Should the NCAA limit the number of Canadian hockey players on D1-D3 rosters?

[neverdrafted]

Roughly 50-60 % of NCAA D1 rosters are Canadian kids. Canadian junior leagues limit imports and American participation in a lot of different ways, not all of them widely talked about. US junior leagues do limit imports as well. Why doesn't the NCAA? If it should, what is the reasoning? If not, why not?

Thanks!

Click to read more...

 

[Bjorn Le]

NCAA sports are about making money. Not developing players for the professional or international ranks.

This does not help them make money.

 

[Mike Jones]

Roughly 50-60 % of NCAA D1 rosters are Canadian kids. Canadian junior leagues limit imports and American participation in a lot of different ways, not all of them widely talked about. US junior leagues do limit imports as well. Why doesn't the NCAA? If it should, what is the reasoning? If not, why not?

I could be wrong but Canadian majour junior teams don't set a limit on the number of Americans on their rosters. They do set a limit on imports from beyond North America.

 

[Drummer]

Roughly 50-60 % of NCAA D1 rosters are Canadian kids.

I disagree - I think it was that way for awhile, but things started to change in the 90s and I believe there are actually fewer Canadian kids in the NCAA D1 now.

A quick look at some teams from across the country and you will get a wide array of totals, but other than UND and Quinnipiac, in my sample below, most carry a single digit of Canadians with an average of 5 (that's 25% of the roster). This is pretty close to what a CAP size would be (I'm guessing).

The idea of a cap is to limit one group to improve another, so in this case you get more US kids on NCAA D1 teams. I don't know if that is really going to improve US Hockey development. It will put more 'top' Canadian kids into the CHL which leaves fewer spots for US/European kids and you end up with 'us vs them' approach to development. I also think you get a poorer on-ice product for the NCAA which impacts alumni support and revenue for college teams.

Also - a CAP allows more 'marginal' players into D1 (3rd and 4th liners). The top talent will go where they want and every team will have top talent, but the marginal player is the one fighting to get in. A cap will simply increase the number of marginal players on a college team. If you're into NCAA hockey for the titles (and money) - this is not what you want. If you're into NCAA hockey to provide a subsidized education to US athletes - then this is a great idea, however these are two approaches are somewhat 'opposing' in nature.

UMaine - 7
UNH - 2
BC - 3
UMass - 9
Q - 13
Ptn - 8
Minn - 0
Wis - 3
UND - 11
Denver - 3

 

[mk80]

The CHL only limits the number of non-North American players, there is no cap on Americans. I don't mind having Canadian players on college teams, honestly I think a nice mix of players is good.

 

[Oilers Chick]

Roughly 50-60 % of NCAA D1 rosters are Canadian kids. Canadian junior leagues limit imports and American participation in a lot of different ways, not all of them widely talked about. US junior leagues do limit imports as well. Why doesn't the NCAA? If it should, what is the reasoning? If not, why not?

Thanks!

NCAA college hockey, specifically DI, has to constantly battle CHL teams for top talent. Furthermore, some teams such as Clarkson & St. Lawrence for example, have very small budgets so they recruit heavily in areas nearest to them to save on travel costs. In this case, around the Ottawa region. The North Country area of NY, where the two aforementioned schools are located don't have much in the way of US-based junior "A" or "B" leagues such as the USHL or the NAHL. The OJHL is easily accessible to them and both teams have had great success in recruiting from that league. This is NOT to say that the two teams haven't or won't recruit from other areas of the US and Canada, they do. But in recent years especially, the bulk of their talent has come from the region I mentioned earlier in this post.

So no, I don't think the NCAA should limit the number of Canadians, just as I think the CHL shouldn't limit the number of Americans. Players should be free to play where they feel is best suited for them and teams should be able to recruit where they can find the best players that are willing to come to their institution/organization.

 

[BGFalconHawks]

According to Eliteprospects there are 1564 players in the NCAA for this coming season...

1066 (68.2%) are from the USA

457 (29.2) from Canada

41 (2.6%) from other countries

I think the breakdown is perfect how it is...a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects and are the mid level or lower guys, with a few top prospects thrown in every once and awhile. Also the NCAA doesn't have a max age limit and a lot of NCAA players don't enter at 18, they keep them in Jr A until their 20 and then bring them in where in Major Jr. they are done at 20 of course they have the CIS if they don't stick in the pros but the odds of continuing development and making the NHL is much greater in the NCAA than the CIS.

