|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 5, 2024 14:43:55 GMT -4
Per the 32 Thoughts Podcast with Elliotte Friedman and Jeff Marek, the NCAA is working on an agreement that would grant playing eligibility to graduating CHL players.
There's been rumours and rumblings in the hockey world that this was on the horizon, but for Elliotte to report on this and say "this merger is going to happen at some point" brings it firmly into reality.
As many of us know, the NCAA implemented new NIL (name, image, likeness) rules in 2021, that probably swung open the door for this to be explored. It has huge ramifications on the entire junior hockey model in both countries, and could be particularly fruitful for the CHL/QMJHL depending on the details of the agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Feb 5, 2024 15:06:25 GMT -4
So graduating CHL would mean after 20 year old season or 19?
Just from a Cats perspective guys like Hopkins, Hillier, Rozzi would have been far more likely to report. It likely doesnt affect Americans like Cole Eiserman who were going to be part of USNDP anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Feb 5, 2024 15:37:47 GMT -4
So graduating CHL would mean after 20 year old season or 19? Just from a Cats perspective guys like Hopkins, Hillier, Rozzi would have been far more likely to report. It likely doesnt affect Americans like Cole Eiserman who were going to be part of USNDP anyway I think it would help the CHL, guys who can play in the Q at 17-17-18 instead of high school or Jr.A would play CHL, it would hurt the CIS as many high end guys not signed to NHL deals would jump to big NCAA programs. It wouldn't kill the CIS but would cost them a chunk of their top line guys to NCAA. It would hurt big NCAA Jr.A leagues like the BCJHL and USHL as they would directly compete with big CHL markets. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Feb 5, 2024 16:45:50 GMT -4
So graduating CHL would mean after 20 year old season or 19? Just from a Cats perspective guys like Hopkins, Hillier, Rozzi would have been far more likely to report. It likely doesnt affect Americans like Cole Eiserman who were going to be part of USNDP anyway I think it would help the CHL, guys who can play in the Q at 17-17-18 instead of high school or Jr.A would play CHL, it would hurt the CIS as many high end guys not signed to NHL deals would jump to big NCAA programs. It wouldn't kill the CIS but would cost them a chunk of their top line guys to NCAA. It would hurt big NCAA Jr.A leagues like the BCJHL and USHL as they would directly compete with big CHL markets. I think it could help and hurt the CHL - likely see the league get more high end young talent, but potentially lose some top end 19 and 20 year olds to NCAA. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Feb 5, 2024 17:46:59 GMT -4
I wonder what would happen with the draft rules if this were to happen.
Currently, NHL teams hold the rights of a player drafted from the CHL for a maximum of 2 years, and until normal graduation (usually 4 years) for a player in JrA/NCAA.
Another thought, I wonder if Hockey Canada is pushing hard for this, what with the BCHL leaving HC last year, and 5 AJHL teams joining them next year. This would kill the main draw that the BCHL has.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Feb 5, 2024 17:53:03 GMT -4
I wonder what this would do for the draft. CHL guys can pull the same move as the NCAA guys and play out their 4 years after being drafted and go to free agency. The problem now is that once you re-enter the draft after 2 years and get picked again, you run out of places to play before being able to get to FA because you’ll age out of the CHL.
If guys can now play out their 2 years, get drafted again and then go to the NCAA until you hit free agency, you might see guys starting to take advantage of that. There’s also the aspect of CHL teams losing guys at 19/20 to the NCAA, when those are really the ages you’re building for through the draft.
Great you might get a few 16/17 year olds to come instead of going to the BCHL but if you’re losing guys on the back end, is that really something you want? The quality of the league will decline and the NCAA might become that much more appealing.
The issue the Q has with the NCAA now is that their territory is a NCAA hot bed for players. I don’t see this helping them get those guys and if you’re only getting them before they hit their junior hockey prime, who cares if they come up anyways at 16/17? If it was simply they won’t lose their eligibility by staying longer than the current allowed time or playing in exhibition games, I think that’s a positive for the CHL. If this turns into the NCAA transfer portal, then I think it ruins a lot of teams.
