Yukon Joe
Registered User
NCAA will lose the lawsuit quite quickly
Nothing in court happens quickly.
I otherwise have no idea what the outcome might be.
NCAA will lose the lawsuit quite quickly
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.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.
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
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?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.
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.
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.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?
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?
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.It just isn't that simple.
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.Written version. Speculation that NHL may want more NCAA hockey programs, men's and women's.
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 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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
They have always been doing this.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.
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.