Rushing to Play Juniors Doesn't Speed Up the Developmental Process

NA3HL Photo

By Scott Lowe - MYHockeyRankings.com

For folks who don’t follow junior hockey closely and aren’t aware of the various pathways available to young players who want to keep playing after their 18U and high school careers end, the ever-changing landscape of the sport at that level can be both confusing and overwhelming.

Frankly, sometimes it can feel the same way for those of us who are immersed in it.  

There is a wealth of misinformation out there about juniors, much of which is perpetuated by the teams and leagues themselves. In addition, junior hockey is extremely volatile, with teams folding, relocating and being added on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, those factors can conspire with a lack of understanding to compel younger players who still have 16U or 18U eligibility remaining to pursue juniors earlier than they probably should.

Changes in the world of junior hockey occur regularly and often without warning. Something monumental that alters the landscape seems to happen just about every year.

Even for those of us who might be self-appointed experts on the topic, if we stop paying attention even for just a few weeks something can happen that turns everything upside down. The volatility and misinformation are aspects of junior hockey that those of us who follow it closely have come to expect.

For example, last year when the NCAA determined that Major Junior players from the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) would be eligible to play at the Division I level starting in 2025-26, the incredibly difficult task of playing Division I hockey got infinitely harder as an entire group of NHL and legitimate Division I prospects was thrown into the prospect pool for the first time.

Hockey is unlike any other NCAA sport in terms of the pathways available to reach that level, so to help everyone understand what that decision meant, here is a quick math lesson:

• There are 63 NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey programs, according to College Hockey, Inc.’s most recent list, with one more scheduled to be added for the 2026-27 season. 

• There are 60 teams in the CHL alone. It has been estimated that as many as 150 former CHL players will be matriculating at schools with Division I men’s hockey programs in a few weeks. That’s 150 spots that were available or already spoken for (we thought) that disappeared.

• The NCAA also increased the maximum number of Division I scholarships for men’s hockey to 26 while at the same time limiting the number of players teams could roster to 26 if they chose to “opt-in” for the scholarship increase. In the past, many teams carried between 28 and 32 players. That eliminated more roster spots. 

• The Tier 1 tuition-free United States Hockey League (USHL), which sends pretty much all of its players on to play NCAA Division I hockey, has 16 teams,

• The U.S.-based Tier 2 tuition-free North American Hockey League (NAHL) in recent years has had nearly 300 NCAA Division I commits on its rosters. The NAHL currently lists 34 member teams on its website and was projected to have about 125 players matriculating at Division I hockey schools this year.

• The British Columbia Hockey League (BCHL) has a long history of producing Division I players, with more than 250 commits listed on 2024-25 team rosters. There are 20 BCHL teams.

Simple math shows that junior leagues producing the vast majority of NCAA Division I commits and players capable of playing at that level are comprised of 130 teams, more than twice as many teams than are scheduled to compete at the Division I level in 2024-25.

That’s just a basic calculation done without considering the smaller number of Division I players who traditionally have come from Junior A Canadian Junior Hockey League (CJHL) programs, Minnesota high schools and New England Prep programs.

For years, experts have told us that there were way more Division I-capable players than there were Division I opportunities. Well, that became even more clear with the addition of CHL players to the recruiting pool.

A look at the remaining NCAA opportunities at the Division II and III levels shows that there are about 95 institutions fielding teams at those levels, with close to 90 of them competing as Division III programs.

In 2025, for young hockey players hoping to ascend to the NCAA level, this is the reality:

• There are approximately 150 varsity programs, give or take a few each year, at all levels of NCAA hockey.

• With CHL players now part of the Division I equation, including the leagues that traditionally have moved large numbers of players on to play DI in the past, it’s safe to assume that there will be more than 130 North American junior hockey teams fielding rosters with players capable of competing at the highest level of college hockey.

• While CHL players are not Division III eligible (yet), the influx of talent at the top of the pyramid means there will be fewer opportunities for players in leagues like the NAHL and BCHL to advance to Division I.

• Hundreds of players who in the past might have received Division I offers likely will trickle down to Division III programs, with many players playing Tier 3 or pay-to-play junior hockey who previously would have been capable Division III prospects likely ending up playing for college club programs.

• The Division I opportunities for players in the CJHL Junior A leagues soon may disappear completely.  

