CHL/NCAA

[dino200022]

Question in this year's draft, did you see better players taken sooner than what is normally said are committed to NCAA, that teams take a late round flyer on to hope to get them to come because of the rule change?

Theoretically yes, but you have to keep in mind that you might only get them for their 16 and 17 year old campaigns and then they can dart to the NIL filled NCAA after that. So while it might not make teams shy away as much, it will still hurt smaller market teams IMO. It will be the teams job to convince them to stay by paying them 50 bucks a week with no incentives , although I would imagine some work has to be getting done behind the scenes on this.

 

[donjohnson]

He probably doesn't see Erie going far next season. I'm not concerned

As a small-market team (Saginaw) I'm very concerned. Getting that 3rd year from a star player after they are drafted is a big deal both from a ticket-sales standpoint and a trading standpoint. If Erie is going to have a down year, they now miss out on the opportunity to trade Spence to a contender even if it's just a 6-month rental.

Here in Saginaw we're anxious to see what happens with Misa next year but we've had 3 years with him because of his exceptional status year and if he heads to the NCAA we're good with it because he helped win us a Memorial Cup and he's put three great seasons together in Saginaw. Would it be nice to have him back for either another year of great play or as a trade piece...absolutely but I think 3 years is a good minimum amount to play in the OHL before another opportunity comes along.

 

[dogfan]

I think it’s really just a matter of time before the CHL starts offering NIL money of their own.
For those that don’t know, the University/College doesn’t actually pay the players, they just help facilitate the player getting endorsements and sponsorships. How much they make is a guess.
I think the CHL can soon find itself in the same situation.
Also, it is starting to surface more and more about players being told they will make hundreds of thousands of dollars each year at a school, only to make a few hundred. There was a case at UNLV where a player walked off the team mid-season because he found he wasn’t going to make close to what was promised. A few of those situations in hockey (that doesn’t make close to what football/basketball makes) and players might not be as interested.
I also think the CHL/NHL agreement will go a long way to understanding where the future is.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

I think it’s really just a matter of time before the CHL starts offering NIL money of their own.
For those that don’t know, the University/College doesn’t actually pay the players, they just help facilitate the player getting endorsements and sponsorships. How much they make is a guess.
I think the CHL can soon find itself in the same situation.
Also, it is starting to surface more and more about players being told they will make hundreds of thousands of dollars each year at a school, only to make a few hundred. There was a case at UNLV where a player walked off the team mid-season because he found he wasn’t going to make close to what was promised. A few of those situations in hockey (that doesn’t make close to what football/basketball makes) and players might not be as interested.
I also think the CHL/NHL agreement will go a long way to understanding where the future is.

There aren't any teams in the CHL that could survive doing that. It's more than just NIL. Now with a revenue sharing plan every B1G school is getting between 25 to 26 million a year. That is divided up between programs and capped at a %. Talk is hockey programs are getting 10% which is right around 2.5 mil. Add on NIL initiatives and you can see some hockey programs dealing with a 5 million dollar budget yearly. These schools have money cannons and not afraid to use them. Most CHL teams have a squirt gun.

 

[bigsportsfan]

Malcolm Spence from Erie to Michigan. We still not worried about U20 CHL eligible talent bolting to NCAA? This is probably going to be a disaster for the CHL.

Absolutely it will be a disaster. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I said I thought allowing CHL players to play in the NCAA was going to hurt the CHL. But everyone told me the NCAA isn’t a good league, they don’t play enough games and no CHL player will cut his junior career short to play in the NCAA. Maybe the best excuse I heard was that hockey players don’t like school so players leaving the OHL to go to college to play hockey wasn’t a threat. lol.

We will soon regularly see NCAA scouts at OHL games recruiting the best 17, 18 and 19 year olds to play in the NCAA.

The NCAA is the main development route for every North American sport except hockey. Well that is about to change.

 

[Dhockey16]

There aren't any teams in the CHL that could survive doing that. It's more than just NIL. Now with a revenue sharing plan every B1G school is getting between 25 to 26 million a year. That is divided up between programs and capped at a %. Talk is hockey programs are getting 10% which is right around 2.5 mil. Add on NIL initiatives and you can see some hockey programs dealing with a 5 million dollar budget yearly. These schools have money cannons and not afraid to use them. Most CHL teams have a squirt gun.