I’d have to see the framework of how it would all shake out but my gut reaction is that I don’t like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 5, 2024 19:22:03 GMT -4
So graduating CHL would mean after 20 year old season or 19? I think it could help and hurt the CHL - likely see the league get more high end young talent, but potentially lose some top end 19 and 20 year olds to NCAA. There’s also the aspect of CHL teams losing guys at 19/ 20 to the NCAA, when those are really the ages you’re building for through the draft. Great you might get a few 16/17 year olds to come instead of going to the BCHL but if you’re losing guys on the back end, is that really something you want? The quality of the league will decline and the NCAA might become that much more appealing. From the little bit of digging I've done, it sounds like "graduating" is the key word to pay attention to. CHL players would only be eligible after their 19 year old season. The biggest impact it would have on the Q currently would be the quality of overagers playing in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 5, 2024 19:30:30 GMT -4
Just from a Cats perspective guys like Hopkins, Hillier, Rozzi would have been far more likely to report. It likely doesnt affect Americans like Cole Eiserman who were going to be part of USNDP anyway Yep. Those guys can come up for proper training camps, play preseason games, and make a more informed decision on whether the CHL is where they want to play from 16-19. In terms of the cream of the crop (Eiserman is a great example, as are Canadian guys like Fantilli, Celebrini), this likely doesn't change anything. Those guys still likely take the USHL route at 16, play as freshman in the NCAA at 17, then go to the show at 18/19. |
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 5, 2024 20:14:15 GMT -4
Also... I'd like to encourage all of us to take off our fan glasses for a second, whether its good for your team, whether it's good for the Q, whether it's good for the NHL draft - this change would be absolutely amazing for the players.
It gives them more options. It doesn't force their families to pick one of the forks in the road at the ages of 15/16. It allows them to properly pursue both their hockey and their education. The players who work hard at both only stand to benefit from this.
I'm thinking of a future where I could see a player play 4 years for the Mooseheads, be one of the league's top scholars, then move on to play another 4 years at Harvard or Cornell.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Feb 5, 2024 20:41:27 GMT -4
Also... I'd like to encourage all of us to take off our fan glasses for a second, whether its good for your team, whether it's good for the Q, whether it's good for the NHL draft - this change would be absolutely amazing for the players. It gives them more options. It doesn't force their families to pick one of the forks in the road at the ages of 15/16. It allows them to properly pursue both their hockey and their education. The players who work hard at both only stand to benefit from this. I'm thinking of a future where I could see a player play 4 years for the Mooseheads, be one of the league's top scholars, then move on to play another 4 years at Harvard or Cornell. Why do you think it’d be good for the players? The players aren’t forced to pick at 15/16, you can delay it until you’re 17/18/19 if you want to come to the CHL but still maintain NCAA eligibility. The options are laid out pretty clearly and any advisor worth their weight knows them. I’m of the opinion that unless you’re a 1st round pick or a kid with no chance of qualifying academically, you keep your options open. You don’t commit to the CHL at 16 because odds are you aren’t making the team and so much can change between 16/17. Too many kids rush to the CHL when the NCAA or a slower development route would be so much better for them. IMO it’s a benefit for those guys, who are maybe promised something burn their eligibility and never get a shot in the league but are now out of NCAA options. You’d be surprised how many young kids are convinced to burn their eligibility on the idea they’re making the team, then forced to go this route. Is turning the CHL/NCAA into leagues where players can freely move around and change their mind based on not liking a situation or thinking the grass is greener better for the players? Jumping from program to program, in my opinion isn’t great for development. It also doesn’t teach the value of commitment to these young men. That’s all too common in sports now. If you think a coach is giving you the short end of the stick, they just take their ball and go home. At some point, you need to buckle down and take responsibility. There’s an appeal of going to Harvard/Cornell or any other prestigious program but let’s not pretend like they’re going to 3rd rate schools in the CIS either. These guys have excellent academic options after their CHL days are over. It’s inevitable that it’s going to happen but I don’t think it’s all rosie for the players either. If we like the CHL, I think this is a big blow to their development model and longevity. |
|
|
|
Post by trueblue on Feb 5, 2024 22:13:59 GMT -4
