December 16th marked the NCAA Football Early Signing Day in the US; which is the day where nearly all of the blue-chip prospects from around the country pick the college of their choice. Some do it next to friends and family and others do it in an elaborate way. The most common approach is placing the prospects top schools’ hats on a display and then picking up the hat of the school they ultimately choose and wear it while they sign their national letter of intent. Anyways, while it’s a really fun experience for fans and football enthusiasts there was plenty of mentions across all major media outlets that NCAA transfers are at historic highs as are de-commitments. There were players that had been verbally committed to a college for two years who “switched” on signing day and many coaches fielded questions or alluded to the “transfer portal” as another recruiting platform.
While hockey doesn’t have the same level of fan fare as college football; the NCAA system in the US is showing similar trends. Statistics from the NCAA show the following chart for percentage of NCAA D1 athletes over the past 10 years.
Table 1: NCAA D1 Transfers from 2010-2019
| Year | Transfers |
| 2010 | 6.0% |
| 2011 | 5.9% |
| 2012 | 6.3% |
| 2013 | 7.5% |
| 2014 | 7.9% |
| 2015 | 7.6% |
| 2016 | 8.6% |
| 2017 | 9.6% |
| 2018 | 9.6% |
| 2019 | 10.3% |
The percentage of athletes who transferred 10 years ago was 6% and that has steadily increased to over 10% in 2019. This trend doesn’t appear to be slowing. This is somewhat surprising to NCAA officials given the nature of the sport is “fluid.” This means hockey doesn’t have a true “starting” position outside of goaltending. There are four lines upfront, there are 3 lines on defense and therefore the first line center doesn’t necessarily take away opportunities from the second line center. A sport like football on the other hand have definitive starting positions (i.e., quarterback) and most starters play the entire game or majority of the game and therefore backups get limited to no playing time.
For those who follow college hockey and the unique amateur landscape may not be as surprised and given the nature of modern junior hockey. There are three major differences between hockey and other major market athletics in that there is an elaborate post-graduate system of leagues for players to play at ages 16-20 years old which doesn’t exist in other sports (referred to as “juniors”). There is also a paid option in Canada known was the Canadian Hockey League, the largest development path of future NHLers in the world. Lastly, unlike football where agents get involved later in the process when players are deciding on professional contracts; in amateur hockey some of the major agencies are signing players at ages 13 and 14 years old. For those reasons; hockey is always a little different than it’s NCAA counterparts.
We studied three leagues; the CHL, the NCAA and the USHL. We analyzed every player movement and transaction in the USHL from 2016-2019 (three seasons) and then we randomly selected five NCAA D1 programs and broke down their rosters from 2009-2010 o 2019-2020. Our interest was in discovering transactions/player movement in junior hockey. Is it on the rise or stagnant or going down? Secondly, we studied five randomly selected NCAA D1 programs and analyzed their 2019-2020 roster in contrast to their 2009-2010 roster to compare their junior hockey careers prior to moving onto NCAA and if there were any patterns. Lastly, we wanted to see if trends in the NCAA were similar to trends in the CHL in the aspect of trades/transfers.
USHL Player Movement from 2016-2019
We decided to choose the USHL as opposed to other junior leagues for three factual reasons. First, over 90% of the players in this league during the times studied went on to play NCAA D1 hockey so it was a very targeted grouping. Second, it has the highest correlation of any junior league in “success rate” which is measured in stats from the league comparing to stats at the NCAA D1 level. Lastly, because it is free to play in the league so there aren’t financial barriers to entry like other junior leagues that can skew the data.
The three years sampled we see an increase in player movement from 132 in 2016-2017 to 141 in 2017-2018 to 160 in 2018-2019. This is an increase of over 20% in just three seasons in the top amateur junior league in the United States. We have broken down the data to show some trends within the player movement in the league but for purposes of our study the major takeaway is that player movement is on the rise significantly.
