can (and should) (1) allow 19 year olds to play in the AHL if they are ready and (2) standardize the number of years that NHL teams can hang on to draft picks before they become free agents.

Here is how I see things shaking out:

16-18yo Players:
Tier 1 players - CHL (top league)
Tier 2 players - USHL / CJHL (Junior A leagues...USHL considers itself equal to the CHL but it won't be anymore)
Tier 3 players - Junior B Leagues like the NAHL
**Teams will be able to sign more 16yo than they do now because of the lack of 20 year olds.

19yo Players:
AHL - If NHL team thinks they are ready to play there
NCAA/Usports - If they want to make the jump to college
CHL - They will be considered overagers and each team can have X amount of players (somewhere like 3-5)

20yo Players:
No longer in the CHL...they can choose College/Pro/Europe like they have the ability currently. They will not be eligible for Junior Hockey anymore at this age.

Curious to know your thoughts on this setup.

I agree that 19 year olds who are ready should be in the AHL. And it does not mean all at 19 will be in the AHL. Zayne Parekh is a good example. He should be in the AHL next year if he cannot make the Flames. Plus if this is not allowed. you are going to see NHL teams tell their high drafted players they are going to NCAA so they can play against older players. If the rule change happened last year, I could have totally seen the Flames saying to Parekh we want you to go NCAA if not for the season we just had but the season coming up. The reality is CHL has no leverage in this situation.

I have stated on here I think it might be beneficial for the CHL to allow this in the new world because it might deter guys from leaving after their NHL draft year knowing that at most they will only have to spend 1 more in year in junior if not 2. I think the main push going forward for CHL is going to be keeping your high caliber D+1 year from leaving. Plus in the new world, the CHL should have more drafted NHL players so the quality of players should be higher. If 19 is the new cut off, maybe you don't even have a number on OA spots? It would almost be like college where for the most part your best players are 3rd and 4th year players and hopefully you draft and develop well and you keep the cycle going.

The number of good quality players in the their 16 and 17 years should in theory be better. Its all about keeping the best of the best (i.e. early NHL draft picks). Rate now most CHL teams are lucky to have 1 of those players on their active roster. The trade off is you might not have them 4 years, but what if I get them for 3 years but also maybe have a few more on my team. It would almost be like a super league for 16 to 18 year olds with some really good 19 year olds added in.

The last thing I want and people have said this is lowering the age by a year. I do not want this at all and just emphasis the fact as to why 18 or 19 year olds should not be in the league

 

[tomschman]

I find the movement of players from the CHL to the NCAA very interesting. If I were an 18 with CHL experience and considered a pro prospect, the CHL would fit my needs betters than the NCAA. In the CHL, my life would be 100% hockey. It wouldn't be 50% academics and 50% hockey. The CHL plays more games. Most athletes thrive on the competition of games and tolerate the training and practice to achieve their goals of improving their game.

While education is important and I totally back anyone getting an education, there is not a time limit on the education. If an NCAA program wants you at 18, they will still want you at 20. You can get your education later.

The decision then comes down to 2 factors, where do you think that you can better develop your game to an NHL level and unfortunately, where will you make the most money.

I expect their will be some (as is already happening) will leave the CHL for the NCAA. I also expect a portion of these players (probably less than 25%) to say the want to return to the CHL. This is because 18yos generally don't know what they want.

I expect the CHL to be fine. They will have a small reduction in the caliber of players with players moving to the NCAA. However, this will be partially offset by 16-17yos that previously bi-passed the CHL because of they previously did not want to forfeit their NCAA eligibility. Players have to remember that most NCAA players are 20 - 24yos. Unless you are an elite level 18yo, you may find yourself red-shirted your 1st year and not playing at all. Someone suggested Maine (which is not a top program) has 31 commitments. They can only skate 20 in a game.

 

[OHL4Life]

I posted something on the Spirit message board a while back before many of the higher-profile players have announced NCAA commitments. This is going to be chaos for at couple of years but I think it's in the best interest of hockey (all levels) for everyone to get on the same page and it starts with the NHL. The NHL can (and should) (1) allow 19 year olds to play in the AHL if they are ready and (2) standardize the number of years that NHL teams can hang on to draft picks before they become free agents.

Here is how I see things shaking out:

16-18yo Players:
Tier 1 players - CHL (top league)
Tier 2 players - USHL / CJHL (Junior A leagues...USHL considers itself equal to the CHL but it won't be anymore)
Tier 3 players - Junior B Leagues like the NAHL
**Teams will be able to sign more 16yo than they do now because of the lack of 20 year olds.

