Many hockey people at all levels were in a panic in May when the NCAA floated a new rule.
The rule: student-athletes would have five calendar years of collegiate eligibility, beginning during the academic year immediately after whichever of the following three occurred first: their 19th birthday, their actual high school graduation date, or their expected high school graduation date based on their first year of enrollment.
We ran a story highlighting its pros and cons in the immediate aftermath. There seemed to be a lot more cons.
The NHL, college hockey, the CHL and the USHL joined together to tell the NCAA that an intelligent compromise would be to go with the 19th birthday option. In late May, it was thought that the NCAA wouldn't go for that.
Instead, the NCAA did go for it. On June 23, the NCAA came down with the new age-based eligibility model, stating that they would be "permitting Division 1 student-athletes up to five years of eligibility if they enroll in college no later than the academic year after their 19th birthday."
Junior teams could breathe easy. Players could still go to junior hockey during the year in which they turned 19 and still have all five years of collegiate eligibility.
It's definitely good news for prep schools. But with the landscape changing as much as it is and more roster spots now up for grabs in the CHL, the new rule's impact is murkier.
The boys prep coaches survey was sent before June 23, so coaches answered under the guise of the initial rule. They were granted anonymity.
Most coaches were on the same page: They didn't like this proposed rule.
"This hurts," a coach said. "Kids will leave even earlier now."
The best of the best prep players have been leaving prep for quite a while. The top of the top typically have always left for the U.S. National Team Development Program. Over the last five to 10 years, even more eventually left for the USHL. Now, even more are leaving for whatever CHL league has their regional rights.
READ MORE: Part 1 of the boys prep coaches survey | Part 2 of the boys prep coaches survey
"I think we will see more players leave early than in years past," another coach said. "Reclassing will be done, which is fine, but seeing junior hockey shift younger will impact us."
That was a big point of contention with the first proposal: reclassing. If the NCAA were to go forward with a player's collegiate eligibility beginning when their expected graduation was going to be, why would anyone reclass anymore? But with the NCAA going the route of a player's eligibility beginning the season after turning 19, reclassing is still somewhat of an option.
Still, I'd assume players will want to keep all options open, and reclassing to spend another year in prep could limit their time in junior hockey.
This also goes for reclassing players and non-reclassing players: If that player needs more time than initially thought in junior and has to spend the season following their 19th birthday in junior hockey, that's limiting their college eligibility.
And why would a school commit to a 20-year-old with four years of eligibility?
"This will force families to be self-aware," a coach said. "At an earlier age, they will have to make a decision. What is more important: education or chasing college hockey?"
There's no doubt, however, that prep dodged a bullet in the NCAA adopting hockey's revised proposal. Had their initial rule gone through, reclassing would be over and players with Division 1 aspirations would likely be leaving before senior year due to how college hockey recruiting has changed.
"Long term," one coach said. "It depends on if colleges change their recruiting practices."
One coach mentioned that even with the lessened impact from the rule, prep should be quicker to evolve.
"The latest iteration will have a lessened impact on prep hockey compared to what it would have been if it included high school graduation," that coach said. "Any chance that pushes kids to juniors sooner will certainly not help prep hockey. Our model, resources, coaches and facilities are incredible. However, we're not competing on a level playing field with those other options available to kids and families. We're holding ourselves back, and we need to evolve to ensure we stay relevant and competitive.
"If we do, there aren't many better options for a lot of kids and families."
It hasn't been adopted yet in Division 3, but one worry is what would happen if Division 3 switched to the same rules.
READ MORE:Â Who are the biggest names to watch for the 2027 NHL Draft?Â
"If Division 3 adopts it, it will be a boon to prep school, and I think you will see prep return to being a direct feeder for the NESCAC. If not, then prep gets younger. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing; it just means we will need to adjust."
Only one coach surveyed argued that the new rule might be a good thing.
"I actually think it could help," they said. "It hurts for the kids who 'think' they are Division 1 kids. But if Division 3 were to adopt this rule, I think you see more kids going from prep to Division 3 like it was 10-15 years ago."