Table 2: USHL Player Movement 2016-2019
2016-2017 132 Player Movements
| League | To | League | Total | Percentage |
| USHL | To | USHL | 63 | 47.7% |
| USHL | To | NAHL | 27 | 20.5% |
| NAHL | To | USHL | 20 | 15.2% |
| USHL | To | BCHL | 8 | 6.1% |
| NCAA | To | USHL | 4 | 3.0% |
| Euro | To | USHL | 2 | 1.5% |
| USHL | To | EURO | 2 | 1.5% |
| NCDC | To | USHL | 2 | 1.5% |
| USHL | To | NCDC | 2 | 1.5% |
| CHL | To | USHL | 1 | 0.8% |
| USHL | To | SJHL | 1 | 0.8% |
2017-2018 141 Player Movements
| League | to | League | Total | Percentage |
| USHL | to | USHL (Trade) | 64 | 47.8% |
| USHL | to | NAHL | 25 | 18.7% |
| NAHL | to | USHL | 23 | 17.2% |
| USHL | to | BCHL | 5 | 3.7% |
| Euro | to | USHL | 5 | 3.7% |
| NCAA | to | USHL | 3 | 2.2% |
| OJHL | to | USHL | 3 | 2.2% |
| USHL | to | NCAA | 3 | 2.2% |
| CHL | to | USHL | 3 | 2.2% |
| USHL | to | CHL | 2 | 1.5% |
| USHL | to | EURO | 2 | 1.5% |
| USHL | to | NCDC | 2 | 1.5% |
| AJHL | to | USHL | 1 | 0.7% |
2018-2019 160 Players
| League | to | League | Total | Percent |
| USHL | to | USHL (Trade) | 56 | 47.5% |
| USHL | to | NAHL | 31 | 26.3% |
| NAHL | to | USHL | 20 | 16.9% |
| USHL | to | BCHL | 11 | 9.3% |
| CHL | to | USHL | 8 | 6.8% |
| USHL | to | NCDC | 6 | 5.1% |
| NCAA | to | USHL | 5 | 4.2% |
| NCDC | to | USHL | 5 | 4.2% |
| Euro | to | USHL | 3 | 2.5% |
| USHL | to | EURO | 3 | 2.5% |
| OJHL | to | USHL | 3 | 2.5% |
| USHL | to | AJHL | 2 | 1.7% |
| USHL | to | NCAA | 2 | 1.7% |
| USHL | to | CHL | 1 | 0.8% |
| BCHL | to | USHL | 1 | 0.8% |
| USHL | to | MJHL | 1 | 0.8% |
| USHL | to | CCHL | 1 | 0.8% |
| CCHL | to | USHL | 1 | 0.8% |
The junior hockey circuit is vastly different than the local high school model used for football prospects before they move onto college. In the junior hockey model amateur players are being drafted to teams and then several will be traded to other teams in that league. Another aspect of this study is to look at where these players are going. Why this is significant is it highlights that players are moving not only within the league but also among other leagues. We can see that there is a strong relationship between the USHL and the NAHL where players move up and down similar to an NHL/AHL relationship except the NAHL isn’t a farm system of the USHL and has no team affiliations. However, these transactions mark an important distinction in ice hockey that players are mobile even before their NCAA and pro careers; they’ll move up the ladder of junior hockey when they are performing well and if players aren’t performing or want a change of scene they move to other junior leagues for another opportunity. It also points out the two differences of transactions; some are trades which are dictated by the organization and others are player movements where the player (or their representative) initiates the move going from one league to another. Moving league to league is somewhat unique to junior hockey as it’s rare to see this in NCAA where players don’t typically go from NCAA D3 to NCAA D2 to NCAA D1 over their college career. The expectation for nearly all NCAA prospects is they are making a four-year commitment to that school and that league regardless of their on-ice performance.
2. Breakdown of NCAA Programs compared to 10 years ago
This could be a study in and of itself but we randomly selected 5 teams in NCAA D1 and analyzed their roster from 2009-2010 compared to their roster in 2019-2020. While there are other areas of interest in regards to where players are coming from geographically and leagues, etc. Our emphasis for this study is more specific in identifying how many years they played junior hockey, how many leagues they played in and how many teams they played on PRIOR to playing NCAA D1 hockey. The five teams selected were Ohio State, Vermont, Clarkson, Minnesota State and Michigan State.
This study showed some interesting results which highlight a shifting culture in pre-NCAA player movement. We’ll highlight the key takeaways of each of the five teams in the study and we’ll then explain the cumulative statistics which reveal the bigger picture.
