SO CHL players can now switch to the NCAA...?

[hockeyguy0022]

NCAA is allowing (or will soon be) players to make money/sponsorships. Considering the CHL pays a stipend, which is nothing, and thousands less then NCAA football players will make, I assume the NCAA will be forced to lift their status and CHL could flip back and forth anytime. Obviously from 18-20 YO, or technically you could play CHL until 20, they play another 4 years in college. You could have someone doing 16-20 in the CHL and 20-24 in the NCAA. 8 years of development could really help some kids for sure.

Crazy.

Click to read more...

 

[kij]

This could lead to some wacky situations with scholarships. With many players out of the CHL receiving the equivalent of 1 year's college tuition per year played in the CHL. A fun workaround for the NCAA imposed 18 scholarships per team (excluding the Ivy Leagues which offer no athletic aid and the service academies which offer full scholarships to all students in exchange for 5 years of military service). Will be interesting to see this unfold.

 

[MiamiHockey]

NCAA is allowing (or will soon be) players to make money/sponsorships. Considering the CHL pays a stipend, which is nothing, and thousands less then NCAA football players will make, I assume the NCAA will be forced to lift their status and CHL could flip back and forth anytime. Obviously from 18-20 YO, or technically you could play CHL until 20, they play another 4 years in college. You could have someone doing 16-20 in the CHL and 20-24 in the NCAA. 8 years of development could really help some kids for sure.

Crazy.

That's not accurate.

The change in California is imploring the NCAA to permit student-athletes to make money from their own likenesses WHILE they are athletes in the NCAA.

It does not, however, change their eligibility requirements to BECOME student-athletes. The NCAA currently denies eligibility to "professional" athletes. CHL players are considered "professional" athletes because they receive stipends to play (whereas Jr A players do not). I don't see that changing.

This won't move the needle at all for hockey. It will a little for basketball and football, but only for superstar athletes.

 

[leafhky88]

That's not accurate.

The change in California is imploring the NCAA to permit student-athletes to make money from their own likenesses WHILE they are athletes in the NCAA.

It does not, however, change their eligibility requirements to BECOME student-athletes. The NCAA currently denies eligibility to "professional" athletes. CHL players are considered "professional" athletes because they receive stipends to play (whereas Jr A players do not). I don't see that changing.

This won't move the needle at all for hockey. It will a little for basketball and football, but only for superstar athletes.

I always thought the stipend issue was a small part of the equation, but the largest component of the CHL being considered professional was the fact players who had signed professional contracts can (would likely continue to do so) play in the league (ie. players can sign an entry-level contract in the NHL but be assigned to junior).

NCAA College Hockey vs. CHL Major Junior - College Hockey, Inc..

This article indicates: "Because the CHL includes players who have signed professional contracts, the NCAA considers it a professional league."

Am I wrong?

 

[BOS358]

I always thought the stipend issue was a small part of the equation, but the largest component of the CHL being considered professional was the fact players who had signed professional contracts can (would likely continue to do so) play in the league (ie. players can sign an entry-level contract in the NHL but be assigned to junior).

NCAA College Hockey vs. CHL Major Junior - College Hockey, Inc..

This article indicates: "Because the CHL includes players who have signed professional contracts, the NCAA considers it a professional league."

Am I wrong?

No. You are not wrong.

 

[Island Husky]

I always thought the stipend issue was a small part of the equation, but the largest component of the CHL being considered professional was the fact players who had signed professional contracts can (would likely continue to do so) play in the league (ie. players can sign an entry-level contract in the NHL but be assigned to junior).

NCAA College Hockey vs. CHL Major Junior - College Hockey, Inc..

This article indicates: "Because the CHL includes players who have signed professional contracts, the NCAA considers it a professional league."

Am I wrong?

Perhaps not, in addition to the above, which is in effect for the majority. But by the time someone signs an NHL contract, as a Charlottetown Islander ( Cormier?) did the other day, then they are simply out of the question anyway, and by that time are long past being an NCAA interest. However, I don't think the NCAA is interested in 19 and 20 year olds who have played a full career in the CHL anyway, even if it were the case. They want young 17 and 18 year olds much like the CHL does. So in effect, they are still competing for the same players.

 

[Island Husky]

I don't know the wording of such a contract, does it stipulate they begin earning when they start playing for them? But, I do know they can receive the signing bonus, which JS Giguerre did in 1997, whopping high sums (his was 750 000) so either way, they are off the radar for NCAA.

 

[MiamiHockey]

I always thought the stipend issue was a small part of the equation, but the largest component of the CHL being considered professional was the fact players who had signed professional contracts can (would likely continue to do so) play in the league (ie. players can sign an entry-level contract in the NHL but be assigned to junior).