19yo Players:
AHL - If NHL team thinks they are ready to play there
NCAA/Usports - If they want to make the jump to college
CHL - They will be considered overagers and each team can have X amount of players (somewhere like 3-5)

20yo Players:
No longer in the CHL...they can choose College/Pro/Europe like they have the ability currently. They will not be eligible for Junior Hockey anymore at this age.

Curious to know your thoughts on this setup.

they will still want the option to have 20 year olds, there will be plenty that dont have the grades, interest or ability to make the ncaa and can still be good ohl players. they also will not be ready for the ahl and the echl isn't a great development area.

 

[OMG67]

Think of the situation this way. It's moneyball now (or moneypuck? whatever). You have 3 new pools to pick from: Americans, Canadians that were USHL/BCHL bound, and more Europeans (especially Russians). You are trying to recreating the NHL talent in the aggregate. Out of those 3 pools, if you even get 1.1 NHL draft players for every one you lose early, you still increase the overall concentration of NHL talent by 10%.

Do we care if the player from those pools is a top 10 pick?

*points at Pete*

No we do not.

Why?

Because they are a potential NHL Drafted talent

Yeah but can they get on base?

 

[OMG67]

Fat f'ing chance of that. GM's need to do a better job of understanding their player's intentions. They'll adjust.

And creating an environment they don’t want to leave!

 

[OMG67]

Hunter is already on record

The changing landscape, Hunter said, will force teams to ask more questions during their recruitment.

“Do you want to play in the CHL?” he said. “You've got to be more specific about what their thoughts are. I totally agree with that. We have to be more thorough with what we're doing now

Teams will ask the right questions. In the case of Mews I don't think anyone took him seriously

In all fairness, Ottawa traded him so I think the 67s took him serious. Prior to this year there was no option to move to the NCAA so….

 

[beastintheeast]

In all fairness, Ottawa traded him so I think the 67s took him serious. Prior to this year there was no option to move to the NCAA so….

Yeah but how much of it could be seen as I want out and this is what i will do if you do ot trade me. I think Sudbury took the chance hoping that it was just part of his Iwant out and thathe would be nicer if he was there and promised that this year he would be traded to a competitive team.

 

[Otto]

Yeah but how much of it could be seen as I want out and this is what i will do if you do ot trade me. I think Sudbury took the chance hoping that it was just part of his Iwant out and thathe would be nicer if he was there and promised that this year he would be traded to a competitive team.

Exactly this.

This is why I'd love to see a breakdown of what CHL teams players are leaving from

 

[OMG67]

Yeah but how much of it could be seen as I want out and this is what i will do if you do ot trade me. I think Sudbury took the chance hoping that it was just part of his Iwant out and thathe would be nicer if he was there and promised that this year he would be traded to a competitive team.

They took a poor trade package considering his age. I think it was clear he wasn’t coming back. Had he been “bluffing,” his value would have be far greater than that package. That trade package was marginally better than a deadline package for a good OA. The trade package difference between Konnor Smith and Henry Mews was essentially the value of Nolan Jackson. No offence to Jackson but when you have a top 3 scoring D-Man at age 18 on the trade block, you’d expect a significantly higher return than what Ottawa got if both sides expected him to play next year.

 

[beastintheeast]

They took a poor trade package considering his age. I think it was clear he wasn’t coming back. Had he been “bluffing,” his value would have be far greater than that package. That trade package was marginally better than a deadline package for a good OA. The trade package difference between Konnor Smith and Henry Mews was essentially the value of Nolan Jackson. No offence to Jackson but when you have a top 3 scoring D-Man at age 18 on the trade block, you’d expect a significantly higher return than what Ottawa got if both sides expected him to play next year.

Possibly but I think Sudbury was also hoping that he would help them in playoffs and possibly be open to waiting for the trade window.

It was a chance and gamble but imagine if it worked. Also it will be interesting to see how he does in michigan

 

[dirty12]

They took a poor trade package considering his age. I think it was clear he wasn’t coming back. Had he been “bluffing,” his value would have be far greater than that package. That trade package was marginally better than a deadline package for a good OA. The trade package difference between Konnor Smith and Henry Mews was essentially the value of Nolan Jackson. No offence to Jackson but when you have a top 3 scoring D-Man at age 18 on the trade block, you’d expect a significantly higher return than what Ottawa got if both sides expected him to play next year.

Possibly but I think Sudbury was also hoping that he would help them in playoffs and possibly be open to waiting for the trade window.

It was a chance and gamble but imagine if it worked. Also it will be interesting to see how he does in michigan

I think the wolves were being very hopeful that Mews would make its’ PP best last season; and hopefully Mews, Villeneuve, Walton would want to be part of L1/PP1 to start this season. They certainly were not banking on injuries to Delic and Musty.
The ‘67s got a return for Mews comparable to Gibson and Allen, I think. The three conditional picks were probably also subject to upgrade if Mews returns at some point and the wolves going deep into the playoffs.

