Two USHL joining the OHL

[OMG67]

I'd have to say Belleville and Cornwall would both be top choices.
That Cornwall arena it likely looking at 50-100M to make it a proper entertainment venue for Hockey.
I really don't see OHL entertaining anything there until some type of construction plan is approved / going forward.

Belleville by most indications will have a vacant arena after the 2027 season that is perfect for OHL.
Realistically you are likely only seeing around 2000-2500 attendance out of either of those cities.

I am not sure your estimated attendance is accurate. Mississauga averaged 2400 last year (last place). I think they should be relatively on par with communities like Peterborough and North Bay. I think they are more likely to be in that 2800-3200 range. I think the 2000-2500 would be accurate in the down seasons maybe where the team is not winning much.

I think the key is to make sure they both have access to Private Boxes and VIOP seating where higher revenue can be generated. If they can ensure the community gobbles up those seating options, even 2500 wouldn't be bad.

 

[Donnie740]

I like the idea of the OHL returning to Cornwall, but it’s nowhere close to having the economic viability of Belleville.

Not sure how many of you have been to Cornwall lately, but it’s a very depressed little town with limited economic upside in the foreseeable future.

In comparison, Belleville benefits from the development boom currently happening in Picton which is about a 15min drive away. Everywhere you look there’s a new subdivision going up. One look at the stores in downtown Picton and you can see the demographic.

 

[ScoutLife4]

I like the idea of the OHL returning to Cornwall, but it’s nowhere close to having the economic viability of Belleville.

Not sure how many of you have been to Cornwall lately, but it’s a very depressed little town with limited economic upside in the foreseeable future.

In comparison, Belleville benefits from the development boom currently happening in Picton which is about a 15min drive away. Everywhere you look there’s a new subdivision going up. One look at the stores in downtown Picton and you can see the demographic.

The issue is the people in the Picton area don’t really support Belleville hockey. (It’s a 30-35 min drive not 15)
Most of them support the JR A team that’s close (wellington)

Belleville Senators barelly get 2K and only really hit the 3K if Toronto is in town.
The second game of the season 2 weeks ago had 1600 fans on a Sunday afternoon and about 600 of them didn’t even attend.

The home opener they had to give away 500 tickets and still only had 3100 fans.
So I’d say my 2500 is pretty bang on for Belleville and probably even a over estimate.
I’m not of the belief an Ohl team is going to draw more than an Ahl team is. Thats just insanity.

 

[OMG67]

The issue is the people in the Picton area don’t really support Belleville hockey. (It’s a 30-35 min drive not 15)
Most of them support the JR A team that’s close (wellington)

Belleville Senators barelly get 2K and only really hit the 3K if Toronto is in town.
The second game of the season 2 weeks ago had 1600 fans on a Sunday afternoon and about 600 of them didn’t even attend.

The home opener they had to give away 500 tickets and still only had 3100 fans.
So I’d say my 2500 is pretty bang on for Belleville and probably even a over estimate.
I’m not of the belief an Ohl team is going to draw more than an Ahl team is. Thats just insanity.

So no chance hockey of any significant kind returns to Belleville. Why would the Steelheads move for same/similar attendance? They go from being the least amount of attendance in the league to the least amount of attendance in the league.

 

[Kingpin794]

So no chance hockey of any significant kind returns to Belleville. Why would the Steelheads move for same/similar attendance? They go from being the least amount of attendance in the league to the least amount of attendance in the league.

2500 out of a capacity of 4365 isn't awful. That would be a million times better support than 500 out of 5000.

 

[ScoutLife4]

2500 out of a capacity of 4365 isn't awful. That would be a million times better support than 500 out of 5000.

If they can average 2,500 in Belleville i believe it will still be a massive improvement from Mississauga and Brampton.

The one thing Belleville has had a lot of Success with is corporate sponsorships which is how the B-Sens are able to fund the team.

 

[nosl]

Not sure if this is off topic, but if the NCAA vote is approved, why couldn't the USHL just become a major junior league like the OHL, LHJMQ and WHL? There's a noticeable gap in the middle of North America.

