Their hands are kind of tied right now. No sense making any changes until they see how the next NHL CBA plays out. It's set to expire September 15th next year.
CHL/NCAA
- Thread starter Otto
- Start date
Kingpin794
Smart A** In A Jersey
Exactly. NCAA is getting a rush right now. But in a few years, it might become harder for U20 players to crack the top 6 of a lineup.
Yes but the elites still probably can which makes the problem. You’re going to have the NCAA schools becoming an CHL all start team. I’d be scared out of my mind becoming the next Victoria Royals. I can live with losing an OA to NCAA, but we’re talking about NHL draft year players or players just drafted in the case of Ivancovic. If the norm is more of the elites are going NCAA such as recently drafted 1st and 2nd round NHL drafts players or highly regarded 19 year olds like Henry Mews, it makes the case even more to NHL teams and players that if your really good you need to be in NCAA rather than the CHL. Essentially the CHL is going to be the USHL but with higher quality players
Kingpin794
Smart A** In A Jersey
People need to face the fact that there isn't a scenario anymore where the CHL gets to keep all their top guys til 20 anymore. The CBA will be redone and almost certainly allow for CHL players to play in the AHL before 20 in some form or fashion. Some of these guys are going to the NCAA or the AHL. There is no getting around that. Teams will get caught with their pants down in the first year or two. GM's will learn to adjust and team build accordingly. There won't so many "surprises" going forward. Teams will know what the intentions of their players are.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
No one has presented a reason why the CHL players are leaving. All that has been presented are possibilities as to why:
1> NIL $$$
2> Better competition for the elite players
3> Age to join AHL is 20 so elite players stagnate
4> Less games
5> Less pressure
6> Higher prestige at some schools
7> More resources in the NCAA than in many CHL programs
8> Less travel
What is the reason? Is it all of these? Is it some f these? Is it simply financial? Are they actually being paid handsome salaries? Until we actually know the TRUE reasons why they are exiting the CHL when they had every opportunity to go that route when they were 16 and decided to go CHL, nothing can be corrected.
I still find it very fishy that players having every opportunity to go the NCAA route when deciding what to do at 16 are now “changing their minds” after playing 2-3 season in the CHL.
All that said, what is the absolute worst case scenario for the CHL? All top players leave at age 19 making the league a 16-18 year old league. The calibre of hockey adjusts down one year of experience. If the top players across the entirety of North America leave for the NCAA, then it is going to be nearly impossible for 18 year olds to make any sort of impact at the NCAA level.
If that happens, what happens to the NCAA when the majority of their players never graduate? They are used as a brief stepping stone to pro hockey. Players play one year, maybe two? What kind of an impression does that leave on the schools?
I think there is a lot that needs to unfold. It may take a couple years to see what all the impacts are but in the end we will see some sort of normalization. That may mean significant change or it could mean a shift back to CHL. Time will tell.
1> NIL $$$
2> Better competition for the elite players
3> Age to join AHL is 20 so elite players stagnate
4> Less games
5> Less pressure
6> Higher prestige at some schools
7> More resources in the NCAA than in many CHL programs
8> Less travel
What is the reason? Is it all of these? Is it some f these? Is it simply financial? Are they actually being paid handsome salaries? Until we actually know the TRUE reasons why they are exiting the CHL when they had every opportunity to go that route when they were 16 and decided to go CHL, nothing can be corrected.
I still find it very fishy that players having every opportunity to go the NCAA route when deciding what to do at 16 are now “changing their minds” after playing 2-3 season in the CHL.
All that said, what is the absolute worst case scenario for the CHL? All top players leave at age 19 making the league a 16-18 year old league. The calibre of hockey adjusts down one year of experience. If the top players across the entirety of North America leave for the NCAA, then it is going to be nearly impossible for 18 year olds to make any sort of impact at the NCAA level.
If that happens, what happens to the NCAA when the majority of their players never graduate? They are used as a brief stepping stone to pro hockey. Players play one year, maybe two? What kind of an impression does that leave on the schools?
I think there is a lot that needs to unfold. It may take a couple years to see what all the impacts are but in the end we will see some sort of normalization. That may mean significant change or it could mean a shift back to CHL. Time will tell.
Kingpin794
Smart A** In A Jersey
It's not going to become a 16-18 year old league. The USHL isn't even that and they've had atrophy of 19/20 year olds forever. Other players just fill in the void. What players fill in the void is what determines the quality of the league going forward. And that's why I think the CHL will be fine.