 

[OMG67]

I think the wolves were being very hopeful that Mews would make its’ PP best last season; and hopefully Mews, Villeneuve, Walton would want to be part of L1/PP1 to start this season. They certainly were not banking on injuries to Delic and Musty.
The ‘67s got a return for Mews comparable to Gibson and Allen, I think. The three conditional picks were probably also subject to upgrade if Mews returns at some point and the wolves going deep into the playoffs.

There weren’t suitable available picks on the Sudbury board that made sense for a full year extra of Mews. Even if they had the picks and they upgraded to three 2nds, that would have been a paltry return for one full year of a player like Mews.

We could argue the value of a player like Jackson vs Smith but the reality is, the trade return at its best wasn’t adequate for a two year player of that calibre. I think everyone knew he wasn’t returning and Ottawa added a little kicker on the conditions to at least cover their ass in case something changes. For example, Mews is gone but if Calgary offers him a ELC, does he turn it down to play at Michigan? THAT is the caveat still out there for a lot of these players.

 

[donjohnson]

they will still want the option to have 20 year olds, there will be plenty that dont have the grades, interest or ability to make the ncaa and can still be good ohl players. they also will not be ready for the ahl and the echl isn't a great development area.

While that certainly is true, if I was advising the CHL my first recommendation would be to become THE place to play to get drafted as an 18 year-old. Make that the primary focus of the league and you will see kids not going to college at 18 if they are a top player. After that, the players can have options...stay in the league, go to NCAA or go to AHL (assuming the NHL gets on board with that). So I don't know if they really care that much about the 20yo anymore...the quality will be down significantly and they'd likely be better off signing additional prospects who want to be developed for the draft.

So what does that mean for a 20yo? In the hypothetical "new CHL" it means that a 20yo player in the league is likely at the end of the road for hockey...if they didn't find a NCAA or Usports home and they don't have the academic pursuits, they likely are off to something like construction, police/fire or something else like that. Don't forget, that's a COMPLETELY NORMAL thing for a 20yo to do who isn't a "school guy" and they'll play men's league hockey somewhere and start earning money. I just think it's going to be harder and harder to find quality 20yo's and I think the league will eventually back up the OA age to 19.

 

[OMG67]

While that certainly is true, if I was advising the CHL my first recommendation would be to become THE place to play to get drafted as an 18 year-old. Make that the primary focus of the league and you will see kids not going to college at 18 if they are a top player. After that, the players can have options...stay in the league, go to NCAA or go to AHL (assuming the NHL gets on board with that). So I don't know if they really care that much about the 20yo anymore...the quality will be down significantly and they'd likely be better off signing additional prospects who want to be developed for the draft.

So what does that mean for a 20yo? In the hypothetical "new CHL" it means that a 20yo player in the league is likely at the end of the road for hockey...if they didn't find a NCAA or Usports home and they don't have the academic pursuits, they likely are off to something like construction, police/fire or something else like that. Don't forget, that's a COMPLETELY NORMAL thing for a 20yo to do who isn't a "school guy" and they'll play men's league hockey somewhere and start earning money. I just think it's going to be harder and harder to find quality 20yo's and I think the league will eventually back up the OA age to 19.

I don’t think you can back up the OA age because there will be 19 year old NHL signed players in the league. They cannot play NCAA and most aren’t capable of playing AHL even if it were an option.

There are many players that are not necessarily scholastically inclined that aren’t pro prospects. I can see a potential decline in quantity but maybe going from 3 to 2 while increasing Importa from 2 to 3 may make sense depending on how the landscape changes.

It will take a couple seasons for normalization. After that, adjustments can be made.

 

[coolhandluc44]

While that certainly is true, if I was advising the CHL my first recommendation would be to become THE place to play to get drafted as an 18 year-old. Make that the primary focus of the league and you will see kids not going to college at 18 if they are a top player. After that, the players can have options...stay in the league, go to NCAA or go to AHL (assuming the NHL gets on board with that). So I don't know if they really care that much about the 20yo anymore...the quality will be down significantly and they'd likely be better off signing additional prospects who want to be developed for the draft.

So what does that mean for a 20yo? In the hypothetical "new CHL" it means that a 20yo player in the league is likely at the end of the road for hockey...if they didn't find a NCAA or Usports home and they don't have the academic pursuits, they likely are off to something like construction, police/fire or something else like that. Don't forget, that's a COMPLETELY NORMAL thing for a 20yo to do who isn't a "school guy" and they'll play men's league hockey somewhere and start earning money. I just think it's going to be harder and harder to find quality 20yo's and I think the league will eventually back up the OA age to 19.