A fourth major junior league under the CHL umbrella would open up the possibility of a team in an area like Thunder Bay.

 

[Kingpin794]

Not sure if this is off topic, but if the NCAA vote is approved, why couldn't the USHL just become a major junior league like the OHL, LHJMQ and WHL? There's a noticeable gap in the middle of North America.

A fourth major junior league under the CHL umbrella would open up the possibility of a team in an area like Thunder Bay.

Right there. That’s why. USA hockey is not giving up its top junior league to the CHL. Canada needs 3 leagues because it has so many top players. USA can get away with one.

 

[Otto]

Right there. That’s why. USA hockey is not giving up its top junior league to the CHL. Canada needs 3 leagues because it has so many top players. USA can get away with one.

Meh, the only difference I see is that it allows them to compete for the Memorial Cup. Get rid of the automatic entry for the host. Not a bad thing.

 

[agillarda]

I can't see the OHL ever adding another team to the GTA area either.
If anything I can see Brampton leaving at some point and exiting the area completely.

I could see Markham or York region working better than peek, demographics a little different.

 

[coolhandluc44]

Meh, the only difference I see is that it allows them to compete for the Memorial Cup. Get rid of the automatic entry for the host. Not a bad thing.

I’m sure the USHL owners would like it until they get a bill for a graduated players college which in the States I imagine is a lot more expensive than what you pay in Ontario. And the CHL should not allow an exemption. If you want to be part of the CHL umbrella you compensate your players the same as other teams.

Its comical how the CHL has this narrative that they are exploiting players when the last time I checked the USHL players don’t get anything from their teams either in a) money or b) education packages

 

[Otto]

I’m sure the USHL owners would like it until they get a bill for a graduated players college which in the States I imagine is a lot more expensive than what you pay in Ontario. And the CHL should not allow an exemption. If you want to be part of the CHL umbrella you compensate your players the same as other teams.

Its comical how the CHL has this narrative that they are exploiting players when the last time I checked the USHL players don’t get anything from their teams either in a) money or b) education packages

Are the player agreements the same in every league?

 

[coolhandluc44]

Are the player agreements the same in every league?

No idea but is the basis of compensation not the same that players are signed to educational packages? Perhaps there are slight differences between the 3 leagues but if the general overall compensation is a year of school for every year played that would be substantially different than no education at all

 

[Kingpin794]

No idea but is the basis of compensation not the same that players are signed to educational packages? Perhaps there are slight differences between the 3 leagues but if the general overall compensation is a year of school for every year played that would be substantially different than no education at all

Tbf they don't have to really set a contract in a way where the USHL pays out education because 98% of USHL players end up on D1 rosters and the overwhelming majority of those players get full rides when they show up. We're talking about a miniscule amount of players that don't get their education covered if they played a full career in the USHL. This is something that will likely creep into new OHL contracts now. There will be an out where teams will not longer be on the hook for education money if a player leaves for the NCAA and gets a full ride.

 

[donjohnson]

Tbf they don't have to really set a contract in a way where the USHL pays out education because 98% of USHL players end up on D1 rosters and the overwhelming majority of those players get full rides when they show up. We're talking about a miniscule amount of players that don't get their education covered if they played a full career in the USHL. This is something that will likely creep into new OHL contracts now. There will be an out where teams will not longer be on the hook for education money if a player leaves for the NCAA and gets a full ride.

Agreed and hopefully with the (potential) windfall, Owners continue to invest in the team, arena and community goodwill. I'll never see it but I'm so curious on the finances of owning a team and how the money gets budgeted and allocated...plus how many of these Owners are taking a loss that offsets tax obligations from their primary business.

 

[TcNorth]

As a Saginaw and Flint fan, I would love to rekindle our old rivalry with Muskegon, however like donjohnson said, I would not want to be separated into an American Division

 

[OMG67]

Tbf they don't have to really set a contract in a way where the USHL pays out education because 98% of USHL players end up on D1 rosters and the overwhelming majority of those players get full rides when they show up. We're talking about a miniscule amount of players that don't get their education covered if they played a full career in the USHL. This is something that will likely creep into new OHL contracts now. There will be an out where teams will not longer be on the hook for education money if a player leaves for the NCAA and gets a full ride.

