Junior / CIS / NCAA / ACHA/ ACAC

NCAA vs. CHL: Strengthening NLIs, Opening College Hockey to CHLers

Chris Peters, The United States of Hockey, February 8, 2012

The recent article in the Grand Forks Herald, in which Brad Schlossman interviews North Dakota head coach Dave Hakstol has stirred up a bit of NCAA vs. CHL conversation. It usually doesn’t take much to get tempers flaring in this hotly contested debate, and there has been a wide array of responses, both positive and negative.

The key points of Schlossman’s piece include the revelation that College Hockey, Inc., is pursuing legislation through the National Hockey League that once a player signs a National Letter of Intent with a college, he is off limits to major junior for one year of college hockey. Letters are typically signed in November or February of the year preceding college. This would prevent situations like players bailing on their commitment in June or July, which happened a lot over the summer (John Gibson, Connor Murphy, J.T. Miller among the notable decommits).

The late decommits are a real issue as they really tend to hamper college programs. It is not easy to replace a first-round draft pick, or any recruit for that matter, two months prior to classes beginning. There are more instances where recruits have bailed for various reasons, like coaching changes, or changing his mind about what school he wants to go to. However, the ones that frustrate the NCAA is when a player has made a written commitment to a school and that commitment is ignored by an outside entity, that has no such rules to abide by.

The CHL is merely operating within its own set of rules, as there is no obligation to abide by the NCAA’s commitments. You can’t fault them for that, but if College Hockey, Inc., is to succeed in its aim to strengthen the NLIs, it at least gives the NCAA schools a little more power to keep the players that have said they want to play college hockey.

Making the NLI a binding document is going to be tough, especially when it’s basically going to probably have to amount to a gentleman’s agreement between the NHL and both the NCAA and CHL. Where it gets a bit more interesting is using the transfer agreement between USA Hockey and Hockey Canada.

Before a player of a certain nationality can play in a foreign country, he has to be released by his home country’s hockey federation, per IIHF regulations. This is where college hockey may be able to find appropriate leverage to make binding NLIs a reality.

Without the transfer agreements, who knows what kind of consequences would be able to be put in place if there was some violation. Who would sanction it? You can’t depend on the NHL to. Again, at that point, it’s simply a gentleman’s agreement.

Another factor: it’s hard to imagine the NHL would prevent its own teams from signing players early, as was the case with Connor Murphy and J.T. Miller, thus ending their college eligibility. However, players that sign NHL contracts the same summer in which they are drafted is rare. So while the NHL might be able to protect college hockey from the CHL in some regard, there’s no guarantee the league would be able to protect the NCAA from NHL teams.

Neate Sager also brings up a very salient point regarding the strengthening of NLIs.

…would knowing the letter of intent — which many believe is of contestable legal validity, although it has never been challenged in court — effectively binds a player to attending school cause some to get cold feet about committing and elect to keep their options open? Quite possibly.

Having spent enough time around players that have to have this inner debate about what to do with their hockey careers, it’s not something I’d wonder about. I’d expect it.

The elite players would wait longer to make a choice. Even if that’s the case, I think most college coaches would rather have a guy keep his options open for as long as possible, rather than backing out of a commitment he made months prior and leave the team holding the bag.

It might delay the building of recruiting classes to some degree, but the number of players who wait to make a decision are often among the better players in a class. Those are guys you don’t mind waiting around for.

The kids that always wanted to go to college, will still commit on schedule. The ones that aren’t sure should be given all the time and space they need for a decision.

The one area where this could backfire is if players wait to commit until after they are drafted. That’s when it becomes almost too late for schools to add a player to the mix. So that’s a valid concern.

Players can’t sign NLIs until they are seniors in high school anyway. So there’s still the possibility of kids making verbal commitments at age 15 or 16 and backing out later. College coaches would rather not have any kids break their commitments, but it’s those late ones that are particularly difficult to swallow. Eliminating those would be a step in the right direction as far as college hockey is concerned.

Hakstol also talked about the benefit of potentially opening up the college ranks to former CHL players if this proposed legislation falls through.

While it makes sense on many levels, many arguments still remain for why it’s a bad idea.