Also as educational institutions they aren't going to turn away people based on their nationality, most of the schools would embrace the diversity. Also you can get a 4 year degree from some pretty good universities respected around the world in many categories, play hockey at a level that could be considered on par or just below Major Jr and be involved in a high fitness/lifting program with many of the schools having training facilities at NHL levels.

 

[Rekus]

According to Eliteprospects there are 1564 players in the NCAA for this coming season...

1066 (68.2%) are from the USA

457 (29.2) from Canada

41 (2.6%) from other countries

I think the breakdown is perfect how it is...a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects and are the mid level or lower guys, with a few top prospects thrown in every once and awhile. Also the NCAA doesn't have a max age limit and a lot of NCAA players don't enter at 18, they keep them in Jr A until their 20 and then bring them in where in Major Jr. they are done at 20 of course they have the CIS if they don't stick in the pros but the odds of continuing development and making the NHL is much greater in the NCAA than the CIS.

Also as educational institutions they aren't going to turn away people based on their nationality, most of the schools would embrace the diversity. Also you can get a 4 year degree from some pretty good universities respected around the world in many categories, play hockey at a level that could be considered on par or just below Major Jr and be involved in a high fitness/lifting program with many of the schools having training facilities at NHL levels.

Why do the colleges bring in 20 year olds? Are those 20 year olds kids that would have been stars in major junior. Somehow I doubt that. Also, where do you get your stats regarding Canadians filling in the mid-lower end spots on a D 1 team? The top Canadian kids make their choice early to attend college or go D1 and come in as true freshmen. The US kids can attend the state schools for a fraction of what it would cost the Canadian kids - so why spend $50k to play hockey in the US - if as you say they take up the mid- lower level spots on a team. Mid-lower level to me means little to no scholarship money.

As for your point about CIS and D1 - most kids at CIS are former major junior kids that did not get drafted to the NHL versus D1 were kids are basically just getting started in playing top tier hockey. These are two very different stages in a hockey career.

If the colleges could get more of the high-end kids that are presently going to major junior - they would be taking them at 18 and not 20 years old. So what does that say about the present kids they take at 20 years old - maybe they were not good enough at 18?

Lots of holes in your logic.

I am not saying one path is better than the other - but certainly different.

Back to the original question - no limit. Bring in the best they can get - some at 18 years old and some at 20 yeaRs old. -

 

[MiamiHockey]

I think the breakdown is perfect how it is...a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects and are the mid level or lower guys, with a few top prospects thrown in every once and awhile. Also the NCAA doesn't have a max age limit and a lot of NCAA players don't enter at 18, they keep them in Jr A until their 20 and then bring them in where in Major Jr. they are done at 20 of course they have the CIS if they don't stick in the pros but the odds of continuing development and making the NHL is much greater in the NCAA than the CIS.

Also as educational institutions they aren't going to turn away people based on their nationality, most of the schools would embrace the diversity. Also you can get a 4 year degree from some pretty good universities respected around the world in many categories, play hockey at a level that could be considered on par or just below Major Jr and be involved in a high fitness/lifting program with many of the schools having training facilities at NHL levels.

The logic of your post is befuddling.

First, the vast majority of D1 NCAA teams are not producing NHL players on a consistent basis, not to mention the D3 teams which are substantially less likely to produce NHLers than are CIS teams. So, your statement about "a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects" pretty much applies to every NCAA player, irrespective of national origin.

Second, you should look into the CHL's education package, because it destroys your argument about the educational benefit of the NCAA. Every player in Major Junior gets a full years of tuition paid for each year that they play in the CHL. So, a guy who plays 4 years of Major Junior gets 4 years of tuition paid for. And the beauty of that package is that it is guaranteed and does not require the player to actually play hockey, unlike NCAA scholarships which can be withdrawn for a myriad of reasons.

At the end of the day, restrictions on the number of Canadians / Americans on NCAA / CHL rosters are not going to happen, nor are they necessary. Canadians will be, on average, more likely to prefer the CHL, and Americans will be more likely to prefer the NCAA, because that is the system that they have grown up aspiring to play.

