CHL/NCAA

[Kingpin794]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853542436326261060

Literally the first player to leave the USHL for the OHL is an 18 year old committed to play for Minnesota.

Hayden Reid - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Hayden Reid, 2006-06-21 Orono, ON, CAN Canada. Most recently in the OHL with Flint Firebirds. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

I think he meant scheduled to be a freshman at 18. Which is only reserved normally for the absolute top end players.

 

[OMG67]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1853542436326261060

Literally the first player to leave the USHL for the OHL is an 18 year old committed to play for Minnesota.

Hayden Reid - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Hayden Reid, 2006-06-21 Orono, ON, CAN Canada. Most recently in the OHL with Flint Firebirds. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

You parsed the quote. The intention of the comment was that player would play in the OHL as a 16 and 17 year old then leave as an 18 year old. By pasting this tweet, you are specifically saying this player is not going to return next year for Flint and that is a guarantee. My point is players won’t do that. They will join the OHL and stay and when they are done, they will join the NCAA.

From a development standpoint, there is no reason for a player to play as a 16 and 17 year old in the OHL. It is a much more difficult league for younger players. If they are going NCAA at 18, they will stay in the USHL.

I cannot see a situation where players like this one you have highlighted will sign to play in Flint for 5 months and leave next year. It makes absolutely zero sense unless there are extenuating circumstances where the player is having issues with his USHL team.

MArk my words here and hold them for next year in case I am wrong but I think there is an almost zero percent chance this kid plays for Minnesota next year.

 

[coolhandluc44]

You parsed the quote. The intention of the comment was that player would play in the OHL as a 16 and 17 year old then leave as an 18 year old. By pasting this tweet, you are specifically saying this player is not going to return next year for Flint and that is a guarantee. My point is players won’t do that. They will join the OHL and stay and when they are done, they will join the NCAA.

From a development standpoint, there is no reason for a player to play as a 16 and 17 year old in the OHL. It is a much more difficult league for younger players. If they are going NCAA at 18, they will stay in the USHL.

I cannot see a situation where players like this one you have highlighted will sign to play in Flint for 5 months and leave next year. It makes absolutely zero sense unless there are extenuating circumstances where the player is having issues with his USHL team.

MArk my words here and hold them for next year in case I am wrong but I think there is an almost zero percent chance this kid plays for Minnesota next year.

Are NCAA teams able to de-commit to a player? What I am getting at and not this particular player at all, but at age 15/16 you are scouting a player to come join your program in 3 or 4 years as a Freshman. What if the player does not develop the way you thought, as an NCAA school are you able to tell the player you are not offering them a scholarship anymore?

I wonder now with the rule changes, NCAA teams will wait to offer and recruit players to see how they do after 2 or 3 years of major junior hockey.

I think the only way USHL stays at a level they are at now is if they offer there players educational packages like the CHL. Why would you not go CHL over USHL. Even if your end goal is an NCAA program, you might as well play in what I would argue a better league and have a fall back educational package if things dont work out with the NCAA school you are planning to go to.

 

[OMG67]

Are NCAA teams able to de-commit to a player? What I am getting at and not this particular player at all, but at age 15/16 you are scouting a player to come join your program in 3 or 4 years as a Freshman. What if the player does not develop the way you thought, as an NCAA school are you able to tell the player you are not offering them a scholarship anymore?

I wonder now with the rule changes, NCAA teams will wait to offer and recruit players to see how they do after 2 or 3 years of major junior hockey.

I think the only way USHL stays at a level they are at now is if they offer there players educational packages like the CHL. Why would you not go CHL over USHL. Even if your end goal is an NCAA program, you might as well play in what I would argue a better league and have a fall back educational package if things dont work out with the NCAA school you are planning to go to.

A commitment is non-binding for either party.

In fact, most, if not all athletic scholarships are at the discretion of the coaches and are renewed on an annual basis. There are scholastic requirements as well as athletic requirements that the player needs to maintain to maintain their scholarship.

 

[agillarda]

You parsed the quote. The intention of the comment was that player would play in the OHL as a 16 and 17 year old then leave as an 18 year old. By pasting this tweet, you are specifically saying this player is not going to return next year for Flint and that is a guarantee. My point is players won’t do that. They will join the OHL and stay and when they are done, they will join the NCAA.

From a development standpoint, there is no reason for a player to play as a 16 and 17 year old in the OHL. It is a much more difficult league for younger players. If they are going NCAA at 18, they will stay in the USHL.

I cannot see a situation where players like this one you have highlighted will sign to play in Flint for 5 months and leave next year. It makes absolutely zero sense unless there are extenuating circumstances where the player is having issues with his USHL team.

MArk my words here and hold them for next year in case I am wrong but I think there is an almost zero percent chance this kid plays for Minnesota next year.

So you are saying a player will have no issue going as a rookie to the OJHL, BCHL, USHL, or any of the other Junior A and B teams then report to the NCAA. They will though have an issue though going to the OHL, WHL or QMJHL as a rookie of the same age?

You either have an issue or you don't. These 15/16 year olds are deciding to go to the NCAA and they haven't been allowed to do so after playing in the CHL due to a rule that is being changed. There is no reason for them not to play in the CHL now as they will still be able to go NCAA now.