NCAA College Hockey vs. CHL Major Junior - College Hockey, Inc..

This article indicates: "Because the CHL includes players who have signed professional contracts, the NCAA considers it a professional league."

Am I wrong?

Why do NCAA players then not lose eligibility for playing against professionals at the World Junior Hockey Championship?

 

[leafhky88]

Perhaps not, in addition to the above, which is in effect for the majority. But by the time someone signs an NHL contract, as a Charlottetown Islander ( Cormier?) did the other day, then they are simply out of the question anyway, and by that time are long past being an NCAA interest. However, I don't think the NCAA is interested in 19 and 20 year olds who have played a full career in the CHL anyway, even if it were the case. They want young 17 and 18 year olds much like the CHL does. So in effect, they are still competing for the same players.

If my understanding of the article is correct (and if the article is correct) the issue of signing contracts is not specific to one player. For example with respect to a 19 year old who signs a professional contract, that does not just void their eligibility (in addition to the stipend) but also is part of what voids all the other 16 and 17 year old's eligibility by virtue of being on the same team/same league. In your example, Cormier signing an NHL contract but continuing to play in the Q would make him a professional and by association, the rest of the Islanders too.

CHLPA faces complex NCAA eligibility issues | The Hockey News on Sports Illustrated

This article on SI seems to indicate the same thing although it mentions what seems to be a difference in opinion between the CHL and NCAA (whether the CHL is professional due to having professionally signed players in the league or due to its classification as "professional" in language in addition to the stipend).

From the article:
"The biggest issue is that you have signed NHL players on major junior teams,” said Nate Ewell, a spokesman for College Hockey Inc.

Drafted out of Portland in the Western League, ‘El Nino’ signed his entry level contract with the New York Islanders, then played nine games in the 2010-11 NHL season before being sent back to the Winterhawks. He’s already been paid as a professional hockey player at this point, already received his signing bonus.
According to the NCAA, that would affect the status of every other Portland player that skated with him.

Agreed the 2 leagues do want the same players and for the most part (other than players leaving a college team to play junior) it is pick one route.

 

[leafhky88]

Why do NCAA players then not lose eligibility for playing against professionals at the World Junior Hockey Championship?

The SI article seems to indicate international play is exempt:

International play/evaluation gets a pass from the NCAA, which is why John Carlson, as a signed Washington Capitals prospect playing pro hockey in the American League with Hershey, did not “pollute” his U.S. teammates en route to his gold medal overtime goal at the 2010 WJC.

 

[Hollywood3]

That's not accurate.

The change in California is imploring the NCAA to permit student-athletes to make money from their own likenesses WHILE they are athletes in the NCAA.

It does not, however, change their eligibility requirements to BECOME student-athletes. The NCAA currently denies eligibility to "professional" athletes. CHL players are considered "professional" athletes because they receive stipends to play (whereas Jr A players do not). I don't see that changing.

This won't move the needle at all for hockey. It will a little for basketball and football, but only for superstar athletes.

The NCAA stopped allowing CHL players once the latter started using players under NHL contract. If a junior eligible player signs an NHL contract a term of that contract states that if he is cut he is sent to junior rather than minor pros. These players have already collected signing bonuses and some salary. Hence it met the pre-existing NCAA definition of pro. Also some Junior A teams pay allowances.

 

[Hollywood3]

Why do NCAA players then not lose eligibility for playing against professionals at the World Junior Hockey Championship?

The World Juniors is not a pro league. The CHL is a pro league. (In the opinion of the NCAA.) Same with Olympic sports.

 

[MiamiHockey]

The SI article seems to indicate international play is exempt:

International play/evaluation gets a pass from the NCAA, which is why John Carlson, as a signed Washington Capitals prospect playing pro hockey in the American League with Hershey, did not “pollute” his U.S. teammates en route to his gold medal overtime goal at the 2010 WJC.

I should have prefaced my comment to indicate dripping sarcasm.

The NCAA flouts its "Amateur" regulations for the sole purpose of retaining its ability to profit limitlessly from its athletes. It's a pile of BS.

My point was that they have very convenient "rules" which they selectively interpret / enforce to give the illusion of being an amateur sports organization, with the sole purpose of fending off the lawmakers who should really require them to treat their athletes as employees. Having to treat athletes as employees would, however, prevent the powers that be from making millions off their athletes' backs.

So, the NCAA deems the World Juniors "okay" - even though basically the entire tournament consists of professional athletes (look at the Swedish / Russian / Finnish rosters) - but the CHL, with a few players who have signed an ELC but are not actually getting those salaries while in the CHL - is somehow "professional."