Not to mention totally tricked out locker rooms, a mass of college students cheering at every home game and a bigger spotlight generally with the exception of maybe London, Halifax, Quebec. Perhaps most importantly is that NCAA teams are not businesses. They don't need to make a profit to survive - and many of them don't. It's a losing battle. The quality of play in the CHL will degrade and parity will be crushed in a league where there isn't exactly an abundance of parity to begin with. If the league wants the smaller market teams to survive they'll have to get creative. Maybe drop the 20 year olds and open it up to 15 year olds. Unlimited numbers of Americans and Europeans. Maybe some kind of quasi-revenue sharing agreement. Hard to say.

 

[Ferguson Jenkins]

So if CHL teams are lucky, they’ll get an 18 year old season (D+1) from the top prospects and then all bets are off. But what is stopping NCAA teams from poaching an 18 year old who should be ready for post secondary as you are typically done your high school credits at the end of your 17 year old season? Good examples for London would be Henry Brzustewicz and Noah Read. They would be graduating high school this year and eligible for post secondary (NCAA) starting in 25/26, no? Or do most programs wait a year as most of these spots would be filled by now for the upcoming season?

 

[OMG67]

Absolutely it will be a disaster. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I said I thought allowing CHL players to play in the NCAA was going to hurt the CHL. But everyone told me the NCAA isn’t a good league, they don’t play enough games and no CHL player will cut his junior career short to play in the NCAA. Maybe the best excuse I heard was that hockey players don’t like school so players leaving the OHL to go to college to play hockey wasn’t a threat. lol.

We will soon regularly see NCAA scouts at OHL games recruiting the best 17, 18 and 19 year olds to play in the NCAA.

The NCAA is the main development route for every North American sport except hockey. Well that is about to change.

Still only affects the American players from an NIL perspective. And, so far only Michigan has managed to “poach” players. Looks more like a London Knights situation right now….

When Wisconsin, Mercyhurst, Quinnipiac etc manage to poach players, we can revisit this conversation.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Not to mention totally tricked out locker rooms, a mass of college students cheering at every home game and a bigger spotlight generally with the exception of maybe London, Halifax, Quebec. Perhaps most importantly is that NCAA teams are not businesses. They don't need to make a profit to survive - and many of them don't. It's a losing battle. The quality of play in the CHL will degrade and parity will be crushed in a league where there isn't exactly an abundance of parity to begin with. If the league wants the smaller market teams to survive they'll have to get creative. Maybe drop the 20 year olds and open it up to 15 year olds. Unlimited numbers of Americans and Europeans. Maybe some kind of quasi-revenue sharing agreement. Hard to say.

Let's not forget traveling by chartered flights unless it's a couple hours on a bus.

 

[RayzorIsDull]

Still only affects the American players from an NIL perspective. And, so far only Michigan has managed to “poach” players. Looks more like a London Knights situation right now….

When Wisconsin, Mercyhurst, Quinnipiac etc manage to poach players, we can revisit this conversation.

It's also been mentioned Cayden Lindstrom top 5 NHL pick is going to MSU after this year with Medicine Hat.

 

[OHL4Life]

So if CHL teams are lucky, they’ll get an 18 year old season (D+1) from the top prospects and then all bets are off. But what is stopping NCAA teams from poaching an 18 year old who should be ready for post secondary as you are typically done your high school credits at the end of your 17 year old season? Good examples for London would be Henry Brzustewicz and Noah Read. They would be graduating high school this year and eligible for post secondary (NCAA) starting in 25/26, no? Or do most programs wait a year as most of these spots would be filled by now for the upcoming season?

most ncaa teams dont want 18 year olds unless they are elite. i rememeber a top 5 OHL draft pick from the draft a few years ago was talking to ncaa schools and they only would commit to the kid for his `19 year old year.

i think the elite top 10 19 year old players are in jeopory every year and most good overages. the absolute best 17/18 year olds, but that may only be 1 or 2.

 

[HockeyPops]

Most 17 year olds haven't finished high school

 

[Dhockey16]

most ncaa teams dont want 18 year olds unless they are elite. i rememeber a top 5 OHL draft pick from the draft a few years ago was talking to ncaa schools and they only would commit to the kid for his `19 year old year.

i think the elite top 10 19 year old players are in jeopory every year and most good overages. the absolute best 17/18 year olds, but that may only be 1 or 2.

I'm not sure if that same calculus will apply to many of the Canadian kids. A lot of them are simply more skilled than their American counterparts. Players who are ppg or better in their 17 year old season will have no trouble finding an NCAA team to take them in their 18 year old year. It'll be matter of if they prefer 1st line minutes in the OHL or 3rd line minutes in NCAA. As always, kids will be promised a top 6 role and power play time just to get them in the door. Many will bite. Michigan and BC won't be able to take all of them, but Penn State and BU and Ohio State have rosters to fill too. Agree the 19 year olds will be a much bigger problem. Can kiss most D+2 & late birthday D+1 players goodbye.

