NCAA / CHL Lawsuit

[AUS Fan]

This commitment got me thinking - a lot of this thread is from a UNB/AUS perspective, where many top CHL grads end up. Parsons, for instance, would have been on the radar of many top-level USports programs.
But it'll be interesting to see if the D1 opportunities are also there for the major junior OAs that are maybe less-heralded (for instance, a third-line grinder or a goalie who makes 25 starts a year). As we know, these players are much closer in ability to players in Jr A (and even some Jr B leagues, like the GOJHL). So will those players simply become the ones that head east? Or will each program have to become more discerning to discover talent at every level?
The reality is that our league has a competitiveness problem: 25 of the past 26 UCup finals have included at least one of UNB, Alberta, or UQTR. No idea if this rule change will fix that problem (which, admittedly isn't a problem if you're a fan of one of those programs), but there is a world where this produces more parity nationwide.

The reason that UNB dominates this site is because there are more of them than all the other CIS teams combined.

The opportunity for parity has always been there. Any team can recruit any player. A big problem I see in the CIS is schools who can give "scholarships" and those schools who don't.

If the big fish leave CHL to go NCAA, then UNB, UofA and a few other schools will get the next best player, who in "normal" times would have gone to another school. The overall talent pool will be watered down, but it won't be noticeable because the other teams will get lesser players, as most do now, so the status quo will remain the same.

 

[AdamMcg83]

The reason that UNB dominates this site is because there are more of them than all the other CIS teams combined.

The opportunity for parity has always been there. Any team can recruit any player. A big problem I see in the CIS is schools who can give "scholarships" and those schools who don't.

If the big fish leave CHL to go NCAA, then UNB, UofA and a few other schools will get the next best player, who in "normal" times would have gone to another school. The overall talent pool will be watered down, but it won't be noticeable because the other teams will get lesser players, as most do now, so the status quo will remain the same.

This all makes sense for sure. But my question is - will those "next-best" players make as big a difference for UNB (or other powerhouses) than they do now? It's certainly possible they will.
As for the scholarship inequities/rules, you're right - that is a way bigger factor in that UCup final stat than anything else is.

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

Under the current rules, if a guy playing NCAA wants to play U SPORTS, do they have to sit out a season?

 

[AUS Fan]

Under the current rules, if a guy playing NCAA wants to play U SPORTS, do they have to sit out a season?

I don't think they do. UPEI brought in a guy last year who played right away, but he had played 4 years with Ferris State (1 Covid year).

 

[MiamiHockeyII]

Elliotte Friedman discussed this topic on the 32 Thoughts Podcast today. The general consensus: nobody has any idea what is going to happen, but the hockey development system is going to change dramatically.

My predictions:
1) The USHL will join the CHL to form the premier development league, with a bigger footprint in the US, especially Minnesota (USHL), New York (OHL), and Massachusetts (QMJHL).
2) The Jr. A leagues will become feeder leagues to Major Junior and/or secondary options. There will be contraction in Canadian Jr. A because the allure of pay-to-play for an NCAA scholarship will vanish. Au revoir, Winnipeg Freeze and Cranbrook Elks.
3) The BCHL will return to Hockey Canada, much to its own chagrin.
4) The top NHL prospects will stay in the USHL/CHL and sign NHL/AHL contracts after finishing their Junior career, much like we see now.
5) The days of the top US-based prospects going to the NCAA are gone. The Eichels and Celebrinis won't sniff the NCAA. The irony of this decision is that it will make the NCAA a true secondary option to the USHL/CHL, and weaken the allure of NCAA hockey as a result. This decision is a boon for Major Junior hockey.
6) Goalies and some Def are the exception to this because they typically need more time to develop (see, e.g., Logan Thompson, Vincent Desharnais). I can see many USHL/CHL goalies taking the NCAA route for extra development.
7) The top NCAA programs will continue to be the top NCAA programs. There will not be a rush of ex-CHLers to the Bentley Colleges and AICs of the NCAA, because they are poor academic programs and more expensive than Canadian universities.
8) USports will be largely unaffected. A few top guys will elect to go the NCAA instead of UNB/Alberta, but the reality is that most of the OA CHLers go USports because they want an affordable education and are no longer pursuing the NHL. There is some allure to playing for BU/BC/Minn/Wisc, but it is still more expensive than staying in Canada and attending UNB/Alberta.
9) The idea that NCAA hockey players will get lucrative NIL deals is laughable. Truly hilarious. Maybe Jack Eichel or Celebrini would have, but they won't even go to the NCAA now and will make much more on their NHL ELCs.

 

[MeHateHe]

1) The USHL will join the CHL to form the premier development league, with a bigger footprint in the US, especially Minnesota (USHL), New York (OHL), and Massachusetts (QMJHL)

Interesting post but what’s the CHL’s benefit in this arrangement? The CHL gives up the prestige of being the big dog and elevates the USHL and its teams in the process.

 

[dm8895]

This all makes sense for sure. But my question is - will those "next-best" players make as big a difference for UNB (or other powerhouses) than they do now? It's certainly possible they will.
As for the scholarship inequities/rules, you’re right - that is a way bigger factor in that UCup final stat than anything else is.

The higher up the talent pool you go the less players are in that pool. For every top two guy on his CHL team there is another 4+ guys playing in the top 6. Maybe I’m delusional but I think if you skim the top of any group be it athletes or chess players that a lot more people reside in that mushy middle , so if the top CHL players go NCAA more guys reside in that second group so even if the best available players still go to the heavy weights I’d tend to believe that the talent gap would still be smaller .
I’m torn on this, the “UNB fan” in me wants nothing to stop the juggernaut and realizes it’s a faux pas as a sports fan to say “if my team wasn’t so good this would be more fun” but the hockey fan in me who sits 20+ nights a year watching blowouts really would like some parity .

