The likely reversal of the NCAA’s ban on Canadian major junior hockey players will revolutionize the hockey environment in North America. In previous posts, we’ve discussed how we think this will play out for Canadian major junior leagues, NCAA teams and the USHL. In this entry, we’ll turn our attention closer to home: to the second- and third-tier Canadian teams that have long been such important parts of communities across the country, as well as training grounds to developing young players.
What Happens to Canadian Junior Hockey?
We briefly mentioned the BCHL in a previous post, so let’s start there. The BCHL has done an excellent job of positioning itself as the best Tier II Junior A league in Canada. Its move to leave Hockey Canada last summer seems to have paid dividends, allowing kids from all over the country to go play there, rather than having to get traded out there if they had played any prior junior hockey in Canada. But again, if major junior becomes an avenue to the NCAA, its position in the ecosystem becomes slightly less elevated. Additionally, given that Hockey Canada and the CHL are very close partners, it would track that there would need to be some serious mending of fences before there was any kind of detailed partnership between the BCHL and the CHL/major junior. My sense is that the BCHL product will remain quite strong—it would seem to follow that the best 16-year-olds who aren’t quite able to secure a spot on a major junior roster would look to head out to B.C.
The real uphill battle here would seem to be the rest of the junior hockey leagues in Canada. Between the three major junior leagues (60 teams), the USHL (16 teams) and the BCHL (21 teams), there are almost 100 teams that will be vying for junior hockey talent. If each of them takes three 16-year-olds every year, that’s almost 300 spots.
The remainder of the junior leagues’ “business model” is likely going to have to move towards more of a pitch on playing time for 16- and 17-year-olds, particularly given that there is no reason that 18-to-20-year-olds couldn’t/shouldn’t go play major junior, and major junior may well be even stronger than it already is. It is already not uncommon to see 16- and 17-year-olds go to major junior and play limited minutes, or even spend a lot of time in the press box as a healthy scratch. It is possible that these “Tier 2 Junior A” teams are able to convince some highly skilled players that it is better to receive significant playing time with them rather than watching hockey with a major junior club. This would seem like the most likely model for sustainable success for those teams.
Prep Schools
Prep schools will likely fall into this “third tier” as well (with the NCAA being the first tier and major junior the second). This makes sense, as prep schools typically have Grade 11 (16-year-old) and Grade 12 (17-year-old) aged players. I think the elite schools (with emphasis on the school part of that) will continue to be able to attract a reasonable level of talent.
Before I go any further, I will note I have a horse in this particular race, as both an alum and a member of the staff for the prep team at St. Andrew’s College. But there are certainly a handful of schools in North America with proven development models, both from an academic and a hockey perspective. Some of the best hockey prep schools are also some of the best overall high schools on the continent. My sense is that families will continue to see the value in this.
Additionally, I am of the opinion that there is something to be said for being able to attend the same school for your secondary-school experience. Major junior has done a good job over the years of putting in some restrictions on what teams can do if they want to trade high-school-aged major junior players, but it can still be a bit of a shuffle for a player’s high school experience.
I do wonder about the sustainability of some of the “sports-specific” schools that you have seen pop up over the last 10 or 15 years, where they seem to be well resourced from an athletic performance perspective, but can leave something to be desired from an academic rigor perspective. If your focus is going to be predominantly on hockey, there is no reason not to go play major junior at this point.
Canadian University
The other area of the sport that is likely to change somewhat meaningfully is USports (Canadian University hockey). Typically, players that have played major junior and have chosen not to continue on to play professional hockey, or even some that have played some pro hockey (below the NHL), have then gone on to exercise their education package and play for one of the universities in Canada. With the NCAA now likely to open up to these players, USports programs are going to have to sharpen their recruiting skills.
One might wonder if some of the more elite programs in USports make a push to join the NCAA. I am admittedly not up on the requirements and processes involved in becoming a recognized NCAA institution, but many of these schools have demonstrated the ability to compete with NCAA Division 1 (D1) programs in the past. Some of the top Canadian university programs can and will beat D1 programs down south. And keep in mind that they always play those games on the road—the D1 schools do not travel to Canada to play. There is currently one university in Canada—Simon Fraser University in British Columbia—that plays in the NCAA in a number of sports other than hockey. (SFU’s hockey team plays in the British Columbia Intercollegiate Hockey League.) So having a Canadian school join the NCAA is not completely without precedent.
A Final Thought: This Touches Everything
This has been a long and in-depth series of posts, so if you’ve read this far, well, thank you. But this really is an issue that more people in the hockey world should pay serious attention to. We believe that the developments surrounding NIL and the eligibility of CHL players to play in the NCAA will stretch far further than anyone currently anticipates. The development track for hockey players is unique when it comes to the Big Four North American team sports (football, baseball, basketball, hockey). The other three sports revolve around the following model:
- High school
- NCAA
- Professional
There is no “Junior A football” or “major junior basketball” like there is in hockey. Players in these other sports don’t spend one to three years out of high school before university just playing their sport, as often occurs in hockey. Therefore, there is no precedent for this type of dislocation.
There will be winners and losers. We have highlighted a number of these issues in this piece, but make no mistake: others will arise, and they will have significant impacts on how players, parents, agents, teams and leagues plot their development path. On the other hand, change creates opportunity. And we think massive opportunity awaits for all of these interest groups, as the game of hockey re-orients itself.
At SkateGuard, we welcome these developments. They will likely reduce the number and impact of formerly life-altering decisions that need to be made by 15-year-old hockey players. All else being equal, they will likely increase the number of players who are able to access education through the game of hockey—something we view as unquestionably positive. There will be bumps along the way. There will be programs that are hurt by this. But we are optimistic that this will ultimately serve as the “creative destruction” that all healthy markets need from time to time. It’s a process that’s long overdue in the hockey world, and we’re here to help players and their families navigate it to their benefit.