NCAA to allow CHL players to play hockey?

[WarriorofTime]

Both the NCAA and the CHL want it (basically reduces competition between the two). It would allow the NCAA to recruit former CHL players without problems, while opening the door for more Americans to play north of the border.

It likely makes little difference for CIS, because they usually aren't recruiting stars.

The only groups that get hurt in this are the Jr. A leagues who have built their entire programs on "we're the path to the NCAA". Keep in mind that kids are still going to play Jr. A and the CJHL could still be a viable path to the USHL. Some of these leagues have basically recruited with the "you have no other options" approach which is horrible.

There are more hidden considerations that don't always jump to mind too. CHL people that have connections to USports/Junior A people may not like it, NCAA people that have connections to USHL/NAHL and downstream leagues may not like it.

With two completely separate paths, it actually opens up the pool of North American players a lot more, unless and until more NCAA D1/D3 (D3 is majorly affected because if the D1 spots are harder to come by, players currently in D1 would drop to D3.. so certain leagues currently feeding into D1 will almost exclusively feed into D3, and certain leagues feeding into D3 become irrelevant feeders into beer leagues) programs are created.

 

[Yukon Joe]

And just more generally - hockey has a fairly conservative culture around it. CHL and NCAA being separate paths has been true for a very long time, it's what everyone in hockey "grew up" with, and people are generally just hesitant to change.

I understand the NCAA is fearful that if they are sued they would lose. I can't express an opinion on how likely that is (usual disclaimer: I am a lawyer, not licensed to practice in the US, this is not my area of expertise). I can tell you however that lots of smart and capable people will often wait until they are forced to do something they don't want to do, even if it might have been better for them to "get out ahead" of a situation.

 

[LadyStanley]

 

[Corso]

There were some posters who believed this would never happen or that it was a remote possibility.
It will happen and much sooner than most thought


Adam Wodon

@CHN_AdamWodon

The fact that NCAA coaches recently formed a committee to explore this is somewhat funny - since the pace of change will outpace whatever they do, but is classic NCAA inertia. Might as well hammer this out - TODAY.

Adam Wodon

@CHN_AdamWodon

I'll reserve further kicking and screaming about how this is all terrible news for the college sports we love - because, it's irrelevant. Nothing I say matters. ... So -- how about the ramifications for college hockey? ... Major Junior players being eligible is coming soon.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's not happening next year, I think that's pretty certain.

But yes, now that NCAA schools can pay players directly (an inevitable step following a wild wild west era of bagmen), the amateurism of college sports aspect is kind of out the window. So there is no justifiable reason to have separation of the paths other than the fact that some people on both sides of the border have reasons to prefer it that way.

But NCAA Hockey is never really at the forefront of the mind of NCAA people and this is largely a football/basketball driven decision. With this inevitability, all Junior Hockey will become a feeder to the NCAA Hockey which becomes the primary driver of NHL talent unless there is a super exceptional player that is good enough to go Age 17 -> NHL (and you may get more 17 year olds that go the Celebrini route to play in NCAA in their Draft Year to essentially prove they can make the jump).

The NHL will want to be a bit proactive on this and let the CHL Transfer agreement lapse and not renew it at all or heavily modify it and will also have to think carefully about its rules on NCAA-bound drafted players and the current rule that says you can wait it out four years and sign as a Free Agent on August 15th, which players can use as leverage to demand trades before playing in the NHL.

The CHL will need to make sure it's not trying to keep players hostage through their Age 19 season, as good players will want to jump to NCAA by their age 18 season. This would be a bit of a blunder if they try and hold players to contracts that aren't really enforceable if challenged similar to how NCAA keeping CHL players out is not really enforceable, with the one hiccup on both sides being that you need a plaintiff (likely a national).

Hockey people tend to be pretty err.. set in their ways, so there could be a lot of inertia all involved which will only make things quite a bit messier.

