NCAA to allow CHL players to play hockey?

[Yukon Joe]

NCAA will lose the lawsuit quite quickly

Nothing in court happens quickly.

I otherwise have no idea what the outcome might be.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Nothing in court happens quickly.

I otherwise have no idea what the outcome might be.

If you've followed the other NCAA court cases in the States, they've been losing them all. They'll lose this, but as you said, it might take a bit of time.

 

[Yukon Joe]

If you've followed the other NCAA court cases in the States, they've been losing them all. They'll lose this, but as you said, it might take a bit of time.

Yeah obviously ASU (and the player) think there's a good chance they can win, or else they'd never have tried this in the first place.

But I hate to give opinions on the outcomes of legal cases just based on media reports. In my job I do give honest-to-God legal opinions, but often times after reviewing all of the material first-hand, and after reviewing all of the relevant case-law, my opinion can still be "I dunno", so basing it off of media reports isn't something I do.

 

[oldunclehue]

I'm interested to see where this goes. I believe the NCAA route for CHL players will be the players who aren't on a direct path to the NHL at that time. The top players who are drafted and leading the league in stats will still be drafted sign contracts and make their way into the pro rankings. The bulk of the pack in the CHL will then have opportunity to get a scholarship as they will be at a more advanced level than most Junior A players, even the top ones.

If the NCAA then changes the rules for even former PROS to get in on hockey scholarships/spots on teams its going to get real ugly real fast for lots of players hockey dreams....as there are only a certain amount of spots that need to be filled.

 

[Bubbles]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834567098485571921

It'll eventually happen that CHLers play in the NCAA the only thing to be seen is if it'll be players who have finished their WHL careers like Whitehead would have or if players can jump ship after 18. Personally don't see players leaving until after their WHL careers and go NCAA instead of Usports but we'll see how things shake out

I think allowing CHLers who have aged out of their contract should be allowed. It's always been an NCAA decision to keep them out anyway.

As for U20 players, I don't think the CHL would sign it's own death certificate if they allow their players to opt out. That would be a significant chunk of great players leaving their league.

Good on Whitehead to push the situation though. The NCAA had been dragging it's heels on these issues, this will make them act.

 

[Corso]

As for U20 players, I don't think the CHL would sign it's own death certificate if they allow their players to opt out. That would be a significant chunk of great players leaving their league.

They will have no choice and they realize this. The current CHL standard contract agreement will not survive court challenges and from a purely optical standpoint, do you want to be the team denying a player the opportunity to enroll and play college hockey at the time of his choosing?

I'm interested to see where this goes. I believe the NCAA route for CHL players will be the players who aren't on a direct path to the NHL at that time. The top players who are drafted and leading the league in stats will still be drafted sign contracts and make their way into the pro rankings.

This will be the most likely scenario. The little birds are saying that the CHL is in talks with the NHL to change their agreement and allow the very best prospects to play in the AHL while still retaining their rights. Those top 19 year old players will split time in the AHL/CHL (very similar model to the arrangements found in the pro/junior leagues in Europe) The CHL clubs will say to these players, why go and play at Michigan when you can spend a good chuck of the season playing even higher competition in the AHL and even some games in the NHL? They will want these players to sign NHL contracts as quickly as possible. This is why the elite college programs are so opposed to this deal. The fact that Arizona ( a power five and influential school in its own right is now on board with this) has pretty much deflated any hope these schools had in preventing this.

 

[Bjorn Le]

They will have no choice and they realize this. The current CHL standard contract agreement will not survive court challenges and from a purely optical standpoint, do you want to be the team denying a player the opportunity to enroll and play college hockey at the time of his choosing?

It is very much an open question whether CHL contracts would stand up in court if a player tried to get out of them. If it was so clear, for example, we would have seen many years ago a player who was drafted by a team they didn't want to play for but wanted to play in London would have sued the league rather than force a trade/"play the NCAA" card.

Putting that aside, nothing is changing without NHL input. The NHL has a vested interest in maintaining existing rules preventing players from unilaterally jumping ship after their 17 year old season as the CHL is still the NHL's primary development league. They would not be fans of their newly drafted 1st and 2nd round picks leaving for the NCAA in most situations—especially given the increasingly common situation of NCAA players refusing to play for their drafted teams.

It's also likely overblown the number of players that this would apply to. There are only a handful of players drafted out of the CHL each year where such a move would make sense to move from the CHL to the NCAA in their D+1 season and in those cases, if the CHL is willing to be more flexible in allowing those players to play in the AHL, that's where they will go instead. High level players who want to play college will continue to not play in the CHL in the first place. This change is mostly for players where the fit mutually isn't working out in the CHL or for CHL alumni.

