WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
U-Sports teams routinely are competitive and beat CHL super teams with players gathered from across 3 leagues for an ultimate all star team, aka the Canadian world junior team.
CHL working on a deal with the NCAA, any truth?
- Thread starter Juniorhockeyguru
- Start date
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
Not sure if it’s been discussed but this would have major implications for draft picks from the CHL becoming “flight risks” something that basically never happens now.
Players drafted go on the reserve list for two years. If they don’t sign by then, they re-enter the draft and then go on that team’s reserve list for two more years. If they don’t sign, they become a UFA. This is not entirely dissimilar for ncaa prospects but ncaa prospects are a greater flight risk because they have a sure home to play at for the four years and can bump up to it and choose their destination (or leverage for a trade to their destination like Fox or away from their drafted one like Gauthier).
A player that doesn’t like the team that drafted them from the CHL can announce they won’t sign, commit to play for one of the better teams if their rights aren’t traded to a team they will sign with, who would happily take them for two years at age 20 and 21, and wait to hit free agency. Put another way, it would put CHL drafted players on a more level playing field with ncaa players to leverage potential free agency to control their destination before signing an NHL contract.
Players drafted go on the reserve list for two years. If they don’t sign by then, they re-enter the draft and then go on that team’s reserve list for two more years. If they don’t sign, they become a UFA. This is not entirely dissimilar for ncaa prospects but ncaa prospects are a greater flight risk because they have a sure home to play at for the four years and can bump up to it and choose their destination (or leverage for a trade to their destination like Fox or away from their drafted one like Gauthier).
A player that doesn’t like the team that drafted them from the CHL can announce they won’t sign, commit to play for one of the better teams if their rights aren’t traded to a team they will sign with, who would happily take them for two years at age 20 and 21, and wait to hit free agency. Put another way, it would put CHL drafted players on a more level playing field with ncaa players to leverage potential free agency to control their destination before signing an NHL contract.
FrozenPonds
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2023
- 21
- 6
If you rewrite the script for NCAA hockey and "professionalism" then you need to do that for basketball and football as well! At present those kids are not able to "profit" at any point prior and during the NCAA experience!
The would be a complete mess!!
The would be a complete mess!!
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Hockey isn't a "head count sport" which is strictly Basketball and Football for men.
women are Volleyball, basketball, Gymnastics and one other one. Soccer I'm guessing.
I know the assumption is college sports are equal
But head count sports are the primary focus, and policing of 95% of the NCAA's resources
Head Count sports are contracts and full rides, but are a year by year basis.
"equivalency" which is what Hockey is in the NCAA, and it just aint on the same playing field as head count sports.
Hockey players can profit in the NCAA like everyone else, but nobody cares about NCAA hockey like that.
and the only ones to do so are Logan Cooley last year for a free chipotle burrito every day
Celebrini has an NIL deal with Jersey Mike or Jimmy Johns for free food
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
This is a beyond uninformed and a baldly incorrect statement. The NCAA is a higher level of competition than the CHL because it is a significantly older league. Not because it is a more talented league that would not have slots for overage CHLers—some of the most seasoned and productive players in the CHL. The average age of an NCAA player (22+) is older than the the oldest player allowed in the CHL. That is why it is a higher level of competition. Many NCAA players would not have cracked a CHL roster and most would not have played meaningful minutes before they were 19.
There are exceptions for top programs, but schools like Boston College or Michigan are not representative. There are teams at the bottom of Division I that don't have any players who would have been able to play in the CHL. Similarly, there probably isn't very many CHL overagers who wouldn't make the Stonehill Skyhawks. The top overagers would easily walk onto any program they wanted. The best overagers (e.g. Brendan Shinnimin or Alex Barré-Boulet) in CHL history would have been the top players in the NCAA in their freshman season.
I literally never argued that it wasn’t an older league. My argument is that it is a stronger league, which it is, and you just admitted it. My point was that if you took an NCAA team tomorrow and put them on the ice vs a CHL team, the game wouldn’t be close. There are some here who do not believe that
But they are allowed to profit under NIL deals. They would also not have to rewrite the script on professionalism either but rather acknowledge that their classification of CHL players who do not sign NHL contracts as professionals was misguided.
Does the NCAA consider any basketball or football leagues to be professional based entirely on the fact that a professionally signed player COULD play in them? While we're on the subject, is there any rule in the USHL that would prevent a signed player from playing (especially a kid who was playing NCAA who decides that that isn't the route for him)?
That's because it's not true. The more measured statements- "that because of age the NCAA D1 is generally better hockey", "that because of age the top NCAA programs are much better than any CHL team", even "that because of age, all but the top CHL teams would be doormats in the NCAA D1"- don't draw backlash.