Ohio State
Ohio State has roughly the same roster from 2019-2020 since 2009-2010 in regards to average age, average size and geographic breakdown. Both teams had similar breakdowns in years of junior hockey as well; the only difference in their journeys within junior hockey. Nearly 62% of the 2009-2010 Ohio State team played for the same junior team throughout their career and nearly 70% played in the same league. Compare that to the 2019-2020 team where only 33% of players played on just one team in their junior career; 35% played on two teams and 32% played on three or more teams. Only 7.7% of the 2009-2010 team played on 3 or more junior teams. What is intriguing is despite the increase in number of teams played on in juniors over the years the difference of how many leagues the players played in during juniors was very similar. So, this would say players on this team aren’t increasing their overall movement from league to league but rather being traded more actively within the leagues they play.
| Team | Age | Ht | Wt | US | CAN | Other |
| Ohio State 19-20 | 22.58 | 6’0″ | 187 | 21 | 4 | 2 |
| Ohio State 09-10 | 22.11 | 6’0″ | 191 | 19 | 8 | 0 |
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 27 | 27 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 0.0% | 1 | 3.7% | |
| 1 Year Junior | 3 | 11.1% | 3 | 11.1% |
| 2 Year Junior | 13 | 48.1% | 12 | 44.4% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 8 | 29.6% | 9 | 33.3% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 3 | 11.1% | 0.0% | |
| 5 years Juniors | 0.0% | 2 | 7.4% | |
| 1 Team | 9 | 33.3% | 16 | 61.5% |
| 2 Teams | 10 | 37.0% | 8 | 30.8% |
| 3 Teams | 6 | 22.2% | 2 | 7.7% |
| 4 Teams | 0.0% | |||
| 5 Teams | 2 | 7.4% | 0.0% | |
| 1 League | 18 | 66.7% | 18 | 69.2% |
| 2 Leagues | 8 | 29.6% | 7 | 26.9% |
| 3 Leagues | 1 | 3.7% | 1 | 3.8% |
| 4 Leagues | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Clarkson
Clarkson has almost the exact same height and weight averages from 10 years ago; but they are over a full year older on average now than they were 10 years ago and have less Canadians. Tjhere are vast differences in their pre-NCAA junior hockey patterns. To start; the 2009-2010 season had 44% of their team play 1 year or less of junior hockey as opposed to the 2019-2020 season which had just 3.8% who played under 2 years of junior hockey. While 28% of the 2009-2010 team played 3 or more years of junior prior to going to Clarkson then 2019-2020 team had nearly 70% play 3 or more years of junior. 56% of the 2009-2010 team played for just one team in their junior career and 78% played in just one league as opposed to the 2019-2020 team where only 20% played for just one team and only 32% played in just one league.
| Team | Age | Ht | Wt | US | CAN | Other |
| Clarkson 19-20 | 22.88 | 6’0″ | 192 | 17 | 7 | 2 |
| Clarkson 09-10 | 21.79 | 6’0″ | 191 | 11 | 12 | 2 |
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 26 | 25 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 1 | 3.8% | 7 | 28.0% |
| 1 Year Junior | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 16.0% |
| 2 Year Junior | 6 | 23.1% | 7 | 28.0% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 11 | 42.3% | 4 | 16.0% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 4 | 15.4% | 3 | 12.0% |
| 5 years Juniors | 3 | 11.5% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1 Team | 5 | 20.0% | 10 | 55.6% |
| 2 Teams | 13 | 52.0% | 6 | 33.3% |
| 3 Teams | 2 | 8.0% | 1 | 5.6% |
| 4 Teams | 4 | 16.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 5 Teams | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 5.6% |
| 1 League | 8 | 32.0% | 14 | 77.8% |
| 2 Leagues | 14 | 56.0% | 4 | 22.2% |
| 3 Leagues | 2 | 8.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 4 Leagues | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
Minnesota State
Minnesota State is the oldest team in college hockey but even their 2009-2010 was among the oldest in the league as well. They have almost identical average heigh and weight and geographic breakdown. Where they differ is in junior hockey breakdown; only 3.3% of the 2019-2020 team played 1 year or less of junior while half of the 2009-2010 team played 1 or less years of junior. 82% of the 2019-2020 squad played on 2 or more teams in their junior career while 50% of the 2009-2010 team played on 2 teams or less. What is most different is the league-to-league movements; 73% of the 2009-2010 team played in just one junior league in comparison to the 2019-2020 team where just 41% played in one league and the rest 2 or more.