The teams that succeed in the new landscape will be those who get the best 16 & 17 year olds to jump from or forego the USHL altogether and make the most of 1 or 2 years with them. 3 if they're lucky. Moving to admit Youngstown & Muskegon was a good move (and USA Hockey blocking it a good move on their part).

I think the leagues should allow for unlimited 16 years olds immediately and seriously explore admitting 15 year olds - make it a bantam draft. Adapt or die

 

[coolhandluc44]

I'm not sure if that same calculus will apply to many of the Canadian kids. A lot of them are simply more skilled than their American counterparts. Players who are ppg or better in their 17 year old season will have no trouble finding an NCAA team to take them in their 18 year old year. It'll be matter of if they prefer 1st line minutes in the OHL or 3rd line minutes in NCAA. As always, kids will be promised a top 6 role and power play time just to get them in the door. Many will bite. Michigan and BC won't be able to take all of them, but Penn State and BU and Ohio State have rosters to fill too. Agree the 19 year olds will be a much bigger problem. Can kiss most D+2 & late birthday D+1 players goodbye.

The teams that succeed in the new landscape will be those who get the best 16 & 17 year olds to jump from or forego the USHL altogether and make the most of 1 or 2 years with them. 3 if they're lucky. Moving to admit Youngstown & Muskegon was a good move (and USA Hockey blocking it a good move on their part).

I think the leagues should allow for unlimited 16 years olds immediately and seriously explore admitting 15 year olds - make it a bantam draft. Adapt or die

Personally I’d rather they increase the number of under aged player than lowering the draft age. In theory if you’re retaining all the Ontario kids now and getting more Americans, it should mean higher quantity of good 16 year olds. I just think lowering the age makes the argument more stronger for why superstar players (misa and cowens of the world ) need to move on.

I also think the CHL would welcome that 19 year olds or players that have played 3 years in the league ( like Misa) can play some games in the AHL if they can’t crack NHL. Maybe something like 15. or 20 AHL games in addition to the 10 NHL games. That might entice some players to stay in the CHL if they know they can spend a good part of their year in AHL.

 

[Kingpin794]

I do think that most of us need to take a breathe and wait on this before lamenting on the downfall of junior hockey. This is something that will level off. Full effects won't be seen for at least 3 years. 5 years out will be the first good window to see how things settle. Early run on some guys while the old CBA is in place. Once a new one comes in, a good chunk of those top 10 types might just bypass the NCAA anyway. Either way teams are aware that you will lose the very best early. Still contend that the overall concentration of NHL talent will be the same or actually increase over time. Will have to wait and see on that.

As far as adding more 16 year olds or letting 15 year olds in full time: Why? Most 16 year olds are better off playing junior B for a season anyway. Its not going to get easier to play in the league as a 16 year old going forward.

 

[HockeyPops]

I also think the CHL would welcome that 19 year olds or players that have played 3 years in the league ( like Misa) can play some games in the AHL if they can’t crack NHL. Maybe something like 15. or 20 AHL games in addition to the 10 NHL games. That might entice some players to stay in the CHL if they know they can spend a good part of their year in AHL.

I don't think the CHL owners would support this at all. It's one thing to have a few 19 year olds signed into the NCAA over the summer. That is at least something that you can adapt to before the rosters are set. Allowing 19 year olds to bounce back and forth to the AHL mid season would be a whole lot more disruptive to teams, who are already playing with short benches at times through the season.

I don't think the CHL has any trouble recruiting. They are the best junior hockey league in the world. Players that aren't playing pro (NHL or overseas), or playing in the NCAA, are going to be lining up to play for the CHL.

I do think that most of us need to take a breathe and wait on this before lamenting on the downfall of junior hockey.

100% this

EDIT: typo

 

[Corso]

I do think that most of us need to take a breathe and wait on this before lamenting on the downfall of junior hockey. This is something that will level off. Full effects won't be seen for at least 3 years. 5 years out will be the first good window to see how things settle. Early run on some guys while the old CBA is in place. Once a new one comes in, a good chunk of those top 10 types might just bypass the NCAA anyway. Either way teams are aware that you will lose the very best early. Still contend that the overall concentration of NHL talent will be the same or actually increase over time. Will have to wait and see on that.

As far as adding more 16 year olds or letting 15 year olds in full time: Why? Most 16 year olds are better off playing junior B for a season anyway. Its not going to get easier to play in the league as a 16 year old going forward.