What is the difference between the World Juniors versus CHL that would inspire such an inconsistent set of "rules"? The World Juniors is not a threat to the NCAA - and in fact participation in the World Juniors enhances the NCAA's brand. By contrast, the CHL is a direct competitor which also profits off its athletes.

In sum, don't expect the NCAA to allow CHL players into the NCAA. But, it has nothing to do with the few ELCs in the CHL. That's just a convenient excuse.

 

[leafhky88]

The NCAA stopped allowing CHL players once the latter started using players under NHL contract. If a junior eligible player signs an NHL contract a term of that contract states that if he is cut he is sent to junior rather than minor pros. These players have already collected signing bonuses and some salary. Hence it met the pre-existing NCAA definition of pro. Also some Junior A teams pay allowances.

From what I can tell, it is a combination of both. However, I have typically viewed the professional status as the bigger issue (rightly or wrongly).

This article Coming Down the Pipe!: CHLPA: NCAA Eligibility contains a letter (which I have also seen on at least one other site) from the NCAA that identifies both as being issues.

Per our phone conversations, our legislation indicates that a professional team is one that pays players beyond actual and necessary expenses or considers itself professional (NCAA Division I Bylaw 12.02.5). Per our discussion, it is my understanding the league pays its players a stipend that is beyond actual and necessary expenses; therefore, the players are considered professional.
Our legislation in Bylaw 12.2.3.2.4 notes that ice hockey teams in the US and Canada classified by the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) as major junior teams are considered professional under the legislation. As a result, even with the elimination of the stipend, these players would not have eligibility because of the classification of their hockey teams.
If the stipend were to be eliminated and the association were to not classify the team as major junior, then they would not be considered professional per our legislation; however, you would need to consult with the CHA regarding the process of changing the classification.
If there are any other questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Natasha Oakes
Assistant Director of Academic and Membership Affairs
National Collegiate Athletic Association

​

 

[MiamiHockey]

From what I can tell, it is a combination of both. However, I have typically viewed the professional status as the bigger issue (rightly or wrongly).

This article Coming Down the Pipe!: CHLPA: NCAA Eligibility contains a letter (which I have also seen on at least one other site) from the NCAA that identifies both as being issues.

Per our phone conversations, our legislation indicates that a professional team is one that pays players beyond actual and necessary expenses or considers itself professional (NCAA Division I Bylaw 12.02.5). Per our discussion, it is my understanding the league pays its players a stipend that is beyond actual and necessary expenses; therefore, the players are considered professional.
Our legislation in Bylaw 12.2.3.2.4 notes that ice hockey teams in the US and Canada classified by the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) as major junior teams are considered professional under the legislation. As a result, even with the elimination of the stipend, these players would not have eligibility because of the classification of their hockey teams.
If the stipend were to be eliminated and the association were to not classify the team as major junior, then they would not be considered professional per our legislation; however, you would need to consult with the CHA regarding the process of changing the classification.
If there are any other questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Natasha Oakes
Assistant Director of Academic and Membership Affairs
National Collegiate Athletic Association

​

There are so few players on ELCs in the CHL that it's really a red herring. The issue is that the CHL is direct competition, much like Minor League Baseball.

Again, the NCAA has zero interest in changing this rule.

What I find laughable about the NCAA's communications is that they use the terms "legislation" and "ByLaws" ... as if they are a legally elected body that has the ability to create and enforce laws. These are not laws ... they are eligibility rules used by the NCAA to create the illusion that they are some puritan amateur organization.

 

[Island Husky]

I should have prefaced my comment to indicate dripping sarcasm.

The NCAA flouts its "Amateur" regulations for the sole purpose of retaining its ability to profit limitlessly from its athletes. It's a pile of BS.

My point was that they have very convenient "rules" which they selectively interpret / enforce to give the illusion of being an amateur sports organization, with the sole purpose of fending off the lawmakers who should really require them to treat their athletes as employees. Having to treat athletes as employees would, however, prevent the powers that be from making millions off their athletes' backs.

So, the NCAA deems the World Juniors "okay" - even though basically the entire tournament consists of professional athletes (look at the Swedish / Russian / Finnish rosters) - but the CHL, with a few players who have signed an ELC but are not actually getting those salaries while in the CHL - is somehow "professional."

What is the difference between the World Juniors versus CHL that would inspire such an inconsistent set of "rules"? The World Juniors is not a threat to the NCAA - and in fact participation in the World Juniors enhances the NCAA's brand. By contrast, the CHL is a direct competitor which also profits off its athletes.