The nonsense hyperbole- that no CHL team could effectively share the ice with any NCAA team (D1 or 3), that hypothetical CHL OA recruits would all be depth freshmen like NA3HL NAHL players, is either trolling, hubris, or ignorance
Do you forget the the USNTDP U18's regularly played and competed against NCAA teams, often winning games? That the same teams, while very strong USHL teams, didn't completely run the table in junior A- they're still beatable. They're definitely a stacked U18 program with a lot of talent- but so are some CHL teams, and the age argument cuts both ways.
The current Knights
D-
U18 projected top 5-10 pick
U19 1st rounder
U20 4th rounder
U20 7th rounder
U18 Projected NHL pick
F
U19 1st rounder
U19 2nd rounder
U19 3rd Rounder
U18 Projected 2nd rounder
U20 5th
U20 6th
U21 7th
That would be a reasonable (but by no means exceptional) USNDP draft crop, but with the majority of the picks being 1-2 years more developed, with the "non-prospect" depth being solidified with 2 more U21's and a U20- so less U-18 filler. You're going to stand here and say the USNDP can play close games and win in D1, but this team would get smashed by every D3 team? Gimme a break.
It's certainly one of the best CHL teams in the league- but they lose games. They are no means a shoe in for the OHL or Memorial cup championship. There are multiple teams as good or better every year.
Last edited:
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
You said: “The CHL OAs 1) wouldn't have their choice of schools and 2) wouldn't be top 6 players as freshmen/sophomores.”
That is the incorrect statement. Almost every single CHL overage player would find a spot on one of the 60+ D1 hockey teams. The best overagers would find spots on the top teams and some of those players would be the best players in D1. Barré-Boulet scored 34 goals and was almost PPG in the AHL the year after his CHL Player of the Year overage season. He would’ve been far and away the best player in the NCAA at 21 had he played for a program like BU or Michigan instead of in the AHL.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
"wouldn't have their choice of schools"
They'd be as in-demand as a 20 year old undrafted player without a pro contract could be. Certainly most of NCAA is undrafted, but it varies a lot by team. Minnesota has 5 drafted defensemen and 8 drafted forwards on the roster. Boston University has a drafted goaltender, 5 drafted defensemen and 8 drafted forwards on the roster.
NCAA is not a headcount sport, but an equivalency sport.
If the coaches of BU or Minnesota wanted to bring in these non-drafted overage CHL players (and it's a leap to assume they're automatically better than their also undrafted counterparts), they probably couldn't offer them a full scholarship. "Have their choice of schools" versus "having a spot somewhere in the 60 team NCAA D1" are night and day comparisons.
There is a big difference between "finding a spot on one of the 60+ D1 hockey teams" and having their choice of school. If you think Michigan, ND, BU, BC are going after every CHL overager you are out to lunch
My sense is that the top college hockey programs are opposed to this development (yet little they can do about it) and would not be all that inclined to begin recruiting CHL over-agers. Schools in conferences such as the CCHA would be all over them, however, and are the most excited/enthused about this sea change.
The current standard CHL agreement (and I really can't see the CHL changing it anytime soon) basically mandates that players play through their 19 year old seasons unless they clear waivers in order to sign with another league. If I were Michigan, for example, I for one would be concerned about top end players choosing to play in the CHL and would, two, direct them towards the NTDP/USHL/BCHL route so they would not be bound to play junior hockey until the age of 20. This tactic/recruiting practice would be successful with the elite American born hockey players (think Will Smith playing for Boston) but much less so for the elite Canadian born player (think Adam Fantilli). High end Canadian born players would no longer have to worry about forgoing the chance to earn a NCAA scholarship/education by first playing in the CHL.
The mid to lower tier programs would at first have no preference where potential recruits play but would urge to play at the highest level possible (the CHL in this case) and in time many of these schools would have the CHL as their primary feeder route.
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
Feels like you’re not even reading what you’re replying to anymore. If you think there aren’t overagers who would have their choice of school, you are out to lunch. There are overagers who instantly become top players in the AHL, a league that is a much bigger separation from the NCAA than the NCAA is from the CHL.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
So players sign a standard 5 year player contract, but what happens if a player tries to play in the NCAA (if NCAA permits them) before then (age 18 season)? Indentured servitude is not legal. They seek an injunction to prevent them? But if they are allowed to play NCAA it will be because they are not professionals and don't have a professional contract. Or else we're right back to "they are semi-pros with valid non-compete type clauses and thus not NCAA-eligible." So good luck enforcing that. The CHL will just have to adapt with Standard Player Agreements that don't have enforceable 5-year terms, they can prevent a player from playing in the OHL and then the WHL the next year, but can't prevent a player from playing in the NCAA the next year.
You are blurring the line from "almost every overager" (aka 3 players x 60 teams worth of players) to "the very best overager every year". A few per year would likely land a spot on a top team (aka "have their choice of school", most wouldn't and would have to settle for whomever would take them, or pay their own way. Alex Barre-Boulet is a particularly bad example. He signed an NHL Contract after Juniors, he wouldn't go to college because he already had his NHL deal. An NCAA option is unlikely to make him turn down a contract offer from the Lightning just to try and get back to that same spot in a few years with what he had in hand at age 21. The players this would apply towards are the guys currently going to USports.