First off, allowing CHL players to retain college eligibility could have a gigantic impact on the USHL. More top-end players would go to the CHL fully knowing that they’ll have a fall-back plan. So they can go up and get added exposure, get in front of more scouts on a nightly basis. The top end in the USHL could be significantly diminished in such a scenario.

While this move would help the NCAA’s depth, it would most likely eliminate many of the top-end players from ever making it to the NCAA. By the time a player’s Junior career is over at age 20, most would go to the NHL or AHL. Only the guys that would have otherwise played lower-level minor-league hockey would end up in college. The quality of play gets dragged down in the college ranks. While the NCAA would remain a developmental option, it also becomes a safety net for CHL players similar to what the Canaidan Interuniversity Sport is right now. That’s an ugly scenario for American college hockey, which has produced NHL talent as long as it’s been in existence.

Granted, there will still be players that prefer college hockey, and the NCAA was never going to lose those guys anyway. It’s losing those players that are on the bubble that would really hurt. The allure of playing in the CHL, with the chance to go to American college hockey if it doesn’t pan out, is attractive. A player might feel he can get the best of both worlds that way. Which, if it’s allowed, then more power to him.

Another interesting column came out in the wake of Schlossman’s Herald piece, this one from Patrick King of Rogers Sportsnet. The column is titled “Misguided Anger from NCAA.” I know and respect Patrick a heck of a lot, but in my opinion, the column misses the point of what this debate is actually about.

A large portion of King’s column is geared towards the fact that the NCAA is limiting itself by not allowing CHL players. Particularly, King takes Hakstol to task for the UND coach’s comments in Schlossman’s piece about how the NCAA is at an unfair disadvantage in this battle. The only thing I didn’t understand, is that in that article Hakstol is quoted from, he admits that there needs to be reform. Hakstol even said he is in support of opening up college hockey the CHL players, which King never mentions, focusing solely on Hakstol’s analogy that the NCAA is fighting with one hand tied behind its back. So I felt it was a bit of a misrepresentation of what Hakstol was talking about.

King later goes on to chastise the NCAA programs for recruiting kids in Grade 9 without ever mentioning the fact that the WHL annually holds its “Bantam Draft,” the primary method the league selects its players, in which 14-year-old hockey players become property of a WHL member club. For most kids selected in the Bantam Draft, they’re still two years away from even being eligible to play Junior hockey.

Just for an example… Luke Moffatt was drafted as a 14-year-old bantam second overall by Kelowna. Moffatt would end up verbally committing to Michigan when he was 16 and sticking with that commitment.

While I absolutely agree that the early recruiting needs to be curtailed, we’re seeing fewer commitments being made by 14-year-old kids. Many players are getting the idea that it is better to keep their options open and make a more conscientious decision at a more mature age.

It’s unfair to knock college hockey for a poor practice, when a CHL-sponsored league engages in an equal “offense.”

King also paints the CHL as a bit more innocent, claiming the league is blissfully unaware it is in a battle with college hockey. If it were so blissfully unaware, would Windsor Spitfires GM Warren Rychel routinely crow in the media about his recruitment of college committed players and making every effort to get that player into the OHL? Would Kelowna’s Bruce Hamilton be publicly blasting the USHL and college hockey in his pursuit of Zemgus Girgensons?

This is not one-sided. I might not go as far as Hakstol who said, “We are going into a back-alley brawl. They are bringing guns. We’re coming with no weapon and one hand tied behind our back.” There is still some truth to his comment, and yes, that one hand is tied behind their backs by their own rules, partially.

Where I agree with King is that the NCAA needs to take a long look at itself and its policies, which unfortunately are not specifically tailored to hockey. There is certainly need for reform. As all of us can agree, the NCAA is far from perfect in all sports. The only issue is, the NCAA has to make rules that fit across all sports, they don’t make special rules for one.

As I mentioned, I respect Patrick and really enjoy his work. This column, for me, was a bit off point and perhaps unfair.

My hope is that one day there is a compromise between the NCAA and CHL. It’s gotten to a point where it feels detrimental to the game to have such a feud. It’s a battle that is masked in “doing what’s best for the players,” when all it really is, is a pair of rival businesses looking out for their own best interests (which you can’t really fault them for).

To be honest though, it’s getting old. Perhaps it gets worse before it gets better, but count me among those that hopes each finds a way to get this thing figured out once and for all.