Why do you think it’d be good for the players? The players aren’t forced to pick at 15/16, you can delay it until you’re 17/18/19 if you want to come to the CHL but still maintain NCAA eligibility. The options are laid out pretty clearly and any advisor worth their weight knows them. I’m of the opinion that unless you’re a 1st round pick or a kid with no chance of qualifying academically, you keep your options open. You don’t commit to the CHL at 16 because odds are you aren’t making the team and so much can change between 16/17. Too many kids rush to the CHL when the NCAA or a slower development route would be so much better for them. IMO it’s a benefit for those guys, who are maybe promised something burn their eligibility and never get a shot in the league but are now out of NCAA options. You’d be surprised how many young kids are convinced to burn their eligibility on the idea they’re making the team, then forced to go this route. I agree with a lot of what you say here, but still believe the additional option is a net good for the players. Now, if the conversation is whether we need to protect players/families/agents from themselves... that's a different story. There will always be ones who make poor decisions (in the name of "betting on themselves") no matter what the rules/guidelines/agreements are. These rules make that decision a little less catastrophic - all signing with a CHL team would mean for these players is you can't play your NCAA freshman year until 20. It gets me thinking in another hypothetical, the one of the prototypical late bloomer. You're drafted in the 5th or 6th round in the Q draft. Go to your first Q camp, slim chances of making the team. But: maybe you'll no longer lose NCAA eligibility for staying more than 48 hours, so you stay for a full week and get a little taste of the next level. You play your 16YO season at home, maybe go to prep school... and end up having a really good year. You sign on with a USHL team at 17, and during the season you start to catch the attention of NCAA schools. You make a commitment, but don't feel like you're ready for NCAA hockey at 18, and doubt you can earn much ice time even at 19 based on the team's current depth chart. You ring up the CHL team who drafted you, and sign on to play your 18YO and 19YO seasons in the Q. You've now played 4 years of age-appropriate, meaningful hockey and ready to play your first shift of NCAA D1 hockey as a 20-year old freshman. 4 years of college hockey takes you to 24, when you're ready to give it a go in minor pro or start properly looking for a desk job. I'm definitely not saying this is 100% how it will work, and this pathway might only occur once or twice in the first decade of the new rules. But the fact that it is even a possibility is in my eyes good (maybe even great) for the player. Is turning the CHL/NCAA into leagues where players can freely move around and change their mind based on not liking a situation or thinking the grass is greener better for the players? Jumping from program to program, in my opinion isn’t great for development. It also doesn’t teach the value of commitment to these young men. That’s all too common in sports now. If you think a coach is giving you the short end of the stick, they just take their ball and go home. At some point, you need to buckle down and take responsibility. We obviously don't have all the details, but it doesn't seem like "free movement" is what is being proposed here. It's a one-time graduation of CHL players to the NCAA after their 19 year old season. There’s an appeal of going to Harvard/Cornell or any other prestigious program but let’s not pretend like they’re going to 3rd rate schools in the CIS either. These guys have excellent academic options after their CHL days are over. It’s inevitable that it’s going to happen but I don’t think it’s all rosie for the players either. If we like the CHL, I think this is a big blow to their development model and longevity. Again, I completely agree with you here. Its why I like this so much, its not forcing the players in any given direction, its giving them more options. When the choice comes down to U of T, UBC, McGill or Dalhousie compared to Bemidji State, Canisus, or Merrimack... it's in the hands of the player, family and agent. As it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Feb 6, 2024 2:31:44 GMT -4
Why do you think it’d be good for the players? The players aren’t forced to pick at 15/16, you can delay it until you’re 17/18/19 if you want to come to the CHL but still maintain NCAA eligibility. The options are laid out pretty clearly and any advisor worth their weight knows them. I’m of the opinion that unless you’re a 1st round pick or a kid with no chance of qualifying academically, you keep your options open. You don’t commit to the CHL at 16 because odds are you aren’t making the team and so much can change between 16/17. Too many kids rush to the CHL when the NCAA or a slower development route would be so much better for them. IMO it’s a benefit for those guys, who are maybe promised something burn their eligibility and never get a shot in the league but are now out of NCAA options. You’d be surprised how many young kids are convinced to burn their eligibility on the idea they’re making the team, then forced to go this route. I agree with a lot of what you say here, but still believe the additional option is a net good for the players. Now, if the conversation is whether we need to protect players/families/agents from themselves... that's a different story. There will always be ones who make poor decisions (in the name of "betting on themselves") no matter what the rules/guidelines/agreements