Over the past two years, the NCAA has undergone a series of dramatic policy changes, especially regarding eligibility, NIL (name, image, and likeness), and the transfer portal. While most of the focus for the NCAA is on football and basketball, upcoming legislation could significantly impact the landscape as the NCAA considers allowing CHL players to participate.
Currently, if a player signs with any of the three CHL leagues (WHL, QMJHL, OHL), they become ineligible to play in the NCAA. At Neutral Zone, being incorporated in both Canada and the US, we have a scouting staff covering all of North America, including former players and coaches from both the CHL and NCAA. As a result, we aim to provide an unbiased, independent assessment of the impact of these changes.
Introduction
It is difficult to discuss the CHL or NCAA as a single entity because the teams and leagues within each are vastly different. If you attend a WHL game, you will encounter a nearly entirely different style of hockey compared to a QMJHL game. The same holds true for the NCAA; the pace and skill level in the Big 10 and NCHC are noticeably different from what you’d find in the Atlantic or CCHA. The experience of playing for the London Knights or Quebec Remparts is very different from that of a player in a smaller market, lower-budget organization. With this in mind, for our purposes, we will refer to these two paths—NCAA and CHL—to emphasize their differences and how they may impact each group, while also recognizing that one team in the CHL may be affected differently than others in the league for various reasons.
CHL players and alumni have historically been classified as professionals by the NCAA, which has precluded them from participating in NCAA sports. Now that this classification is being challenged—and will likely change—a player who has signed with the CHL and played games could potentially become eligible to play NCAA hockey. The first major step occurred on September 13th, when Braxton Whitehead of the Regina Pats verbally committed to Arizona State for the 2025-26 season.
This proposed change could have a significant impact on the youth hockey landscape, affecting NCAA and USport hockey as well as junior and minor hockey associations. We will explore several areas that this decision could influence from both a U.S. and Canadian perspective.
CHL Perspective
Understanding that what is beneficial for the league doesn’t necessarily mean it is beneficial for every team within it, we recognize that, like all changes, there will be “winners” and “losers.” However, generally speaking, there are some advantages to the CHL in this legislation.
1. Immediate Impacts
While the overwhelming majority of high-level prospects in Canada choose the CHL route, it is quite challenging for teams to recruit top prospects from the United States. The United States model is NCAA-driven, and elite players at ages 16, 17, and 18—when they are most actively pursued by CHL clubs—are very reluctant to give up their NCAA eligibility. If this rule changes, we could see a significant increase in interest from U.S.-born prospects in pursuing the CHL, as their primary barrier would be removed. While junior leagues across North America attempt to inflate their NHL Draft numbers, it is undeniable that the CHL produces the highest number of NHL Draft picks, including those in the Top 50, as well as current NHL players. Thus, the development route offered by the CHL speaks for itself and will remain attractive to high-profile players.
With that being said, similar to the NCAA, most players in the CHL will not have a professional hockey career. So, what then? If a player signs with a club at age 17 and plays out his junior career until he ages out, he would be able to attend university with his tuition covered by the CHL. However, if a player turns professional, the organization is no longer liable for that educational package after a certain period (although some teams honor it regardless). If, in the future, CHL players are allowed to participate in the NCAA, the CHL could eliminate a major liability, as an age-out CHL player would then be eligible for NCAA scholarships.
In most cases, the 20-year-old CHL player in his age-out year is typically a strong enough player to earn an NCAA scholarship. Given that many CHL organizations operate at break-even or at a loss, any potential reduction in financial liability is a significant benefit to the league. Again, teams like the Portland Winterhawks or London Knights are not likely to worry about university tuition; however, for smaller-market teams, this could be the difference between losing money and breaking even.
2. CHL/NHL Player Development Agreement
The CHL and NHL are partners in the development of prospects, and this has been a mutually beneficial relationship for decades. Not only does it have financial implications, but it also sets the CHL apart from other junior leagues, as coaches in this league are incentivized not only to win but also to develop future NHL prospects. For some organizations, the NHL development fee is an important component of their revenue and influences decisions regarding their draft picks. For example, speaking to an OHL GM who has worked in both small-market and larger-market teams, he discussed the differences in drafting a defenseman. He explained that if two defenders have the same OHL Draft grade—one being smaller and likely a 4-5 year prospect in the CHL and a two-year captain, and the other being a 6’4” future NHL draft pick who will only play 2-3 years in the CHL before going pro—the team would select the latter due to the NHL Draft development fees. A larger team with a bigger budget does not have to rely on that income as heavily and can choose the player who better helps them win games in the future.
