NCAA to allow CHL players to play hockey?

[WarriorofTime]

it's a pretty decent mystery how some seem to get through the clearing house.

The answer to the mystery is the NCAA is comically inept and inconsistent

 

[hockeyguy0022]

Swankler was a case of the NCAA Clearinghouse just not doing a single quick Google Search to find Swankler's history on Elite Prospects or HockeyDB. Pretty dumb

LOL swankler played an entire season in Erie. That's pretty bad.

There's also that woman who played pre-season in the Q last year that was NCAA...so women don't have the same set of rules, obviously not common and won't be, but ya.

Not to mention NCAA players play in the world juniors all the time, even with players currently playing in the NHL.... so that's inconsistent as well.

 

[KevFu]

(Amateurism) Which is the dumbest thing ever.

The thing here is we tend to look at all NCAA rules and as "Players vs Schools." But the NCAA rule book isn't that at all. Every NCAA rule makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that ( -- A. it's SUPPOSED to be every student picked where to go to school for their education and THEN happen to play sports" instead of "I didn't come to Ohio State to play school" and B. -- ) the rules are made for SCHOOL VS SCHOOL.

They didn't make "You can't play NCAA if you played a pro game" to screw over a player, they created the rule to prevent schools from beating other schools by bringing in pro ringers.

They didn't say "You can't play NCAA if you got sponsorship money" to screw endorsed skier Jeremy Bloom so he couldn't play football; they created the rule to prevent SCHOOLS from shady recruiting against each other with "come to LSU and our car dealership will give you a car."

(And that is exactly what NCAA NIL is -- exactly as I told you it would be a decade ago. It's not "YOUR personal brand is famous, so you're offered endorsement money." It's a recruiting slush fund where "our boosters will give WHOMEVER is in that roster spot X sponsorship dollars."

The answer to the mystery is the NCAA is comically inept and inconsistent

Yes, they are middle-managers, not leaders and they've never gotten out in front of any issue and made a situation that worked well for everyone; instead they lose case after case and the repercussions are cataclysmic for a "league" with no revenue sharing and no safe guards. It's capitalist darwinism at its worst.

 

[KevFu]

The basic answer is that is how soccer chooses to organize itself.

There's no draft in soccer. There's no attempt at trying to maintain "competitive balance" in soccer. They see no problem with the rich being rich and the poor being poor. As such soccer teams will try to identify talent very early on and recruit those players to then come up through their own youth system.

NHL/NBA/NFL do try to maintain competitive balance. As such all players are recruited through a draft. This also has the advantage for the leagues that some other organization (either universities, or junior hockey) they takes care of the cost of developing young players.

So the NHL could, if it wanted to, draft 16 year olds. All it would take is a change to the CBA. But think about what that would entail - now you're having to send NHL scouts out to watch bantam and midget games all over the place. What exactly would that do to the CHL if junior-age kids are now all the property of NHL clubs?

It's less about what sport they play, and more about the volume of supply for talent compared to the opportunities to play in the major pro league.

DOING NOTHING gives the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL more than enough talent to pick and choose from, because the NCAA cranks out over 50 times more players than what they need every single season. There's 4700 NCAA basketball players. The NBA drafts less than the top 2% and they're fine. It all just happens organically with no need to invest in development.

Whereas world pro soccer, there's just a bazillion more teams around the globe because it's just "open" vs "closed." You need to develop your own talent to be competitive, so they start trading kids as youths instead of leaving it up to players to emerge from amateur organizations as top talent.

That's why the US men sucked and the US women were dominant. US soccer just picked the best 23 we had out of 340 million people, and players like Mia Hamm developed organically though the amateur system we had. Brazil had no system, but with 300 million, they got Marta -- who literally said it to the camera at a World Cup: "No one is going to help you, YOU have to get here yourself."

But our best men's 23 players coming out of the amateur system were no where near what countries with a development system for youth were producing. And now that most those countries have basically taken the infrastructure they had and just said "women, too!" the rest of the world is catching up to USWNT.


The point is, the way the NCAA system develops players for the pro leagues isn't a formal choice by the pro leagues; it's just the NCAA evolving on its own, and the pro leagues not needing anymore players than what organically emerge from high school or NCAA sports.