| Team | Age | Ht | Wt | US | CAN | Other |
| Minnesota St. 19-20 | 23.37 | 6’0″ | 187 | 25 | 2 | 2 |
| Minnesota St. 09-10 | 22.46 | 6’0″ | 188 | 24 | 3 | 1 |
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 30 | 28 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 1 | 3.3% | 6 | 21.4% |
| 1 Year Junior | 0 | 0.0% | 8 | 28.6% |
| 2 Year Junior | 16 | 53.3% | 9 | 32.1% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 12 | 40.0% | 4 | 14.3% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 1 | 3.3% | 1 | 3.6% |
| 5 years Juniors | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| 1 Team | 5 | 17.2% | 8 | 36.4% |
| 2 Teams | 18 | 62.1% | 7 | 31.8% |
| 3 Teams | 3 | 10.3% | 1 | 4.5% |
| 4 Teams | 3 | 10.3% | 2 | 9.1% |
| 5 Teams | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| 1 League | 12 | 41.4% | 16 | 72.7% |
| 2 Leagues | 17 | 58.6% | 5 | 22.7% |
| 3 Leagues | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 4 Leagues | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 4.5% |
Western Michigan
Western Michigan was taller in 2019-2020 than they were in 2009-2010 and had more Canadians but age and weight are roughly the same. The 2009-2010 squad had 50% of its roster play 2 years of junior or less while the 2019-2020 team was under 40%. Only 21% of the 2019-2020 team played on one team in junior hockey while 42% of the 2009-2010 team did. 19% of the 2009-2010 team played on 3 or more teams as opposed to 36% of the 2019-2020 team. Somewhat surprisingly despite differences in years of juniors and teams played on in juniors; they had similar league statistics where both teams 50-57% played in just one junior league prior to coming to WMU.
| Team | Age | Ht | Wt | US | CAN | Other |
| WMU 19-20 | 22.77 | 6’1″ | 196 | 17 | 9 | 2 |
| WMU 09-10 | 22.41 | 5’11” | 190 | 23 | 4 | 0 |
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 28 | 27 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 3.7% |
| 1 Year Junior | 1 | 3.6% | 1 | 3.7% |
| 2 Year Junior | 10 | 35.7% | 12 | 44.4% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 13 | 46.4% | 11 | 40.7% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 3 | 10.7% | 2 | 7.4% |
| 5 years Juniors | 1 | 3.6% | 0.0% | |
| 1 Team | 6 | 21.4% | 11 | 40.7% |
| 2 Teams | 12 | 42.9% | 10 | 37.0% |
| 3 Teams | 4 | 14.3% | 5 | 18.5% |
| 4 Teams | 4 | 14.3% | 0.0% | |
| 5 Teams | 2 | 7.1% | 0.0% | |
| 1 League | 14 | 50.0% | 15 | 55.6% |
| 2 Leagues | 11 | 39.3% | 11 | 40.7% |
| 3 Leagues | 3 | 10.7% | 0.0% | |
| 4 Leagues | 0 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Vermont
Vermont added more Canadians to their roster in 2019-2020 than in 2009-2010 but were about the same size and age. Both teams had 28 players rostered but the 2019-2020 season showed just 18% of their team playing 1 year of junior or less compared to 2009-2010 team which had 57%. There was only 1 player or 3.6% of the team who had played 3 or more years of juniors in 2009-2010 while the 2019-2020 team has 11 players or 39% who have played 3 or more years of junior. The 2009-2010 team saw 73% playing for just one junior team and 86% playing in just one junior league. This is different from the 2019-2020 team which had 46% of its team playing on 2 or more teams and 68% play in just one league.
| Team | Age | Ht | Wt | US | CAN | Other |
| Vermont 19-20 | 22.67 | 5’11” | 187 | 17 | 10 | 1 |
| Vermont 09-10 | 22.35 | 6’0″ | 192 | 23 | 3 | 2 |
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 28 | 28 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 0.0% | 6 | 21.4% | |
| 1 Year Junior | 5 | 17.9% | 10 | 35.7% |
| 2 Year Junior | 12 | 42.9% | 10 | 35.7% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 8 | 28.6% | 1 | 3.6% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 3 | 10.7% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 5 years Juniors | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| 1 Team | 15 | 53.6% | 16 | 72.7% |
| 2 Teams | 8 | 28.6% | 4 | 18.2% |
| 3 Teams | 4 | 14.3% | 1 | 4.5% |
| 4 Teams | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 5 Teams | 1 | 3.6% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 1 League | 19 | 67.9% | 19 | 86.4% |
| 2 Leagues | 6 | 21.4% | 2 | 9.1% |
| 3 Leagues | 2 | 7.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 4 Leagues | 1 | 3.6% | 0 | 0.0% |
Cumulative Breakdown
While each team is a bit unique in their roster breakdown; we compiled all five teams into one to analyze the aggregate. There are several key findings here.