 

[Bjindaho]

It's not happening next year, I think that's pretty certain.

But yes, now that NCAA schools can pay players directly (an inevitable step following a wild wild west era of bagmen), the amateurism of college sports aspect is kind of out the window. So there is no justifiable reason to have separation of the paths other than the fact that some people on both sides of the border have reasons to prefer it that way.

But NCAA Hockey is never really at the forefront of the mind of NCAA people and this is largely a football/basketball driven decision. With this inevitability, all Junior Hockey will become a feeder to the NCAA Hockey which becomes the primary driver of NHL talent unless there is a super exceptional player that is good enough to go Age 17 -> NHL (and you may get more 17 year olds that go the Celebrini route to play in NCAA in their Draft Year to essentially prove they can make the jump).

The NHL will want to be a bit proactive on this and let the CHL Transfer agreement lapse and not renew it at all or heavily modify it and will also have to think carefully about its rules on NCAA-bound drafted players and the current rule that says you can wait it out four years and sign as a Free Agent on August 15th, which players can use as leverage to demand trades before playing in the NHL.

The CHL will need to make sure it's not trying to keep players hostage through their Age 19 season, as good players will want to jump to NCAA by their age 18 season. This would be a bit of a blunder if they try and hold players to contracts that aren't really enforceable if challenged similar to how NCAA keeping CHL players out is not really enforceable, with the one hiccup on both sides being that you need a plaintiff (likely a national).

Hockey people tend to be pretty err.. set in their ways, so there could be a lot of inertia all involved which will only make things quite a bit messier.

I disagree with almost all of this.

I think the CHL-NHL agreement stays. I also think that the CHL and NCAA work out a similar deal (all CHL players are NCAA eligible at 20).

The CHL-NHL agreement was recently renewed IIRC and it still makes sense that 18 and 19 year-olds shouldn't be in the AHL (outside of conditioning stints).

The CHL-NCAA proposal makes sense to me because it would essentially set the CHL up as a USHL-style feeder to the NCAA. Most sub-20 year-olds aren't good enough to play NCAA anyway (and this would raise the competitive level) but such an agreement would also benefit the USHL (right now USHL->CHL is a path, but CHL->USHL is not really, where an agreement between the CHL and NCAA could mean that a kid who really wants to play USHL could simply leave his CHL team and play a year in the USHL to get around the deal).

For example, say Mikey Berchild wants to play CHL as a 16 year-old. If he changes his mind and wants to play NCAA at 18, he could theoretically play USHL his 17 year-old season. (Basically, the agreement would have to have some kind of clause that says that you can't go directly from CHL to NCAA before your 20 year-old season, but there would have to be a way to still play NCAA before 20 to be fair).

 

[beowulf]

With the agreement done and waiting for a judges approval I was thinking the same thing and glad to see a threat already exists.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/ncaa-settlement-landmark-college-sports-decision-1.7213431

If college players are no longer amateur then I don't see why someone who played in the CHL at say 15 or 16 would not be allowed to move over to the NCAA.

In the new compensation model, each school will be permitted but not required to set aside up to $21 million in revenue to share with athletes per year, though as revenues rise so could the cap.
....
In December, Baker, the former Massachusetts governor who has been on the job for 14 months, proposed creating a new tier of Division I athletics where the schools with the most resources would be required to pay at least half their athletes $30,000 per year. That suggestion, along with many other possibilities, remain under discussion.

The settlement does not make every issue facing college sports go away. There is still a question of whether athletes should be deemed employees of their schools, something Baker and other college sports leaders are fighting against.

 

[joelef]

They’ll be fine with the nba I mean they got upcoming mhl which has slightly passed the powerhouse wnba in ratings .

 

[BadgerBruce]

Historically, junior hockey in Canada — and I write this with respect — is like the proverbial cockroach that survives and thrives through all manner of disasters. It just won’t die.

