The issue really is that the way things have evolved, the different pathways really don't jibe with one another. 30 years ago, you might play public school hockey or prep school hockey and if you were a great player, you went on to play in college. Separate from that was the junior hockey system which was geared solely towards NHL development. As it has evolved though, kids are expected to play 2 years of junior hockey before playing D1 and, now, D3 hockey. A lot of the driving force behind it is money, and I dont just mean NIL money. I mean, these junior leagues showed up and inserted themselves into the conversation. So at the D1 level, other than the best players in the world, you don't have any 18 or 19 year olds playing, and so, if you aren't Mack Celebrini, you need to go play against other kids your age for a few years so you can show up and compete against the 20 and 21 year old freshmen. For what? And now that the CHL doesn't cost anyone their eligibility, that's clearly the best pathway.
The last 2 years my son went to the Matterhorn Fitness Showcase in Florida - its one of the premier showcases and is set up down in Florida to take place right about now, just after the NCAA coaches convention, so that coaches from all the Ivies, ECAC, Hockey East all come to it. (by the way it was founded and is run by our own Ryan Vesce and his wife Kate, 2 Cornelian gems if there ever were any - they fly members of the Cornell band down to play the fight song after goals. Do you have any idea how cool it is for your kid to score a goal and hear the band playing the fight song? but I digress...). In any case, at last year's event, one of the coaches stood up and told everyone that since the recent change in CHL and NCAA rules, 95% of all commits were coming from junior hockey. Before that, a lot more were coming from Prep schools.
What's really evolved is that these are two very distinct pathways. Either you are playing hockey or you are a student. Some have stated that it's always been that way. My experience as a student and a student-athlete was that perhaps admissions standards at the Ivies were not as tough for athletic;etes, but those guys were all still smart people who mostly worked hard at both school and in sports with the understanding that they were both. But now it really is difficult to excel academically and still pursue intercollegiate sports - and the system has made it that way. Lots of kids that my son played with growing up have gotten pulled away by academies, which basically foregoes a decent HS education, and then committed to schools. Sometimes they make it, sometimes they get dropped. The juniors thing adds a whole new level to it, For those years, you are not a student at all. And I personally have know several kids who were Cornell commits (that we have discussed on this board) who were absolutely spectacular prep school players and then in juniors, just showed up and the coach hated them. Or the level of goonery tolerated at those levels resulted in injuries. And they wound up not playing here.
The question becomes is the NCAA - and Im really just talking about hockey here I guess - just another conduit to the NHL, or is it a destination in and of itself? The very top players in many sports play in the NCAA for a year or two, then turn pro. Hockey is the only sport in which the Ivies are nationally relevant in this regard. So there is the idea of them recognizing that they can offer a great hockey program and experience (and Im sorry I disagree that playing in the Big Ten or wherever is so much better than the ECAC for a few years), but also get a year or 2 of an Ivy education under their belt - that they can ALWAYS go back to. And for the four-year players, the student athlete concept should somehow remain relevant and important. When you start bringing in kids who played great in the Q or the OHL, you are bringing in kids who basically went to generally subpar online schools for years. They are not remotely equipped for a place like Cornell academically. And that should still matter. I wish I knew what the solution was.
The last 2 years my son went to the Matterhorn Fitness Showcase in Florida - its one of the premier showcases and is set up down in Florida to take place right about now, just after the NCAA coaches convention, so that coaches from all the Ivies, ECAC, Hockey East all come to it. (by the way it was founded and is run by our own Ryan Vesce and his wife Kate, 2 Cornelian gems if there ever were any - they fly members of the Cornell band down to play the fight song after goals. Do you have any idea how cool it is for your kid to score a goal and hear the band playing the fight song? but I digress...). In any case, at last year's event, one of the coaches stood up and told everyone that since the recent change in CHL and NCAA rules, 95% of all commits were coming from junior hockey. Before that, a lot more were coming from Prep schools.
What's really evolved is that these are two very distinct pathways. Either you are playing hockey or you are a student. Some have stated that it's always been that way. My experience as a student and a student-athlete was that perhaps admissions standards at the Ivies were not as tough for athletic;etes, but those guys were all still smart people who mostly worked hard at both school and in sports with the understanding that they were both. But now it really is difficult to excel academically and still pursue intercollegiate sports - and the system has made it that way. Lots of kids that my son played with growing up have gotten pulled away by academies, which basically foregoes a decent HS education, and then committed to schools. Sometimes they make it, sometimes they get dropped. The juniors thing adds a whole new level to it, For those years, you are not a student at all. And I personally have know several kids who were Cornell commits (that we have discussed on this board) who were absolutely spectacular prep school players and then in juniors, just showed up and the coach hated them. Or the level of goonery tolerated at those levels resulted in injuries. And they wound up not playing here.
The question becomes is the NCAA - and Im really just talking about hockey here I guess - just another conduit to the NHL, or is it a destination in and of itself? The very top players in many sports play in the NCAA for a year or two, then turn pro. Hockey is the only sport in which the Ivies are nationally relevant in this regard. So there is the idea of them recognizing that they can offer a great hockey program and experience (and Im sorry I disagree that playing in the Big Ten or wherever is so much better than the ECAC for a few years), but also get a year or 2 of an Ivy education under their belt - that they can ALWAYS go back to. And for the four-year players, the student athlete concept should somehow remain relevant and important. When you start bringing in kids who played great in the Q or the OHL, you are bringing in kids who basically went to generally subpar online schools for years. They are not remotely equipped for a place like Cornell academically. And that should still matter. I wish I knew what the solution was.
