When it comes to the term “early recruiting” everyone has an opinion. We have had conversations with high profile coaches and agents who regularly are recruiting youth players, we have spoken to coaches who recruit only 18-year old’s and older and we have spoken to the players themselves who have been recruited at young ages. As always with Neutral Zone, we do not take sides in debates, our mission to explain how it happens, why it happens and what the ramifications are for early recruiting. We polled over 80 hockey professionals and players and used that as a basis for our study and provide the background information that is necessary to give context.
What constitutes “early” recruiting?
To start the debate, one must determine what is “early” in recruiting? Is this 14-years old, is this 16-years old, is this 17-years old, etc. We had responses that early recruiting was anyone accepting a scholarship prior to being 18 and we had some that believe early recruiting is for players being committed before their high school or midget seasons. However, the majority of responses stated that recruiting players under the age of 16 is considered early recruiting. For our purposes going forward, we will consider early recruiting as players committed to NCAA programs who are 16 or younger.
How does early recruiting happen? Isn’t it against NCAA guidelines?
The “how” discussion is an important one because there are a lot of different ways early recruiting is facilitated. NCAA coaches are not allowed to reach out to players who are 14 years old; however, the elite level players (and we stress elite level) will have agents, typically NHLPA certified agents, who will represent those players and make calls on their behalf. For players without representation, some of these conversations start with their current coaches and those third-party interactions lead to the player calling the NCAA coach (which is 100% legal). From there these conversations can take a lot of different forms; some schools will offer a commitment in regard to scholarship amount, some will offer a future spot on the team; some will give guidelines saying a player has “x” amount of time to make that decision. Sometimes these conversations simply start with an invitation to come on an unofficial visit to the school which means the coach and hockey program cannot pay for their travel or host them but can make themselves available to the player and the family and meet in person.
Why are coaches recruiting 13, 14, 15 and 16-year-old players?
There is a long and wide range of answers to this question but most simply put it is competition. The NHL Draft statistics show that over 85% of all prospects drafted in the top 4 rounds of the draft that were NCAA bound were committed before the age of 16. So, there is a very real reason why these schools are actively recruiting elite level youth prospects. While some outlets critique the practice of early recruiting; its methods and its ramifications on the rest of youth hockey, which is fair, others praise the schools for their work in attracting elite level talent from the CHL and making NCAA hockey more competitive and reputable.
The theory that early recruiting is the norm in college hockey is far overblown. Last year, there were less than 10 schools who recruited 14-year-old prospects, there are less than 16 schools who recruited 15-year olds and less than 30 schools who recruited 16-year olds and younger. Also, keep in mind that 70% of those schools who have recruited a player 16 or younger have only one verbal commitment from players in that age group. Therefore, the majority of programs do not recruit players 16 years old or younger and the ones who do only recruit a very small percentage of their overall number of committed prospects.
Still, some programs like Boston University, Boston College, Michigan, North Dakota, Wisconsin, etc. who get a large number of NHL Draft prospects on their rosters are in high competition for the most elite prospects. These players typically begin showing signs of their dominance and skill at the Bantam level and therefore schools begin pursuing them at that age. For these programs to get the top-level prospects they need to develop relationships and offer players at young ages or they’ll lose them to another school who is willing to take the risk or to CHL clubs.
Also, recruiting has become less and less regional and NCAA coaches are traveling all around North America for talent. With that being said, prospects in the west, both in the US and Canada, are getting drafted in the WHL Draft at age 14 or after their Bantam season. What this means is the clock starts even earlier for those players; as they’ll get attention from agents and WHL organizations throughout their Bantam year and after the draft, there could be pressure to sign with a team. As a result, if NCAA teams want a chance at getting those players they need to start the conversation in their Bantam years as well.
What are the risks to the team and to the player?
This is another highly debated subject and both sides have some merit. One could argue there is no risk to either the team or the player because these are verbal, non-binding agreements. There has been a major spike in “de-commitments” which isn’t even a word, as it relates to schools and players reneging on their prior, established verbal commitments.
However, the other argument is that the school risks over-committing to too many players and losing credibility in the market. This is already starting. There are teams where players and agents know a commitment is firm and means something and there are other programs where a commitment is a very loose agreement and those clubs regularly de-commit prospects who don’t pan out. Another risk to a team would be “running out of room” and not having space for late bloomer prospects when they come of age.