 

[Corso]

The thing here is we tend to look at all NCAA rules and as "Players vs Schools." But the NCAA rule book isn't that at all. Every NCAA rule makes a lot more sense when you consider the fact that ( -- A. it's SUPPOSED to be every student picked where to go to school for their education and THEN happen to play sports" instead of "I didn't come to Ohio State to play school" and B. -- ) the rules are made for SCHOOL VS SCHOOL.

They didn't make "You can't play NCAA if you played a pro game" to screw over a player, they created the rule to prevent schools from beating other schools by bringing in pro ringers.

They didn't say "You can't play NCAA if you got sponsorship money" to screw endorsed skier Jeremy Bloom so he couldn't play football; they created the rule to prevent SCHOOLS from shady recruiting against each other with "come to LSU and our car dealership will give you a car."

(And that is exactly what NCAA NIL is -- exactly as I told you it would be a decade ago. It's not "YOUR personal brand is famous, so you're offered endorsement money." It's a recruiting slush fund where "our boosters will give WHOMEVER is in that roster spot X sponsorship dollars."



Yes, they are middle-managers, not leaders and they've never gotten out in front of any issue and made a situation that worked well for everyone; instead they lose case after case and the repercussions are cataclysmic for a "league" with no revenue sharing and no safe guards. It's capitalist darwinism at its worst.

KevFu, I understand your sentiments on the concept of amateurism but long ago the genie was released from the lamp, and she cannot be put back in. The notion of amateurism in relation to the power conferences is no longer tenable. The only way this ends is the dismantling of the NCAA as a governing body and the separation of the revenue and non-revenue sports. Football and basketball players may well be recognized as employees and a new CBA will address revenue sharing concerns.

Yes, there will be winners and losers and yes, the whole notion of college athletics and "student-athletes" will be turned upside down but when billions of dollars began flowing into the college sporting world and when head coaches began "earning" million-dollar contracts, the quaint notion of amateurism was dead, and we have been living with a zombie for quite some time now.

The real question for me is where does college hockey fall into all of this? Is it truly a revenue generating sport able to (lets be frank here) professionalize itself the way football and basketball will (with its revenue sharing and pay for play) or will it be forced into a club sport similar to what is found in the ACHA or the D-III level??

 

[KevFu]

No doubt. The disconnect (and why I sound different than most other sports fans/posters) is that so many people are ecstatic that the very dumb NCAA has come crumbling down, destroying their draconian policies; but there's simply NOTHING in its place that makes sense or makes things better.

"What comes next" is the huge problem. It's no different than like, regime change in a country: Toppling the old regime is the easy part; creating a new system of governance that works for everyone is the hard part. And the vacuum between the toppling and the new system is just as destructive as the old system, if not more.

The NCAA, in their bumbling cluelessness, didn't plan for the shifting landscape (yet again. Time is a flat circle, this is NCAA vs Oklahoma all over again).

I think a lot of ignorant people are saying "this is great, the PLAYERS have all the power now with NIL." But the fact is, they really have none. They're just getting paid to be expendable until they are expendable. It's not the PLAYERS who are earning NIL money; it's their roster spot. And they just happen to fill it.

And with even more money on the line, the true villains of all this can be even more greedy and more exploitive because they have even more power now.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's why the US men sucked and the US women were dominant. US soccer just picked the best 23 we had out of 340 million people, and players like Mia Hamm developed organically though the amateur system we had. Brazil had no system, but with 300 million, they got Marta -- who literally said it to the camera at a World Cup: "No one is going to help you, YOU have to get here yourself."

But our best men's 23 players coming out of the amateur system were no where near what countries with a development system for youth were producing. And now that most those countries have basically taken the infrastructure they had and just said "women, too!" the rest of the world is catching up to USWNT.

The point is, the way the NCAA system develops players for the pro leagues isn't a formal choice by the pro leagues; it's just the NCAA evolving on its own, and the pro leagues not needing anymore players than what organically emerge from high school or NCAA sports.

