Class action lawsuit against NCAA for preventing Major Junior players from playing

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I am guessing it is kind of similar to NHL teams. Profit is low but valuations are decent.

Profit would be high, they have no labour costs. I go to about 15 Ottawa 67’s games a year, 20 bucks a ticket is the cheapest ticket. 4000 fans a game on average. Around 90K a game in ticket revenue (not counting concessions, sponsorship and parking) would be about 3.1 million a year in revenue.

Player labour costs would be about 80K for the year. Hard to imagine they have another 4-5 million in costs to make it a money losing venture.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

All major junior, and even lower leagues, have players who choose to be there. No one forces them to play.

Being there are a plethora of other options beyond major junior for teen aged players, it's entirely disingenuous to label them as "slave labour", and really offensive to those that were actually slaves.

The CHL, and similar entities, exist solely because young men are looking to get better by playing against the best of their age groups with an eye on turning their skills into a launch pad towards secondary schooling or professional hockey. Someone will have to explain to me how that happens without travelling to various areas to do so.

As to the NCAA rule itself, could not agree more that its completely stupid, outdated and living in the past. I would wager that they change their stance on this before it ever gets as far as trial. For what was maybe the most archaic organization in the USA until recently, they have really started to change their ways in the last decade and this will be another one.

Well the CHL exists to make their owners money, just like any other business. They just get to pay their labour a dollar an hour.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

The Canadian junior league compensation is crap for sure.

Capped at $250 per month for players. So we are talking maybe $2500 per player for stipend, and $9000 for a year's worth of scholarship.

So for a 23 man roster, the players are getting compensated a total of $265,000 per year.

http://https://thehockeynews.com/new...ing-to-players

The Red Deer Rebels for example pay out substantially more than that every year for "Management fees".

"Smith’s report cited the Red Deer Rebels as an example. It pointed out that according to the Rebels’ own financial report, the team paid out $1.49 million in “management fees” in the fiscal 2016 year. That compared to $652,600 in 2012, $400,000 in 2013, $700,000 in 2014 and $725,000 in 2015. “Based on the large increase in the fiscal 2016 management fees,” Smith’s report says, “it appears that a significant portion of those management fees may be a distribution of profit.”"

They paid $1.5 million in management fees in 2016. Probably double that now at least.

If the teams can afford those kind of expenses, they can afford better compensation for players. They end up having to only pay out a small percentage of their scholarship fees as well. Anyone that goes to a pro league for more than one year loses their scholarship, and a lot of players just are unlikely to utilize them anyway. If you become a police officer or fire fighter, or a salesperson you end up getting almost nothing from 4 years of service to the team.

If I was a parent of a potential NHL prospect I would be heavily advocating the NCAA route. The value of a full ride scholarship is worth much more than what the Canadian Junior Leagues offer over a 4 year career, and you don't have to worry about trades, long bus rides 2-3 times per week, or being stuck in a one horse town.

This will impact Canadian University Hockey more than anything. A good chunk of their recruits are due to NCAA ineligibility.

There is also speculation that bigger programs like UNB or U of A could join the NCAA.

Entertainment wise U Sports is also better entertainment value than the CHL, which has an age bracket that NCAA is closer to replicating. Fewer players are starting college hockey 18 than ever before.

The CHL entertainment is also subsidized by their agreement with the NHL to return 18-19 year olds on NHL contracts to their roster.

Without that, it wouldn’t be much different than Junior A.

Junior hockey should be ages 16-19, and players last choice should be to leave their local area, not their only choice.

This would make local junior hockey stronger as people are more likely to show up to watch local kids.

The CHL is an entertainment sham. Go watch a Wranglers & a Hitmen game & it’s immediately apparent which game has adults not children playing.

The CHL is like selling tickets to the Calgary Colts as if they were the Calgary Stampeders.

In smaller centers with no pro, semi-pro, or even senior hockey option the public doesn’t even have anything to compare it with.