Plus when you think about it, each team is probably going to be drafting a really good player if not two players that they would not have drafted before because they would have said from the get go they are going NCAA. In theory, your 3rd 16 year old that you drafted might now be someone you drafted a round later because of the quality you choose from is deeper. My point being is that if you look at the bottom of your teams roster, those players will now be junior B or tier 2 junior etc. In the new world, alot of the best 20 year olds will have moved on to NCAA or pro. And in the CHL you have time after your done school to use the education package if things do not look like they are progressing for you in the pro ranks. Maybe you give a little more time they can access it to offset loosing a year. And perhaps because you might not have as much opportunity to player in the league for 4 years to get 4 years of schooling paid for, maybe if you played 3 year you get compensated for 4 years of education. You might be able to set of the cost of that because you are hoping more of your players are signed to pro contracts thus they do not get the education money.

I also wonder if the easiest way to do this is to move up the draft a year. Maybe some players still leave like the kid we saw in Victoria, but I wonder how many would have stayed with their junior teams if the draft was a year later. I mean if your a Martone and you just had a great season, if you take the risk and go NCAA next season and for ever reason you don't have a good year, that could really hurt your draft stock. I personally always thought the draft was too soon. Some of the CHL guys are just played one year of major junior.

The bottom line is I think there are ways for the CHL to maintain having an amazing league with the worlds best that people will still pay money to see and have interest. It will require outside the box thinking and realization that times have changed and your probably better off having 19 years being eligible to play in the AHL because of the new landscape

 

[swoopster]

The changing realities of hockey are affecting even the lowest levels of college hockey. I live in mid Michigan with close proximity to two ACHA schools. ( level below NCAA D1 and 3 ). The local rink where I play at noon is open all summer and there are high school grads as well as ACHA players, along with some minor and even a couple of European players home for the summer. In locker room talk they lay out the realities facing them. A high school player is no longer able to compete or get playing time at the local ACHA schools. They are told by those coaches that they need a year or so of Junior hockey before they are to be considered. All the ACHA players I skate with come from a US based Junior program somewhere at some level. There are no scholarships, yet these schools recruit, often drawing in players from other states. Players pay their own tuition. The competition for playing time is robust. Ten years ago these schools rosters were mainly exclusive to Michigan alone and most of the freshmen came directly from high school. I know because 10 years ago I was still skating there.

The quality of these players today is outstanding...a quantum leap from 10 years ago. This is the reality of hockey today, even at the bottom level, Lord only know the chaos at the top!

 

[OMG67]

The changing realities of hockey are affecting even the lowest levels of college hockey. I live in mid Michigan with close proximity to two ACHA schools. ( level below NCAA D1 and 3 ). The local rink where I play at noon is open all summer and there are high school grads as well as ACHA players, along with some minor and even a couple of European players home for the summer. In locker room talk they lay out the realities facing them. A high school player is no longer able to compete or get playing time at the local ACHA schools. They are told by those coaches that they need a year or so of Junior hockey before they are to be considered. All the ACHA players I skate with come from a US based program somewhere at some level. There is no scholarships, yet these schools recruit, often drawing in players from other states. Players pay their own tuition. The competition for playing time is robust. Ten years ago these schools rosters were mainly exclusive to Michigan alone and most of the freshmen came directly from high school. I know because 10 years ago I was still skating there.

The quality of these players today is outstanding...a quantum leap from 10 years ago. This is the reality of hockey today, even at the bottom level, Lord only know the chaos at the top!

And this highlights where hockey is going in the USA. The ceiling in Canada has been reached. We’ve reached our max. But the USA has loads of upward mobility for developing players. That talent pool grows every year. It is only a matter of time before the USA takes over hockey as the primary nationality in the NHL.

Even if you only look at the northern states for players, that is still 150+mil people vs 40mil in Canada. The popularity will continue to grow and we will see some very crazy numbers of solid American kids. It will push out a lot of the good Canadian kids. The total pool of elite players will continue to grow. And, what you have highlighted proves that. And that is only over the last ten years.

 

[beastintheeast]

The solution is relatively simple. When the teams interview the kids they ask them if they have any dreams of NCAA. It is not a bad thing but if for instance, Dervin goes into the room and says i am going ot the NCAA after I am drafted, or has the academic marks, then Cooper in his team plan plans to only have a player for 2=2 years..

Yes the player could say no they are not and change their mind but also a player may change their mind and postpone their NCAA.

That is what is going to happen.

 

[Leviathan899]

In all fairness, Ottawa traded him so I think the 67s took him serious. Prior to this year there was no option to move to the NCAA so….

He was always a school guy really, he was touring NCAA schools during his Minor midget year.