Canadian Jr (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) players will be allowed in NCAA

[JoeSchmoe]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

I worked for a D1 program. We had one 21 year old freshman during my time. It depends on the school, but to say that it is that high of a percentage is crazy. And he’ll, some teams that used to target those guys (actually Maine is a very good example of that), they’ve changed (not Maine this time).

Maybe it was like that in your day, but its not now. I went to 12 different D1 team's elite prospects pages... Half good teams, half lower teams. 2006's don't exist unless they're drafted or going to be drafted (late bday). Undrafted 2005's are few and far between as well. Like I said... Try Google'ing U of Denver Elite Prospects, Mercyhurst Elite Prospects, Ohio State Elite Prospects, etc and see for yourself.

Unfortunately it's a man's game now. If you want to play D1 hockey, and you're not eventually playing pro, you better be prepared to take 2 gap years outta high school to do so.

[shrader]

29 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Maybe it was like that in your day, but its not now. I went to 12 different D1 team's elite prospects pages... Half good teams, half lower teams. 2006's don't exist unless they're drafted or going to be drafted (late bday). Undrafted 2005's are few and far between as well. Like I said... Try Google'ing U of Denver Elite Prospects, Mercyhurst Elite Prospects, Ohio State Elite Prospects, etc and see for yourself.

Unfortunately it's a man's game now. If you want to play D1 hockey, and you're not eventually playing pro, you better be prepared to take 2 gap years outta high school to do so.

That’s all well and good, but to say that it’s most of freshman after you’ve said to ignore a good number of freshman. It reminds me of an argument around here years ago where someone tried to argue that Drew Stanford doesn’t score as much in games where he doesn’t score. 
 

Bu the way, you keep listing teams who have been notorious for recruiting older. 

[JoeSchmoe]

39 minutes ago, shrader said:

That’s all well and good, but to say that it’s most of freshman after you’ve said to ignore a good number of freshman. It reminds me of an argument around here years ago where someone tried to argue that Drew Stanford doesn’t score as much in games where he doesn’t score. 
 

Bu the way, you keep listing teams who have been notorious for recruiting older. 

Checking my history, here's the teams I looked at. Most teams don't have a 2006. Those few that do are are all drafted or about to be. 2005's are also few and far between. As such, a tiny % of kids in NCAA are 18. And 19 year olds are rare too. 1999-2002's on the other hand are very well represented.

Denver

Niagara

Ohio State

Mercyhurst 

Penn State

RPI

RIT

Canisius 

Boston College

Boston University 

UMass

Minn

Minn St

St Cloud

Maine

[JoeSchmoe]

The BCHL exodus has started... as predicted.

https://www.theprogress.com/sports/chilliwack-chiefs-hit-with-player-departures-following-new-ncaa-rules-7659248

 

[Brawndo]

Haeden Ellis, yes Matt’s Son, is a Northeastern Commitment who was playing this season for Cedar Rapids in the USHL, he just signed with the Kitchener Rangers of the OHL this week.

[JoeSchmoe]

8 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Haeden Ellis, yes Matt’s Son, is a Northeastern Commitment who was playing this season for Cedar Rapids in the USHL, he just signed with the Kitchener Rangers of the OHL this week.

My son's friend is coming back from BC to the O now too. Tier 2 Junior will never be the same again. USHL will probably take a huge hit as well.

[#freejame]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

My son's friend is coming back from BC to the O now too. Tier 2 Junior will never be the same again. USHL will probably take a huge hit as well.

I think there’s going to be a reshuffling and decline, but in ten years time the US will have a stronger junior program than it does now. 

[shrader]

3 hours ago, #freejame said:

I think there’s going to be a reshuffling and decline, but in ten years time the US will have a stronger junior program than it does now. 

A fourth league could help balance out the Memorial Cup. I’m. It sure how many hurdles they might have to ever get on the same page with the CHL. 

[Mango]

On 11/7/2024 at 3:29 PM, shrader said:

 CHL players have contracts. They probably can’t just leave like that, particularly those 17-19 year olds you are getting at. If they are able to do that, I’d imagine that the rights still revert back to the CHL team if the player then wants to leave immediately for the NHL. 
 

Also, I can’t imagine may schools would want to or even be able to take a guy for part of a season… and not the important part of the season (the end of it). 
 

This change is going to be a much bigger thing for the guys who have aged out of juniors. 

It seems like common sense should prevail here. It is insane to me that we can’t let a 17 year old go to college because they’re under contract to play hockey. 

[shrader]

6 hours ago, Mango said:

It seems like common sense should prevail here. It is insane to me that we can’t let a 17 year old go to college because they’re under contract to play hockey. 

common sense isn’t really a standard when it comes to contracts though. But I wasn’t talking about going to college. They can do that right away if they want. Depending on their age, the transfer agreement may still block them from then moving onto the NHL right away (to get into the AHL earlier). 

