WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
Bingo, it's the deals between the Leagues and federations themselves that's the relevant consideration here.
Questioning the authenticity of my career claims is well.. unnecessary.
CHL working on a deal with the NCAA, any truth?
- Thread starter Juniorhockeyguru
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Questioning the authenticity of my career claims is well.. unnecessary.
As stated in my previous posts....contracts are enforceable and the NCAA could simply not ignore contracts because both it and the players in breach of contract would be held liable and the aggrieved party could indeed seek an injunction. As shown in the link I provided above, REAL LEGAL EXPERTS advise that signing contracts (that are binding) opens you up to potential litigation and monetary penalties. Again notice how niether REAL LEGAL EXPERT flippantly claimed that such contracts are unenforceable or do not carry any legal weight. In fact both REAL LEGAL EXPERTS advised extreme caution in signing such agreement/contracts because 1. They are real and enforceable and 2. Breaching such contracts do in fact carry a monetary penalty.
So yeah, considering that you are trying to pass yourself off as a lawyer giving free advise, questioning your authenticity is more than warranted!!
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
I would advise you that advice is spelled with a c.
It's pretty obvious you can't play for one club on one day and show up to another the next in the same season. The system wouldn't work that way and could collapse entirely if that were allowed. The question is (a) does a player have a right to "get out" of a 'contract' with a junior team it doesn't want to play for at the end of a season and (b) if he did, does a junior team have a right to PREVENT A PLAYER FROM PLAYING HOCKEY because of an enforceable MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT?
If the answer is "yes", the reason is "there is an ample level of consideration to justify it and protect the harm to the junior hockey team". The NTDP is a 2-year agreement, this goes both ways, a player cannot be cut from the program.
Last edited:
Hmmmm...as my wife is fond of saying, those who continuously argue with a fools must be fools themselves. So, at the risk of looking foolish by continuing to banter with someone as witless as yourself, I will at the very least allow you the opportunity to provide a single shred of evidence showing that such contracts aren't worth the paper their written on.
End of discussion.....go back to your pretend world...
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
Taking multiple shots at my intelligence doesn't do you favors. Sorry for pointing out your noun/verb misuse, I don't usually do that...
As far as the enforceability of OHL non-competes, we've seen Yakupov and the KHL disregard it and prevail after the OHL backed down with "he didn't have legal counsel", an indication it wasn't a fight worth pursuing. We also see the WHL has removed any mention of "injunctive relief" likely because it's nonsense.
Jeff Marek was talking about this on NHL Radio a few minutes ago and seemed to think this deal happens.
This has the potential to be catastrophic for Jr. A hockey. If the NCAA agrees, there would be no reason for good players to play in the USHL or BCHL. This deal really only benefits the best players, who can now play their 16-20 yr old seasons in the CHL and if they aren't NHL caliber, another 4 seasons in the NCAA.
Gone will be the days where a "good" but not "great" player has any hope of a D1 scholarship. This'll be great for D3 and ACHA programs, because they'll now be getting a lot of talent that is currently D1.
But for the most part all this does is give CHL caliber players 8 years of high level hockey, instead of having to resign to the reality of playing CIS.
This has the potential to be catastrophic for Jr. A hockey. If the NCAA agrees, there would be no reason for good players to play in the USHL or BCHL. This deal really only benefits the best players, who can now play their 16-20 yr old seasons in the CHL and if they aren't NHL caliber, another 4 seasons in the NCAA.
Gone will be the days where a "good" but not "great" player has any hope of a D1 scholarship. This'll be great for D3 and ACHA programs, because they'll now be getting a lot of talent that is currently D1.
But for the most part all this does is give CHL caliber players 8 years of high level hockey, instead of having to resign to the reality of playing CIS.
Bubbles
Die Hard for Bedard 2023
Not only will it kill off Junior A, it will hurt the CHL. Players that have scholarships will simply leave the CHL and go to the NCAA. Will that turn the CHL into a 15-18 year league where the best aren't staying beyond their 18-year old season?
If this happens, HC in one fell swoop will kill off Junior A, and USports hockey. I just don't see how this benefits Canadian players other than sending more and more of them to the US instead of keeping them in Canada.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
USHL isn't like Junior A in Canada. Some people think it's now the best junior league around.
CheckingLineCenter
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2018
- 9,573
- 10,472
Seems like it locks you to the CHL for your junior years then you get to go to the NCAA at 20.
CHL benefits imo. NCAA as well. I think Canadian Jr A gets screwed the worst here. USHL takes a slight ding maybe? I actually don’t know if it’s bad for that league big picture. I do think the leagues below the USHL probably get hurt bad.