NCAA/CHL Battle Heating Up [UPDATED]

Chris Peters, United States of Hockey, July 27, 2011

The college hockey world has been mainly focused on the constant realignment talk, but there’s another big story developing over this summer and it’s not a good one.

In recent weeks, three of the four college-committed players selected in the first round of the 2011 Entry Draft have decided to go to the OHL. J.T. Miller, previously committed to the University of North Dakota, has reportedly signed with the Plymouth Whalers. Jamie Oleksiak, who would have been a sophomore at Northeastern signed with the Saginaw Spirit last week. And the latest: I was informed by two independent sources that Connor Murphy will drop his commitment to Miami University and will sign with the Sarnia Sting. That is expected to be announced soon.

That leaves Tyler Biggs, a Miami recruit, as the only first-round draftee that has yet to drop his commitment in favor of the OHL. Biggs reaffirmed his commitment to Miami on the Pipeline Show Tuesday night. His rights are held by the Oshawa Generals.

Biggs is a Toronto draft pick. Brian Burke has a special connection to Miami and likely wouldn’t push Biggs in one direction or another. Burke knows Miami can develop his first-round pick. That said, Biggs just lost his college roommate in Murphy and there’s no doubt Oshawa has the full-court press on the power forward. You just never know.

The hits didn’t stop there. I was told last night by a reliable source that John Gibson, easily the top goaltending recruit in all of college hockey, will forego his commitment to Michigan to sign with the Kitchener Rangers. Michael Spath later confirmed this report via text with Gibson and Michigan head coach Red Berenson issued a statement saying, “John Gibson has decided not to attend the University of Michigan or to play college hockey.” This particularly stings for Michigan in that this is the second straight year they’ve lost the top goalie recruit in the country, as Jack Campbell was a previous Michigan commit before signing with Windsor.

Earlier today, I also got word that Reid Boucher, who was the leading goal scorer for the U.S. Under-18s at the World Under-18 Championship, also will be headed to the Sarnia Sting. Boucher, who was selected in the fourth round by New Jersey, has one year of high school left and was slated to play in the USHL next year before heading to Michigan State in 2012-13. Looks like plans have changed and Sarnia has itself another huge coup, while college hockey takes another hit.

[UPDATE (7/29): J.T. Miller signed with the New York Rangers Thursday, and Plymouth officially announced Miller signed with them on Friday morning. John Gibson's signing with the Kitchener Rangers was made official Wednesday afternoon. Connor Murphy's signing with the Sarnia Sting was announced Wednesday, shortly after this post was published. Just minutes prior to this update, Sarnia also announced that it had signed Reid Boucher. That's a rough couple of days for college hockey.]

Not only has college hockey lost the players that saw their profiles raise after being drafted this past June, they’re losing some top-end youngsters as well.

Three players that wouldn’t have been on college campuses until 2013-14 at the earliest have also gone north. Former BU recruit Anthony DeAngelo, who skated for Cedar Rapids in the USHL this year, signed with Sarnia earlier in the summer. Adam Erne, another BU recruit who played in the USHL last year, was traded to the Quebec Remparts and is expected to sign. Most recently, Brandon Shea, who had previously committed to Boston College and was slated to play at the NTDP this year, has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Moncton Wildcats.

These three players are top-end 1995 birth years. Unlike their older counterparts who are more developed, we don’t know how good these guys will be in the next two years. We know how good Miller, Oleksiak, Gibson and Murphy are. So college hockey losing those guys hurts a little more, for now at least. However, seeing three high-profile youngsters head north is bad news not only for college hockey, but the USHL as well.

So what does it all mean? This isn’t a post to argue college or Major Junior is a better option, because that’s a silly apples and oranges argument. Each path has benefits unique to individual players and it is impossible (and unfair) to make a blanket statement of one being better than the other.

As a fan of college hockey, I think there should be concern, though. Concern that this summer is going to become the norm and that more elite players are going to choose the CHL over the NCAA, thus hurting the level of play in college hockey.

Does a summer like this give off the impression that the CHL is actually better? To me it doesn’t, but to people unfamiliar with the development process it just might. Most importantly is this signalling to other prospective players that the CHL is clearly the “better” option?