Edited November 24 by shrader

[JoeSchmoe]

4 hours ago, #freejame said:

I think there’s going to be a reshuffling and decline, but in ten years time the US will have a stronger junior program than it does now. 

I think it's more likely the CHL now expands further into the US and the USHL takes a back seat... It's just a more established league.

As someone who's son just went through it all (and played with and against the top NA kids that are going to be drafted this year and next) I see major red flags for the US program. 

Here in Canada, elite hockey has an issue that it's only for the upper middle class... But in the US, it's way beyond that. It's almost all UPPER class kids that are at the top levels.

The top US minor hockey team budgets are crazy. Most teams don't play in a regular loop, instead they fly to tournaments around NA on the weekends. Many of the US kids my son has met along they way are next level rich. Trust fund kids.

Most Canadian AAA teams don't need to drive more than an hour or two to see the best competition. It's still expensive as hell, but a two income household can usually get by and scrape up enough $ to let their kids play AAA. In the US... Not so much.

[Taro T]

6 hours ago, #freejame said:

I think there’s going to be a reshuffling and decline, but in ten years time the US will have a stronger junior program than it does now. 

Will be very interesting to see how it plays out.  And this prediction could be correct.  But personally don't see that happening as this change seems like it will favor the current "haves" at the expense of lower leagues.  Currently, the lower tiers (both Canadian and American) can get kids that want to end up going to US college on scholarship but aren't quite there (typically due to age but sometimes due to being a late bloomer) as they've been shut out of the CHL by the NCAA.  Now, those kids can play in the CHL without effecting their NCAA eligibility.  So, personally expect those lower tiers will see a bit of a talent defection rather than an infusion of talent.

Kind of like how with all the consolidation of the big NCAA conferences and the football playoff there is more money than ever in college football but it seems to be going more and more to the dozen / couple of dozen programs at the very top.  (The odd Indiana story not withstanding.  Would be very surprised if they manage to be in the top 10 again moving forward as the coach won't get to bring a whole lot of transfers along with himself again.  Though maybe his eye for HS talent that should be but aren't recruited by the big boys will be sustainable.  Will be interesting to watch play out either way.)

And apologies if your comment was directed to the US National Team and not the 17-20 yo hockey landscape in general.  Expecting that will remain strong as the ADM does seem to be effective at least for the upper echelon players.

[#freejame]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I think it's more likely the CHL now expands further into the US and the USHL takes a back seat... It's just a more established league.

As someone who's son just went through it all (and played with and against the top NA kids that are going to be drafted this year and next) I see major red flags for the US program. 

Here in Canada, elite hockey has an issue that it's only for the upper middle class... But in the US, it's way beyond that. It's almost all UPPER class kids that are at the top levels.

The top US minor hockey team budgets are crazy. Most teams don't play in a regular loop, instead they fly to tournaments around NA on the weekends. Many of the US kids my son has met along they way are next level rich. Trust fund kids.

Most Canadian AAA teams don't need to drive more than an hour or two to see the best competition. It's still expensive as hell, but a two income household can usually get by and scrape up enough $ to let their kids play AAA. In the US... Not so much.

This very well might be the case, I’m just of the opinion that hockey in the US will be better in the long run from this. Good insight on youth hockey as well. 

[#freejame]

Want to expand on my last post a bit. A number of things, including the new CHL rules, will impact hockey in the US over the next decade. 

Just as a matter of fact, hockey in the US should continue to get better, because that’s what happens with sports in general. Outside of that, I think with all of the court cases we’ve seen regarding the NCAA, I think we’re going to see a weakening of Title IX in some respects, mainly the rules regarding equal numbers of sports and scholarships. 

This should have an impact in a couple of ways. One, we’ll see new programs in places that aren’t considered hockey hot beds (think of Arizonas program or what they’re working on down at Bama). More teams will lead to more rinks which will lead to more youth programs, particularly programs similar to the Jr. Purple Eagles who operate a hockey league as well as travel teams.

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more money coming in to broadcasts from Canada as well. A larger TV contract due to a larger international audience could impact youth participation as well. 

I think at the high levels, what @Taro T and @JoeSchmoe are talking about might hold true. I don’t necessarily think the USHL will grow and improve, but hockey in the States should see an uptick in participation, which could in turn give a boost to the USHL. It could also strengthen the NAHL.

I think there’s a lot of kids/young adults/parents who want to see their kid having fun playing hockey for as long as possible at the highest level possible. We will likely see a shift in demographics over the next few years with Canadians coming down, but USA Hockey has taken too many strides to not have a plan in place to capitalize on better hockey coming below the border. 

