Recruits 2025 and Beyond

[BearLover]

NIL

No

To expand on this:
1. Most of our recruits committed years ago, before NIL existed
2. Half of our recruits are outside the US, so not eligible for NIL
3. We have seen zero decommits the past two years, so nobody is leaving for Michigan or another program who theoretically could offer NIL
4. I haven't seen signs NIL is a significant presence in hockey. News coverage about NIL has made it sound like it is almost entirely concentrated in football, basketball, and a few other athletes with huge social media followings

Therefore I would assume NIL has had practically zero impact on what I described above.

[upprdeck]

Yes, Canadian kids can get NIL.

Its called NIL now.. It was called "under the table before"

[ugarte]

Yes, Canadian kids can get NIL.

Can they? From US based sources? I don't think so. I thought not, because of US labor and immigration law and the conditions of their visas rather than the NIL rules themselves.

[dbilmes]

Canadian college athletes can't benefit directly from NIL:

However, one group has been left out of the process entirely: international students.

Despite making up nearly 12.8 per cent of all Division 1 NCAA athletes and 14 per cent of basketball players, foreign student-athletes are mostly unable to profit from NIL. That includes Canadians, who represent far and away the most NCAA athletes from any country outside the United States.

"With NIL deals in America, I'm on a student visa," reigning Naismith Men's College Player of the Year, Toronto's Zach Edey, told Sportsnet.ca. "So, I'm not really allowed to do a lot of those deals over there: I can't film a commercial or do anything. Only thing I can really get is my jersey sales when I'm in America."

That's because nearly all international student-athletes are on F-1 (student) visas, which do not allow them to engage in employment outside of "on-campus" work or other specific programs geared toward career development such as an internship. They are unable to participate in "active" engagements while on American soil, including most of the traditional influencer-based NIL activations such as posting on social media or filming a commercial. Foreign student-athletes are allowed to profit off "passive" engagements, such as jersey sales or EA Sports video game licencing in America, but these tend to be a very small percentage of NIL profits for most athletes.

This means that as international athletes continue to bring hundreds of millions of dollars into their universities through sports, they are seeing a tiny percentage of the profit — and an unequal share compared to their American counterparts.

[upprdeck]

yes. They can't do deals with things while in the US.  They can do deals with stuff in their own country though.

So say Cornell had an Alum from Canada who is doing well and wanted to do some NIL thing in Toronto.

Thats what bball and other sports are doing for NIL.

Requires some more effort though to arrange..  But really how much NIL money is floating around the CU campus?

[upprdeck]

So they decided to allow the CHL kids to play going into next yr

Not sure if those kids would be in our scope or not.

[chimpfood]

So they decided to allow the CHL kids to play going into next yr

Not sure if those kids would be in our scope or not.

Considering we had one commit before the decision I would say yes.

[ursusminor]

So they decided to allow the CHL kids to play going into next yr

Not sure if those kids would be in our scope or not.

Clarkson got a commitment from an OHL goalie. https://thehockeynews.com/ncaa/latest-news/jackson-parsons-commits-to-clarkson

[Trotsky]

CHN Podcast thinks the CHL decision is bad for factory programs since the talent pool will be too large for them to monopolize.

Fun fact: of the 30 schools on the panel that made the ruling, only 2 have any hockey program at all.

[BearLover]

CHN Podcast thinks the CHL decision is bad for factory programs since the talent pool will be too large for them to monopolize.

Fun fact: of the 30 schools on the panel that made the ruling, only 2 have any hockey program at all.

It will be relatively bad for the best teams because the best players will be recruited at 16, not 19-20 after a career in the CHL. But will it benefit Cornell? It remains to be seen how many of these kids can/want to go to Ivy League schools.

[Trotsky]

But will it benefit Cornell? It remains to be seen how many of these kids can/want to go to Ivy League schools.

In my experience following the CHL for 7 years: virtually none will have the grades or the inclination.

Thank god for the Hotel school.

[Trotsky]

.

[abmarks]

CHN Podcast thinks the CHL decision is bad for factory programs since the talent pool will be too large for them to monopolize.

