What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Will the NCAA open its doors to CHL players?

Julius said:
Agreed.. I think you can make an argument that the USHL get stronger if they change their rules to mirror the CHL to allow stipends and have team signed players to play in the USHL... that might keep more US born players in the USHL as opposed to the CHL... there is also currently no transfer agreement with the NHL.. so USHL players would have the benefit of going to the AHL if they do not make the NHL roster.. that could draw higher end talent the USHL... it is definitely going to be interesting to see what happens.. as this seems inevitable..
Click to expand...

I agree. I think both the USHL and BCHL will start offering stipends. I wonder if this will lead to NCAA rosters being on average older as aged out CHL players have an option other than minor league?
 
Sol Diablo said:
Wouldn't the bigger, NIL richer schools tend to be the 1/3rd that voiced support and the 2/3rds against it be the smaller schools that maybe have a tougher time handing out money?
Click to expand...

No, quite the opposite. the big schools have an advantage now in that they can pay what it takes. With a larger pool of players, the average pay will be lower and the small schools can get some of the top players. I also wonder, isn't it unethical to sign a kid to a commitment knowing it's illegal for him to come in? No one else is doing that.
 
manurespreader said:
No, quite the opposite. the big schools have an advantage now in that they can pay what it takes. With a larger pool of players, the average pay will be lower and the small schools can get some of the top players. I also wonder, isn't it unethical to sign a kid to a commitment knowing it's illegal for him to come in? No one else is doing that.
Click to expand...

But the lawsuit almost exclusively names small schools along with the NCAA. That suggests the small schools are against the inclusion of CHL players.
IF the total dollars were constant but with more recipients then average pay would go down. That may or may not be a valid assumption. It will be interesting to see. It could be that the higher paying schools collect an over abundance of top talent while more mediocre players they previously got move to the smaller or less rich schools.
Concerning unethical, with what appears to be the inevitable beginning why not move it forward faster? Or kill the challenge faster? I see ASU helping force a decision on the legality rather than having a legal decision drag out for years. Seems wise & innovative, proactive, not reactive. But then I'm biased.
 
Brilliant move by ASU! Other schools will follow. Forces the NCAA to now make a decision. Combined with the lawsuit, seems plausible they'll amend the restrictions.
 
It will be an interesting year for recruiting. May not see a lot of verbals. Gotta feel for a lot of the NAHL, USHL, etc kids as they may not get serious interest as coaches wait to see if the CHL opens.
 
don’t expect more teams, the winners are those who stand to benefit financially, the losers are US players and junior leagues. The golden era of US player development is coming to an end.
 
Last edited:
Vinko Bogataj said:
don’t expect more teams, the winners are those who stand to benefit financially, the losers are US players and junior leagues. The golden era of US player development is coming to an end.
Click to expand...

Or did it just get better? The dominoes aren't done falling yet.
 
It seems to me, the NCAA left itself open for more litigation by not including D3 institutions. Going to be tough to argue in court that student athletes don't deserve the same opportunity to explore options available to them beyond D1 programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top