Brad Schlossman of the Grand Forks Herald wrote about the NCAA’s perception problem, and makes a ton of valid points while focusing on one case. Neate Sager of Buzzing the Net had a counterpoint that I think may have taken Schlossman’s column slightly out of context, but still made valid points along the way.

I count eight (what I would consider) top-end, high-profile players that have chosen the CHL route after previously committing to a college, all of which are mentioned above. The optics of this are not good for college hockey. In this case, it is not necessarily the quantity of players choosing the CHL route, but the quality. The good players have influence over the next class coming up, without ever having to say a word.

I posed the question on Twitter as well, asking my followers: Knowing however much or little you know about this topic, which is better? CHL or NCAA? Most responded with “it depends on the player,” which I think is correct. It does in some ways. I’m not fully on board with that though, only because I believe if a player is good enough he’ll make it to the NHL regardless of path. I had to ask the question though, to see if that perception that one is better than the other exists. I was impressed and surprised to see the majority of people who answered couldn’t pick one over the other or say one was better.

A few folks have asked whether all of this realignment talk has had any affect on the players’ decisions. I would have to say no. It might have a little influence, but having been around top-end teenage hockey players, realignment is likely a tiny blip on their radars. The only thing on these kids’ minds is going to the NHL, in almost every single case. That player is going to make the choice that he and his family (or in some cases his NHL team) feel is the best path to get him to the NHL as quickly as possible.

Another issue at hand is the lateness of these broken commitments. Neate Sager had a great take on this very topic today. Regardless of what side of the debate you’re on, the college teams are getting royally screwed with these late defections.

I’m not going to criticize a kid for changing his mind. I’ve been around long enough to know that it happens far more than any of us would like. However, the teams that are just a month away from fall practice have to entirely shift plans for the season. They may have to find replacements. They can only hope they’ll be as lucky as Notre Dame was last year in being able to call in T.J. Tynan who was scheduled to play one more year of junior and went on to lead the team in scoring after Kyle Palmieri went pro. Odds are, that won’t be happening. It’s a shame for those schools to have such little time to recover.

At the end of the day, college hockey is a great path for pro development and shouldn’t be considered an inferior product to the CHL. It is just… different. That said, these high-profile defections deliver quite a blow to the college game. What is left to do? How does college hockey keep this from continually happening?

I guess that’s up to College Hockey, Inc., the commissioners and head coaches to figure out, but there really is no easy answer in this whole ordeal. I take issue with people saying the CHL “stole” a player, because at the end of the day, the choice is the kid’s (though its fair to say the CHL teams can be extra persuasive). College hockey has to find a way to make sure more kids are choosing it as opposed to the CHL.

It has been a long summer, and it might get longer, for college hockey. As a fan of the college game, I hope we continue to see a great on-ice product and more college kids making it to the NHL.

All that said, we all have to understand that these kids have options and there is never going to be an absolutely correct answer for which option a player should take. It’s one of those things that makes hockey’s development system entirely unique and often times entirely confusing.

CHL vs. NCAA: The Public Pursuit of an American Top Prospect

Chris Peters, The United States of Hockey, October 24, 2011

Sunday night, I was alerted to a story from the Windsor Star regarding Jordan Schmaltz. In it, Windsor Spitfires GM Warren Rychel and head coach Bob Boughner reveal that they are continuing their pursuit of Schmaltz, currently a defenseman for the Sioux City Musketeers in the USHL, a top 2012 Draft prospect and verbal commitment to the University of North Dakota.

That Windsor is hot on the trail of a college-committed American top prospect is nothing new. The squad has had success luring away several previously committed Americans like Cam Fowler, Jack Campbell and Kenny Ryan. There have been other, less publicized, instances where Windsor was unable to secure the rights to players they pursued (Stephen Johns, for example), but they’ve reeled in some big fish over the last few years.

This curiously timed article really piqued my interest, and it should be required reading for anyone that has been following the ongoing battle between the Canadian Hockey League and NCAA for a variety of reasons.

First, just to quickly reset the stage…

Jordan Schmaltz is considered a likely first rounder for this year’s NHL Entry Draft. He was selected by Windsor in the seventh round of the OHL Priority Draft in 2010 at age 16. Schmaltz previously was committed to the University of Wisconsin (a verbal he made at age 14), but later backed out. He then gave a verbal commitment to North Dakota in September of 2010. Schmaltz spent last season with Sioux City and returned this year. Since drafting him, Windsor has been in hot pursuit.

