Question: What is so evil about the CHL that the NCAA must ban its players?
The NCAA shocked me with this sudden institutional interest in the CHL -- College Hockey issue. I am shocked because the NCAA actually wants to paint itself as the aggrieved party. And it appears that college hockey's fans and supporters are taking up the aggrieved cause.
Many years ago, the NCAA and its college hockey coaches (specifically those coaches in Minnesota and the Ivy Leagues) loathed (and still loath to some degree) the education gap that takes place in college hockey. Many players will leave high school and, instead of enrolling in college, will play a few years in the junior ranks. For example, even today many Minnesotans will still get red-faced-angry over 20-year-old-Canadian-freshmen. The NCAA long ago demonized Major Junior hockey in an effort to force top talented US-born players to play college hockey, usually right out of high school -- because these top-skilled players would waste their time in non-major-junior leagues.
The NCAA -- NOT the CHL -- started this war a long time ago. The NCAA made the random distinction between Junior A and Major Junior as it related to eligibility. I dare and defy anyone with a serious mindset to show the difference between the Alberta Junior League and the WHL in terms of practice time, games played (over 60), legnth of season, living stippend (here is a clue -- the stippend is identical under Canadian law), payment of transportation costs, etc . . . And I defy anyone to tell me the significant differences between the Alberta League, or the USHL, or the NAJHL, or the OHL or the Saskatchewan league.
So what if Major Junior players are granted perks? (Here is another clue: most players get no perks, and most of the parks are totally insignificant). Is there any difference between a Major Junior player getting an apartment paid for than a basketball player getting money from high school boosters? Well -- actually -- the CHL is above board and honest with the perks, while the high school football and basketball perks are usually shady and underhanded.
And I defy a reasonable person to tell me the difference between an athletic scholarship and a free apartment -- a perk is a perk. The NCAA wants to morally dictate what perks are OK, and what perks aren't. Hypocritical bureaucratic nonsense and moralistic grandstanding.
And for what?
You want a solution to losing the best players to Major Juniors?
Drop the phony and discredited distinction between CHL leagues and other junior leagues.
If the NCAA REALLY truly had the best interests of the players at heart, they would allow kids to fully explore their options.
But no -- the NCAA is more interested in a meaningless fight against the CHL, which it is losing. Based upon what?