I find this existential angst almost comical. The CHL will lose no more than a handful of decent prospects every year, no more. I do not foresee (for the time being anyway) high end CHL prospects seeing the NCAA as the primary route to the NHL or other Pro ranks. The CHL will in turn receive a good portion of some of the top American talent to help mitigate who they may lose early to the NCAA.

The sky is far from falling. If I were a CHL fan, I would be more worried about the upcoming changes to the NHL-CHL agreement where those top players you worry about losing to the NCAA will be allowed to play in the AHL. The upside to that, however, is that there is a decent chance of some of those players being sent back down to the CHL.

 

[coolhandluc44]

The upside to that, however, is that there is a decent chance of some of those players being sent back down to the CHL.

Thats exactly why I would welcome that. As a Brantford Bulldog fan, I would rather we loose Jake O'brien for 15 or 20 games in his 19 year old year than him going to an NCAA program The optics of loosing players to the AHL is not nearly as bad as loosing your players to the NCAA. Plus if you had where there was a game limit (like 15 regular season in addition to preseason) you would not loose the player for the whole year. I could see in a world where the player goes to the AHL when the team has an extended home stand and then comes back to their junior team. Since both AHL and CHL are primarily weekend leagues, it would be like loosing the player 4 or 5 weekends maybe throughout the regular season

You have to also remember that some players are not eligible to play NCAA because of their course requirements. Moving forward, if the player is smart, they will ensure they have their course requirements moving forward to give them all options My point being here is more players will continue to move to NCAA very soon.

At the end of the day, the CHL will have to fight to keep their top players and that will mean getting creative and bending on some things to make your league more attractive for top players to not leave. It is not going to be a recruiting issues, the challenge is going to be retention. Two different things

 

[Corso]

At the end of the day, the CHL will have to fight to keep their top players and that will mean getting creative and bending on some things to make your league more attractive for top players to not leave. It is not going to be a recruiting issues, the challenge is going to be retention. Two different things

Correct, at the end of the day, retention will be the main focus for most CHL teams as the recruitment will take care of itself (in a few years, most top N.A. prospects will default to the CHL) .

There are some teams who intuitively understand this. I just heard that both Oshawa and Kitchener are making sizable infrastructure investments to give the players more of a pro experience and one that can compete with what most NCAA schools offer.

 

[OHL4Life]

I find this existential angst almost comical. The CHL will lose no more than a handful of decent prospects every year, no more. I do not foresee (for the time being anyway) high end CHL prospects seeing the NCAA as the primary route to the NHL or other Pro ranks. The CHL will in turn receive a good portion of some of the top American talent to help mitigate who they may lose early to the NCAA.

The sky is far from falling. If I were a CHL fan, I would be more worried about the upcoming changes to the NHL-CHL agreement where those top players you worry about losing to the NCAA will be allowed to play in the AHL. The upside to that, however, is that there is a decent chance of some of those players being sent back down to the CHL.

i think that's it, you may loose 10 players a year, maybe less. the strong overage is gone thou, i will say that.

it will have an affect but no different then guys making the nhl at 19, those kids will now probably go to school. london wouldnt have had cowan and bonk.

i dont nkow if most 18 year old ohl player would want to go to a mid pack ncaa team for what its worth. union college is not a hockey program that produces, kitchener is.

 

[Corso]

i think that's it, you may loose 10 players a year, maybe less. the strong overage is gone thou, i will say that.

it will have an affect but no different then guys making the nhl at 19, those kids will now probably go to school. london wouldnt have had cowan and bonk.

i dont nkow if most 18 year old ohl player would want to go to a mid pack ncaa team for what its worth. union college is not a hockey program that produces, kitchener is.

In the near future, players such as Cowan and Bonk will be spending the majority of the year in the AHL.

Most high end 18 year old players will sign their ELCs (I get a lot of heat for this on the prospects site as many college fans believe that most will want to spend a year or two in college for the "posh" lifestyle...I'm like really??? I've been around enough players to know that the end game is a pro contract and not college) and the majority of those players will spend a little bit of time in the AHL and be sent back to the CHL. The majority of the better 19 year old ones however, will most likely stick at the AHL level for most of the season.

O/A pool of decent players will definitely and dramatically shrink as most late round picks or those who were never drafted but want to keep the pro dream alive, will go to the NCAA. I believe that is why the CHL is increasing the import limit to three, so as to make up for the loss in O/A talent.

 

[OHL4Life]

In the near future, players such as Cowan and Bonk will be spending the majority of the year in the AHL.

Most high end 18 year old players will sign their ELCs (I get a lot of heat for this on the prospects site as many college fans believe that most will want to spend a year or two in college for the "posh" lifestyle...I'm like really??? I've been around enough players to know that the end game is a pro contract and not college) and the majority of those players will spend a little bit of time in the AHL and be sent back to the CHL. The majority of the better 19 year old ones however, will most likely stick at the AHL level for most of the season.