| Cumulative | ||||
| 2019-2020 | 2009-2010 | |||
| Total Players | 139 | 135 | ||
| # of Players | % | # of Players | % | |
| No Junior | 2 | 1.4% | 21 | 15.6% |
| 1 Year Junior | 9 | 6.5% | 26 | 19.3% |
| 2 Year Junior | 57 | 41.0% | 50 | 37.0% |
| 3 Year Juniors | 52 | 37.4% | 29 | 21.5% |
| 4 Years Juniors | 14 | 10.1% | 6 | 4.4% |
| 5 years Juniors | 4 | 2.9% | 2 | 1.5% |
| 1 Team | 40 | 29.2% | 61 | 53.5% |
| 2 Teams | 61 | 44.5% | 35 | 30.7% |
| 3 Teams | 19 | 13.9% | 10 | 8.8% |
| 4 Teams | 11 | 8.0% | 2 | 1.8% |
| 5 Teams | 5 | 3.6% | 1 | 0.9% |
| 1 League | 71 | 51.8% | 82 | 71.9% |
| 2 Leagues | 56 | 40.9% | 29 | 25.4% |
| 3 Leagues | 8 | 5.8% | 1 | 0.9% |
| 4 Leagues | 1 | 0.7% | 1 | 0.9% |
First, years played in junior hockey prior to NCAA are increasing. In 2009-2010 the teams had 35% of their rosters playing 1 year or less of junior hockey whereas in 2019-2020 that was less than 8%. Only 27% of the 2009-2010 rosters played 3 or more years of juniors while 50% of the 2019-2020 rosters played 3 or more years. On average players spent 1.83 seasons in junior hockey in 2009-2010 season while the 2019-2020 rosters averaged 2.4 years in junior hockey.
Not only has there been a steady increase in the number of years played but also the number of junior teams the prospects are playing on. In 2009-2010 the majority, 54% to be exact, played on just one junior team. In 2019-2020 that was cut to just 29%. Delving into this deeper we see that 58% of the 2019-2020 rosters played on 2 or 3 teams as opposed to the 2009-2010 rosters who had 39% playing 2 or 3 years of junior. Over 25% of the 2019-2020 rosters played on 3 or more teams in their junior careers while the 2009-2010 rosters showed less than half of that, 12%, who played on 3 or more teams during junior hockey. Lastly, and maybe the most fascinating is the league breakdown data. In 2009-2010 72% of these rosters played in just one junior league where that number has fallen to 52% in 2019-2020. 41% of the players now play in 2 leagues and nearly 7% play in 3 or more leagues whereas in 2009-2010 only 25% played in 2 leagues and less than 2% played in 3 or more leagues.
Ok, so what does this all mean? We are seeing a clear pattern in the cumulative data that players today are playing more junior hockey, they are playing on more teams in their junior career and playing in more leagues. It was quite rare for a player to play on more two or more teams in their junior career and play in more than one junior league but now that is the majority. Does this mean there is direct correlation between NCAA transfers and Junior hockey trades and player movements? Not entirely. There are a lot of factors that go into transferring; playing time, player/coach relationship, scholarship status, relationship with fellow teammates, majors offered at the school, etc. What we do know is that players are more mobile before going into NCAA than they have ever been. We know that “what it takes” or the barriers to entry to play NCAA D1 are only getting more and more competitive
3. Are we seeing the same trends in the CHL that we are in the NCAA?
The straight answer here is no. It’s harder than we anticipated to evaluate the CHL as a whole because it is a collection of three leagues (QMJHL, WHL and OHL) and they each act independently of one another and have their own trends. For example, in the years we studied (2009 – 2020) each league swapped among the most trades, transactions and player movement. In the past 7 years none of the CHL leagues had the same number of player movement as the USHL.