If the allure of racking up points with the Spits during his draft season wasn’t enough to get Schmaltz to leave the USHL and his commitment to North Dakota, I have a hard time believing his mind will change. If he was going to go, why not this year?

That is what makes the timing of this piece so curious to me. The season is only a few weeks old, the tumultuous summer of broken commitments to college hockey programs has begun to fade, so why bring this up now? It’s just so out of the blue.

The Spits are an average team this year, but still possess a winning record in a very tough Western Conference in the OHL. You don’t think… Nah… They couldn’t be trying to get him out of the USHL for this season, could they? Well, maybe, just a bit.

It is rare for a player to leave one league in-season for another, though not unprecedented. Kenny Ryan left Boston College a few weeks into his freshman season to join Windsor. That said, I can’t recall it ever happening during a player’s draft-eligible season and I don’t see Schmaltz being the first.

So what gives?

First off, there might not be a better team in hockey that is as good at utilizing the media as the Windsor Spitfires. This article reads like a public challenge to Jordan Schmaltz. It also plainly lays out the cookie-cutter CHL recruiting pitch, as to why a prospect should choose that route over the NCAA.

Rychel told Windsor Star reporter Jim Parker that Schmaltz is making a mistake in not “exploring his options.” Now, we have to take Rychel at his word, I guess, but how do we know Schmaltz hasn’t been exploring his options in his own way? I’m not saying Rychel is lying, I’m just saying he’s not Jordan Schmaltz.

Additionally, Boughner brought up Cam Fowler as a comparable player to Schmaltz and a big reason why the latter should consider Windsor.

Rychel also mentions that Schmaltz should call Fowler and Jack Campbell and have his father call Fowler’s father.

That’s great. But why is Warren Rychel telling us this? Most likely, it’s because whatever he’s saying to Schmaltz and his family in private is not getting through. So he’s taking it public.

This piece allows Rychel to let everybody know Windsor wants Jordan Schmaltz and if Schmaltz doesn’t go to Windsor, he’s making a mistake. Whoever reads the piece is getting that as the takeaway.

There will be no rebuttal in public from North Dakota, and likely none from Schmaltz himself, and Rychel knows that. North Dakota Head Coach Dave Hakstol can’t say a word about Jordan Schmaltz publicly because Schmaltz has yet to sign a National Letter of Intent. So for now, there is one public voice on this issue, and it’s the voice Rychel most wants you to hear. His own.

This is not a criticism of Windsor. In fact, I think it might be quite smart. If Schmaltz elects not to go to Windsor, the team has already stated they think that’s a mistake. Then again, perhaps Schmaltz takes the challenge to heart and gives Windsor an extra look (assuming he’s not offended by the public nature of the challenge).

There are no rules preventing Rychel or Boughner from talking to the media about a prospective player. It’s merely a tool that they have, and they’re using it well.

So now, it puts the ball is in Schmaltz’s court. The Spits have laid it all out there for everyone to see. Odds are, he sticks with his USHL club this season, continues to raise his draft stock and earns a first round selection, but the war doesn’t end there as Rychel notes in the piece…

“Bob and I have a great relationship with NHL Teams,” Rychel said.

“Hopefully he’s taken by one of those teams that can give him direction.”

Just a friendly reminder from Rychel, regarding the few college committed players that were advised by the NHL teams that selected them in last year’s draft to go the CHL route.

It’s also a reminder that there are more hurdles than ever before for colleges to overcome in order to get a top player into their hockey programs.

Schmaltz seems firm in his commitment. He has family ties to North Dakota (including his father, who is an alum). Still, with the landscape the way it is, it seems as though every top player becomes an individual case study on the CHL vs. NCAA battle. Schmaltz will be no different.

So which recruiting pitch does he become part of next year?

Abredeen,

I too see both sides. I don't like seeing kids make a commitment and then back out. I also question whether either side (NCAA or CHL) should be allowed to 'force' a kid to make a commitment at such a young age. I didn't even 'know' what I wanted to study in university when I got there; I took interesting courses that were 'easy' because I was playing hockey and working. I wish I 'knew' what I wanted to study instead of taking the path of least resistance and getting a relatively useless BA degree!