 

[AUS Fan]

@MiamiHockeyII - My thoughts on this tend to align with yours. The big losers will be smaller Jr A programs.
NCAA will lose some of its luster because studs can play CHL before they decide to go NCAA, if they even do that.
I think CHL expansion is a reality but am leery about the additional travel from Sudbury to Fargo in the dead of winter.
NIL is not a big factor in hockey, so that is a non-issue.

It took a couple of lawsuits to change the collective NCAA mindset, but overall this will change the hockey landscape in the next few years.

 

[MiamiHockeyII]

Interesting post but what’s the CHL’s benefit in this arrangement? The CHL gives up the prestige of being the big dog and elevates the USHL and its teams in the process.

That's a great question. My view is this: if I am the CHL, it's better for me to join with the USHL and establish clear drafting / eligibility rules than to wage an open competition with them for the same players. If you want to be the undisputed place for NHL prospects to develop, you need to have the best Junior-aged US players. If Auston Matthews is in the USHL, I want him in the Memorial Cup.

Most - but perhaps not all - USHL teams have the crowd support and financial clout to join the CHL.

 

[MiamiHockeyII]

@MiamiHockeyII - My thoughts on this tend to align with yours. The big losers will be smaller Jr A programs.
NCAA will lose some of its luster because studs can play CHL before they decide to go NCAA, if they even do that.
I think CHL expansion is a reality but am leery about the additional travel from Sudbury to Fargo in the dead of winter.
NIL is not a big factor in hockey, so that is a non-issue.

It took a couple of lawsuits to change the collective NCAA mindset, but overall this will change the hockey landscape in the next few years.

Looking at the USHL, I think their franchises are so far from the WHL and OHL it's a non-factor. Perhaps Youngstown will leave the USHL and go to the OHL. Otherwise, I think they will remain separate leagues.

I have serious doubts about the QMJHL expanding into the US. New England loves their Prep Schools, and I don't see that changing.

 

[MeHateHe]

That's a great question. My view is this: if I am the CHL, it's better for me to join with the USHL and establish clear drafting / eligibility rules than to wage an open competition with them for the same players. If you want to be the undisputed place for NHL prospects to develop, you need to have the best Junior-aged US players. If Auston Matthews is in the USHL, I want him in the Memorial Cup.

Most - but perhaps not all - USHL teams have the crowd support and financial clout to join the CHL.

Yeah, if there’s any merger it will be like the NHL/WHA merger. The CHL will pluck a few good franchises and let the rest fade into oblivion, or maybe they drop into the NAHL. I don’t see the Canadian leagues agreeing to a merger of equals.

 

[AdamMcg83]

I don't think they do. UPEI brought in a guy last year who played right away, but he had played 4 years with Ferris State (1 Covid year).

I believe it depends on where the player is born - if it's a Canadian player returning to Canada from the NCAA, no redshirt year is required (this is quite common on the women's side, and it also happens on the men's side fairly regularly). But a redshirt year is required for Americans or Europeans.

 

[UNB Bruins Fan]

I believe it depends on where the player is born - if it's a Canadian player returning to Canada from the NCAA, no redshirt year is required (this is quite common on the women's side, and it also happens on the men's side fairly regularly). But a redshirt year is required for Americans or Europeans.

If that's the case...I wonder if U SPORTS would drop the redshirt year for Americans if they wanted to transfer?

 

[AUS Fan]

I believe it depends on where the player is born - if it's a Canadian player returning to Canada from the NCAA, no redshirt year is required (this is quite common on the women's side, and it also happens on the men's side fairly regularly). But a redshirt year is required for Americans or Europeans.

Kowalski was born in Man, so he would qualify.

The NCAA Division I Council voted on Thursday to adopt proposal No. 2024-56, which eliminates previous legislation classifying CHL players as professionals.

Beginning next season (2025-26), CHL players are eligible for NCAA Division I hockey. The new legislation will be effective August 1, 2025.

The proposal will also permit involvement with professional teams and leagues, provided that no more than actual and necessary expenses for participation are received or guaranteed.

Here are some key details on the adopted proposal:

Before initial full-time enrollment

— CHL players who have not signed NHL entry-level contracts will maintain NCAA eligibility provided they are not paid more than their actual and necessary expenses.

— Players can participate in tryouts with professional teams before their initial full-time enrollment, provided they are not paid more than their actual and necessary expenses (players cannot represent that professional team in any game or scrimmage, including exhibition games).

— Players can participate in practice sessions conducted by professional teams before initial full-time enrollment, provided they are not paid more than their actual and necessary expenses.

— Before initial full-time enrollment, a player can compete with a professional team provided they are not paid more than their actual and necessary expenses.

After initial full-time enrollment

— After full-time enrollment, players can participate in practice sessions conducted by professional teams, but three conditions must be met:

They do not receive any compensation for participating in those sessions

They do not enter into any contract or agreement with a professional team

They cannot take part in any outside competition (games or scrimmages) as a representative of a professional team

Players are still ineligible if …

— If they have entered any contract or agreement with a professional team, either verbally or in writing, “regardless of the legal enforceability of that agreement.” The only exception is if a player signs an agreement BEFORE initial full-time enrollment. The agreement must not provide any payment (or promise of future payment) above the player’s actual and necessary expenses to participate with that team.

— Players cannot sign a nonbinding agreement or future contract with a professional team. In other words, a player cannot sign a post-dated contract after their NCAA eligibility with the promise of future payment (i.e. players cannot be signed to an NHL entry-level contract, assigned to a CHL team, and maintain NCAA eligibility).