Bubbles
Die Hard for Bedard 2023
CheckingLineCenter
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2018
- 9,573
- 10,472
Because US junior hockey runs from 16-20. Elite talent may go early but majority of college players play out junior then go to college as older freshman compared to your typical student.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
The USHL is not Junior A, it is its own thing and operates outside of the Hockey Canada umbrella. 40 USHL players were drafted in 2023, or 28 USHL "proper" players (not USA NTDP). For what it's worth, only 12 players were drafted out of the QMJHL. The USHL and QMJHL have around the same proportion of currently undrafted players in the League, which wouldn't factor in all the players drafted out of the USHL that have moved onto NCAA already, which is kinda crazy.
Some of the players drafted out of NCAA conferences (Adam Fantilli is the most obvious and glaring) are USHL alums as well.
It will likely push some more Michigan kids to the OHL, I don't think Massachusetts kids and Minnesota kids would opt out of the HS/Prep School -> USHL -> NCAA path. Not sure about New York and Illinois, only 4 kids from each in the OHL today (45 and 36 respectively in USHL).
If the NCAA agrees not to touch any CHL Player until they are 20 and have completed their Junior eligibility, then it's a killer for USports but probably not super relevant for the USHL, as any high-end kids aren't going to want to wait around that long. The best (high draft picks) jump to NCAA at 18 and then there's a huge wave across the spectrum of kids that jump to NCAA at 19 (104 NCAA players that are 19 this year) because they aren't trying to wait around to start college.
NAHL will take a big hit. That's the 2nd biggest feeder to NCAA (low level teams) and consists of players not particularly close to the draft radar that can't make the USHL. USA Hockey wouldn't be all that pleased as that's a path to keep more kids in the system and on the road to a potential NCAA offer. But USA Hockey is so focused on players towards the top that it won't care that much.
Last edited:
Yukon Joe
Registered User
This would be a NCAA decision, and not one that involves Hockey Canada. NCAA probably doesn't care about keeping Canadian players in Canada.
For CHL players, would they really jump over to the NCAA at first opportunity - or would they be better off playing out their CHL eligibility then going over to NCAA? That would then give them six years (ages 18-24) to try and get a pro contract if that is their goal.
Bubbles
Die Hard for Bedard 2023
SO HC is changing their rules to benefit the NCAA. Interesting.
Which goes to my point, this only benefits the NCAA because their league will get stronger. This only hurts hockey in Canada, than why did HC even agree to do this, other than to shoot their own foot?
The most elite will always jump to college because they're mostly one and done type of players. If we're talking the guys that will most unlikely get to the NHL, than yeah I can see a player doing the 6 years because they can ride the scholarship to the end.
If this is age restricted to 20, than it hurts Usports.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Hockey Canada isn't changing its rules. If this happens (and it hasn't happened yet) this is the NCAA changing its rules.
Hockey Canada can't prevent a player from going to the NCAA. They can't prevent current Junior A players now, and they couldn't prevent CHL players in the future if NCAA changes its rules.
The most elite won't change - they'll go straight to the NHL at age 18 anyways. The next level - I'm not sure if NCAA teams would want a "one and done" type player. I mean obviously they do in basketball - but one elite player can make much more of a difference in basketball, and NCAA basketball is so much more of a moneymaker then Div 1 hockey.
I don't know how much USports is "hurt". USports is its own thing. It doesn't get huge crowds (though when I have gone to a USports game its always fun). There will always be a large supply of players who have aged out of CHL to recruit from, and who come with CHL scholarships anyways (USports doesn't offer scholarships). So even if the overall quality slips slightly, it doesn't have any huge financial pressures anyways and would still be high quality hockey.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
It would be helpful to actually hear somebody connected to NCAA Hockey discuss this, as right as now all the chatter seems to be coming from the Canadian side.
For what it's worth, it's not so much a "HC decision", it's the NCAA that has decided which players are eligible/not eligible and that players that have played in the CHL are not eligible. It would be interesting to hear from the NCAA what potential guardrails would or wouldn't be put up, if they would agree not to recruit any player that hasn't played through their age 19 season in the CHL (not the case in the USHL or BCHL which sees plenty of younger players jump in) as part of some sort of agreement, or what have you.
The desirability of CHL -> NCAA and who it will actually affect plays a big role in all of that. Would Macklin Celebrini have played in the WHL instead of USHL if he couldn't play in the NCAA until he was 20? If he was chasing the American college experience/education then he is not able to get that if he opted for the CHL unless he unreasonably delayed his pro career.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
2023 U SPORTS MEN'S HOCKEY COMMITMENTS -
This is a list of the latest U SPORTS men’s hockey commitments for the 2023-24 season. All additions to this list are for those players that have commited, or have been rumoured to commit since Jan. 1, 2023. *Rumour/Unconfirmed. List updated every 48 hours. The 2024 U SPORTS Men’s Hockey...
49-sport.com
How would USports be able to survive without CHL Alumni on the CHL Scholarship Program? They make up such a big part of their lifeblood. All that would be left are Junior A kids without NCAA offers paying their own way.
As previously stated, CHL will keep its players through their 19-year-old seasons. Their relationship with the NCAA will be very similar to what they currently have with U-Sports but the main question is will they extend the CHL scholarship package to players that opt for the NCAA over U-Sports? If they do then it will be a boon for the mid to smaller D-1 programs. It will severely impact U-Sports, in a negative way.