are. These rules make that decision a little less catastrophic - all signing with a CHL team would mean for these players is you can't play your NCAA freshman year until 20. It gets me thinking in another hypothetical, the one of the prototypical late bloomer. You're drafted in the 5th or 6th round in the Q draft. Go to your first Q camp, slim chances of making the team. But: maybe you'll no longer lose NCAA eligibility for staying more than 48 hours, so you stay for a full week and get a little taste of the next level. You play your 16YO season at home, maybe go to prep school... and end up having a really good year. You sign on with a USHL team at 17, and during the season you start to catch the attention of NCAA schools. You make a commitment, but don't feel like you're ready for NCAA hockey at 18, and doubt you can earn much ice time even at 19 based on the team's current depth chart. You ring up the CHL team who drafted you, and sign on to play your 18YO and 19YO seasons in the Q. You've now played 4 years of age-appropriate, meaningful hockey and ready to play your first shift of NCAA D1 hockey as a 20-year old freshman. 4 years of college hockey takes you to 24, when you're ready to give it a go in minor pro or start properly looking for a desk job. I'm definitely not saying this is 100% how it will work, and this pathway might only occur once or twice in the first decade of the new rules. But the fact that it is even a possibility is in my eyes good (maybe even great) for the player. Is turning the CHL/NCAA into leagues where players can freely move around and change their mind based on not liking a situation or thinking the grass is greener better for the players? Jumping from program to program, in my opinion isn’t great for development. It also doesn’t teach the value of commitment to these young men. That’s all too common in sports now. If you think a coach is giving you the short end of the stick, they just take their ball and go home. At some point, you need to buckle down and take responsibility. We obviously don't have all the details, but it doesn't seem like "free movement" is what is being proposed here. It's a one-time graduation of CHL players to the NCAA after their 19 year old season. There’s an appeal of going to Harvard/Cornell or any other prestigious program but let’s not pretend like they’re going to 3rd rate schools in the CIS either. These guys have excellent academic options after their CHL days are over. It’s inevitable that it’s going to happen but I don’t think it’s all rosie for the players either. If we like the CHL, I think this is a big blow to their development model and longevity. Again, I completely agree with you here. Its why I like this so much, its not forcing the players in any given direction, its giving them more options. When the choice comes down to U of T, UBC, McGill or Dalhousie compared to Bemidji State, Canisus, or Merrimack... it's in the hands of the player, family and agent. As it should be. Also keep in mind this is an NCAA decision. The CHL would have no say in the matter, if the NCAA decides that these players are eligible they could also decide that they can come right away and I’m really not sure what the CHL is going to be able to do to stop the players from leaving. Much like a player being able to leave the NCAA at any point to come to the CHL, I think the NCAA would allow a player to come to their league at any time. They could decide to play nice and not take those guys before they’re 20, since most guys entering the NCAA are 20 year olds anyways but there’s absolutely nothing stopping them from making this completely wide open if they want too. The only thing stopping them from doing it now, is their own rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on Feb 6, 2024 10:06:16 GMT -4
Again, I completely agree with you here. Its why I like this so much, its not forcing the players in any given direction, its giving them more options. When the choice comes down to U of T, UBC, McGill or Dalhousie compared to Bemidji State, Canisus, or Merrimack... it's in the hands of the player, family and agent. As it should be. I think this is the key. According to hockeydb, 513 players have dressed a game for the Mooseheads. 37 have played in the NHL. Those other 470-someodd players end up with more choices for life after the Q, including a chance to play in a higher tier college program while getting a decent education. Might be huge for guys who end up being a bit of a late bloomer |
|
|
|
Post by Mika on Feb 7, 2024 9:40:23 GMT -4
It'll be interesting to see how things are implemented with this. I'm not against it. Realistically making the NHL is like winning the lottery. You have CHL, NCAA, USHL, KHL; there's leagues in Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czechia, Slovakia, Latvia, leagues pretty much everywhere.
Giving players a solid option to keep playing and get an education in the States is definitely a good thing. I know if I was a Q player, I'd love to have the option to go from Q to NCAA. Good education and a big spotlight for scouts? It's a win-win for the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Feb 7, 2024 18:21:57 GMT -4
The only thing that I don't like about this.....is the affect that it will have on the CIS.
The AUS has been such a strong, competitive league for years...with such talented players from all around Canada......and I worry that this move will really hurt the league.
|
|
