NCAA vs CHL, again

Read an interesting blog this morning from the Minneapolis StarTribune site - a tip of the hat to Gregg Drinnan's blog for pointing me to it. If you're interested in the CHL vs NCAA recruiting battle, I highly encourage you to read North Dakota head coach Dave Hakstol's comments for yourself.

Basically Hakstol is unhappy about having lost two prized UND recruits to the CHL in the last six months - forward J.T. Miller to the OHL last summer and then Stefan Matteau to the QMJHL two weeks ago. So unhappy, that Hakstol actually suggested that the NCAA may need to change its rules to allow ex-CHL players to play NCAA hockey.

This position probably amounts to treason among the "CHL is pro hockey" faction of the NCAA fanbase, who like to cling to the cute notion that their exchanging tens of thousands of dollars in free education in exchange for a young hockey player's services is somehow morally superior and less "professional" than the CHL clubs who offer monthly stipends of a few hundred dollars (plus an equivalent, optional, scholarship package) for the same services.

But, it is refreshing to see at least one person in a prominent position inside NCAA hockey and its member clubs sees the possible bigger picture here which offers benefits to everyone - ESPECIALLY the players themselves, who are what everyone should be mainly concerned about.

I've been over this many times before, but if the NCAA could only see its way clear to dropping this ridiculous "professional" designation it attaches to players who play even one game in the CHL (or even those who just sign an education contract but never play in the league!), everyone would win.

The CHL leagues would win because ALL of the best players would then head to the CHL. Many of them would stay, strengthening the CHL's product.

The NCAA would win because there will be players who sample the CHL's offerings for a year or two or three and decide it's not for them. Or maybe they decide that the NHL dream isn't going to work out for them and a four year degree from an NCAA school sounds pretty good instead. (Of course, the CHL scholarship program offers them four or five years of paid schooling after their CHL days are over too, but maybe they don't want to wait 'til they're 20 or 21 to get started on that. Who knows?). So the NCAA would get these players - some/many of whom they would have gotten ANYWAY - only they will be better players for having spent a year or two playing at the higher level of the CHL instead of in Junior A.

Yes, the NCAA will almost certainly lose most of the biggest and brightest stars that it currently attracts. Those players will play in the CHL, become high NHL draft picks, sign NHL contracts and never play in the NCAA. So I can see why this path has some obvious unappealing features for NCAA schools and their fans. The tradeoff for landing few of those "five star" players though is access to a much larger group of four star and three star players that they currently do not have.

I firmly believe that if they would just permit kids to play major junior up to the point where they graduate from high school (since they're not even able to attend university until then anyway) and THEN have the player make his choice which way to go, that everyone benefits. No more pressuring from all sides of 15, 16 year old kids to make these life-altering decisions.