I think it's everything for some players other factors weigh more than others. A lot of schools don't care about if they graduate on time. They can more if they continue to get the credits and be on schedule to graduate if they choose to. Sport programs care more about APR rates. Especially now with the transfer portal players will often go to 2-3 schools over a 4 year span. The ones that stick around have probably built up good NIL contacts.
Where this might hurt in the CHL is trade deadline. Otters may have wanted to move Spence but if teams think or thought he would go to NCAA I doubt teams will pay the price. The hardest part is you may have to win titles with 17 and 18 year olds.
That's tough for Victoria they took those guys in the 1st round they won't get any development money and get in a cycle of starting over. One suggestion would be if these guys leave before their draft year or right after. Maybe the league gives a team a compensatory pick at the end of 1st/early 2nd. There really isn't a way to prevent players from leaving
I’ve been thinking if maybe we see less trades and you rely more on being really good at drafting if your high end talent leaves after their D+1 or D+2 season to either NCAA or AHL if there are CBA rule changes . Are there a lot of trades in the USHL and are they to the extent of crazy number of draft picks we see in the OHL?
Kingpin794
Smart A** In A Jersey
I agree the way GM's make deals is going to change. Probably smaller deals. Less picks involved or at least they'll be conditional. As you alluded to, probably a better bet to build organically going forward.
I would actually prefer that. I find too many times it seems like everyone trades their top players to like 3 or 4 teams pretty much conceding to them. You get teams who are like in the 4/5th spot at the deadline trading their top 19 year old to the 1st or 2nd seeded team.
swoopster
Politally incorrect
The NCAA and its university's are being played big time in all sports. They are handing out total designer package feebies to these athletes while the rest of the student body pays thru the nose. I would like to see these schools get some sack and have players sign a financial agreement that penalizes the player the total cost of tuition, room and board etc if the they sign a professional contract and leave early. There should be some language as to length of stay required to keep said scholarship.
It will never happen as cetain sports make a TON of money, but the way its going, the athletes are running the show.
It will never happen as cetain sports make a TON of money, but the way its going, the athletes are running the show.
Last edited:
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
You may need to work in more conditionals to help share the risk at the deadline.
The biggest and probably the most important reason in my mind is player development.
It's true the CHL provides much of the same opportunities for players to get extra workouts, practice, video review, physio, etc. but other than London who finds a way to do it all, how many organizations have the culture and prioritize development.
In the NCAA culture is everything. They have the time, resources and development model to help everyone try to reach their full potential. The meals, extra workouts, skills training, video review, physio are scheduled in and done together as a team. The team and school comes first and even if the kids leave after one year (Celebrini) the school still benefits as forever having that player as an Alumni.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
I’d be curious to know how many players who turn pro before graduating actually finish their degree.
The other question I have and OMG67 you seem pretty in the know on CBA, is can an NCAA player play in NHL preseason games? I’m thinking of players like Martone and Misa who if where not NCAA bound, would for sure be getting the opportunity to play in NHL preason. Heck they might be borderline NHLers considering in the last few years we have seen surprises like Luchanko and Poitras making NHL debuts rate after being drafted. Do these guys really want to pass up the opportunity to make the NHL because they love “school” that much?
Well those schools do value education. Players have tutors at their disposal, weekly meetings with advisors. Schools also have rovers checking on kids to see if they attend class. Education coming first doesn't mean all graduate it means giving them the tools to succeed. Players often stay on campus during the summer to take classes in order to lighten the load during the season.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
I’d love to be able to highlight the exact rule but previously, if a player appeared on a pre-season lineup in the CHL, they were ineligible to play NCAA. That was the bare minimum qualifier for being deemed a professional. So, by extension I would think that appearing on a pre-season lineup in any professional league would be the same. Additionally, I assume playing a pre-season NHL game would require some form of contract with the PTO being the minimum form of contract. The other rule was they could participate in a training camp for up to 48 hours provided they paid their own expenses. The pre-seaosn NHL game blows that out of the water as well.
So, like I say, I can’t point to the exact language in a rule but there are likely at least three rule violations playing in a pre-season game that deems a player professional.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
I think my overall point is that there are significant restrictions on the amount of time a player can play in team organized training. That includes access to team paid/organized coaches, trainers etc.
The limit is 4 hours per day and 20 hours per week. The one caveat is that a competition day counts as 3 hours regardless of the amount of time spent. So, if there are two games per week, that is six hours of the twenty that are eaten up. That leaves a max of 14 hours remaining.