Not only is there a development fee, but there are other considerations as well. The NHL and CHL have a transfer agreement whereby a CHL prospect who is under 20 years of age and not on the NHL active roster cannot be reassigned to the AHL but must return to the CHL. This protects both the player from being buried in the farm system at a young age and the CHL from losing its high-caliber prospects.
Do the NHL/CHL agreements change as a result of this NCAA/CHL legislation? We have spoken to some of the biggest agents in the game and CHL GMs, and the feedback is that there will be changes, but nobody knows exactly in what direction.
3. NHL Entry Draft
Is there an impact on the NHL Draft for CHL players if this legislation is passed? While it may not be as obvious as other areas, the answer is most likely yes, and it would be a positive for the CHL. Currently, if a team drafts a CHL player at 18, that player will age out of the CHL in their 20-year-old season, meaning the NHL club must be confident that the player will be ready to turn pro within 2-3 years. If NHL teams know that they can draft a CHL player at 18 or 19 years old and, if he is not ready to join the league after his age-out season, send him to the NCAA for further development, it could provide additional time for the player to mature before making the jump to the NHL. One NHL Director of Scouting mentioned that after the 3rd round of the NHL Draft, if an NCAA-bound player and a CHL player have the same draft grade, he would select the NCAA player, given the longer development window offered by the NCAA.
As of now, a CHL prospect’s rights are held by an NHL team for two years after being drafted. In contrast, the rights of a player who chooses the NCAA route are retained by the drafting team until August 15th of their graduation year (essentially four years). This rule would need to be modified if the definition of a CHL prospect versus an NCAA prospect is changed and could lead to more “CHL prospects” signing entry level deals.
4. Potential Negatives for the CHL
Ask any NCAA D1 coach how the NCAA transfer portal has impacted their coaching and the overall nature of their job, and it won’t be long before CHL coaches face the same dynamics. Currently, if a player signs a CHL contract, they are bound to the team that drafted them and have no other options outside of playing junior hockey. However, if the NCAA becomes an option, players will have more choices. This is beneficial for players and likely positive for NHL clubs, as it allows them to place players in the best possible development situation. However, for the CHL, this could introduce a level of uncertainty and make life more challenging for coaches.
From our evidence regarding the NCAA transfer portal, the unintended consequences suggest a further separation between the haves and have-nots, and the same will likely be true in the CHL. It would be difficult to imagine a high-profile player leaving after their 17- or 18-year-old year with the Halifax Mooseheads or Kitchener Rangers to play in the NCAA. However, for a small-market team with a losing record, a subpar coach, and a low fan base, it would not be surprising to see that team lose its top prospect to a full scholarship at Michigan or North Dakota.
While the retention of elite players will be a priority for CHL leaders, there is a far lesser chance of losing players to the NCAA during their draft year or earlier compared to the years that follow. The scenarios we could potentially see involve a player who has a very strong 17-year-old season, takes over the league as an 18-year-old, gets drafted in the first round, and then must decide where to play during his 19 or 20-year-old season. Some NHL clubs might inform that player that he has accomplished everything he can in the CHL and that it would be more beneficial for him to compete against older, stronger players rather than those of the same age or even younger. Another scenario could involve veteran players on smaller-market teams or teams that are rebuilding, seeking to explore different options.
Lastly, a significant concern for the CHL—and likely its biggest issue—would be losing their top players to the NCAA. It has not gone unnoticed that high-profile Canadian prospects, such as first overall selections Owen Power (Michigan) and Macklin Celebrini (Boston University), as well as Adam Fantilli (Michigan) and Kent Johnson (Michigan), have made the move south to the NCAA. The increasing ease of playing at that level could be worrisome for CHL programs. Celebrini and Power transitioned from the NCAA to first overall picks, and this year’s NHL Draft is currently led by James Hagens, a freshman at Boston College. This trend may not impact 16 and 17-year-olds significantly; however, if prospects continue to observe NCAA freshmen getting drafted into the NHL, players—and their agents—will take notice.
5. CHL to USport
USport hockey is one of the best-kept secrets in the university hockey landscape, and teams like the University of New Brunswick are demonstrating the quality of players they can attract at that level. The entire team consists of players who, in most cases, are good enough to play minor professional hockey or in Europe, and nearly all are former CHL captains who choose to utilize their free education packages and further develop their game. If these CHL players now have the option to play in the NCAA, it could dramatically impact USport, making it more challenging for these schools to attract talent. As strong as USport hockey has become in terms of both talent depth and coaching quality, these schools do not possess the resources of Big Ten or NCHC institutions to compete on a level playing field. That said, a 20-year-old in the CHL who is undrafted and unsigned in the professional ranks is typically not going to possess a skill level that would attract the attention of schools like North Dakota and Michigan; such players would likely be more suitable for mid to low-market programs.