In sum, don't expect the NCAA to allow CHL players into the NCAA. But, it has nothing to do with the few ELCs in the CHL. That's just a convenient excuse.

Then there are the NCAA Players from Canada, who return to play for Canada in the WJC.

 

[AUS Fan]

The CIS played against a NCAA all-star team in Detroit in 1996. At that time the US team was composed of all Seniors who were graduating. People I spoke to on the US side said this was because younger players were not allowed to play against the 'pros'. Canada won 6-5 in OT. I think it was 6-5. US goalie was Tim Thomas. The following year the US allowed anyone to play. There were even a few Canadians on the US team.

 

[Hollywood3]

There are so few players on ELCs in the CHL that it's really a red herring. The issue is that the CHL is direct competition, much like Minor League Baseball.

Again, the NCAA has zero interest in changing this rule.

What I find laughable about the NCAA's communications is that they use the terms "legislation" and "ByLaws" ... as if they are a legally elected body that has the ability to create and enforce laws. These are not laws ... they are eligibility rules used by the NCAA to create the illusion that they are some puritan amateur organization.

"By-law" is a term used for all corporations. "Legislation" is a rare term for a sports organization.

 

[Hollywood3]

From what I can tell, it is a combination of both. However, I have typically viewed the professional status as the bigger issue (rightly or wrongly).

This article Coming Down the Pipe!: CHLPA: NCAA Eligibility contains a letter (which I have also seen on at least one other site) from the NCAA that identifies both as being issues.

Per our phone conversations, our legislation indicates that a professional team is one that pays players beyond actual and necessary expenses or considers itself professional (NCAA Division I Bylaw 12.02.5). Per our discussion, it is my understanding the league pays its players a stipend that is beyond actual and necessary expenses; therefore, the players are considered professional.
Our legislation in Bylaw 12.2.3.2.4 notes that ice hockey teams in the US and Canada classified by the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) as major junior teams are considered professional under the legislation. As a result, even with the elimination of the stipend, these players would not have eligibility because of the classification of their hockey teams.
If the stipend were to be eliminated and the association were to not classify the team as major junior, then they would not be considered professional per our legislation; however, you would need to consult with the CHA regarding the process of changing the classification.
If there are any other questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Natasha Oakes
Assistant Director of Academic and Membership Affairs
National Collegiate Athletic Association

​

I don't think Canadian hockey cares about the NCAA.

 

[Hollywood3]

The CIS played against a NCAA all-star team in Detroit in 1996. At that time the US team was composed of all Seniors who were graduating. People I spoke to on the US side said this was because younger players were not allowed to play against the 'pros'. Canada won 6-5 in OT. I think it was 6-5. US goalie was Tim Thomas. The following year the US allowed anyone to play. There were even a few Canadians on the US team.

Each team won 3 games over a four year period, 1997-2000. If you have scores to add let me know:
North American University Hockey Championship

 

[Hollywood3]

I should have prefaced my comment to indicate dripping sarcasm.

The NCAA flouts its "Amateur" regulations for the sole purpose of retaining its ability to profit limitlessly from its athletes. It's a pile of BS.

My point was that they have very convenient "rules" which they selectively interpret / enforce to give the illusion of being an amateur sports organization, with the sole purpose of fending off the lawmakers who should really require them to treat their athletes as employees. Having to treat athletes as employees would, however, prevent the powers that be from making millions off their athletes' backs.

So, the NCAA deems the World Juniors "okay" - even though basically the entire tournament consists of professional athletes (look at the Swedish / Russian / Finnish rosters) - but the CHL, with a few players who have signed an ELC but are not actually getting those salaries while in the CHL - is somehow "professional."

What is the difference between the World Juniors versus CHL that would inspire such an inconsistent set of "rules"? The World Juniors is not a threat to the NCAA - and in fact participation in the World Juniors enhances the NCAA's brand. By contrast, the CHL is a direct competitor which also profits off its athletes.

In sum, don't expect the NCAA to allow CHL players into the NCAA. But, it has nothing to do with the few ELCs in the CHL. That's just a convenient excuse.

Amateur guidelines have always been a quagmire. As recently as 1984 the USA got the IOC to define "pro" as "one game in the NHL" instead of "getting paid to play". Canadian hockey history is laden with disqualifications over eligibility quarrels.

 

[Island Husky]

Amateur guidelines have always been a quagmire. As recently as 1984 the USA got the IOC to define "pro" not as "one game in the NHL" instead of "getting paid to play". Canadian hockey history is laden with disqualifications over eligibility quarrels.

Oh Man, in the 30's it was an all out war, mostly between Maritime Senior teams and the CAHA.