Toggle sidebar

CHL/NCAA

Quick Question:

There is a lot of talk about Henry Mews getting an offer from Michigan. HE was traded to the Wolves specifically because Ottawa didn’t’ want to take a chance of him bolting to the NCAA with Michigan for next season.

BUT!

Players that stay in a pro camp for longer than 48 hours and don’t carry their own expenses are not eligible for NCAA. Additionally, players that participate in games vs other teams are automatically not eligible. They can play an intra-squad but that’s it.

Not only did Mews play in the rookie Tourney last year, he also suited up for an Exhibition game. Was there an addendum added to the NCAA/CHL agreement that allows players that have or will play NHL Exhibition games the ability to remain eligible to play NCAA hockey?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roadhog


It's happening
 

Attachments

  • oh-my-god-its-happening.gif
    oh-my-god-its-happening.gif
    279.4 KB · Views: 8
  • Like
Reactions: RB76
Otto said:
Somewhat related
Click to expand...

Unbelievable 🙄

The CHL has been exceptionally loyal to the NHL and has provided the vast majority of its talent over the decades. I certainly hope there is a significant plan forthcoming from the NHL that will thwart the potential poaching of CHL talent by the NCAA.

The CHL is the grassroots of the game. CHL communities support the game, the brand and much of the future talent that the NHL will enjoy. Enabling the CHL to be harmed (whether through poaching of talent and/or artificially propping up its weaker competition and thus disincentivizing potential players from playing in the league) is absolute foolishness on the part of the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PensFan101
OSA said:
Unbelievable 🙄

The CHL has been exceptionally loyal to the NHL and has provided the vast majority of its talent over the decades. I certainly hope there is a significant plan forthcoming from the NHL that will thwart the potential poaching of CHL talent by the NCAA.

The CHL is the grassroots of the game. CHL communities support the game, the brand and much of the future talent that the NHL will enjoy. Enabling the CHL to be harmed (whether through poaching of talent and/or artificially propping up its weaker competition and thus disincentivizing potential players from playing in the league) is absolute foolishness on the part of the NHL.
Click to expand...
It’s not that serious. They’re getting money for hockey ops stuff but it’s not going to do anything for the talent drain they’ll face. There’s no amount of money that’s going to stop that. Like no one is choosing the USHL because “oh you got more nutrition experts now?”. Honestly these investments in the league are what they should have done a decade ago instead of coasting on the reputation of one all star team in their league. This is just to keep their heads above water and viable in the future. They aren’t getting some kind of advantage here. Also it is no accident they announced this as soon as the OHL draft was done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonk, MJ5, Bra Wavers and 2 others
Kingpin794 said:
It’s not that serious. They’re getting money for hockey ops stuff but it’s not going to do anything for the talent drain they’ll face. There’s no amount of money that’s going to stop that. Like no one is choosing the USHL because “oh you got more nutrition experts now?”. Honestly these investments in the league are what they should have done a decade ago instead of coasting on the reputation of one all star team in their league. This is just to keep their heads above water and viable in the future. They aren’t getting some kind of advantage here. Also it is no accident they announced this as soon as the OHL draft was done.
Click to expand...
I mean it does say “….put the USHL on a more level I’ve surface with….”

But ya, I do hope you’re right and I am overstating what the NHL is doing for the league
 
OSA said:
I mean it does say “….put the USHL on a more level I’ve surface with….”

But ya, I do hope you’re right and I am overstating what the NHL is doing for the league
Click to expand...
I would be more concerned if the USHL started offering an education that was equal or better than the CHL. Put the skill level of the leagues aside, if I go CHL and don't play meaningful hockey after I'm done, at the very least I walk away getting my tuition, books and fees paid for based on the value closest school to my residence. And in American dollars that can be alot. If I go the USHL route, what am I leaving with after I am done the league?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bra Wavers, OSA and Helvigster
coolhandluc44 said:
I would be more concerned if the USHL started offering an education that was equal or better than the CHL. Put the skill level of the leagues aside, if I go CHL and don't play meaningful hockey after I'm done, at the very least I walk away getting my tuition, books and fees paid for based on the value closest school to my residence. And in American dollars that can be alot. If I go the USHL route, what am I leaving with after I am done the league?
Click to expand...
Maybe this is included in the financial arrangements 🤷‍♂️
 
Kingpin794 said:
These are the types of things that the money is going towards

View attachment 1013679
Click to expand...
So these are all things the CHL teams and leagues are providing (or if they are properly run should be). Without the education package I think it is still a big gap in compensation between the two leagues. That is if you look at the potential education package as compensation
 
Correct...previously you had scholarship limitations sport by sport which is why you had walk-ons. Walk-ons will likely go away now which I don't think is a great thing for sports like football but it will potentially benefit smaller sports (like golf) who can now give full scholarships to everyone and not split 4 scholarships among 6 people or something like that. It will still be subject to the schools and their athletic budgets.