O/A pool of decent players will definitely and dramatically shrink as most late round picks or those who were never drafted but want to keep the pro dream alive, will go to the NCAA. I believe that is why the CHL is increasing the import limit to three, so as to make up for the loss in O/A talent.

yup, i think thats the part that fans miss. most of these kids are 1/2 years removed from school, they don't want to go back there again, when they go to michigan, they GO TO michigan, they have to go to school, do homework, etc. it will be for some but to your point, its not going to be for all.

 

[OMG67]

In the near future, players such as Cowan and Bonk will be spending the majority of the year in the AHL.

Most high end 18 year old players will sign their ELCs (I get a lot of heat for this on the prospects site as many college fans believe that most will want to spend a year or two in college for the "posh" lifestyle...I'm like really??? I've been around enough players to know that the end game is a pro contract and not college) and the majority of those players will spend a little bit of time in the AHL and be sent back to the CHL. The majority of the better 19 year old ones however, will most likely stick at the AHL level for most of the season.

O/A pool of decent players will definitely and dramatically shrink as most late round picks or those who were never drafted but want to keep the pro dream alive, will go to the NCAA. I believe that is why the CHL is increasing the import limit to three, so as to make up for the loss in O/A talent.

I’d love to see the day where players choose to not sign ELCs so they can go play College hockey. As if that would happen in any sort of real numbers. Maybe you get some NHL teams hold off signing players because they went NCAA and their clock ticks longer on getting pen to paper. But that becomes an NHL advantage and a player disadvantage.

For example, Henry Mews has some deficiencies in his defensive game. But his offence is outstanding. He has a high ceiling. If he were to play OHL next year, the Flames would most certainly sign him. But, now that he goes to Michigan, why would the Flames sign him over the next year? They can now wait a couple extra years to sign him. See if he develops and starts to push up against that ceiling or he shows he isn’t a real NHL prospect.

What Mews has done is allowed Calgary more time to choose NOT to sign him. The only recourse Mews has is to leave college and then the Flames have 30 days to sign him then Mews is a free agent. But if Mews isn’t a high end prospect, why would any team sign him? If he is a high end prospect, teams will sign him anyway. So he can only lose under this scenario.

 

[Corso]

I’d love to see the day where players choose to not sign ELCs so they can go play College hockey. As if that would happen in any sort of real numbers. Maybe you get some NHL teams hold off signing players because they went NCAA and their clock ticks longer on getting pen to paper. But that becomes an NHL advantage and a player disadvantage.

For example, Henry Mews has some deficiencies in his defensive game. But his offence is outstanding. He has a high ceiling. If he were to play OHL next year, the Flames would most certainly sign him. But, now that he goes to Michigan, why would the Flames sign him over the next year? They can now wait a couple extra years to sign him. See if he develops and starts to push up against that ceiling or he shows he isn’t a real NHL prospect.

What Mews has done is allowed Calgary more time to choose NOT to sign him. The only recourse Mews has is to leave college and then the Flames have 30 days to sign him then Mews is a free agent. But if Mews isn’t a high end prospect, why would any team sign him? If he is a high end prospect, teams will sign him anyway. So he can only lose under this scenario.

Mews "deficiencies" are what caused Calgary from holding off on signing him. He's a good player but not an elite player and it is players such as Mews that really will benefit under this new arrangement because it will grant him the time needed in the NCAA to work out the kinks in his game.

You're right though, the reason why the NHL loves the NCAA route for its middling to lower end prospects is because it gives both the player and the parent club time to evaluate, work on various aspects and then decide what type of contract the player is really worth.

The only high end player to "defect" (if you will) so far is Spence. There may be a few more but it will not be the "flood" that some social twitter personalities are predicting.

 

[RB76]

The level of skill and development in Hockey has never been higher. Each year the players coming into the league are better prepared to step right in and earn some playing time. I'm really not worried about a drop in quality being a big issue. No doubt the CHL will need to adapt and one quick move would be to eliminate overages.

The league began allowing overages some 30yrs ago to keep talented players in the league longer. If the NHL/CHL agreement changes and the top talented 19yr olds are allowed to play AHL and the best of the rest opt for the NCAA, we won't need to keep the rest of the 20yr olds in the league.

The league will get younger but IMO could become an even stronger development league by offering greater opportunities for younger players to play. A CHL that consists of the best 16 to 19yr olds in the world will still be the best developmental league in the world. The NCAA will become the next step for the majority of players who are not ready to turn pro.