The CHL and USHL are both the best junior leagues in their respective countries and they both work off a draft system similar to the NHL; so why would there be a difference in player movements and transactions? The key difference is contracts. The CHL runs on front loaded contracts with a financial commitment to the player. The USHL on the other hand does not pay players or pay educational packages so they have a less complicated trade process. Also, the CHL has to invest more into scouting and their draft process than the USHL because they are offering significant front-loaded contracts to their draftees before they play a single game in the OHL whereas in the USHL there is far less to lose if their prospects don’t work out. Lastly, the NHL compensates CHL programs for developing NHL draft picks whereas the USHL does not so trading potential NHL draft picks despite their teams’ record or locker room breakdown is trickier than the USHL which have no financial incentive to keep or move those prospects.
What was also interesting among all the CHL leagues was the pattern of player transactions. There is a bit of a wave early in the season as teams are sorting out their rosters and then it falls off significantly and then it picks up with the playoff bound teams at the trade deadlines. Weaker teams typically accumulate future draft picks or younger prospects and the playoff bound teams pick up veterans who can give them an instant upgrade. The USHL has more active player movement throughout the season with less season spikes although they do show higher trade volumes in the first month and before the trade deadline.
Lastly, there are no other options like the CHL in North America. No other junior league pays its players (at least not allowable by the league rules, but it certainly happens). Therefore, the players in the CHL don’t have a lot of options outside the league and are financial disincentivized to leave the league on their own accord. They also lose their NCAA eligibility once they sign a CHL contract so they don’t have US college hockey as an option. The USHL on the other hand has many junior hockey competitors i.e. BCHL, AJHL, NAHL, etc. These leagues offer players a similar experience with similar rules and structure and allows for a more robust free agent system. In the United States, as we saw from the team data, it is not rare for a player to play in 2-3 junior leagues before going NCAA and playing on 3 or more team throughout their junior career. This is very different than the CHL system. The CHL prospects are not free agents unless they went undrafted (which is rare) or were cut from the teams’ roster. Therefore, the CHL organizations have a lot more power than the amateur junior leagues in US/CAN where a player can jump team to team or league to league rather fluidly.
So what does this say about the NCAA, CHL and junior hockey overall?
The NCAA is highly dependent on the North American junior hockey system; it accounts for over 90% of its recruits. The CHL is less dependent upon junior hockey and more dependent upon the youth, midget and academy programs so trends in junior hockey aren’t as impactful in the CHL. Also, the structures of the two leagues are vastly different; CHL is a draft based league where the NCAA is a free-agent model where the players pick the school/organization they want to play for.
With that being said, we are seeing a trend where junior hockey players are more actively moving freely from league to league and also being traded team to team within the leagues. What is the impact? One impact seems to be a steady rise in transfers at the NCAA level. Another impact appears to be higher barriers to entry to play NCAA D1 hockey that on average a player will have to play more than 2 years of junior hockey, play on at least two different teams and play in more than 1 junior league. That is just the averages; some are playing 3-5 years of junior, playing on 4-5 junior teams across 2 or more leagues.
We at Neutral Zone don’t take positions; we simply ask questions and put together data and then analyze from an independent, non-biased approach. Our follow up study is going to analyze star rating data on NCAA and CHL transactions to see if there are any patterns there and also re-visit a previous study on age of NCAA freshman and CHL rookies and their corresponding star ratings. Are the higher ranked players getting traded in the CHL or is it middle of the roster or depth players? Are more younger players getting traded or veteran players? Are the NCAA D1 transfers high level prospects or depth prospects who are looking for more ice time? This will give us a better understanding of other variables in this transfer/trade trend and give a more balanced and detailed understanding of the topic.
What could make this study even better?
- We only compiled 1 junior league; it would be more accurate to look at all the junior hockey leagues who have sent players to the NCAA D1 in the past 10 years. This would give a more complete picture of the transactions in junior hockey.
- We only looked at 5 random teams in the NCAA D1, it would be more accurate to evaluate all the teams in the NCAA D1 so that the cumulative study would give the exact roster breakdown data instead of a sample set that “represents” the rest of the league.
- The data scans 10 years; it’d be nice to look at a longer time horizon and to look at every team in those years instead of just comparing Year 1 and Year 10 teams to see year by year trend lines.
Photo Credit: Dan Hickling/Hickling Images