NCAA Perspective
For the NCAA as a whole, the allowance of CHL players is likely a net positive, as it enables a wider net to be cast in order to attract talent. With that being said, there are both advantages and concerns regarding this potential merger.
1. More Players – More Options
The NCAA is somewhat privileged in that it dominates the market for 20-year-olds in North America, as CHL and junior hockey players all age out and have no further options to play outside of USport and club hockey, of which NCAA D1 has a significant advantage. By including CHL players—not only their age-outs but all players in the league—as potential NCAA prospects, the player pool expands, providing NCAA teams with more options and enhancing the overall depth of the league.
There are over 1,000 players in the CHL every season, so even if the NCAA is only able to recruit 5%, that would equate to roughly one player for each team in the NCAA, which is significant.
2. NCAA Readiness
Not to diminish the junior hockey fan bases across North America, as we’ve seen some great arenas and fan followings like those of the Penticton Vees, Brooks Bandits, Sioux Falls Stampede, Fargo Force, and Shreveport Mudbugs, to name a few, but the CHL has a different level of fan base. Not only are the crowds larger, but the atmosphere is more professional, and the games have more at stake; on any given night, an NHL team likely has 3-5 scouts in CHL rinks, whereas they might have only 1 or 2 covering the rest of junior hockey. The point is to emphasize that players coming out of the CHL are accustomed to playing in front of large crowds and in high-pressure situations, making the transition to NCAA hockey less significant for them. Additionally, unlike NCAA and USHL programs, the CHL allows NHL development coaches to participate on the ice, in practices, and in meetings, which further prepares drafted players for the next level. The CHL is also the largest feeder program to the NHL in terms of coaches, so players receive high-quality coaching, training, and support, allowing them to have an immediate impact at the college level.
3. Balance of Power
In conversations with several head coaches at the USHL Showcase this fall, a common concern was the balance of power in college hockey. Big Ten and NCHC programs have the budget to send coaches to scout at that level, the facilities to attract CHL prospects, and potentially some NIL money to secure commitments from high-profile players. Lower-market teams, however, lack the budget to travel and scout the league as extensively as needed; they do not have the facilities to compete with CHL programs, nor do they have the same NHL Draft pedigree as a CHL program.
4. NCAA Free Agency
The NCAA is the leader in free-agent signings in both the NHL and AHL, providing late-blooming prospects with a longer development path. For players who go undrafted in their draft year, making the jump to the NCAA could be a serious consideration, as it offers them a chance to prove themselves against older and stronger players. Additionally, NCAA players have an option that CHL players do not: they can force free agency by waiting out the team that drafted them. For example, a player from the Brandon Wheat Kings could be drafted at 19 years old by the Florida Panthers. If he is a center and the organization is very deep at that position, instead of signing with Florida at 20 and beginning his career as a third-line center in the AHL, he could choose to play in the NCAA, wait another year, and then become a free agent, allowing him to sign with any team at a higher salary and find the best path for his career. This represents a significant advantage for CHL players, who have not had that kind of leverage. This subject will be one of the focuses of the NHL/CHL agreement.
5. Potential Negatives
The NCAA has a unique culture among its prospects, especially in Minnesota and the Northeast U.S., where players aspire to compete at the NCAA Division I level. In Canada, it is rare for a player to set their sights on the CHL; the NHL is the primary goal, which may not seem significant but is important from a cultural perspective. The typical Canadian player does not participate in scholastic hockey; rather, they progress through AAA, then juniors, and finally the CHL, with each level serving as a step toward the NHL. Why does this matter? If a 20-year-old undrafted prospect has a successful freshman year at Wisconsin and receives an opportunity to sign with an AHL club, they are likely to consider it seriously, as they are less entrenched in the NCAA and scholastic hockey culture. It is not uncommon to see players in USport leave for deals in the ECHL, and while this might not occur for a player at Minnesota, it would not be surprising for a player in the bottom quarter of NCAA Division I to pursue such an opportunity. Therefore, for NCAA teams accustomed to elite players leaving after a few years and others playing the full four years, there could be average to above-average players coming from the CHL who would depart earlier than a typical U.S. player. The rate and significance of this impact remain unclear, but it is crucial to understand the differences in how U.S. players view the NCAA compared to Canadian players.