Another issue for coaching staffs is leveraging the time and resources into recruiting the age group. If you are recruiting 14-year olds that is going to mean your staff will be stretched thinner than teams who only scout junior hockey and high school hockey. Therefore, you’ll need to commit to not just a tournament or two but scouting that age group throughout the year to have context to how those prospects stack up against other prospects around US/CAN.
Lastly, the other major risk that was identified by the coaching population is that players change between the ages of 14 to 18. A sweet kid who worked hard and had good grades at 14 could change with the pressures in high school and could lose some of his work ethic, get involved in drugs and alcohol and see his grades fall off as classes become more challenging.
The risk to the player is potentially missing out on other opportunities because they are committed. This isn’t a major risk because if a player commits at 15 to a mid-level NCAA D1 program and then by 18 is the leading scorer in the USHL, then the higher caliber programs are going to recruit that player or, at the very least, put a bug in the agent’s ear that they have room for them. It is rare for mid to lower tier NCAA D1 programs to hold on to top tier young talent, which is why a lot of those organizations decide not to recruit many or any players aged 14-16. With that being said, a player whose dream school is Yale, but ends up taking a scholarship offer at Quinnipiac because they were the only team who offered them a spot. Two years later, Yale may have had interest but never reached out because the player was committed.
The other risk and this is more prevalent, are players making uninformed decisions as to where to play college hockey. The past two seasons NCAA hockey has seen the larger transfer rates than ever before and some of this has to do with players making rushed or uninformed decision about where to play college hockey and picking the wrong fit for them. While prospects and their families have a lot of supports and agents to help guide them in the process; there is the reality that 14 and 15 and even 16-year-old prospects don’t have the maturity or completeness of understanding to accurately choose a school that is the right fit for them. Many of the youth players we interview have no idea what they want to major in or what the school has to offer outside of hockey.
The other risk is on the CHL side. Typically, NCAA committed prospects get selected lower in the CHL draft than uncommitted prospects. With that being said, NCAA committed prospects can also leverage their scholarship offer to CHL clubs to get better education packages when signing deals. So, it can work in their favor as well.
What are the benefits of early recruiting for the coaches and the players?
While much of the attention on early recruiting focuses on the negative aspects of early recruiting (as shown above) there are benefits to both the school and the player.
For the school it allows them to build a relationship with a talented prospect from an early age, help guide them in their path through youth hockey and build their team several years out. For, example, if a team like Michigan commits two power forwards at the center position at ages 14 and 15 than they know they have that position and skill set covered in the future and can start focusing on more skilled wingers or a stay at home defenseman.
The other major benefit to the school is that it helps keep players in NCAA hockey; it allows the coach to compete toe to toe with CHL clubs who are offering contracts to players at ages 14-16 depending on the league and the ability of the player.
The benefit to the players is that it allows them to complete the recruiting process early and not be bombarded with phone calls and college visits for an extended period of time. Elite level prospects are being pulled in a lot of different directions and have a lot of attention and pressure on them; the early commitment allows them to pick their future destination and take a lot of pressure off.
The other benefit to the player is that it gives them preferential treatment as they get the benefit of the doubt in making all-star teams or being selected for development camps, etc. A USHL scout is going to give a committed prospect more chances than an uncommitted prospect to impress them because if the Michigan staff believes the player is good enough for Michigan, it’d be hard for Madison Capitols to think they are not good enough for them.
What are the negative ramifications of early recruiting on the rest of amateur hockey?
While early recruiting has put the NCAA on a level playing field with the CHL in many respects to recruiting younger players; it has had some negative ramifications that are widespread.
First, the CHL is under increased pressure by the NCAA to sign players instead of losing them to the US. This sometimes forces the CHL team to sign players before they are prepared which can lead to players playing before they are ready. The rushed approach can yield bad results for both the team and the players.
Second, the NCAA early commitment process, while it only pertains to less than 1% of the youth hockey prospect pool, it rushes the NCAA process for everyone else. As a result, agents, players, and youth organizations are focusing more on exposure than development. This has various negative impacts on youth hockey but the evidence is the decline in instructional/development camps and the rise of showcase tournaments and exposure events throughout North America. The concern, however, is real; more early commitments mean less available spots and so the clock is starting on players at 14 which didn’t typically start until 17 or 18. This means more players going to elite level programs and traveling away from home to do so, it means less high school hockey and local bantam hockey for AAA and select teams and it means fewer multi-sport athletes and more focus on year-round hockey.