In the mid-1930s, when nearly all junior hockey fell under the CAHA’s jurisdiction, the Great Depression forced the governing body to sign the first NHL-CAHA agreement, which created the NHL junior sponsorship system. Crisis averted and the cockroach adapted.

In the mid-60s, when the NHL decided that expansion was going to happen, they announced that the C-card and junior sponsorship system would soon end. But by the very early 70s, local ownership or whole communities assumed control of most junior clubs. Crisis averted and the cockroach again adapted.

In the late-70s, when junior hockey leagues were once again cash strapped, they railed against the NHL-CAHA agreement because all the NHL coin went directly to the CAHA. Led by new Ontario major junior hockey league commissioner David Branch, what we now know as the CHL withdrew completely from the CAHA, became self-governing, and negotiated directly with the NHL a new NHL-CHL agreement, which saw the pro league’s cash bypass the CAHA and go directly to the junior leagues. Crisis averted and the cockroach grew even stronger.

I could go on and on — multiple class action lawsuits, player suicide, the pandemic, unbelievably successful (and expensive) lobbying efforts in 9 provinces (51 teams) and 4 US states (9 teams) to convince lawmakers to exempt the leagues and teams from employment standards legislation to avoid paying players. And let’s not forget the group of former CHLers facing criminal charges for their alleged actions in 2018 while representing Canada at the U20 worlds.

Through crisis after crisis, major junior hockey has survived and grown even more powerful. Franchise values have never been higher, reported franchise re-sale price are mind-boggling, attendance and ticket revenues are very strong, revenues from broadcasting keep growing, world junior tournaments and the Memorial Cup are bonafide cash cows. This cockroach is seemingly unstoppable. Do a simple SWOT analysis — for nearly 100 years now, Canadian junior hockey has turned every Threat into an Opportunity and every Opportunity into a Strength.

And now, because of a changing NCAA landscape, the CHL faces yet another threat. Will the league once again find ways to turn this threat into an opportunity and the opportunity into a strength?

Based on history, I’m inclined to say “just watch them.” The only reason I have to hesitate a bit is that once Branch’s successor in Ontario is announced in a few days time, all three junior leagues and the CHL will have new leaders, and tough strategic decisions to make very soon. But I’d still lay my money on the cockroach to continue to thrive.

 

[joelef]

Historically, junior hockey in Canada — and I write this with respect — is like the proverbial cockroach that survives and thrives through all manner of disasters. It just won’t die.

In the mid-1930s, when nearly all junior hockey fell under the CAHA’s jurisdiction, the Great Depression forced the governing body to sign the first NHL-CAHA agreement, which created the NHL junior sponsorship system. Crisis averted and the cockroach adapted.

In the mid-60s, when the NHL decided that expansion was going to happen, they announced that the C-card and junior sponsorship system would soon end. But by the very early 70s, local ownership or whole communities assumed control of most junior clubs. Crisis averted and the cockroach again adapted.

In the late-70s, when junior hockey leagues were once again cash strapped, they railed against the NHL-CAHA agreement because all the NHL coin went directly to the CAHA. Led by new Ontario major junior hockey league commissioner David Branch, what we now know as the CHL withdrew completely from the CAHA, became self-governing, and negotiated directly with the NHL a new NHL-CHL agreement, which saw the pro league’s cash bypass the CAHA and go directly to the junior leagues. Crisis averted and the cockroach grew even stronger.

I could go on and on — multiple class action lawsuits, player suicide, the pandemic, unbelievably successful (and expensive) lobbying efforts in 9 provinces (51 teams) and 4 US states (9 teams) to convince lawmakers to exempt the leagues and teams from employment standards legislation to avoid paying players. And let’s not forget the group of former CHLers facing criminal charges for their alleged actions in 2018 while representing Canada at the U20 worlds.