The owners already have an out. They only have 18 months after the expiry of their OA season (30 months after their 19 year old season) to commence access of their scholarship. A player that graduates and does not play an OA year technically could play/attend NCAA for five semesters. If they play the sixth semester, January winter term, they forfeit their scholarship.

 

[EvenSteven]

I thought I read somewhere, that CHL players will be able to transfer the funds from their scholarship program to go towards their NCAA tuition, etc. For those players who don’t get full rides (apparently not everybody does), they would have that scholarship money to top up the cost of going to an NCAA school.

 

[OMG67]

I thought I read somewhere, that CHL players will be able to transfer the funds from their scholarship program to go towards their NCAA tuition, etc. For those players who don’t get full rides (apparently not everybody does), they would have that scholarship money to top up the cost of going to an NCAA school.

There are two issues:

1> CHL players can apply their scholarship funds but there are two types of scholarships. The Gold PAckage which is more like a full ride scholarship and the general scholarship which doesn’t cover a lot of the extra expenses like room and board. So, it depends on what scholarship package the athlete has as to what can be covered.
2> There are some additional regulations in the NCAA that do not allow multiple scholarships to be used in conjunction with athletic scholarships. I have not been able to dig up enough information on this to truly speak on it in detail but there is a possibility that the CHL scholarship would not be eligible for tuition “top ups” for partial NCAA scholarships. I think they can still be used to cover room and board expenses (depending on the level of the CHL Scholarship) but I am not 100% certain of that.

 

[Fastpace]

I thought I read somewhere, that CHL players will be able to transfer the funds from their scholarship program to go towards their NCAA tuition, etc. For those players who don’t get full rides (apparently not everybody does), they would have that scholarship money to top up the cost of going to an NCAA school.

If this was to be true, it would burn out so much anxiety for the players to deal with, let's hope it gets into their rule books if it is not

 

[Ward Cornell]

If this was to be true, it would burn out so much anxiety for the players to deal with, let's hope it gets into their rule books if it is not

I read the same as ES, but there's been a lot of misinformation on here.
I guess we just need some authoritive documention.

 

[Pens2021]

Bylaw 15.2.6.2 in the financial aid portion of the NCAA Manual states with regard to external financial aid that external aid must have:
“No Relationship to Athletics Ability. A student-athlete may receive financial aid awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletics ability”

Its archaic and probably should be changed but right now a student athlete has to forfeit any scholarship received because of athletic ability. The rule is in place back before the House Settlement (which lifted scholarship caps and replaced them with roster limits) so that you could not go over the scholarship limits artificially (ie: booster awards a scholarship to the best goalie in the state type of shenanigans) That said, if a university chooses to opt out of the House settlement they will remain under the old scholarship limits and I would assume this rule would stand.

 

[Kingpin794]

Bylaw 15.2.6.2 in the financial aid portion of the NCAA Manual states with regard to external financial aid that external aid must have:
“No Relationship to Athletics Ability. A student-athlete may receive financial aid awarded solely on bases having no relationship to athletics ability”

Its archaic and probably should be changed but right now a student athlete has to forfeit any scholarship received because of athletic ability. The rule is in place back before the House Settlement (which lifted scholarship caps and replaced them with roster limits) so that you could not go over the scholarship limits artificially (ie: booster awards a scholarship to the best goalie in the state type of shenanigans) That said, if a university chooses to opt out of the House settlement they will remain under the old scholarship limits and I would assume this rule would stand.

Well CHL players' scholarship money isn't tied to athletic ability. You could be an awful player but if you play 4 years, you get the same 4 years covered as a star player. Now if their scholarship money was contingent on say scoring 40 goals or making first team ohl, then yeah, they'd have to forfeit the money. Otherwise there isn't any reason to be worried about the bylaw mentioned.