We can assume that the very best of American born prospects will choose the NTDP (thus ensuring that the top NCAA programs will still have access to high end American born NHL draft picks, though they will lose the higher end Canadian ones).
The USHL's best option is to try and work out a deal with the CHL in terms of protected territory and interleague play including participating in the Memorial Cup. If they can't then this will have a negative impact on their ability to continue to attract the best of the rest of high-end U.S. prospects.
The new BCHL will also be very negatively impacted akin to what U-Sports will go through.
We can assume that the very best of American born prospects will choose the NTDP (thus ensuring that the top NCAA programs will still have access to high end American born NHL draft picks, though they will lose the higher end Canadian ones).
The USHL's best option is to try and work out a deal with the CHL in terms of protected territory and interleague play including participating in the Memorial Cup. If they can't then this will have a negative impact on their ability to continue to attract the best of the rest of high-end U.S. prospects.
The new BCHL will also be very negatively impacted akin to what U-Sports will go through.
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 32,818
- 22,799
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 54,136
- 17,254
If kids still have to play in the CHL until they are 19 or 20, BCHL is still an attractive place to go to as you can leave after your draft year to college
It's a win-win scenario. 20 year old CHLers with no professional contract go to NCAA.
CheckingLineCenter
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2018
- 9,573
- 10,472
USports gets dinged but after that—
Think this benefits the CHL in a pretty big way. Makes CHL an option for the Canadians looking to play in college (remember a majority of college players are not Fantilli, Power, Makar types playing in the NCAA in their teens). Yes it’s a bigger talent pool for the NCAA, but now good Canadian players don’t have to choose Jr A/USHL over the CHL if they want to get an education in the US (excluding high end NHL draft type of talent like the guys above who will want to get to campus quickly).
There is probably few only a few players in Junior A that can displace CHLers for major junior spots, and of that group I’m sure many are likely staying in Jr A/USHL so they can play in the NCAA as 18/19 year olds. But then the same low end CHL players that get cut as a result of this will probably end up playing Jr A. IMO quality just shifts around the leagues and isn’t actually weakened.
^The one issue I see for HC would be if the bolded group, while small, flees to the USHL. but isn’t that kinda already happening?
I think this is a necessary move to preserve the CHL’s competitiveness. Over time it seemed like the USHL was positioning itself to take a ton of talent just due to attractiveness of education and professional opportunities in the US. U Sports is probably the worst affected but end of the day it’s a win for HC imo.
landy92mack29
Registered User
Out of a class of 473 freshman entering the D-1 ranks this year, a grand total of 30 were 18 years of age, representing a mere 6.5% of all incoming freshman. The majority of that 30 were from the NTDP. Only five were Canadian. There were 105 19 year old players entering as freshman, representing 22% of all incoming players. Together as a whole, U-20 players represented less than 30% of all incoming freshman.
The NCAA has been trending older over the past couple of decades. In fact twenty years ago there were over twice as many true freshman (78) and twice as many 19 year old players (209) coming into the league. Five or six years ago the Big 10 floated a proposal to limit the number of 20 and 21 year old freshman but it was overwhelmingly voted down.
Only a handful of schools (the Big 10, a few in the NCHC and a few in Hockey East) will want players to go play in the USHL or Junior A in Canada in order to enter college as true freshman or one year removed. That is not enough programs pushing players into that route to make the USHL still viable against the CHL. The majority of players know they won't be playing college hockey until 20 or 21 years of age; so why not go the CHL?
When this comes to pass, the USHL must work out a deal with the CHL and either become the fourth league under its umbrella or come to some type of affiliation agreement where the USHL will have exclusive rights to players from a certain geographical region (think much of the mid-west and south-western states).
This would be imperative for the USHL because I would think the majority of college programs would want their recruits to take the CHL option not only for the competition but (more importantly) because of the scholarship money given by the CHL to their players to be used for post secondary purposes.
CheckingLineCenter
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2018
- 9,573
- 10,472
completely agree on what you’re saying about the rarity of teens in the NCAA and it was part of my post about how limited the impact will be for some leagues.
All we know right now is this agreement will just mean some of the U Sports guys get to play higher end hockey for longer. Best CHL players will be drafted. The best undrafted CHL players are still going to take NHL contracts. In the first few years of this agreement, NCAA is getting a stab at already picked over players.
The question is what happens down the road, and where do the best players play. But I think that’s really hard to say right now. We can’t automatically assume every non NHL draft pick caliber CHLer wants to go to American college as a 20/21 year old freshman, and we can’t assume every non NHL draft pick caliber American 16 year old wants to go to the CHL. Unless I could guarantee myself a big role in London I’d much rather play a ton of minutes in the USHL than have to live in a different country. Chicago is definitely more attractive than a ton of OHL teams.
Not saying the fallout you mention is out of the question but the bolded logic is far from a guarantee.