 

[Bubbles]

They will have no choice and they realize this. The current CHL standard contract agreement will not survive court challenges and from a purely optical standpoint, do you want to be the team denying a player the opportunity to enroll and play college hockey at the time of his choosing?

Well, one thing at a time. The current issue is still about 20+ players. And undrafted ones at that.

Like someone above has said, it really concerns a small section of players.

 

[edog37]

It just isn't that simple.

Yeah it is. Minors can’t sign legally binding contracts. That’s widely accepted across the US, so any attempt for a 16 year old to do so would be legally invalid.

 

[TheLegend]

WHL's Braxton Whitehead commits to Arizona State hockey, challenging NCAA rules

ASU hockey commit Braxton Whitehead is challenging an ongoing lawsuit against the NCAA with his commitment.

www.azcentral.com

 

[LadyStanley]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1835666819870294126

Friedman talks about WHL player committed to college

 

[LadyStanley]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1835672442162806980

Written version. Speculation that NHL may want more NCAA hockey programs, men's and women's.

 

[dj4aces]

Written version. Speculation that NHL may want more NCAA hockey programs, men's and women's.

I hope so. It would be phenomenal to see more schools -- especially schools in southern markets -- become competitive and climb out of "club hockey" status.

Before becoming disabled, one of my clients was the athletic department head of a local university, and I remember him telling me they only had club hockey programs because they didn't want to spend money to have a women's program as well. The thought at the time was there wasn't enough women at schools in the southeast who'd be interested. With the rising popularity of women's professional hockey, I wonder if that view has changed.

So with that in mind, I really do hope the league truly wants this, and is willing to help support that venture as well. Considering the push to expand past 32 NHL teams and the league's relationship with the PWHL, it would be for the best for them to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yeah it is. Minors can’t sign legally binding contracts. That’s widely accepted across the US, so any attempt for a 16 year old to do so would be legally invalid.

I've given examples, I've given links - this just isn't true. You just keep making the same assertion.

There's a difference between "voidable" and "void ab initio".

"Void ab initio" means "void from the beginning". This is what you seem to be arguing - that a youth contract is always invalid. This is incorrect.

A contract signed by a minor is, instead, "voidable". That is it is capable of being voided. So the parties can go to court and argue in front of a judge that the contract should be voided. It is ultimately up to the judge to rule whether the contract should be voided, or upheld.

If a youth contract was void ab initio then no kid under 18 would ever be able to get a job, buy a car, sign a student loan, rent a place to live, etc without a parent's signature. And that is clearly not the world we live in.

 

[GKJ]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1835672442162806980

Written version. Speculation that NHL may want more NCAA hockey programs, men's and women's.

I talked about this on the Flyers board. The NHL may want it, but I question how much it really affects them. It’s possible they may go to bat for the AHL, because if these kids are going to go to college instead of pro, presuming eventually the NIL makes it more worth it, there’s going to be a lot of kids who will get squeezed out because they should go to college, and the minor leagues will have less talent because they will quit playing too early.

The Flyers have started a partnership with with the University of Delaware to help launch a women’s D1 program, but I’ve heard nothing of men’s. One of the reasons is really because Delaware needs enough scholarships available through Title IX, as their football team is going to FBS

 

[Yukon Joe]

I talked about this on the Flyers board. The NHL may want it, but I question how much it really affects them. It’s possible they may go to bat for the AHL, because if these kids are going to go to college instead of pro, presuming eventually the NIL makes it more worth it, there’s going to be a lot of kids who will get squeezed out because they should go to college, and the minor leagues will have less talent because they will quit playing too early.

The Flyers have started a partnership with with the University of Delaware to help launch a women’s D1 program, but I’ve heard nothing of men’s. One of the reasons is really because Delaware needs enough scholarships available through Title IX, as their football team is going to FBS

Yeah I mean I don't think the NHL cares too much one way or another - they get plenty of prospects, they don't care that much where they come from. Their only interest is in making sure the developmental leagues aren't fighting each other.

 

[GKJ]

Yeah I mean I don't think the NHL cares too much one way or another - they get plenty of prospects, they don't care that much where they come from. Their only interest is in making sure the developmental leagues aren't fighting each other.

The part where it hits the NHL is if players decide any NIL deals will make themselves more in college than a two-way ELC would.