I don't know how much money will trickle to the hockey programs...most of the money will be going to Football, Men's Basketball and Women's Basketball. Title IX does not seem to be a factor in the distribution of funds meaning it doesn't have to be equal between men's and women's opportunities.

The big thing in the news today is roster limits which is replacing scholarship limits. Part of the settlement is that schools were establishing roster limits as a guardrail for payments (meaning the rich schools could offer unlimited scholarships). This is having a lot of consequences to things like Track and Field athletes who are now being told that they no longer have a place on a team. The judge in this case has said today that the NCAA needs to grandfather these athletes in or she'll reject the deal.

Again, not sure how this will affect hockey...hockey doesn't have huge roster sizes and I don't know what the scholarship limitations were previously so it may be relatively unchanged if most were on full scholarship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayzorIsDull and coolhandluc44
donjohnson said:
Correct...previously you had scholarship limitations sport by sport which is why you had walk-ons. Walk-ons will likely go away now which I don't think is a great thing for sports like football but it will potentially benefit smaller sports (like golf) who can now give full scholarships to everyone and not split 4 scholarships among 6 people or something like that. It will still be subject to the schools and their athletic budgets.

I don't know how much money will trickle to the hockey programs...most of the money will be going to Football, Men's Basketball and Women's Basketball. Title IX does not seem to be a factor in the distribution of funds meaning it doesn't have to be equal between men's and women's opportunities.

The big thing in the news today is roster limits which is replacing scholarship limits. Part of the settlement is that schools were establishing roster limits as a guardrail for payments (meaning the rich schools could offer unlimited scholarships). This is having a lot of consequences to things like Track and Field athletes who are now being told that they no longer have a place on a team. The judge in this case has said today that the NCAA needs to grandfather these athletes in or she'll reject the deal.

Again, not sure how this will affect hockey...hockey doesn't have huge roster sizes and I don't know what the scholarship limitations were previously so it may be relatively unchanged if most were on full scholarship.
Click to expand...
It was 18 scholarships maximum, which could be split up based on need. Some conferences had fewer, the Ivy League obviously is non-scholarship.
 
donjohnson said:
Correct...previously you had scholarship limitations sport by sport which is why you had walk-ons. Walk-ons will likely go away now which I don't think is a great thing for sports like football but it will potentially benefit smaller sports (like golf) who can now give full scholarships to everyone and not split 4 scholarships among 6 people or something like that. It will still be subject to the schools and their athletic budgets.

I don't know how much money will trickle to the hockey programs...most of the money will be going to Football, Men's Basketball and Women's Basketball. Title IX does not seem to be a factor in the distribution of funds meaning it doesn't have to be equal between men's and women's opportunities.

The big thing in the news today is roster limits which is replacing scholarship limits. Part of the settlement is that schools were establishing roster limits as a guardrail for payments (meaning the rich schools could offer unlimited scholarships). This is having a lot of consequences to things like Track and Field athletes who are now being told that they no longer have a place on a team. The judge in this case has said today that the NCAA needs to grandfather these athletes in or she'll reject the deal.

Again, not sure how this will affect hockey...hockey doesn't have huge roster sizes and I don't know what the scholarship limitations were previously so it may be relatively unchanged if most were on full scholarship.
Click to expand...
Some college hockey programs have said they will carry 25 scholarship players.
 
Bonk said:
It was 18 scholarships maximum, which could be split up based on need. Some conferences had fewer, the Ivy League obviously is non-scholarship.
Click to expand...
Thanks...I figured it was something like that. Having known some people who were "scholarship" for various sports in college, the majority of them weren't full ride and it was shared among the team. Some schools are able to find some academic scholarships to make up the difference but that's not always the case. The new roster limit for Division 1 is 26 players and all of them can be on full scholarship if that's what the school chooses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom