yes no question... will allow the best to play the best. Not sure how anyone could be agsint this. Youre taking choices from a teenager. They dont care if it its defined as "pro" or not... they just chasing a dream regardless of how some boomer defines it.
This is where I'm at with this. I think only a relatively few players would take advantage of any rule changes. They play a 68 game season plus playoffs. I don't see much time for studying with that schedule and a lot of the players aren't geared towards academics in the first place.
Can't speak for all the league's but my brother was a billet dad for the western league and my understanding was that 100% of the roster would have had the grades to play NCAA. The team was healthy scratching players if they didn't maintain their grades. That could be an isolated incident but I imagine that if they opened up the NCAA route then the players that had the opportunity to go that route would get there grades in order and it would pretty much be a non issue.
A common misconception about the NCAA and a lot of parents and players don't realize is that 99% NCAA scholariship is for ONE year NOT FOUR. You have to renew the scholarship every year. If you have a bad year or get hurt there is a big chance you could lose some or all of your scholarship. You will still be on the team but have to pay 100% of all academic expenses. A lot of those guys end up back in U sports because it is almost 1/4 of the cost. There are 2 or 3 on the majority of U sports teams. There are VERY FEW 4 year scholarships but those are given to guys who are going to be top NHL draft picks at 15 before their CHL draft. It's pretty much saying "we know the NHL will come calling but you are always welcome on this team free of charge". NCAA hockey is only allowed to give 18 scholarships (in total which can be split among the team). Do the math... on a roster of 30+ players, not everyone is on a free ride.. some players even have to pay full tuition! My teammate from Jr. A got a full ride scholarship to Merrimack for his 1st year. He had a down year and his scholarship got reduced to 50% (had to pay $20,000). The coach leaves after his 2nd year and the new coach cuts a bunch of guys, including him, to bring in his own guys. Now he's out all the student athlete services and on the hook for full tuition and expenses (over $50,000) if he stayed at Merrimack. He ended up transfering to U Sports.
You are correct that it is for 1 year but schools often keep their word and provide the scholarship for the duration they are there unless something major happens because if not it affects their reputation. It was like this before the transfer rules were changed, we may see differences now since the situation drastically changed.
@@ahadvising8 It happens too often for my comfort. We always had 1 or 2 guys every year join from NCAA. Coach would find these guys and convince them to switch to USports instead of going thru the NCAA transfer process
I think in the 50s and 60s you could play NCAA and CHL. Only example I know is Michigan coach Red Berenson who played in 2 Mem Cup with Regina before playing at Michigan. As someone who played U Sports (when it was CIS), our squad was a revolving door more so because guys would use their CHL academic package and pad their stats so they could sign a bigger contract in the minors or Europe. It was less so about the academics, althought there were those issues as well.
@@ahadvising8 I would say the top academic school in Canada (UofT, McGill, Queens, etc.) are similar to NCAA. Those players are mostly for there all 4-5 years and are there to get their degrees and are stronger academically. It's the middle to lower tier universities academically, like my school, where the mindset is different. My teammate is at McGill for his PhD and finished his 5th year of eligibity in his first year, said that the attitude around school was pretty much a 180 from our undergrad team.
Academics doesn’t stop football players from attending. Hockey players only need last one or two years then play pro. They do that now. FB can’t get drafted till 3rd year academically.
Interesting idea, i think there is not a chance they do this but 2 variants I could see are a) they only let American players play chl then ncaa or they let only 1-3 chl players per team
@@ahadvising8 definitely I think the main factor I that the governing bodies want their junior a leagues to stay competitive and don't want Jr a players flocking to major Jr. Spitting chicklets had a good convo about this with coach Carle from Denver U. He said that the ncaa wants to add 10 more d1 programs.
Yes, we recommend they stay in school to advance their studies part-time in those last few years so that they don't forget how to be a student and don't fall behind.
Guys saying that all the players are getting pushed down to lower american college hockey and just ignoring the fact that the canadians that are getting pushed out of D1 or D3 are gonna go to the new open spots in Usports so D3 and ACHA will change a little but not that much
You've ignored 1 big fact here! Over-sea's eligable players are taking more spots at NCAA more then ever. And its unfair as hell that the very qualified hockey and book smart Canadian players are disqualified to be apart of the NCAA league because of a league they are developing in from ages 16.5 to 18.5 instead? Thats BS. How about all Chekz, Swedes and Finnish players that play in their junior elite leagues be auto disqualified NCAA too just for the hell of it?
I feel this is so wrong. The tiers as you said will be affected and there are kids who decided to avoid the CHL to go the NCAA route but now will be competing against kids who have had better competition and ice time than they would have. The tier 2 kids are the ones who will be significantly affected by this. The CHL grad who spends 4 years there and has been looked at by NHL teams and has had the best coaching, training, exposure in the world, now gets to walk in and get the same thing in the NCAA meanwhile the kid who develops later and doesn’t have the CHL in his resume but has fought his way through the tier 2 grind steps in the ice and it doesn’t matter if he is as good as the CHL kid, his resume pales in comparison and coaches see that. It really is unfair. The NCAA has an amazing product, and produce as many pro players or more than the CHL. Why would they want to bring more players in. It makes no sense. You play your 4 years in CHL and have a free Canadian university education which is as good as anywhere in the world. It really doesn’t make sense. I pray it doesn’t pass. It will really affect goaltenders even more.
Not sure its fair to discriminate against major junior kids just because they were good enough to make the CHL. If they have the grades, why not let them in? The top Jnr A kids will still get spots.
@@richcathiejames1328 They won the race early and got the best of coaching and exposure. It flaunts in the face of the kid who chose tier 2 who then gets to lose his spot all over again to the same kid. Discrimination implies that the CHL kids are hard done by. They are not. But the benefits they get far outweigh what the tier 2 kids get and then they get them again and beyond when they hit the NCAA. You chose your path and you get a free degree out of it from a top university. You can still play pro hockey and such if you were not drafted. Why derail an entire system meant to feed the NCAA. It's wrong.
@@timboville1751 Respectfully, your argument is an emotional one that makes no sense. In what other industry are the most talented people denied opportunities because they are considered more skilled? How can you view this as anything but discrimination? Also, There are a ton of USA / CDN kids in Tier 2 or Junior A that 100% could / would play CHL if their eligibility was not at risk --- what about them? This move would benefit the overall quality of College hockey, not diminish it.
@richcathiejames1328 I disagree whole heartedly. The premise here is that you created a certain set of conditions that people made decisions by and then you decide to change the goal posts to eat your cake too. That's not how business works. You can't even compare this to running a business. This is a very finite amount of jobs and you are about to add a pool of candidates that may not be higher skill per se but their resumes are better and they have access to better training and competition. And there are enough of the fill every position. Who gets picked. You are arguing from a point of contention and you want to move the goal posts. You can do that without crashing the system. Like it can't be more clear unless your son is in the CHL. You mentioned expansion, that's not how the NCAA works. Demand does not dictate expansion. At least demand from the players. There is something patently wrong with this and it speaks of the rich getting richer and the kids who decided to make cmdecisions on a different rule set who get bumped down continually even though they are as good as the CHL player. If you honestly think that Michigan or Boston College are the ones driving this, think again. This is a couple of small market schools trying to get better prospects without spending money on scouting to bring guys here. The CHL kids get their 4 years of school at top universities and access to tje pro draft and more. What else do you want. Like it's border line ridiculous.
@@timboville1751 Well, we can agree to disagree then. If you want to argue that USA schools should save the majority of spots for US kids, then I understand that. If you want to argue that it threatens the viability of lots of "for profit" hockey programs that depend on T2 / Jr A kids for their $$$, I understand that. If you want to argue the top schools don't want this because they already get the best T2 / Jnr A kids anyways and want to maintain their dominant position over smaller schools with less recruiting capital, I get that. But you can't tell me that allowing CHL kids would not make the entire college hockey program better nor can you argue it is not discriminatory to keep CHL kids out of the league IF they meet the academic standards that the NCAA has specified (but are barred because of dubious criteria created decades ago that deems CHL kids as professionals). You can also not tell me that their would not be plenty of interest from USA kids to play in the CHL and (significantly) benefit from the better competition in that league.
Why would the coaches not want access to large pool of kids who are arguably (much) more skilled than Jnr A players? College hockey would become better and the increase in the number of kids *should* fuel expansion. If the CHL have the academic credentials, why not let them in --- it feels like CHL kids are being discriminated against for dubious reasons.
NCAA hockey is at its peak now and is producing more players in the NHL than the CHL combined. It doesn't need anymore help. Zero discrimination happening. You chose your path and now you want to eat your cake too. Its like you're spitting in the face of all those kids who chose the other path.
The ECHL would lose out on undrafted CHL overagers making thier teams. If they are smart enough to attend NCAA for 4 years as a 21 year old rookie hockey player with 4 years of CHL experience then NCAA benefits greatly!
You had your cake with a 4 year crack at pro and now you want to eat it too with another 4 year run at NCAA. The ECHL just like the FED will always find the players they need. Pro feeders doesn't matter. What you and all the other folks here are worried about is the secondary chance at pro hockey. Like it's a shame that usports gets shit in so much. Like this is a joke.
Do you think this should happen?
no
yes no question... will allow the best to play the best. Not sure how anyone could be agsint this. Youre taking choices from a teenager. They dont care if it its defined as "pro" or not... they just chasing a dream regardless of how some boomer defines it.
You made some valid points... playing the number of games in the CHL while maintaining an NCAA grade point average is only for a few.
This is where I'm at with this. I think only a relatively few players would take advantage of any rule changes. They play a 68 game season plus playoffs. I don't see much time for studying with that schedule and a lot of the players aren't geared towards academics in the first place.
Can't speak for all the league's but my brother was a billet dad for the western league and my understanding was that 100% of the roster would have had the grades to play NCAA. The team was healthy scratching players if they didn't maintain their grades. That could be an isolated incident but I imagine that if they opened up the NCAA route then the players that had the opportunity to go that route would get there grades in order and it would pretty much be a non issue.
This doesn’t stop dumb football players from playing at USC or Mich, ND which are none for rigorous academics. Plus many CHL players go onto USports
A common misconception about the NCAA and a lot of parents and players don't realize is that 99% NCAA scholariship is for ONE year NOT FOUR. You have to renew the scholarship every year. If you have a bad year or get hurt there is a big chance you could lose some or all of your scholarship. You will still be on the team but have to pay 100% of all academic expenses. A lot of those guys end up back in U sports because it is almost 1/4 of the cost. There are 2 or 3 on the majority of U sports teams.
There are VERY FEW 4 year scholarships but those are given to guys who are going to be top NHL draft picks at 15 before their CHL draft. It's pretty much saying "we know the NHL will come calling but you are always welcome on this team free of charge".
NCAA hockey is only allowed to give 18 scholarships (in total which can be split among the team). Do the math... on a roster of 30+ players, not everyone is on a free ride.. some players even have to pay full tuition!
My teammate from Jr. A got a full ride scholarship to Merrimack for his 1st year. He had a down year and his scholarship got reduced to 50% (had to pay $20,000). The coach leaves after his 2nd year and the new coach cuts a bunch of guys, including him, to bring in his own guys. Now he's out all the student athlete services and on the hook for full tuition and expenses (over $50,000) if he stayed at Merrimack. He ended up transfering to U Sports.
You are correct that it is for 1 year but schools often keep their word and provide the scholarship for the duration they are there unless something major happens because if not it affects their reputation. It was like this before the transfer rules were changed, we may see differences now since the situation drastically changed.
@@ahadvising8 It happens too often for my comfort. We always had 1 or 2 guys every year join from NCAA. Coach would find these guys and convince them to switch to USports instead of going thru the NCAA transfer process
I think in the 50s and 60s you could play NCAA and CHL. Only example I know is Michigan coach Red Berenson who played in 2 Mem Cup with Regina before playing at Michigan.