Through crisis after crisis, major junior hockey has survived and grown even more powerful. Franchise values have never been higher, reported franchise re-sale price are mind-boggling, attendance and ticket revenues are very strong, revenues from broadcasting keep growing, world junior tournaments and the Memorial Cup are bonafide cash cows. This cockroach is seemingly unstoppable. Do a simple SWOT analysis — for nearly 100 years now, Canadian junior hockey has turned every Threat into an Opportunity and every Opportunity into a Strength.

And now, because of a changing NCAA landscape, the CHL faces yet another threat. Will the league once again find ways to turn this threat into an opportunity and the opportunity into a strength?

Based on history, I’m inclined to say “just watch them.” The only reason I have to hesitate a bit is that once Branch’s successor in Ontario is announced in a few days time, all three junior leagues and the CHL will have new leaders, and tough strategic decisions to make very soon. But I’d still lay my money on the cockroach to continue to thrive.

It finally ended in mississauga though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Junior Hockey can never just spontaneously combust and not exist in Canada. That wouldn’t make sense. Really the question becomes what occurs when junior hockey in Canada is another feeder to ncaa. It really enhances ncaa to then be the preeminent feeder of nhl. You already have a lot of players going there and there is already the fact that ncaa bound players face older and more mature players. A point so obvious it only bears mention because of the apex fallacy is that a majority of CHL players don’t sign NHL deals upon the completion of their eligibility. So most players will be seeking spots in ncaa D1 alongside USHL and BCHL players. So just Juniors alone will be more inadequate for most nhl drafted prospects because the ncaa pool is already going against the same pool, rather than a different and historically inferior in raw talent, pool than CHL players… just older and more developed players. So for an 18-19 year old already drafted player, they’d be at a big disadvantage if they were compelled to remain in the CHL and be less pro ready for age 20 when they’d want to turn pro.

Really all will be fine if they don’t resist letting 18/19 year olds go to ncaa if they are ready. Seems like common sense to me. If they try to fight to keep 18/19 year olds in CHL unless they go straight to NHL then development is a bit messier. The reserve provisions for CHL players is what’s messier for an nhl side because it’s easier to just hide out in ncaa until they become a free agent.

 

[joelef]

Ok I can be there but it might be more ten minutes

Ignore my last post that was an accident

 

[Bonk]

There were some posters who believed this would never happen or that it was a remote possibility.
It will happen and much sooner than most thought


Adam Wodon
@CHN_AdamWodon

The fact that NCAA coaches recently formed a committee to explore this is somewhat funny - since the pace of change will outpace whatever they do, but is classic NCAA inertia. Might as well hammer this out - TODAY.

Adam Wodon
@CHN_AdamWodon

I'll reserve further kicking and screaming about how this is all terrible news for the college sports we love - because, it's irrelevant. Nothing I say matters. ... So -- how about the ramifications for college hockey? ... Major Junior players being eligible is coming soon.

The bolded is the first thing he's ever gotten right.

Also, it's interesting timing that this discussion ramped up after Swankler made a mockery of the no-CHL players in the NCAA rule by playing for two Division I teams after spending a year with Erie.

 

[GKJ]

More opportunities for players exiting juniors is a good thing. I am curious though how many players who would play in both places that would be in it for anything other than a scholarship. Some of these schools whether it be the school itself or NIL gonna pay more than going pro? Even in the minor leagues?

 

[joelef]

Personally I think the chl has dropped the ball on marketing its product in the usa

 

[Yukon Joe]

Personally I think the chl has dropped the ball on marketing its product in the usa

???

It is the "Canadian Hockey League". I know there's 6-8 US based teams (googles - 9), but junior hockey in general is very local in it's support - you support the local team, not the league(s) in general.

 

[joelef]

???

It is the "Canadian Hockey League". I know there's 6-8 US based teams (googles - 9), but junior hockey in general is very local in it's support - you support the local team, not the league(s) in general.

The epl and liga Mx are both foreign leagues and try to market here.

 

[Yukon Joe]

The epl and liga Mx are both foreign leagues and try to market here.