What is interesting is the future trajectory of the CHL vs. NCAA in developing NHL players. I am going to argue that, in the future, the NCAA will produce a smaller proportion of NHL players than it does now. Why? The key competitive advantage for the NCAA has always been its "educational" component. The CHL has for many years now been improving its scholarship package, and it is now at the point where players who are serious about their education and their hockey no longer have to choose between the two if they play in the CHL.

 

[skatesharpener]

Most of the Canadian D1 players coming in are from ultra wealthy families. One has to ask the question of how much is being given to the school as a donation as well. Its the same for the American D1 players-mostly from wealthy families. Very rarely are lower income or even middle income players getting in. Its always been about the money and always will. It doesn't matter if your Canadian, American or even a Martian. Just bring me the money and your in.

 

[Rekus]

The logic of your post is befuddling.

First, the vast majority of D1 NCAA teams are not producing NHL players on a consistent basis, not to mention the D3 teams which are substantially less likely to produce NHLers than are CIS teams. So, your statement about "a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects" pretty much applies to every NCAA player, irrespective of national origin.

Second, you should look into the CHL's education package, because it destroys your argument about the educational benefit of the NCAA. Every player in Major Junior gets a full years of tuition paid for each year that they play in the CHL. So, a guy who plays 4 years of Major Junior gets 4 years of tuition paid for. And the beauty of that package is that it is guaranteed and does not require the player to actually play hockey, unlike NCAA scholarships which can be withdrawn for a myriad of reasons.

At the end of the day, restrictions on the number of Canadians / Americans on NCAA / CHL rosters are not going to happen, nor are they necessary. Canadians will be, on average, more likely to prefer the CHL, and Americans will be more likely to prefer the NCAA, because that is the system that they have grown up aspiring to play.

What is interesting is the future trajectory of the CHL vs. NCAA in developing NHL players. I am going to argue that, in the future, the NCAA will produce a smaller proportion of NHL players than it does now. Why? The key competitive advantage for the NCAA has always been its "educational" component. The CHL has for many years now been improving its scholarship package, and it is now at the point where players who are serious about their education and their hockey no longer have to choose between the two if they play in the CHL.

I agree with this. The education packages are making it harder and harder for kids to turn away fro major junior - even for the top American kids. The kids can chase their dream and still have a fallback if it does not work out - without the complexities of NCAA eligibilty rules.

 

[Shaun Bisson]

Most of the Canadian D1 players coming in are from ultra wealthy families. One has to ask the question of how much is being given to the school as a donation as well. Its the same for the American D1 players-mostly from wealthy families. Very rarely are lower income or even middle income players getting in. Its always been about the money and always will. It doesn't matter if your Canadian, American or even a Martian. Just bring me the money and your in.

What in the....where did you come up with this one?

 

[Rocko604]

The logic of your post is befuddling.

First, the vast majority of D1 NCAA teams are not producing NHL players on a consistent basis, not to mention the D3 teams which are substantially less likely to produce NHLers than are CIS teams. So, your statement about "a lot of the Canadians aren't the superstar prospects" pretty much applies to every NCAA player, irrespective of national origin.

Second, you should look into the CHL's education package, because it destroys your argument about the educational benefit of the NCAA. Every player in Major Junior gets a full years of tuition paid for each year that they play in the CHL. So, a guy who plays 4 years of Major Junior gets 4 years of tuition paid for. And the beauty of that package is that it is guaranteed and does not require the player to actually play hockey, unlike NCAA scholarships which can be withdrawn for a myriad of reasons.

At the end of the day, restrictions on the number of Canadians / Americans on NCAA / CHL rosters are not going to happen, nor are they necessary. Canadians will be, on average, more likely to prefer the CHL, and Americans will be more likely to prefer the NCAA, because that is the system that they have grown up aspiring to play.

What is interesting is the future trajectory of the CHL vs. NCAA in developing NHL players. I am going to argue that, in the future, the NCAA will produce a smaller proportion of NHL players than it does now. Why? The key competitive advantage for the NCAA has always been its "educational" component. The CHL has for many years now been improving its scholarship package, and it is now at the point where players who are serious about their education and their hockey no longer have to choose between the two if they play in the CHL.

The only downsides of the CHL/CIS agreement is that you must use it within 1.5 years of finishing your junior career (which to me isn't unreasonable), and it cannot be used for a polytechnic school. So if you play two years CHL, and want to go to SAIT for mechanical engineering, you're SOL.