Third, a hyper-focus in early recruiting ultimately is making hockey more expensive. It isn’t the sole cause, but it is a contributing factor. Parents and players know that in order to get committed they have to be seen and the coaches and scouts and they are going to the highest concentrations of talent. This is Midget AAA, Bantam AAA, prep schools and hockey academies which tend to be the most expensive options. This doesn’t include the price of skill coaches, agents/advisor (some charge clients), off-ice training expenses, etc. Many of these options existed long before early commitments, but it has made parents have to spend more money earlier and for a longer period of time in pursuit of that commitment.
Who is being recruited early? How many 14, 15 and 16-year-old prospects are actually being pursued by NCAA teams.
We start our calculation by taking the 2017-2018 USA Hockey and Hockey Canada membership statistics for players in the 13-16-year-old age range. This is an estimate but between 150,000-200,000 players are encompassed under those age groups. If you subtract that number by the number of AAA Midget and Bantam, Prep and Hockey Academies, you’ll see that about 10% of the player pool is actually playing highly competitive hockey and would be a candidate for NCAA early recruiting.
Of those 10 % of prospects we divide that by the number of 14-year olds who committed last season, the number of 15-year-olds who committed last season, the total number of 16-year-olds who committed last season to see, as a percentage, how many players at the most elite levels are committing early to NCAA programs.
Figure 1: NCAA Early Commitments as a Percentage among the highest 10% of US/CAN Competition
|
Age |
% Committed |
|
13-14 |
0.50% |
|
15-16 |
1.15% |
|
Total |
0.87% |
Why this graphic is significant is to show relevant data. The 90% of youth hockey players between ages 13-16 don’t care about early recruiting, they aren’t playing elite level competition, they aren’t in the discussion at this point in their career. Of the most elite 10% of players who would be working towards NCAA/CHL destination, we see that less than 1% of them will commit to college by age 16 or younger.
Conclusion:
In the overarching picture of youth hockey and NCAA recruiting this is a very small percentage of players; statistically insignificant actually. However, it doesn’t mean that this topic should be ignored as it does have significant ramifications in youth hockey, to the schools recruiting the players and to the players committing.
What our study aimed to do was to show the full picture and to better understand the early recruiting process from both the perspectives of players and the coaches. We interviewed coaches, scouts, agents, and players to get more depth. The truth of the matter is that players and coaches both take on some risk to commit to one another at young ages, but the schools and players are also incentivized to do this in a mutually beneficial exchange. There are negative ramifications as to what this practice has done to the youth hockey culture, particularly in the US; however, that is an indirect consequence and is built on poor logic given how few players will actually commit before the age of 17 to an NCAA program.
The take away from the parent and player is not to worry about committing at a young age. If you get the opportunity; great! It’s an impressive accomplishment. If you don’t, do not worry as the overwhelming majority of commitments will occur after the age of 16.
The takeaway from coaches and scouts is that if you want the most elite talent in the US/CAN you have to get involved early in the process whether that is 14 or 15 or 16. By the time players get to 17-years-old, most of the top players are already committed. However, there are some risks involved in offering youth players and it adds more work, time and resources to effectively recruit these players and the risk/reward can be tricky to calculate.
Lastly, while it is fair to attack the absurdity of a 14-year-old going on 10 college visits and committing to a school without knowing what they want to study; it would be unfair and inaccurate to think early recruiting is distinctly a bad or negative practice. If it weren’t for early recruiting, there are several elite level prospects every year who could easily choose the CHL route over the NCAA. Unless you understand the CHL draft and signing process, it is hard to appreciate how difficult these decisions are for 14, 15 and 16-year-old players.
“Often times the same people arguing against early recruiting are the same people promoting how great NCAA D1 hockey is,” remarked Neutral Zone VP Brian Murphy. “There were 7 NCAA or NCAA bound prospects taken in the first round of the 2018 NHL Draft. Every one of those players committed at age 16 or younger, one of which originally committed at age 13. The second-round same thing, 5 for 5 NCAA or NCAA bound prospects were committed by age 16. The evidence is there; the elite level prospects in NCAA predominately commit at ages 14, 15 and 16.”