Right now, the CHL can recruit NCAA players and they don't have any repurcussions if they choose to do so. If it were the other way, I am sure the NCAA would do the same. At the end of the day, it is a competitive business for the CHL teams / NCAA programs and they must do whatever is best for their own programs. They don't care about the opposition. That's reality and a competitive market!

I think the rules must be re-examined, discussed and then all parties must abide by them (CHL / NCAA / USA Hockey / Hockey Canada / IIHF / CIS, etc.) In my own personal world, these would level the playing field for both systems and not allow for immediate transfer – they must complete a year or sit out a year before being able to play – among other things.

I played for Spokane while attending school in the US but upon my graduation from junior, I moved back to Canada to finish school (I was recruited by CIS teams) but focussed on coaching instead. Later, I coached in the Tier 2, WHL, Canadian College and University ranks, so my experiences are based on those leagues. The only places I haven't coached are in the NCAA (would like to one day!) and in the US junior league (USHL – maybe coach there one day too?) I was always a fan of the WHL and CIS because that is what I knew best.

If someone was to ask me my opinion on what direction their son should take, I would say, "if the kid is big for his age (an early developer) and isn't academically inclined, lean towards the CHL. If he is average (or small) for his age and is average or better at school, lean towards Tier 2 with the goal of an NCAA / CIS scholarship." After coaching at Tier 2 and in the WHL, I would also tell the kids / parents to do their homework on the individual programs. Tier 2 seems to be more 'unprofessional' than the CHL; but while the CHL is run like a pro league, that can also have a negative impact. The old cliche: "Sometimes your greatest strength is your greatest weakness – and vice versa!" Caveat Emptor!

Today, I have similar feelings but truly appreciate putting the education and hockey option first wherever possible (Tier 2 / NCAA or CIS). Hockey is only a game and a very small number play in the NHL. More play in the minors, Europe and at college / university. At the end of the day, the game ends and it is time to 'reintegrate' into society; most likely needing to work and 99.9% of the time, you need at least an undergraduate education to be considered. Kind of like in the 1950's / 1960's – a high school education was needed. Now it's an undergraduate degree or technical diploma… and even now, many places are advertising requirements asking for advanced degrees / diploma standing! I think as time goes by, it will become even more competitive so far as school credentials go.

Ultimately, I think the CHL has done a number of things that hurt it's credibility and perception when it is compared side by side with the NCAA – either through arrogance or stupidity. The more I see / hear, the more I like the CIS and NCAA. If I was advising my own kids, (if they were to play hockey), I would encourage academics first and this means Canadian university or NCAA.

Sources: Commissioners told Kelly to resign or be fired as College Hockey Inc. executive director

By Todd D. Milewski • Executive Editor USCHO.com • Feb. 20, 2012

Paul Kelly was given a choice Monday to resign or be fired as executive director of College Hockey Inc., sources said, and he chose the former.

An erosion of trust in Kelly from the commissioners of college hockey’s five Division I men’s leagues led them to end Kelly’s two-plus-year term leading the promotional and marketing group.

The announcement was made Monday afternoon by the Hockey Commissioners Association, which controls College Hockey Inc.

Sources described a falling out between the commissioners and Kelly that had been a while in the making, based on a difference of opinions on College Hockey Inc.’s scope.

But the final straw, the sources said, was Kelly recently approaching athletic directors from some ECAC Hockey schools about meeting to give College Hockey Inc. a more leading role in the administration of Division I men’s hockey.

Kelly could not immediately be reached for comment. In a text message to TSN’s Pierre LeBrun posted on the broadcaster’s website, Kelly said: “Time to move on. I told them I’d give them 2-3 years to get the entity established and operational. It’s been 28 months and it’s time for a new challenge.”

“The HCA would like to thank Paul for his service to CHI and wish him the best in his future endeavors,” Steve Hagwell, Hockey Commissioners Association president and ECAC Hockey commissioner, said in a statement.

The commissioners group also said in the statement that it expects to discuss a “different course” for the executive director position. A replacement for Kelly was not immediately announced.

Kelly, the former executive director of the National Hockey League Players Association, was hired in November 2009 by the commissioners to run College Hockey Inc.

College Hockey Inc. was formed by the commissioners as a central marketing vehicle for college hockey. It is funded in part by a grant from the NHL through USA Hockey.