That to me is effed up. If you don't have to play college hockey to receive the scholarship, you should be able to pick which school you want to go to. No offence to any current/former CHL players reading this, but some of these guys don't strike me as the kind that will be pursuing an Arts or Sciences degree.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

The only downsides of the CHL/CIS agreement is that you must use it within 1.5 years of finishing your junior career (which to me isn't unreasonable), and it cannot be used for a polytechnic school. So if you play two years CHL, and want to go to SAIT for mechanical engineering, you're SOL.

You sure about that?

According the WHL website, these were the WHL grads using their education packages and attending SAIT last year:

SAIT Polytechnic – Calgary, AB (5)
Alexander Grill-Donovan – Calgary, AB – Brandon
Riley Merkley – Blackie, AB – Calgary
Graham Potuer – Red Deer, AB – Everett
Michael Tadjdeh – Calgary, AB – Lethbridge**
David Watt – Duchess, AB – Portland**

and NAIT:

NAIT – Edmonton, AB (13)
*Steele Boomer – Edmonton, AB – Kootenay
Aaron Borejko – Edmonton, AB – Kelowna
Mitch Czibere – Ft. Saskatchewan, AB – Vancouver
Liam Darragh – Quesnel, BC – Victoria**
Sam Dezman – Edmonton, AB – Medicine Hat
Scott Doucet – Qualicum Beach, B.C. – Red Deer
Justin Faux – Red Deer, AB – Prince George
Josh Koper – Edmonton, AB – Medicine Hat**
Josh Lazowski – Leduc, AB – Edmonton**
Lindsay Nielsen – Edmonton, AB – Seattle
Mike Piluso – Maple Ridge, BC – Vancouver**
Mackenzie Royer – Spruce Grove, AB – Calgary
Charles Wells – Edmonton, AB – Seattle

 

[MiamiHockey]

The only downsides of the CHL/CIS agreement is that you must use it within 1.5 years of finishing your junior career (which to me isn't unreasonable), and it cannot be used for a polytechnic school. So if you play two years CHL, and want to go to SAIT for mechanical engineering, you're SOL.

That to me is effed up. If you don't have to play college hockey to receive the scholarship, you should be able to pick which school you want to go to. No offence to any current/former CHL players reading this, but some of these guys don't strike me as the kind that will be pursuing an Arts or Sciences degree.

I agree with the 18 month rule, which is really aimed at the guys who go pro. That rule also helps to keep the funding higher for guys who go straight to college, by reducing the average per player cost.

Not true about NAIT / SAIT though. It may have once been that way, but here's what the WHL states about eligible programs:
http://www.whl.ca/prospects-central-whl-scholarship-program

 

[Drummer]

I agree with the 18 month rule, which is really aimed at the guys who go pro. That rule also helps to keep the funding higher for guys who go straight to college, by reducing the average per player cost.

Not true about NAIT / SAIT though. It may have once been that way, but here's what the WHL states about eligible programs:
http://www.whl.ca/prospects-central-whl-scholarship-program

The link spells it out pretty clearly "...universities, colleges, technical institutes, trade schools, or any other institution which will help the player achieve his academic and career goals."

Also notice that it says 'full tuition" at any institution "across North America", not a $5K cap or 'average based on' ...

I don't disagree with the 18 month rule (take a shot then decide - you can always go back again later).

There is one point missing WRT the CHL packages - you do have to maintain some sort of continuing education program to maintain your eligibility after completing high school. Eg. once you graduate high school, you have to take some distance ed. courses for the remainder of your CHL career to maintain your academic standing.

Pretty compelling story for a player and his parents - play 4 years and have 4 years paid for.

 

[MiamiHockey]

Also notice that it says 'full tuition" at any institution "across North America", not a $5K cap or 'average based on' ...

Pretty compelling story for a player and his parents - play 4 years and have 4 years paid for.

There is one caveat to the "full tuition" rule ... in my last conversation with Leo Donlevy, the WHL education guy, he indicated that the player had to identify a university, and that the guaranteed amount would be equivalent to the full tuition for that university. So, for both Canadian and American kids, they had to identify a university they wished to attend (e.g., Alberta, Washington), determine that full tuition for that university, and that would be the maximum they get.