There is minimal risk of losing players to the CHL because the average age of a freshman or rookie in the NCAA is over 20 years old; however, there are circumstances in which the NCAA could lose younger players as a result of this deal. For example, a recruit committed to Colorado College at 18 years old might express a desire to join the team immediately, while Colorado may indicate that they require another year of development. The player now has more options and potentially more leverage, allowing them to consider playing that year with the Seattle Thunderbirds instead of returning to the BCHL or USHL. Although the player remains eligible to attend Colorado, they may have such a positive experience with Seattle that, by their 19-year-old season, they may be reluctant to leave and could ultimately transition from Seattle to professional hockey.
National Training Development Program (NTDP) and Junior Hockey
While we noted earlier that the hardest hit from this legislation would likely be USport in Canada, as most of those programs would have a difficult time competing with NCAA programs for players, two entities who could be significantly impacted are the NTDP and junior hockey.
NTDP
The NTDP is a select team in the United States where USA Hockey identifies what they deem to be the 20 best players in the country to represent the team for two seasons, culminating in the U18 World Championships. The program has received mixed reviews, depending on the perspective from which it is evaluated. On one hand, it has developed several high-end NHL players, including Jack Hughes, Brady Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, Patrick Kane, Jack Eichel, and Auston Matthews, to name a few; the list is quite extensive. In fact, nearly all of the best U.S. players in the past 20 years have come from the U.S. National Program. Additionally, statistically, players emerging from the NTDP program achieve the highest level of success at the NCAA level as freshmen in nearly every statistical category (games played, minutes played, goals, assists, etc.). The U.S. program benefits from substantial resources, receiving funding from the NHL, and it has a high-quality coaching and development staff. It offers elite level on- and off-ice training and, aside from a few international competitions, emphasizes long-term development over winning and short-term pursuits.
With that being said, the program has had a poor track record regarding the bottom half of the roster in relation to the NHL Draft over the past five years or so, with approximately half of the roster going undrafted. Last year, for example, their highest draft pick (directly from the program) was selected 20th overall, and the team had only two first-round picks and four players taken in the top 50. US players like Trevor Connelly (Tri-City), was the highest-selected U.S. forward, while Adam Kleeber (Lincoln Stars) and Colin Ralph (Shattuck St. Mary’s) were chosen ahead of all but two of the NTDP defenders.
Some of this is by design, as the U.S. Program has shifted its focus from getting as many players on the team drafted to getting their best players drafted as high as possible. For example, in the U18 World Championships, USA Hockey intentionally leaves a few NHL Draft-eligible players off the U18 team in order to invite high-end players from the U17 team. Furthermore, if you analyze the ice time for the players present, you can see a significant disparity between the top line, the second line, and the fourth line. This has resulted in an increasing number of players needing to play another year of junior hockey, primarily in the USHL, before they can advance to the NCAA.
Thus, not only could these players choose to go to the CHL instead of spending their 19-year-old season in the USHL, but there is also a percentage of players who may forgo their U18 season to play in the CHL. This has already occurred several times, and if they could make that jump without losing NCAA eligibility, it would likely lead to a higher percentage of players leaving. Again, consider the scenario of the eighth U.S. NTDP forward who is playing 12 minutes a night but has the option to be on the power play and receive 18 minutes of ice time per night in their NHL Draft year; that is certainly not an easy decision.
Junior Hockey
There are a plethora of junior hockey leagues across the U.S. and Canada, and each one could feel the impact of this decision. However, the two most affected would likely be the USHL and BCHL, which are geared toward NCAA Division I prospects. While not every player goes the college route, the overwhelming majority are NCAA-bound. Therefore, a pertinent question arises: if CHL players could attain NCAA eligibility, would Owen Power, Macklin Celebrini, Michael Hage, and Sacha Boisvert have played in the USHL? Would Cale Makar have remained with Brooks (AJHL), or would Tyson Jost have stayed in Penticton (BCHL)? The concern for those leagues would be twofold: maintaining or expanding their roster of high-profile Canadian players who chose the NCAA over the CHL, and facing increased pressure from U.S.-based prospects who may have been interested in the CHL but did not want to forfeit their NCAA eligibility.
A perfect example would be Macklin Celebrini during the 2022-23 season. He had been previously drafted by the Seattle Thunderbirds (WHL), who had a talented team that year, winning the league and losing in the Memorial Cup Championship Game. Clearly, if Celebrini had been on that team, the outcome would have been different; if the rules had been different, he may have been.
