In previous blogs in this series on the likely reversal of the NCAA’s long-standing ban on allowing Canadian major junior hockey players, we looked at the impact on player choice and on Canada’s Tier 1 leagues. In this blog, we’ll turn our attention to how an NCAA reversal will impact the U.S. hockey ecosystem.
How Do NCAA Teams Approach the Change?
If Canadian major junior players can transfer to American schools and play hockey, how will the NCAA handle it? One part of that question is, When will they bring players in?
Certainly, the highest-profile programs will continue to go after the absolute top-end talent and bring them in early. You have seen high-profile players fast-track in recent years, such as Macklin Celebrini going into Boston University this past season as a 17-year-old. With dollars and cents likely to be on the line, we would expect to see more cases such as this one. But we would also expect some teams to very much go the other way. There are programs that have traditionally waited until players are 19, 20, or even 21 years old—potentially as much as three years removed from high school—before bringing them in as freshmen. We would expect to see this continue, with players potentially playing as many as five seasons of major junior hockey and then entering the NCAA as a 21-year-old freshman.
My sense is that the level of play in the NCAA becomes astoundingly high. With the ability to functionally pay players, to offer (in many cases) world-class education, and to draw on talent coming out of major junior, along with the environment and atmosphere at many of these schools (I can tell you from firsthand experience that college hockey is a LOT of fun, and there weren’t five or ten thousand screaming students/fans at Dwyer Arena like there are at many other college hockey arenas across the country), the appeal is going to be very high.
Take this thought experiment for a trial run:
“I’m a 20-year-old kid, and I’ve just spent four years playing major junior hockey. I was drafted two years ago by an NHL team. I can sign my contract that pays me maybe $60-80k/year (which I pay tax on) playing in the AHL (where I have to pay all my own rent/food expenses), which is very likely where I will end up if I sign. Or I can go play NCAA hockey at a Big 10 school, get paid NIL money (which I pay tax on), get an education that’s worth $60-$80k/year (which I don’t pay tax on), all my rent and food are covered, I continue to play ELITE level hockey, I have an absolute blast, and nothing is preventing me from signing a deal with an NHL team when I graduate at 24 years old—or sooner, if an NHL team wants to give me a one-way contract (where you make NHL money no matter what league you play in).”
What would you choose?
The AHL has traditionally been very heavily skewed towards 20-to-25-year-olds. It even has a rule that allows teams to dress a maximum of only five skaters who have more than 320 games of professional hockey experience. Does the NCAA start pulling kids away from even some of the best professional hockey leagues in the world?
Let’s take this a step further. It is possible that these court cases could render the entire concept of amateurism for individuals of the age of majority null and void. At that point, could a player that has played in the NHL go back and play in the NCAA? There are examples every year of players playing NHL games and then getting sent back to major junior. How far does the NCAA extend this? What would be stopping a 10-year NHL veteran from going back and playing four years at an NCAA school? There is currently a rule that states a player must be enrolled at an NCAA institution by the year he or she turns 21 years old. However, there is some precedent for players playing professionally in other sports and then going back and playing a different NCAA sport. Does someone challenge in court for the right to go back and play the same sport if the concept of amateurism at the NCAA level is deemed no longer applicable?
Wild stuff for sure, but all of these scenarios and ultimately decisions are going to get dragged to the forefront much faster than anyone anticipated.
As a quick personal aside, one of the things that we often talk about here at SkateGuard is “getting something out of hockey.” When I played junior hockey, the league that produced the most Division 1 NCAA college hockey players was by far and away the USHL—it wasn’t even close. I was fortunate enough to be drafted by the Indiana Ice, and I played two years for the team after high school. However, as a Canadian, I was unable to take any classes—this was 2006-2008, and online classes weren’t really a thing at the time. (I know, I’m old.) Therefore, I was unable to take advantage of those two years scholastically. Should this legislation open up the NCAA to major junior players, it is not unrealistic to think that players could both finish their high school and complete a decent chunk of an undergraduate degree, all paid for—major junior teams will typically cover tuition while you play for the team—while playing major junior, and then go on to finish their undergrad degree and complete a masters/MBA while playing NCAA hockey.
We are seeing some of this happening currently with players who received a fifth season of NCAA eligibility due to the extra “COVID year” that all players who were enrolled in NCAA programs for the 2020-2021 season were afforded, but this is the last year of those players.
What Happens to the USHL?
The personal anecdote above suggests another question: What happens to the USHL? It has had a sweet position for much of the last 15 or 20 years as the place to play for 16-to-20-year-olds with NCAA Division 1 aspirations. The BCHL, meanwhile, has done an excellent job of growing the profile of the league over the past 10 or 15 years, but it still trails the USHL by a reasonably significant margin in terms of the number of players sent to Division 1 schools. The USHL has traditionally been an older league than major junior, in the sense that it typically has very few 16-to-17-year-olds, and is more typically dominated by 18-to-20-year-olds as compared to major junior. If major junior opens up to 16-and-17-year-olds with college hockey aspirations, you will very likely see the league pivot to a much younger stance.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the conversation rapidly evolve towards the USHL and CHL joining forces in some capacity. Obviously, there would be a lot to hash out there, with plenty of egos and nationalistic pride to consider, but it would feel like something of a natural fit. Many of the same concerns about the smaller-market major junior teams would apply to their USHL counterparts, particularly since the teams in the USHL have very little experience with paying players at all. I have heard rumours over the years of some kids coming back from major junior receiving some cash, but obviously those kids had no NCAA eligibility, whereas the vast majority of the USHL has traditionally been bound for college.
Either way, just like everyone else, their model will be impacted. Money changes everything. If the USHL doesn’t fold in under major junior, they will need to contend with potentially losing what has long been their sweet spot: the 18-to-20-year-old player who is bound for college, often already arriving with a scholarship offer or commitment in-hand.