As someone who played U Sports (when it was CIS), our squad was a revolving door more so because guys would use their CHL academic package and pad their stats so they could sign a bigger contract in the minors or Europe. It was less so about the academics, althought there were those issues as well.
yes, usports is very strong but it's not the same mindset as NCAA.
@@ahadvising8 I would say the top academic school in Canada (UofT, McGill, Queens, etc.) are similar to NCAA. Those players are mostly for there all 4-5 years and are there to get their degrees and are stronger academically.
It's the middle to lower tier universities academically, like my school, where the mindset is different. My teammate is at McGill for his PhD and finished his 5th year of eligibity in his first year, said that the attitude around school was pretty much a 180 from our undergrad team.
Academics doesn’t stop football players from attending. Hockey players only need last one or two years then play pro. They do that now. FB can’t get drafted till 3rd year academically.
Interesting idea, i think there is not a chance they do this but 2 variants I could see are a) they only let American players play chl then ncaa or they let only 1-3 chl players per team
There are many factors that need to be looked at for this.
@@ahadvising8 definitely I think the main factor I that the governing bodies want their junior a leagues to stay competitive and don't want Jr a players flocking to major Jr. Spitting chicklets had a good convo about this with coach Carle from Denver U. He said that the ncaa wants to add 10 more d1 programs.
If the ncaa school start adding hockey this would make sense
They would need to expand the league forsure
Division 1. Will grow aswell
Not going to happen it’s only a few small D1 programs that want it! The big schools don’t need it! 2:36
yes I agree it should not happen.
Wait junior players can be 19-20 right? They ain’t in school anymore unless junior college or technical school.
Yes, we recommend they stay in school to advance their studies part-time in those last few years so that they don't forget how to be a student and don't fall behind.
Guys saying that all the players are getting pushed down to lower american college hockey and just ignoring the fact that the canadians that are getting pushed out of D1 or D3 are gonna go to the new open spots in Usports so D3 and ACHA will change a little but not that much
They may as well cuz FB gets NIL so why care about stipend? I think BBall get too or all athletes get NIL.
All athletes can but only major names get them, many hockey players don't have NIL deals as they aren't big enough on social media.
You've ignored 1 big fact here! Over-sea's eligable players are taking more spots at NCAA more then ever. And its unfair as hell that the very qualified hockey and book smart Canadian players are disqualified to be apart of the NCAA league because of a league they are developing in from ages 16.5 to 18.5 instead? Thats BS. How about all Chekz, Swedes and Finnish players that play in their junior elite leagues be auto disqualified NCAA too just for the hell of it?
those junior leagues arent pro
@@liammonaghan4785 Either are the European leagues or they wouldnt fly over here. whats you point?
its a choice to make, if you are properly educated on it before making the decision then you made your choice and should continue down that path.
This going be bad for USHL, NAHL, BCHL, AJHL etc etc unless play challenge matches against CHL.
USHL is equivalent to the CHL.
@@ahadvising8 I don’t know about that. Has there ever been matches between leagues? I’d like see OHL champ play USHL champ
I feel this is so wrong. The tiers as you said will be affected and there are kids who decided to avoid the CHL to go the NCAA route but now will be competing against kids who have had better competition and ice time than they would have. The tier 2 kids are the ones who will be significantly affected by this. The CHL grad who spends 4 years there and has been looked at by NHL teams and has had the best coaching, training, exposure in the world, now gets to walk in and get the same thing in the NCAA meanwhile the kid who develops later and doesn’t have the CHL in his resume but has fought his way through the tier 2 grind steps in the ice and it doesn’t matter if he is as good as the CHL kid, his resume pales in comparison and coaches see that. It really is unfair. The NCAA has an amazing product, and produce as many pro players or more than the CHL. Why would they want to bring more players in. It makes no sense. You play your 4 years in CHL and have a free Canadian university education which is as good as anywhere in the world. It really doesn’t make sense. I pray it doesn’t pass. It will really affect goaltenders even more.
Not sure its fair to discriminate against major junior kids just because they were good enough to make the CHL. If they have the grades, why not let them in? The top Jnr A kids will still get spots.