Last edited:
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
It’s a one way in student athletics, there is fine print but you can’t go back to the NCAA after playing in the NBA ignite league for instance.
NFL has considered a new rule to say if not drafted you can continue in the NCAA
Are you saying leaving the NCAA?
You can leave the NCAA and go to the CHL
That senators top 10 pick Boucher left after he couldn’t handle the pace of the NCAA.
Leafs legend and one of the most arrogant prospects in history Jeremy Bracco left the ncaa for the CHL
But basketball and football are headcount they are still student athletes. and they sign new “contracts” every year. Vastly different rules and full ride scholarships
Hockey can do full ride scholarships but it takes up wayyyy to much of the pie if you did a few
Similar to a salary in the NHL paying a 4 or 5 players top money you have scrubs scouring for financial aid to fill out the roster.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
Yes, if NCAA Hockey had the same level of following as NCAA Football or Men's Basketball, especially in terms of recruiting ins and outs and national signing day, we'd likely have enough media attention/focus to be able to point to every player on the bigger teams and know the precise amount of scholarship that they are receiving and how the team is using equivalency across the roster and see discrepancies.
I'm guessing people would be surprised to see some very high-level players are heavily paying their own way to play on big teams, but that they are willing to do because Michigan/Minnesota/BU/BC is their "dream" school. And in the case of hockey, especially different from football, lots of kids come from affluent families and the full ride isn't a must have for them, especially knowing it helps the team build a better roster. This is something where I imagine the College Coaches prefer some discretion here the precise level of scholarship remains an open topic until just before enrollment and is open to change.
What's to stop a kid from leaving the NCAA, signing an ELC, and signing with a USHL team (especially if he played USHL before NCAA)?
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
I think on your example the team wouldn’t be fond of it.
I know it seems sometimes like ELC’s are handed out like candy but teams have limits.
In your example that prospect is heading straight for the ECHL most likely. But again teams are calculated on who they give them out to. If you left the NCAA because you weren’t hacking it, and a team somehow gave an ELC, you’re going to the ECHL, because it wouldn’t be the AHL if you aren’t doing it in the NCAA.
Oliver Wahlstrom had a temper tantrum and tried to go back to the USHL from BC, and the islanders NO THE FRANK YOU’RE NOT, suck it up and take your benching like man.
Haha the original post claimed that ALL overagers would have their choice of school. Of course there would be some who would be highly sought after. Follow along
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
Are players with signed ELCs allowed to play in the USHL? Putting NHL deals aside, I don't think there's any reason a player that's played in NCAA can't leave and play in the USHL. I know Jay O'Brien spent a year in the BCHL after leaving Providence.
Dhockey16
Registered User
I don't know if an agreement would benefit either league. The CHL would have to protect at least 18 year olds and ideally 19 year olds too. CHL has lost some talent to NCAA since NILs but I don't think it's been enough to warrant radical change. Celebrini, Power, Fantilli and Makar are/were huge losses for the CHL, but they've gotten some good - if lesser - prospects in Brzustewicz and Pastujov, who traditionally might've gone NCAA.
CHL having guys play their 16 year old season and graduate early to leave after one season wouldn't be good for the league. The CHL franchises are businesses and that is a massive disadvantage - some of these NCAA programs routinely lose money and losses are covered by the school. I think there's more players in the CHL than most would expect who have parents paying for spots on rosters.
CHL having guys play their 16 year old season and graduate early to leave after one season wouldn't be good for the league. The CHL franchises are businesses and that is a massive disadvantage - some of these NCAA programs routinely lose money and losses are covered by the school. I think there's more players in the CHL than most would expect who have parents paying for spots on rosters.
Contracts holding players to specific leagues are standard accross the industry, they are akin to non-compete clauses found in the corporate world. A player that signs a contract in Liga would have a difficult time jumping into the SHL without a buyout. It is why a player cannot jump from the Q to the OHL. As of now the CHL contracts prevent 19 year olds from playing U-Sports... So these contracts have held up to legal scrutiny.
Now the question is what type of transfer agreement would the CHL agree to with the NCAA. If I were the commissioner I would say No to any modifications and keep my signed players.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 31,416
- 20,377
For professionals, not for amateurs.
But these NCAA eligible-CHLers are specifically not professionals... or else there's no NCAA eligibility as a possibility, ever.
Two pro leagues.
Yes, the CHL can mandate terms by which a player plays in one CHL league versus another. They don't have jurisdiction regarding the NCAA, which operates outside their umbrella.
Likely due to the scholarship deal, so U-Sports is on board and part of that.
Bingo, meaning the NCAA would hold the cards on whether it wants to go after 18 and 19 year old CHL players or not.
And the NCAA can say "no thx" and recruit 18 year olds that it wants and leave the CHL to say "these are professional players that signed professional contracts that don't let them leave early".