The hours limit includes meetings, activities, and instruction. This essentially means that provided there is a member of the coaching/instruction staff of the college involved, they are VERY limited in their participation hours. If they do work on their own like unsupervised weight training, then that doesn’t count but if they are provided a schedule and instruction by a coach or trainer, then that can be considered assigned work. So, there is a fine line.
They need one day off with no exceptions other than post-season championship participation. No class time can be missed unless it involves a travel requirement.
In addition to that, they need to attend all classes, maintain grades and be a responsible student. This component is significant. A full course load with class and study time is easily 20+ hours per week, even for useless courses. That is a 20 hour commitment that isn’t required in the CHL (16 and 17 year olds obviously have high school though).
I think there are a lot of misconceptions on how much the scholastic side is emphasized. Sure, there are ways around it for elite athletes. Thzat still doesn’t diminish the “intent” of the NCAA Student Athlete which is school first and sport second. They may play half the number of games but that doesn’t mean it is like the old Russian program where they spend eight hours per day training. They average three hours per day training and playing which includes video review, chalk talk, and off ice training.
frontsfan67
Registered User
- Dec 3, 2022
- 2,156
- 3,330
With all the high profile WHLnames going NCAA in the past few days, has anyone heard about if guys like O’Brien, Martin, Aitcheson, Nesbitt, Brzustewicz etc that may go NCAA?
Imo a late birthday rough and tough guy like aitcheson would make sense in the NCAA and in that bunch he’s the only one I could potentially going.
Imo a late birthday rough and tough guy like aitcheson would make sense in the NCAA and in that bunch he’s the only one I could potentially going.
Everyday I check these forums praying I don’t see O’Brien going to some NCAA school. Seriously as a Brantford resident I’m having doubts if funding a 150 million dollar arena is a good idea if what where are left with is essentially a version of the USHL
Those are limitations but the language programs use is mandatory vs voluntary. Athletes that want to get better will maximize their time in the facilities. Are those teammates going to do the maximum by the rules or are they going to compete with their teammates and work to get better and go above and beyond? With virtual classrooms so players don't leave their apartments now.
Top programs have study areas/kitchen/workout/physio/social areas all in the same facility. Nobody is going to try and decifer how much time they spend in each. There are players in the OHL that after they graduate high school don't step foot into a post secondary institution until their junior hockey days are finished. So you can make the case junior hockey isn't valuing education either.
Years ago, yes, many high school graduates who were still playing CHL hockey did not see the inside of a classroom. But these days, that’s not the case. Gone are the days of Brandon Prust and Robbie Schremp playing DJ on London radio during the day when their teammates were in school. Back in the day, Pete Deboer, and Steve Spott basically forced Steve Downie back into school to get his high school diploma when he was finishing his OHL career as a Ranger.
You will see most teams have just about every one of their players who are finished
high school take course(s) of some kind while they are still playing junior hockey. There might not be much of a course load for some. But at least they’re doing something.
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,794
- 8,942
You essentially make two points.
1> The maximums are based on coaching and competition participation. The players can spend as much independent time away from College staff as they want. Theat isn’t the issue. The issue is they are restricted by the amount of time they can actually spend with staff. Essentially they are mostly on their own (or with other teammates) for the majority of their training. There are no restrictions on Major Junior players other than what the individual teams are willing to spend on support for players.
So, if an NCAA player has two games per week, one hour of post-game video, one two hour practise including chalk talk 4 days per week, that is 16 hours out of their 20 that is just the bare minimum basic Team led training, competition, and instruction.
2> The CHL provides a scholarship to use AFTER hockey. They have the “option” to take classes during hockey but they are afforded an opportunity to focus on their development without the hinderance of academics. They play 68 games per year which is a significant preparation for the 80+ game pro schedule. Their schedule matches a pro schedule off ice.
I don’t want this to devolve into whether one is better than the other; however, not one single top rated player leaving the cHL is doing so because they want an education. They are doing it because of either $$$ up front by being paid under the table or over the table with NIL being misused OR because they feel that as 19 year olds, the older players in the NCAA will provide a greater challenge. Both are valid reasons to leave but I don’t think anyone should point to the “College Experience” as a reason. They aren’t experiencing College. They are training for a pro career.
The traditional student athlete is using the sport to get them their free education and those players focus on school first for good reason. Don’t confuse one with the other. The NCAA is building two distinct classes in hockey to mimicking Football and Basketball. There will be guys jsut passing through and others that are true student athletes graduating. Confusing the two groups is disingenuous.
I am not suggesting you are doing that but I know some seem to think this is about some sort of College experience. It’s not. It is just a different path to pro hockey with virtually zero focus on school.