Places like Saskatoon, Regina, or Kelowna could easily support an AHL or ECHL team. They could also charge higher prices than the Wranglers.

If the CHL was to fold or wither away, no one would notice. People could get similar or better entertainment value and it could even sanitize some parts of hockey culture by normalizing living at home until they’re 18 like other adolescent sports.

[PepsiFree]

CHL is pretty entertaining. Plus it’s fun to see young players that are developing or working towards upping their draft ranking.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by transplant99

All major junior, and even lower leagues, have players who choose to be there. No one forces them to play.

Because they are young men who think (and often their parents think) they're going to become an NHL star. How many actually do?

Considering all the recent news about hazing, sexual abuse, substance abuse, etc, I definitely think it's beyond time to consider if there's a better way to do things.

And, yeah, I agree with the person that said CHL teams exist to make money. they aren't developing hockey players out of the goodness of their hearts.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

CHL is pretty entertaining. Plus it’s fun to see young players that are developing or working towards upping their draft ranking.

I find the CHL really hit and miss. It depends on the team and the city. I have watched CHL games all over the country and the quality of the experience can be drastically different. For example, watching a game in Oshawa is quite a different experience than watching a game in Brandon. And of course, with constant turnover, the on ice quality can be hit or miss depending on where the team is in their cycle.

[sureLoss]

WHL player commits to ASU.

Team and player feel confident that the NCAA restrictions on the CHL will be lifted by the 2025/26 season

https://twitter.com/user/status/1834564906693116220

[Zoller]

The CHL becoming a feeder league for the NCAA was not on my radar

[Funkhouser]

This is huge news.
The CHL is in big trouble and will need to adapt their business model rapidly to remain relevant. The path for the best underage players in N.A. will be:
Age 15-17: CHL
Age 18-21: NCAA


The potential outcomes I see:
-Decline of the USHL, BCHL & AJHL: As there is no no restriction to the NCAA from the CHL, players will opt for the top league (CHL) and avoid USHL/BCHL/AJHL which were previously feeders to the NCAA.
-Decline of CHL: the majority of star players in the CHL will now leave at 17/18 to the NCAA where they can play against men, gain a top rated education, and have more control over their career.
-Improved NCAA: the NCAA will now host the majority of future stars and will become a very lucrative operation.
-Increased number of top players choosing to become UFA and not signing with their drafted team. Ultimately, this decision gives more players more leverage to become a UFA after 4 years of NCAA. The NHL needs to adjust their policies quickly to discourage this type of action (e.g. draft re-entry, not UFA).

[lazypucker]

I am not sure how CHL teams got away with not paying players at least minimum wage for years, but I like this new model where NCAA Div-1 teams are starting to recruit current CHL players.

The Crosbys and McDavids in the world will still jump straight to the NHL at 18 when they get drafted, and the other new draftees who are not making the NHL in their draft year will be returned to their junior teams or the NCAA (if they get recuited there).

Can a draftee attend NHL training camps AND go to NCAA at the same time? I believe currently you can't. The moment you attend an NHL training camp you will lost your NCAA eligibility, or is this changing as well?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

This is huge news.
The CHL is in big trouble and will need to adapt their business model rapidly to remain relevant. The path for the best underage players in N.A. will be:
Age 15-17: CHL
Age 18-21: NCAA


The potential outcomes I see:
-Decline of the USHL, BCHL & AJHL: As there is no no restriction to the NCAA from the CHL, players will opt for the top league (CHL) and avoid USHL/BCHL/AJHL which were previously feeders to the NCAA.
-Decline of CHL: the majority of star players in the CHL will now leave at 17/18 to the NCAA where they can play against men, gain a top rated education, and have more control over their career.
-Improved NCAA: the NCAA will now host the majority of future stars and will become a very lucrative operation.
-Increased number of top players choosing to become UFA and not signing with their drafted team. Ultimately, this decision gives more players more leverage to become a UFA after 4 years of NCAA. The NHL needs to adjust their policies quickly to discourage this type of action (e.g. draft re-entry, not UFA).