 

[OMG67]

So you are saying a player will have no issue going as a rookie to the OJHL, BCHL, USHL, or any of the other Junior A and B teams then report to the NCAA. They will though have an issue though going to the OHL, WHL or QMJHL as a rookie of the same age?

You either have an issue or you don't. These 15/16 year olds are deciding to go to the NCAA and they haven't been allowed to do so after playing in the CHL due to a rule that is being changed. There is no reason for them not to play in the CHL now as they will still be able to go NCAA now.

That is exactly what I am saying. Unless the player is elite, the player simply won’t play much as a 16 year old in the OHL. The OHL skews older than the USHL. The 16 year old will play more meaningful minutes in those other leagues (BCHL may be the exception since they’ve gone renegade and have attracted a higher calibre of players).

Look at Hawery in London or Challenger in Erie, or Amidovski in Ottawa. Maybe zero points between them. All top prospects for this draft. The OHL is a very difficult league for 16 year olds.

If a player has zero intention of playing as an 18 year old in the OHL (intent to enroll in U of XXX), they won’t play here as a 16 or 17 year old. It makes no sense. Why would they come to the OHL only to play minimal minutes as a 16 year old vs more meaningful minutes in the USHL? The only reason to report to the OHL as a 16 yer old is if your intent is to be an OHL player. That means 4 years is the goal unless you make the pro jump early.

The advantage for these players is there is no age restriction on NCAA. They can either have it as a primary goal or a Plan B if NHL opportunities don’t transpire. Either way, the players will need to choose. If the NCAA is a Plan B then play in the CHL loop. If you are hell bent on your commitment to NCAA as an 18 year old, play USHL, it is a better league for 16 and 17 year olds.

 

[agillarda]

That is exactly what I am saying. Unless the player is elite, the player simply won’t play much as a 16 year old in the OHL. The OHL skews older than the USHL. The 16 year old will play more meaningful minutes in those other leagues (BCHL may be the exception since they’ve gone renegade and have attracted a higher calibre of players).

Look at Hawery in London or Challenger in Erie, or Amidovski in Ottawa. Maybe zero points between them. All top prospects for this draft. The OHL is a very difficult league for 16 year olds.

If a player has zero intention of playing as an 18 year old in the OHL (intent to enroll in U of XXX), they won’t play here as a 16 or 17 year old. It makes no sense. Why would they come to the OHL only to play minimal minutes as a 16 year old vs more meaningful minutes in the USHL? The only reason to report to the OHL as a 16 yer old is if your intent is to be an OHL player. That means 4 years is the goal unless you make the pro jump early.

The advantage for these players is there is no age restriction on NCAA. They can either have it as a primary goal or a Plan B if NHL opportunities don’t transpire. Either way, the players will need to choose. If the NCAA is a Plan B then play in the CHL loop. If you are hell bent on your commitment to NCAA as an 18 year old, play USHL, it is a better league for 16 and 17 year olds.

A couple of problems with your logic here, the 3 players you refer to no getting playing time are London and Erie are a couple of the deeper teams expecting to go deep so no they wouldn't play top line minutes there. Nor are those players the top top tier of prospects. Valentini and Malhotra for example on the teams they would have been drafted would have gotten top minutes and still could. You put Valentini on an already top team that wasn't expected to be and yea they will be competing for 2 years

 

[ScoutLife4]

A couple of problems with your logic here, the 3 players you refer to no getting playing time are London and Erie are a couple of the deeper teams expecting to go deep so no they wouldn't play top line minutes there. Nor are those players the top top tier of prospects. Valentini and Malhotra for example on the teams they would have been drafted would have gotten top minutes and still could. You put Valentini on an already top team that wasn't expected to be and yea they will be competing for 2 years

Malhotra wouldn't be getting top minutes on Kingston this season that's for sure.
3rd line at best but probably 4th.

 

[agillarda]

Malhotra wouldn't be getting top minutes on Kingston this season that's for sure.
3rd line at best but probably 4th.

Well in a world where ncaa isn't an issue, wouldn't he have gone to someone else? Valentini would still be in Windsor believe he was no 1 ranked. Can't remember the rest of the rankings but the draft would have gone different for sure.

 

[EvenSteven]

Well in a world where ncaa isn't an issue, wouldn't he have gone to someone else? Valentini would still be in Windsor believe he was no 1 ranked. Can't remember the rest of the rankings but the draft would have gone different for sure.

Had Valentini reported to Kitchener, today he be playing second line left wing with the Stark injury. And who knows, he’d probably be a mainstay there. Once an OA or two is moved, up to or at the deadline, he’d be a top six player on this team this season.

 

[ScoutLife4]

Well in a world where ncaa isn't an issue, wouldn't he have gone to someone else? Valentini would still be in Windsor believe he was no 1 ranked. Can't remember the rest of the rankings but the draft would have gone different for sure.

I'm not sure. Maybe 4-7th?
I just don't see that a OHL team would force him into a top 6 role.
I think he's only getting 13 min a game in the BCHL so i'm not sure our that would translate to the OHL.