[Taro T]

37 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Want to expand on my last post a bit. A number of things, including the new CHL rules, will impact hockey in the US over the next decade. 

Just as a matter of fact, hockey in the US should continue to get better, because that’s what happens with sports in general. Outside of that, I think with all of the court cases we’ve seen regarding the NCAA, I think we’re going to see a weakening of Title IX in some respects, mainly the rules regarding equal numbers of sports and scholarships. 

This should have an impact in a couple of ways. One, we’ll see new programs in places that aren’t considered hockey hot beds (think of Arizonas program or what they’re working on down at Bama). More teams will lead to more rinks which will lead to more youth programs, particularly programs similar to the Jr. Purple Eagles who operate a hockey league as well as travel teams.

I’d be surprised if there wasn’t more money coming in to broadcasts from Canada as well. A larger TV contract due to a larger international audience could impact youth participation as well. 

I think at the high levels, what @Taro T and @JoeSchmoe are talking about might hold true. I don’t necessarily think the USHL will grow and improve, but hockey in the States should see an uptick in participation, which could in turn give a boost to the USHL. It could also strengthen the NAHL.

I think there’s a lot of kids/young adults/parents who want to see their kid having fun playing hockey for as long as possible at the highest level possible. We will likely see a shift in demographics over the next few years with Canadians coming down, but USA Hockey has taken too many strides to not have a plan in place to capitalize on better hockey coming below the border. 

Will have to think about it more, but don't believe this will materially increase the quality of junior hockey in the US which was the original premise.  Will it increase youth hockey participation?  Perhaps, but expect that'd be more of giving an ancillary assist to the large footprint the NHL already put in place in the US (and appears planning to expand further in the next decade (unfortunately IMHO, because 32 teams is also IMHO about perfect)) and the current NCAA program expansion that was propelled by 2 major factors: 1 - the NCAA giving hockey and lax programs exemptions from the "a college will compete at a particular level in ALL sports that they play at a varsity level to be included in the NCAA" rule back in the 90's and 2 - the realignment of the college programs caused by the creation of BIG 10 (or 14, or 18, or wtf they're up to now; whatever it is, it AIN'T 10) hockey which was almost entirely propelled by Pegula's donation to Penn State to take their hockey program from Club level to full on D1.  Those 2 were the driving force in bringing smaller schools like RIT and Niagara into Div 1 and also large schools like some of the BIG 10 and others like Arizona that never had Div 1 hockey in the past into Div 1.

Will it be a driver of increasing the # of schools participating in NCAA Div 1 Hockey?  Probably.  But still not convinced it'll have a bigger impact than those other 2 drivers - the effects of which are still being felt and are still leading to additional expansion of NCAA ranks.

Still expect this to be more of a boon to the "big boys" than to everyone in general.  But you make some good points and maybe it will be a rising tide that lifts all boats.  A couple of forces working against any of this significantly improving participation / talent is ice rinks are very expensive to run (especially in non-traditional markets where the weather actively works against making quality skating ice) and because of that and how much equipment players need to participate it will always be a tough sport for kids from lower income homes to participate in any significant way.  Had expected the 90's roller hockey fad to be more enduring than it was and removing the need for ice to play hockey would've gone a long way towards eliminating / reducing some of these barriers.

Either way; it'll be fascinating watching how this evolves and am almost positive there will be additional effects that we aren't even contemplating yet.

Edited November 23 by Taro T

[JoeSchmoe]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/juniors/article/ohl-green-lights-aggressive-expansion-plan/

I was just thinking... Is there anywhere in WNY that could support an OHL team? Are Buffalo and Rochester already oversaturated with their pro teams? Would one of the suburbs build a rink big enough and would the community support it?

Edited November 25 by JoeSchmoe

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/juniors/article/ohl-green-lights-aggressive-expansion-plan/

 

Interestingly, the article starts out talking about "aggressive" expansion plans and then ends with '2, well, maybe more than 2.'

Guess that they figure any expansion at all after a quarter century of no expansion counts as "aggressive."

 

Thanks for the article and thanks for your insight your past few posts into the junior ranks.

[JoeSchmoe]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Interestingly, the article starts out talking about "aggressive" expansion plans and then ends with '2, well, maybe more than 2.'

Guess that they figure any expansion at all after a quarter century of no expansion counts as "aggressive."

 

Thanks for the article and thanks for your insight your past few posts into the junior ranks.

No problem.

North of the border here, Hamilton will likely get a team back after relocating to Brantford. Toronto will likely get another team, though it'll probably be another flop.

Other than those two teams, I'm not sure where else a team could be successful in Ontario. Maybe Huntsville/Muskoka, though they're probably already split between Barrie and North Bay. Cornwall? Belleville is probably out with an AHL team there.