You want to require redraft for a 22 year old?

[MegaErtz]

Why should there be a draft at all? It goes against every anti-competition labour law there is. Make all of these guys free agents and let them sign with who they want. The current system is terrible for a team like us, people jump ship the minute they're eligible to. I'd rather pay kids straight out of junior or college hockey who actually want to be here, even if that means overpaying them to spent the winters here.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

The potential outcomes I see:
-Decline of the USHL, BCHL & AJHL: As there is no no restriction to the NCAA from the CHL, players will opt for the top league (CHL) and avoid USHL/BCHL/AJHL which were previously feeders to the NCAA.
-Decline of CHL: the majority of star players in the CHL will now leave at 17/18 to the NCAA where they can play against men, gain a top rated education, and have more control over their career.
-Improved NCAA: the NCAA will now host the majority of future stars and will become a very lucrative operation.
-Increased number of top players choosing to become UFA and not signing with their drafted team. Ultimately, this decision gives more players more leverage to become a UFA after 4 years of NCAA. The NHL needs to adjust their policies quickly to discourage this type of action (e.g. draft re-entry, not UFA).

I don't think much of this is going to happen, not in full anyways and not the way you describe. The big thing that it might... might... result in is the nullification of the CHL-AHL agreement. I mean what's the point of having it.

This is a very good thing for young players and long overdue.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Why should there be a draft at all? It goes against every anti-competition labour law there is. Make all of these guys free agents and let them sign with who they want. The current system is terrible for a team like us, people jump ship the minute they're eligible to. I'd rather pay kids straight out of junior or college hockey who actually want to be here, even if that means overpaying them to spent the winters here.

Yes, let's be a feeder team for the bigger-market clubs! I would happily keep forking out that season-ticket money, knowing my team is just going to perpetually dress second-tier players.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Why should there be a draft at all? It goes against every anti-competition labour law there is. Make all of these guys free agents and let them sign with who they want. The current system is terrible for a team like us, people jump ship the minute they're eligible to. I'd rather pay kids straight out of junior or college hockey who actually want to be here, even if that means overpaying them to spent the winters here.

They don’t go against anti-competition labour laws because collective bargaining agreements are exempt due to the fact that the terms of the draft are negotiated and agreed upon by both the players and the league.

The current system is far better for small and mid-market teams like us than your proposed system would be. Don’t like players leaving after eligible to? Well, enjoy players never coming here in the first place.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

I actually think there will be two groups that get hurt the most here:

(1) CIS teams. A lot of CHL players, like Whitehead, are going to opt to go to NCAA after their junior eligibility ends.

(2) Younger players. The above players from (1) are going to displace a lot of younger players who would have previously been playing in the NCAA. They're probably going to have to play more years in the USHL.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, let's be a feeder team for the bigger-market clubs! I would happily keep forking out that season-ticket money, knowing my team is just going to perpetually dress second-tier players.

You don't think we're a feeder club already?

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They don’t go against anti-competition labour laws because collective bargaining agreements are exempt due to the fact that the terms of the draft are negotiated and agreed upon by both the players and the league.

The current system is far better for small and mid-market teams like us than your proposed system would be. Don’t like players leaving after eligible to? Well, enjoy players never coming here in the first place.

Players drafted into the NHL are required to join the NHLPA, and have no say in how the collective bargaining agreement is negotiated. The older players sold them out twenty years ago after the 2004-05 lockout.

[FlamesAddiction]

Do U.S. colleges and universities have limits on recruiting from outside of the country? I think some Canadian universities do that (like you can't load up your basketball teams with American born players).

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Do U.S. colleges and universities have limits on recruiting from outside of the country? I think some Canadian universities do that (like you can't load up your basketball teams with American born players).

I don't think there's a rule per say but most have internal quotas, schools like Stanford and MIT were always notoriously hard to get into for internationals at around 1%, Harvard was around 5% last I heard.