@@richcathiejames1328 They won the race early and got the best of coaching and exposure. It flaunts in the face of the kid who chose tier 2 who then gets to lose his spot all over again to the same kid. Discrimination implies that the CHL kids are hard done by. They are not. But the benefits they get far outweigh what the tier 2 kids get and then they get them again and beyond when they hit the NCAA. You chose your path and you get a free degree out of it from a top university. You can still play pro hockey and such if you were not drafted. Why derail an entire system meant to feed the NCAA. It's wrong.
@@timboville1751 Respectfully, your argument is an emotional one that makes no sense. In what other industry are the most talented people denied opportunities because they are considered more skilled? How can you view this as anything but discrimination? Also, There are a ton of USA / CDN kids in Tier 2 or Junior A that 100% could / would play CHL if their eligibility was not at risk --- what about them? This move would benefit the overall quality of College hockey, not diminish it.
@richcathiejames1328 I disagree whole heartedly. The premise here is that you created a certain set of conditions that people made decisions by and then you decide to change the goal posts to eat your cake too. That's not how business works. You can't even compare this to running a business. This is a very finite amount of jobs and you are about to add a pool of candidates that may not be higher skill per se but their resumes are better and they have access to better training and competition. And there are enough of the fill every position. Who gets picked. You are arguing from a point of contention and you want to move the goal posts. You can do that without crashing the system. Like it can't be more clear unless your son is in the CHL. You mentioned expansion, that's not how the NCAA works. Demand does not dictate expansion. At least demand from the players. There is something patently wrong with this and it speaks of the rich getting richer and the kids who decided to make cmdecisions on a different rule set who get bumped down continually even though they are as good as the CHL player. If you honestly think that Michigan or Boston College are the ones driving this, think again. This is a couple of small market schools trying to get better prospects without spending money on scouting to bring guys here. The CHL kids get their 4 years of school at top universities and access to tje pro draft and more. What else do you want. Like it's border line ridiculous.
@@timboville1751 Well, we can agree to disagree then. If you want to argue that USA schools should save the majority of spots for US kids, then I understand that. If you want to argue that it threatens the viability of lots of "for profit" hockey programs that depend on T2 / Jr A kids for their $$$, I understand that. If you want to argue the top schools don't want this because they already get the best T2 / Jnr A kids anyways and want to maintain their dominant position over smaller schools with less recruiting capital, I get that. But you can't tell me that allowing CHL kids would not make the entire college hockey program better nor can you argue it is not discriminatory to keep CHL kids out of the league IF they meet the academic standards that the NCAA has specified (but are barred because of dubious criteria created decades ago that deems CHL kids as professionals). You can also not tell me that their would not be plenty of interest from USA kids to play in the CHL and (significantly) benefit from the better competition in that league.
Book a 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗨𝗟𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 with an AHA advisor: ahadvising.com/
Terrible idea
Why would the coaches not want access to large pool of kids who are arguably (much) more skilled than Jnr A players? College hockey would become better and the increase in the number of kids *should* fuel expansion. If the CHL have the academic credentials, why not let them in --- it feels like CHL kids are being discriminated against for dubious reasons.
NCAA hockey is at its peak now and is producing more players in the NHL than the CHL combined. It doesn't need anymore help. Zero discrimination happening. You chose your path and now you want to eat your cake too. Its like you're spitting in the face of all those kids who chose the other path.
@@timboville1751 Factually in accurate in 2023, 2020, 2017, 2005, etc. about who produces what in the NHL from NCAA
The ECHL would lose out on undrafted CHL overagers making thier teams. If they are smart enough to attend NCAA for 4 years as a 21 year old rookie hockey player with 4 years of CHL experience then NCAA benefits greatly!
You had your cake with a 4 year crack at pro and now you want to eat it too with another 4 year run at NCAA. The ECHL just like the FED will always find the players they need. Pro feeders doesn't matter. What you and all the other folks here are worried about is the secondary chance at pro hockey. Like it's a shame that usports gets shit in so much. Like this is a joke.
It would be different those chl guys would try to go ncaa and the left overs would still try to go play ECHL.
Or the ECHL will just be older players who not make NHL or AHL. Not everyone from NCAA makes it.