Those are a couple of the best soccer leagues in the world (and better than MLS). The NHL markets itself outside of North America as well, since it's the world's best hockey league.

CHL is developmental hockey. It's a niche of what is already a niche sport in the US.

Look, Saginaw is hosting the Memorial Cup, so no doubt you can get people in Saginaw, Michigan fired up about Saginaw Spirit. CHL hockey. But even a Spirit fan isn't going to start watching a regular season Erie Otters / London Knights game.

 

[StreetHawk]

More opportunities for players exiting juniors is a good thing. I am curious though how many players who would play in both places that would be in it for anything other than a scholarship. Some of these schools whether it be the school itself or NIL gonna pay more than going pro? Even in the minor leagues?

Unlikely that playing in NCAA gets you more than the $90-100K that going pro does. Though a big benefit to some players in staying in college vs going to the A is the facilities as the top NCAA programs at BC, Michigan, Minnesota, etc. would be better than in the A (for those not right next door to their NHL club).

Not familiar with hockey players in NCAA and what they earn in NIL. What did Cellibrini make this past season? Or any of the first rounders over the past couple of years like Gauthier, Smith, etc.?

 

[Takuto Maruki]

Unlikely that playing in NCAA gets you more than the $90-100K that going pro does.

And again, what people are forgetting is that Canadian citizens don't get to benefit from NIL payments. So really, considering how a good chunk of NCAA players are coming from Canada, is there really a stronger benefit from them to go the NCAA route if the 'easy' road to NIL is closed?

Moreover, considering there has been really little movement in terms of additions of D1 hockey programs outside of ASU, and D2/D3 programs are effectively useless for the conditions being set for this change, I don't think this is the win that NCAA hockey thinks it ultimately is, nor is the final word in the coffin of Canadian major junior hockey.

Those are a couple of the best soccer leagues in the world (and better than MLS). The NHL markets itself outside of North America as well, since it's the world's best hockey league.

CHL is developmental hockey. It's a niche of what is already a niche sport in the US.

Look, Saginaw is hosting the Memorial Cup, so no doubt you can get people in Saginaw, Michigan fired up about Saginaw Spirit. CHL hockey. But even a Spirit fan isn't going to start watching a regular season Erie Otters / London Knights game.

I mean, the person you're replying to more often then not seems to think hockey *in general* doesn't market itself well, so I don't know how much blood you're going to get out of that stone with this. But yes - major junior hockey, alongside D1 hockey, is an incredibly local thing, and it will remain that way. Even in the Pacific Northwest (since that's by far the largest US outpost) most fans don't care about anything other then within their division at best. You're not going to get a Winterhawks fan to care about Prince George in any way other then the natural animosity that comes from playoff hockey.

 

[KevFu]

So a few thoughts, as I think you guys are looking at the topic from the angle of "hockey-first" and the overall business of college sports is basically "money first"

most of us here have maintained that this is going to happen because the NCAA does not nor will not defend the rules excluding CHL players in court.

Sounds like it will happen due to NIL payouts. Just a matter of figuring put how to implement and get all involved parties to agree

I feel that because of the anti-trust settlement and NIL causing a massive NCAA landscape change, hockey-minded people are saying "Okay, how does this apply to NCAA hockey? Now that it's the Wild West and schools can buy players now..." is a logical mental path for you to take.

HOWEVER, think money first. Paying players means the expenses for every school has gone up massively. Where does hockey fall in each school's food chain?

Do you think that Big Ten schools are going to start spending millions on improving their hockey teams if that means losing ground to the SEC in football? Hell no.

The number of sports programs about to be slashed across college athletics is going to skyrocket.

While Marek brings up NIL, I'm not sure how he is with how that interacts with Student-Visas. For instance, the 2X Player of the Year in College Basketball, Zach Edey, didn't receive NIL because he is Canadian.