I think it's really more basic in that Soccer is not that popular of a sport, in particular for men, in the United States. It tends to be pretty far down the ladder and in competition with a bunch of other existing but not overly popular sports, compared to men's soccer popularity in most of the world. And for women, the rest of the world has historically lagged behind in Women's Sports in general and still does to some extent (although not to the same extent). You can compare the spread of Men and Women's Medals in the Olympics for instance. Countries that invest a lot in women's sports like USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand tend to win lots of medals in women's events because the competition isn't very deep, whereas Men's Events have a much thin spread. of medal distribution.

 

[KevFu]

I think it's really more basic in that Soccer is not that popular of a sport, in particular for men, in the United States. It tends to be pretty far down the ladder and in competition with a bunch of other existing but not overly popular sports, compared to men's soccer popularity in most of the world. And for women, the rest of the world has historically lagged behind in Women's Sports in general and still does to some extent (although not to the same extent). You can compare the spread of Men and Women's Medals in the Olympics for instance. Countries that invest a lot in women's sports like USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand tend to win lots of medals in women's events because the competition isn't very deep, whereas Men's Events have a much thin spread. of medal distribution.

You're describing the reason the US didn't have a soccer development system like the rest of the world (No one had the financial need to MAKE ONE).

Which is the exact same reason the Big Four pro leagues have a draft instead of making their own youth development system.

 

[Yukon Joe]

You're describing the reason the US didn't have a soccer development system like the rest of the world (No one had the financial need to MAKE ONE).

Which is the exact same reason the Big Four pro leagues have a draft instead of making their own youth development system.

This is all true.

But remember soccer teams in the rest of the world don't have youth development programs out of the goodness of their hearts. They develop young players so they can control them if/when they grow up and actually get good.

 

[Bonk]

Again - the NHL could sign a CBA with an "exceptional status" type provision if both they and the NHLPA wanted to.

But under the current CBA - no.

I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.

I follow Miami University, and I don't think any of their freshmen are under 20. Pro teams have no idea what they're getting for the most part when they draft players at 18.

 

[Bubbles]

I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.

People bring up the Matthews to Europe situation happening but it has happened exactly ZERO times since then. Matthews was in a super unique spot and the opportunity opened up for him.

 

[KevFu]

This is all true.

But remember soccer teams in the rest of the world don't have youth development programs out of the goodness of their hearts. They develop young players so they can control them if/when they grow up and actually get good.

Right, it's necessity and economics. US Soccer and MLS started one because US Soccer wanted one and convinced the MLS teams that "you can make money exporting what your produce" and it made financial sense... because there's a whole world of clubs looking for men's soccer players.

The NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL just don't have the financial incentive. Drafting the top 1% of HS/College guys is more than enough for their rosters, and there's no transfer market.

 

[Bonk]

People bring up the Matthews to Europe situation happening but it has happened exactly ZERO times since then. Matthews was in a super unique spot and the opportunity opened up for him.

Agreed it's been a total outlier, but I think it would happen more if 18-year-olds were denied a chance to go to the NHL right away.

 

[edog37]

How do you think the CHL works then? Players are drafted, and sign contracts with the team.

A court is much more likely to void a contract signed by a minor if they feel it's unfair, but minors can definitely sign contracts.

Not in the US they can’t. They would need a guardian or parent’s waiver. Age of majority in the US is 18.

 

[Voight]

I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.

I follow Miami University, and I don't think any of their freshmen are under 20. Pro teams have no idea what they're getting for the most part when they draft players at 18.

Ehh that's pretty much a one-off. Could it happen again? Sure but this was a unique situation where you had an elite prospect miss the draft cut off by a couple of days who wasn't going to gain anything by playing in the CHL or NCAA. Since the cut off is mid September, its not often the best prospects are in this situation.

Bedard would've done the same had he been born two months later. Tavares potentially could've.

 

[Corso]

I'd be for that if they want to raise the draft age to 19. Otherwise we'll see more Auston Matthews situations where players will go to Europe to get paid until they're draft-eligible.

I follow Miami University, and I don't think any of their freshmen are under 20. Pro teams have no idea what they're getting for the most part when they draft players at 18.

There was a lot of talk floating around a couple of years ago about changing the structure of the NHL draft to a hybrid 18/20 year old draft for the next CBA.