The worst-case scenario for the USHL is that they lose some of their high-end prospects from Canada and a few from the U.S.; however, in the grand scheme, there is so much depth in that league that it should not significantly affect the overall competitiveness. One would be hard-pressed to believe that the average Cedar Rapids Roughriders fan would stop attending games simply because the second-round NHL pick has been replaced by a fourth-round NHL pick. The best-case scenario is that the USHL remains the premier development path to the NCAA. If a blue-chip program like North Dakota, Wisconsin, or Michigan is able to recruit a 17 or 18-year-old player from the CHL, they may very well have the opportunity to acclimate to the style of play in the USHL before enrolling in school.
The BCHL is somewhat different in that it has moved away from Hockey Canada, and there are now transfer rules in place between the WHL and BCHL. With that being said, this legislation could compel those parties to return to the negotiating table, as many of the top players in the BCHL who are committed to NCAA schools could be coveted by WHL programs.
Either way, the junior hockey landscape will need to adapt, as these NCAA-committed players will have more options regarding where to play.
Conclusion
In our view, the benefits of this, across all levels, far outweigh the negatives. That being said, there are questions that could impact some of our assumptions noted above. For example, if a player joins the Ottawa 67s during his 16, 17, and 18-year-old seasons, is drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins, and they indicate that they want him to play against older and stronger players in the NCAA during his 19-year-old season, does Ottawa still receive compensation?
Will players be able to move between the leagues, or will CHL players only be permitted to transfer to the NCAA after reaching a certain age or completing a specific number of years of service in the league?
If the legislation passes, will the CHL and USHL adjust their import rules to allow for more players from across the border?
If a player ages out in the CHL and earns his scholarship package but chooses to accept a full scholarship at Denver instead of USport, does the CHL pay its portion of the tuition? If Denver covers the entire cost, does the player receive any of that money, or is it simply a cost savings for the CHL club?
There are various scenarios that could be considered. For instance, if an NCAA player on a struggling team has his season end in early March, can he join the CHL team that drafted him for a playoff push from March to May? Additionally, if a 19-year-old in the CHL does not start the season on the NHL active roster, he cannot go to the AHL and must instead return to the CHL. Is there a scenario in which that player signs with Ohio State in the off-season and subsequently leaves at Christmas time for the AHL? All these scenarios could occur over time.
At the end of the day, there are many more questions than answers at this point; however, this will have an impact on the North American youth hockey landscape. Will it upend the industry? Unlikely.
For players aged 16 to 18, we believe there will be very slight changes, but they will not be significant; the overwhelming majority of U.S.-born players will commit to the NCAA route and follow the traditional path through midget, high school, and junior hockey, while the majority of Canadian-born players in this age group will follow the path from midget to junior to the CHL. There may be an increase in U.S. players in the CHL as a result of the potential rule change, but it is unlikely that Cole Eiserman would have left the NTDP to play in the QMJHL or that Cole Hutson would have opted for the OHL. Same could be said that it’d be quite unlikely Zayne Parekh would have left Memorial Cup Champion Saginaw Spirit in order to play for an NCAA club.
We believe that the 19 and 20-year-olds will have a more significant impact. These players will have already spent 1-4 years in the league and will, in most cases, be strong enough and talented enough to enter the NCAA and make an impact. However, they have more options than just the CHL or NCAA; there are also professional hockey opportunities in the U.S. and Canada, as well as in Europe. Each player is different and faces unique considerations. For example, will a 19-year-old who was a second-round NHL pick from Northern Ontario leave the Sudbury Wolves, where he is set to be a captain, simply because he has a scholarship offer from the University of Maine? This seems very unlikely. Similarly, will a 20-year-old from the Halifax Mooseheads, who does not have any offers to play professional hockey in the U.S., Canada, or Europe, decline the scholarship offer from the University of New Brunswick in favor of one from Alaska Fairbanks? Probably not. Will Denver stop sending their coaching staff to USHL and BCHL games and instead fly out to the QMJHL to scout for talent? Probably not.
You can make arguments for either league when comparing them against one another. The NCAA is stronger, older, and faster than the CHL, but it also has less high-end players, it has far fewer games and, generally speaking, has a different style of play than the NHL. The CHL, on the other hand, emphasizes a more controlled, puck-possession style of play that mirrors the NHL and offers more games with a similar schedule to that of the NHL. Our point is that this legislative change is unlikely to alter the fundamentals of why players choose one route over the other and will likely not have a major impact on the culture of either the NCAA or the CHL.
The argument can be made that the three major components in this decision-making process—the players, the CHL, and the NCAA—will all benefit from having more options and opportunities.