They won't be. It's pretty much a guarantee that if you are a foreign student, you are not getting a sniff of NIL payments. There's simply too much legal jumping through hoops to justify it, and lets be real, the opportunities for NIL in anything other then basketball and football is peanuts, not to mention how utterly unregulated and Wild West it is.

Not necessarily. There's two forms of NIL: Active and Passive. Active is a Visa violation: You can't go film a commercial for a car dealer for example.

Passive is totally allowed. The same car dealer can pay Zach Edey, use an existing picture or video of him that was taken as part of his student-athlete team activities (headshots, media day green screens, game action) and use that in ads.

But the nature of that renders it unlikely. The companies simply prefer active to passive. Passive is a lot less bang for the buck. Companies calling and asking "Can we get Zach to do a car commercial? No? Okay. Nevermind." is why they don't have much if any NIL.


There's just no structure for NCAA athletes on visas don't capitalize on Passive NIL:
- The only people who know enough about how it works to get the player some passive money (the school, the coaches, the compliance office) are the people who's #1 agenda is "don't get the kid deported," so they don't.
- The old rules outlawed agents. Your agent can't do it for you if you're not allowed to have one.
- The player themselves actively seeking out passive opportunities? That sounds like you're risking your visa.
- The players parents, who would have to understand the visa laws and NCAA rules, which are systems they're literally foreign to.

 

[Voight]

The epl and liga Mx are both foreign leagues and try to market here.

What two languages are spoken the most in America? English and Spanish. What countries do those leagues play in? England and Mexico.


Not to mention the EPL is the most popular soccer league in the world, and arguably the best. Liga MX isn't on the same level, but obviously there are a lot of Hispanic people (especially from Mexico) in the US, so they're banking on expats being interested.

 

[Corso]

So a few thoughts, as I think you guys are looking at the topic from the angle of "hockey-first" and the overall business of college sports is basically "money first"






I feel that because of the anti-trust settlement and NIL causing a massive NCAA landscape change, hockey-minded people are saying "Okay, how does this apply to NCAA hockey? Now that it's the Wild West and schools can buy players now..." is a logical mental path for you to take.

HOWEVER, think money first. Paying players means the expenses for every school has gone up massively. Where does hockey fall in each school's food chain?

Do you think that Big Ten schools are going to start spending millions on improving their hockey teams if that means losing ground to the SEC in football? Hell no.

The number of sports programs about to be slashed across college athletics is going to skyrocket.

I believe we are already witnessing this. Ohio State's massive NIL booster organization is solely focused on football and this will most likely force a school like Michigan, who currently has a NIL collective that encompasses all of its teams (even though most of the money is being funneled to the football program) to follow Ohio State's lead. Football is king and will receive the lion's share of revenues (further lawsuits will make sure of this) with basketball a distant second. This will lead to the starvation of non-generating sports and hockey will certainly feel the effects of that famine. We sometime forget (though you have certainly reminded us over and over) that the largess experienced by NCAA sports is mainly due to the massive revenues generated by one sport and that sharing that revenue with those athletes will have profound detrimental effects on other programs.

In the end, football and perhaps basketball will be thoroughly professionalized (unless the NCAA can wrest an exemption of antitrust laws from Congress, but this is looking to be unlikely in the near to midterm and by then it will be to late) and separated from NCAA governance (whatever the NCAA will look like by then) and the non-revenue sports will revert back to a true amateur status

 

[joelef]

There have msny athletes in non revenue sports that have nil deals. Not to the extent that football and basketball has gotten of course so I don’t understand the doom and gloom

 

[Corso]

There have msny athletes in non revenue sports that have nil deals. Not to the extent that football and basketball has gotten of course so I don’t understand the doom and gloom

What KevFu means, and that I also agree with, is that the ever-increasing arms race in football will crowd out revenue streams for the other sports.

Hockey will still exist of course but the amount of money the schools will direct towards it will be reduced as more and more revenue streams will flow towards football and, to a lesser extent basketball.