Perhaps we will see the very elite drafted as 18-year-olds (a two-round draft) followed by five or six rounds featuring only 20-year-old players.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Not in the US they can’t. They would need a guardian or parent’s waiver. Age of majority in the US is 18.

It just isn't that simple.

Can a Minor Sign a Contract?

We discuss how the law treats minors with respect to contracts, including how and when contracts may be voided.

www.rocketlawyer.com

As it says - a contract signed by a minor may be voidable, but there are many exceptions. The link above specifically mentions sports contracts:

Also, minors may not be able to void certain sports and entertainment contracts, although this depends on state law. Professional sports leagues, for example, spend a lot of time and money scouting young athletes and signing them to high-profile deals. Considering how much money professional leagues generate and the way teams are built, a minor deciding to opt out of a contract could cause financial damage to an organization.

In any event - the whole "contracts signed by minors may be voidable" is all about trying to protect minors from being taken advantage of by sophisticated adults. If we're talking about a professional athlete under the age of 18 that person will absolutely be getting advice from a professional agent - and would probably get their parents to sign off as well.

 

[Voight]

It just isn't that simple.

Can a Minor Sign a Contract?

We discuss how the law treats minors with respect to contracts, including how and when contracts may be voided.

www.rocketlawyer.com

As it says - a contract signed by a minor may be voidable, but there are many exceptions. The link above specifically mentions sports contracts:



In any event - the whole "contracts signed by minors may be voidable" is all about trying to protect minors from being taken advantage of by sophisticated adults. If we're talking about a professional athlete under the age of 18 that person will absolutely be getting advice from a professional agent - and would probably get their parents to sign off as well.

I know Kobes parents had to co-sign his original contract since he was 17, once he turned 18 a few months later he signed a new one.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I know Kobes parents had to co-sign his original contract since he was 17, once he turned 18 a few months later he signed a new one.

Could well be. As the link suggested it depends on individual state laws. Plus getting the parents to sign as well is probably the safest course of action.

 

[GKJ]

 

[Hockeyville USA]

NCAA will lose the lawsuit quite quickly

 

[landy92mack29]

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

 

[Bjindaho]

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

There has to be an agreement between the NCAA and CHL or players will have to request opt-outs in their CHL deal. The NCAA, USHL and CHL are all IIHF-sanctioned meaning that a team cannot simply steal a player signed to another league, but the NCAA and USHL has opt-outs that come into play if a player signs anything that could be consider a professional contract by them.

In a perfect world, I could see the CHL and USHL having a deal with the NCAA that everyone gets an opt-out at 20 (if they are good enough to be in the NCAA at 20), with the caveat that they cannot sign an ELC if they are going NCAA.

The CHL and USHL are competing with each other, so an agreement might be more difficult.

 

[Corso]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834594111904796862

This is just the beginning. From what I'm hearing, the CHL is in discussion with the NHL to alter the CHL-NHL agreement. They are looking at two options. Option one, allow 18 and 19 year old players to play a set number of games in the AHL but those players must be returned back to the CHL after a certain date. Option two, allow each NHL team to roster a maximum of two U-20 players to an assigned AHL club.

The NCAA is also going to be making massive changes. They will begin to allow their players to play in pro leagues (Europe, the AHL or any other minor league) prior to their NCAA season or immediately after, provided they sign amateur try out contracts that do not pay any money.

 

[joelef]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1834594111904796862

This is just the beginning. From what I'm hearing, the CHL is in discussion with the NHL to alter the CHL-NHL agreement. They are looking at two options. Option one, allow 18 and 19 year old players to play a set number of games in the AHL but those players must be returned back to the CHL after a certain date. Option two, allow each NHL team to roster a maximum of two U-20 players to an assigned AHL club.

The NCAA is also going to be making massive changes. They will begin to allow their players to play in pro leagues (Europe, the AHL or any other minor league) prior to their NCAA season or immediately after, provided they sign amateur try out contracts that do not pay any money.

With Al the money in college sports and having virtually all the bells and whistles of pro sports and tv deals there simply no way that you can be a pure as snow amateur. The whole anti nil “ players are entitled “ crybabies need to get there heads out of the sand.