Tciso wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 11:30 am
UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:25 am
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:11 pm
If these star kids all join the NCAA and band together to stay 4 years and become UFA they could play havoc with the entry draft. It’s a loophole the NHL needs to close before it becomes a problem. What star kids wants to toil for bottom feeders.
I don't understand how this is an NCAA specific loophole. Europeans are sign in 4 years or free agents. If a drafted CHL player doesn't sign in two years, he's back in the draft if age eligible, free agent if not. No CHL player is eligible for more than two drafts because they'd age out. I.e., they are all free agents in 4 years.
The loophole is mitigated for "stars" -- if another team signs a first rounder once they are free agent eligible, the original drafting team gets a 2d.
The NCAA is the only developmental league that you can play in passed age 20 that doesn't require an NHL contract, and has turned out a fair number of NHLers. If the NCAA allows atheletes to earn endoresement $$, it sure makes it attrtactive to a lot more potential NHLers. Free education, decent money, a college degree, and free agent status. It could attract a lot higher caliber of prospects. Higher than McWard, Hirose or Calligula.
The change in terms of the NCAA "allowing" endorsement (name, image, likeness revenue) wasn't its choice, but the result of a lawsuit. The NCAA previously banned CHL players because they weren't considered amateurs -- (USHL and Canadian Junior A did have amateur status according to the NCAA). That pro/amateur line was always silly -- its not like the CHL players make real money -- but it became a really silly line once there were court challenges to the NCAA's rules prohibiting name, image, and likeness revenue. So they've now changed their definition of amateur.
And I think this will change the CHL somewhat -- but I don't think there will be a "loophole" effect in the NHL to any significant degree.
Previously, because of the no "pro" rule, Canadians had to make up their mind about playing in the NCAA when they were considering entering CHL drafts -- what age is that 15? 16? (I guess you can choose each year). Most were pleased as punch to by drafted in the CHL -- but some players who were regarded prospects in minor hockey had the foresight to understand that playing junior A and keeping NCAA eligibility may be better. Kyle Turris and Dany Heatly come to mind. And of course Macklin Celebrini, who played in the USHL despite being the #1 overall pick in the WHL draft at a time *before* the NCAA changed its rules. Some European players also made that calculus when considering whether to enter CHL drafts. Point is, that the NCAA wasn't just Hiroses and McWards. Most of the best American prospects go this route, and not a small percentage of Canadians -- some by design, and some because their CHL stock at 15 was low but by 17 they might have real NHL potential and the NCAA/CHL choice isn't as abstract; the NCAA option being around the corner.
Its strange -- if the NCAA had simply considered the CHL players as amateurs -- as the CHL considers them -- whatever change will happen to the CHL would have been happening for a long time. Endorsement money is not going to be huge for college kids -- it will be something, for sure -- but the barrier to the NCAA for CHL players has not been the lack of an "endorsement" carrot, but a straight up prohibition. Most Division 1 NCAA programs have tremendous facilities, training programs, and excellent hockey. The education carrot was always there. I've done the math in another post -- from a value perspective, the NCAA certainly competes with playing in the AHL on an AHL salary capped ELC.
For development, more Canadians starred in the CHL, to be sure, but a lot of that sick display of skill was against boys. The better the prospect, the more the marginal value of development declines by remaining in the CHL. There is less to solve, the challenge decreases. Contrast this with the NCAA. It has a lot of guys who went through european juniors or Junior A -- and while they may not have been NHL prospects, these 21 year old freshman are a heck of a lot more developed than the 16-17 year olds in the CHL with more future potential that CHL NHL prospects feast on when they get a favorable match up. (Point being, the depth of NCAA rosters is very strong, and made up of men not boys, and it presents a real challenge for first round caliber 18 year olds).
You can say that the NCAA is the only developmental league, etc., but I think that's an uninteresting definitional point. The NCAA is not just a developmental league -- it is an apex league for many non NHL prospects; the non-junior european leagues aren't "developmental" but players can develop in them -- because high quality 18/19/20 year olds are good enough to play for them -- especially teams in the second division. And so the european players have always been on par with the NCAA players in terms of 4 years to free agency after draft (though teams could sign and loan, which they can't do with the NCAA players).
But while this may change the shape of the CHL with more drafted players moving to the NCAA for a year or two, I don't think it means many more players are going to use all of their eligibility to run out the clock on the team who drafted them. First, a player drafted from the CHL who moves to the NCAA before their junior eligibility expires has the NCAA rules apply to them -- they are treated as if they were drafted from the NCAA (or from the USHL or junior A or minor and when to the NCAA). Second, it just isn't very common for NCAA prospects that a drafting team really wants to sign to take on the "loophole." Adam Fox (who merely threatened). RJ Umberger. Justin Schultz. Those are three guys who were likely NHL ready before their 4 years expired (Umberger had to wait one more based on the CBA in place at the time -- he really didn't want to play for the Canucks....) That's 3 players in the past 25 years--and maybe Schultz doesn't quite belong because I am not sure that playing through his college eligibility really delayed his entry into the NHL.
I am sure I am forgetting many, but I don't think its as many as one a year, and the actual number doesn't change the point is that it is rare for a player who is a more highly regarded prospect who goes to the NCAA to not sign with the drafting team. Usually, those who are drafted and use all of their eligibility do so when it isn't clear to them that they are going to make the NHL any sooner (and so you aren't really losing a top prospect, generally speaking)--maybe they were ready to come out after 2 years and didn't get the response from the club they wanted. Teams don't dick around with top prospects (usually), and top prospects can play in the NHL with 4 years of getting drafted.
I think the NCAA opening its doors to CHL players will be bad for the CHL, good for the NCAA, and pretty good for the NHL. We all know of players that aren't ready for the NHL but would be better served developing in the AHL for a year but can't because of the NHL's agreement with the CHL. Now there's another option for the team and player to discuss -- how about the NCAA? Consider Anthony Romani. I'd be curious if the Canucks had those conversations with him/his family/advisors. Crafty playmaker type who takes advantage of breakdowns and counter attacks but who also has many question marks (which is why he was a 6th rounder) -- can he stand up to players with more experience playing a (typically) more structured more conservative game? Now we can find out -- he's going to a very competitive Michigan State program -- and the Canucks get a little more time to evaluate before the sign/no sign decision. Seems like a better situation for the player, for the Canucks, and for the NCAA.