 

[57special]

I hope so. It would be phenomenal to see more schools -- especially schools in southern markets -- become competitive and climb out of "club hockey" status.

Before becoming disabled, one of my clients was the athletic department head of a local university, and I remember him telling me they only had club hockey programs because they didn't want to spend money to have a women's program as well. The thought at the time was there wasn't enough women at schools in the southeast who'd be interested. With the rising popularity of women's professional hockey, I wonder if that view has changed.

So with that in mind, I really do hope the league truly wants this, and is willing to help support that venture as well. Considering the push to expand past 32 NHL teams and the league's relationship with the PWHL, it would be for the best for them to put their money where their mouths are.

Hockey simply doesn't put butts in the seats, except in a very few areas, and more importantly, TV networks are not willing to pay big $$ for broadcast rights, unlike NCAA hoops and football. Hell, the NHL has their struggles in that regard.

 

[Yukon Joe]

The part where it hits the NHL is if players decide any NIL deals will make themselves more in college than a two-way ELC would.

If I squint real hard I can maybe see it... but NCAA hockey is a mere afterthought compared to NCAA football or basketball, so I don't see it as being very likely.

 

[Takuto Maruki]

More then the possibility of NIL deals being a pittance in hockey (on either side) compared to an NIL deal in CBB or CFB, I have a feeling that trying to go to bat for adding more D1 hockey programs, especially out west, when a vast majority of programs are looking to contract and slice off unprofitable sports in order to feed the beast of CFB especially, and also to further increase the bounty from conference TV deals isn't going to end well for the NHL.

 

[edog37]

I've given examples, I've given links - this just isn't true. You just keep making the same assertion.

There's a difference between "voidable" and "void ab initio".

"Void ab initio" means "void from the beginning". This is what you seem to be arguing - that a youth contract is always invalid. This is incorrect.

A contract signed by a minor is, instead, "voidable". That is it is capable of being voided. So the parties can go to court and argue in front of a judge that the contract should be voided. It is ultimately up to the judge to rule whether the contract should be voided, or upheld.

If a youth contract was void ab initio then no kid under 18 would ever be able to get a job, buy a car, sign a student loan, rent a place to live, etc without a parent's signature. And that is clearly not the world we live in.

What is clear is you don’t understand our laws. Minors can’t sign legally binding contracts on their own. Age of majority is 18. We have laws that clearly outline this. This isn’t Canada, this is the US.

They would need a parent or guardian to do so. Those things you mentioned..that’s exactly how it works. I’ve lived in the US all my life & experienced these things. Under 18 can’t do any of those things without parental signature.

 

[Yukon Joe]

What is clear is you don’t understand our laws. Minors can’t sign legally binding contracts on their own. Age of majority is 18. We have laws that clearly outline this. This isn’t Canada, this is the US.

They would need a parent or guardian to do so. Those things you mentioned..that’s exactly how it works. I’ve lived in the US all my life & experienced these things. Under 18 can’t do any of those things without parental signature.

OK my friend - I think I'm done here.

I'm very clear about my limitations. I'm a lawyer, authorized to practice law in Alberta, graduate of the mighty University of Manitoba law school. I am in no way authorized to practice law in any of the 50 US states (nor Puerto Rico or Guam). So I'm always open to correction.

But I've given you links. I've given you examples. I've given you definitions. Hell I even broke out my old law school legal latin. Come on I deserve bonus points for even remembering "void ab initio" - it's been a long time since law school.

You have provided - nothing. You just keep asserting the same thing. Just saying something over and over doesn't make it any more true.

But God Bless you. If it makes you happy to be convinced I'm some idiot on the internet so be it. I hereby give you permission to have the last word (no doubt telling me how I'm wrong) - I won't reply on this point.

Have a great day, and go on enjoying hockey in your own way.

 

[Corso]

More then the possibility of NIL deals being a pittance in hockey (on either side) compared to an NIL deal in CBB or CFB, I have a feeling that trying to go to bat for adding more D1 hockey programs, especially out west, when a vast majority of programs are looking to contract and slice off unprofitable sports in order to feed the beast of CFB especially, and also to further increase the bounty from conference TV deals isn't going to end well for the NHL.

You are correct. If things progress as they are, most athletic programs will have to stand on the revenue they generate as they will no longer receive subsidies from the once limitless pool of football money. I believe that Ohio State is directing the vast majority of their revenue and NIL deals towards the football program. Most of the P-5 schools will follow suit in order to compete. As KevFu will tell you, there will be less and less money available for the other sports.