Keeping in mind that tuition at some private American universities (e.g., the University of Miami) exceeds $35,000 per year, that rule basically precludes a player from seeking out the most expensive college possible, or a ridiculously expensive training program (e.g., pilot training). Of course, tuition varies little from Canadian school to Canadian school, so it is not an issue for guys going to the CIS or a solid public university in the US ... but the tuition reimbursement is not limitless.

Still, if I had a 16-yr-old kid who had to decide between the CHL-CIS vs. a Tier II-NCAA route, there's no doubt that the CHL-CIS route is better in terms of hockey opportunity and education package (assuming the kid has the talent to play in the CHL).

 

[Rocko604]

You sure about that?

According the WHL website, these were the WHL grads using their education packages and attending SAIT last year:

SAIT Polytechnic – Calgary, AB (5)
Alexander Grill-Donovan – Calgary, AB – Brandon
Riley Merkley – Blackie, AB – Calgary
Graham Potuer – Red Deer, AB – Everett
Michael Tadjdeh – Calgary, AB – Lethbridge**
David Watt – Duchess, AB – Portland**

and NAIT:

NAIT – Edmonton, AB (13)
*Steele Boomer – Edmonton, AB – Kootenay
Aaron Borejko – Edmonton, AB – Kelowna
Mitch Czibere – Ft. Saskatchewan, AB – Vancouver
Liam Darragh – Quesnel, BC – Victoria**
Sam Dezman – Edmonton, AB – Medicine Hat
Scott Doucet – Qualicum Beach, B.C. – Red Deer
Justin Faux – Red Deer, AB – Prince George
Josh Koper – Edmonton, AB – Medicine Hat**
Josh Lazowski – Leduc, AB – Edmonton**
Lindsay Nielsen – Edmonton, AB – Seattle
Mike Piluso – Maple Ridge, BC – Vancouver**
Mackenzie Royer – Spruce Grove, AB – Calgary
Charles Wells – Edmonton, AB – Seattle

I agree with the 18 month rule, which is really aimed at the guys who go pro. That rule also helps to keep the funding higher for guys who go straight to college, by reducing the average per player cost.

Not true about NAIT / SAIT though. It may have once been that way, but here's what the WHL states about eligible programs:
http://www.whl.ca/prospects-central-whl-scholarship-program

My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Must be new. If I remember correctly one of the issues when the so-called CHLPA was making news was that the scholarship packagers were restricted to university programs only. Glad to see that isn't the case.

 

[VOB]

My mistake, thanks for the clarification. Must be new. If I remember correctly one of the issues when the so-called CHLPA was making news was that the scholarship packagers were restricted to university programs only. Glad to see that isn't the case.

Not true, they always afforded their players the opportunity to pursue their education through training programs and community colleges. The scholarship programs, enacted around the mid 90's, basically shut the NCAA out of the Canadian market for elite talent in a rather short time. The CHL is now making huge inroads into the U.S. talent pool. Only matter of time before the NCAA throws in the towel and begins accepting CHL players, actually surprised that it has not happened already.

 

[Rocko604]

Out of curiousity, are CHL players also getting scholarships from the schools themselves? The CHL package only covers tuition, books and compulsory fees, but not housing, so I'd imagine a kid from BC wanting to play at Alberta would try to get an additional scholarship to cover that as well.

 

[FreddyFoyle]

Out of curiousity, are CHL players also getting scholarships from the schools themselves? The CHL package only covers tuition, books and compulsory fees, but not housing, so I'd imagine a kid from BC wanting to play at Alberta would try to get an additional scholarship to cover that as well.

CIS schools are allowed at offer Athletic Financial Awards (AFAs) to varsity athletes, equal to that's school's tuition, student fees, etc. You have maximum pool equal to 70% of a full roster by sport, eg. in hockey it works out to 20 players X tuition. You can spread the AFAs out so that everyone gets some financial support, or 20 guys get the max. One bonus is that if a returning student-athlete is an Academic All-Canadian (B+ average), you can give him an AFA that doesn't count towards your maximum pool (if you have the funds of course).

A key player on a well-funded CIS team is going to have his education package from the CHL (equal to tuition) plus an AFA from the school (equal to tuition), so he's getting pretty close to a full-ride. Schools are not allowed to directly pay for a student-athlete's accommodations or meals, but if he has double the cost of tuition (CHL education package + AFA), he obviously is going to have funds to pay for a lot of his living expenses.