Fun fact: of the 30 schools on the panel that made the ruling, only 2 have any hockey program at all.

It will be relatively bad for the best teams because the best players will be recruited at 16, not 19-20 after a career in the CHL. But will it benefit Cornell? It remains to be seen how many of these kids can/want to go to Ivy League schools.

I don't follow the 16yo vs 19-20 angle

The absolute studs coming out of high school are not waiting until they are 20 to commit to a NCAA school. Id think the same would apply to high end talent that might go CHL (or already in it if you can be at 16)

Aren't the Michigans, BC, BU, Minnesota, Denvers of the world already getting the best young?  What changes here?

I must be missing something.

[jts15]

Topher Scott
@HockeyThinkTank
Alright, honest thoughts on the new CHL ruling allowing major junior players to play college hockey starting next year:

1. It's going to make college and pro hockey better. The talent pool for college just went through the roof and now drafted kids that aren't ready for pro at 20 have a bigger runway for their development. The product on the ice at the highest levels just became way better.

2. College hockey will potentially be much more Canadian moving forward - so it's up to the current USA Junior leagues that feed to college to up their game. I think there are a lot of teams that do a great job of development. There are also teams with challenges, especially when it comes to who owns the teams. There is much more competition in the market now fighting for top end players, and hopefully the USHL and others can take that with some competitive fire and make their product even better.

3. Adapt or die for college teams. College hockey is so significantly different today then before. Transfer rules, NIL, major junior, etc... There are some changes I like, some I don't. But ultimately at the end of the day the rules are what the rules are and if you just complain about it and don't change you'll get left behind. Colleges are going to have to fundraise more. They're going to have to gain new relationships in the youth/junior/pro world. They're going to have to continue to battle the transfer portal. That's the new reality.

Now, all that being said, I think the teams that do it best provide a great environment for their players where they feel like they're taken care of and they feel like they're being developed. The best coaches don't placate to kids or "don't coach them for fear they will transfer". They're authentic, do things the right way, challenge kids to be better, and create a great culture. Are the conditions more difficult with the transfer portal? Absolutely. But the best have an authentic culture and don't get wrapped up in the things they can't control.

4. I feel sad for a lot of kids that are going to be decommitted this year and kids on college rosters that will be told they don't have a place on their roster next year.  That's the worst part and an unfortunate byproduct from this ruling. Hopefully this doesn't happen too much, but it will. Colleges will take the best players that will help their team win. And with so many new players added to the player pool, spots are going to be taken.

5. Relationships with NHL GM's and front offices just got A LOT more important for college coaches. Not that those weren't important before - but this ruling puts it on steriods. There are a lot of high round NHL draft picks that are not ready to play pro at 20-21 years old and they'll need a place to marinate. And where are these kids going to play? They're going to play where their NHL team feels like it's a best fit for their development. If you are a college coach that can clearly define your development plan and principles and NHL teams trust you - that's a huge win on the recruiting front of the highest level players.

Get ready for a whole new landscape.

https://x.com/HockeyThinkTank/status/1854962655338930676

[BearLover]

Topher Scott
@HockeyThinkTank
Alright, honest thoughts on the new CHL ruling allowing major junior players to play college hockey starting next year:

5. Relationships with NHL GM's and front offices just got A LOT more important for college coaches. Not that those weren't important before - but this ruling puts it on steriods. There are a lot of high round NHL draft picks that are not ready to play pro at 20-21 years old and they'll need a place to marinate. And where are these kids going to play? They're going to play where their NHL team feels like it's a best fit for their development. If you are a college coach that can clearly define your development plan and principles and NHL teams trust you - that's a huge win on the recruiting front of the highest level players.

Get ready for a whole new landscape.

https://x.com/HockeyThinkTank/status/1854962655338930676

Would NHL teams still have rights to these players by the time they are age 20/21? Anybody know the rule for how long NHL teams retain rights to drafted players in the CHL?

Anyway, 0% chance any of these players ever come to Cornell. Ivies aren't going to accept rental players who are going to college for a year or two to "marinate." So that's one big downside of this new rule.