• United States pay-to-play Tier 3 and other junior leagues such as the National Collegiate Development Conference (NCDC), the Eastern Hockey League (EHL), the United States Premier Hockey Legue (USPHL) and North American Tier 3 Hockey League (NA3HL), which have combined annually to send hundreds of players to the Division III level, should see those numbers reduced drastically.

Remember, we are talking about 130-plus junior hockey teams that have had Division I-capable players in the past feeding the 63 Division I programs. And there are only 150 or so varsity NCAA men’s hockey programs at all levels.

Currently in U.S.-based junior leagues that fall below the USHL and NAHL, there are 221 teams. Almost 200 of those are pay-to-play programs; the others are tuition-free teams in the NCDC. As far as competition for NCAA roster spots is concerned, that number does not include the 118 CJHL teams or any Minnesota high school or New England Prep programs.

When you add in the CHL, USHL, BCHL and NAHL teams at the top of the development pyramid, there are more than 450 junior teams in North American leagues that are filled with players who hope to play NCAA hockey.

Again, there are only about 150 NCAA varsity programs.

This is basic math of course. Not every single player in those leagues has the desire or ability to play at the NCAA level, but most of them at least entertain that notion at some point, and the discrepancy in the number of capable players versus the available slots is huge no matter how you slice it.

This is what creates opportunities for many U.S. pay-to-play junior programs to exploit naïve and uneducated families for large sums of money.

The saddest part of this is that the programs involved in this type of recruiting behavior know exactly what they are doing, and despite the efforts of people who try to educate families and help them from becoming victims, many refuse to heed the warnings. Even more discouraging is that these organizations prey upon players as young as 16, making false promises about playing time, development and advancement, convincing them to pay as much as $15,000 in tuition to leave home and compete against players who may be four years older than them and much more physically mature.

Recruiting younger players is not new for lower-end pay-to-play junior teams, especially for organizations that field teams at more than one level and have 50 or more roster spots to fill. Having the ability to fund their daily operation and pay staff salaries depends on signing a certain number of players, so there often is pressure from ownership to sign players no matter their age or ability level.

This trend seems to be on the rise as everyone adjusts to the trickle-down effect that has begun in the wake of the NCAA’s CHL decision.

It’s almost as if some of these organizations are in a hurry get younger players to commit to them before most families fully understand the impact of the decision and what it means for players hoping to advance to higher levels of juniors and NCAA hockey. If they can get players who are 16 or 17 on board now by selling them a dream that in the future may be unreachable, perhaps they will be able to keep a core group of paying customers intact for the next three or four years.

One fact about juniors that most players and families are aware of is that approximately 90 percent of the players at all NCAA levels played junior hockey. Most know that to advance to that level they will need to play juniors, but many families – probably the majority – have no idea what that really means.

Pay-to-play junior organizations have attempted to capitalize on this and continue to do so amid the current state of chaos and uncertainty. Players and families know that junior hockey is a means to an end, so why not try to convince them that now is the time for them to make the move to that level?

They often do this even if NCAA hockey isn’t a likely outcome for a player and even if a player isn’t ready for the rigors of juniors and would be better served continuing to develop at the 16U or 18U level. Based on the earlier math, advancing from Tier 3 pay-to-play juniors to NCAA hockey is going to become much more challenging than it already is in the years ahead.

This is not to say that every pay-to-play junior program operates in this fashion. There are plenty of reputable organizations with respected coaches focused on developing players and moving them on to higher levels. Many of them do a great job developing their players and helping them advance. The problem is that the good seem to be badly outnumbered by the others who are looking to take advantage of people financially by selling something that may not be real.

Recent history can be used to support the sales pitch of NCAA advancement, too, since it is true that three of the Tier 3 pay-to-play junior leagues have produced hundreds of Division III commitments per year historically. That is likely to change dramatically, however, thanks to those recent NCAA rulings. Some pay-to-play programs appear to be in a race to get as many uneducated customers as possible on board before the statistics swing the other way and people realize that the number of commits from pay-to-play junior leagues is likely to take a huge hit.

The 18-team Eastern Hockey League, for example, has done a terrific job of advancing players to play NCAA Division III hockey. In recent years, the EHL generally has produced between 160 and 180 annual commitments, and one year the league advanced nearly 190 players to Division III programs. In the immediate aftermath of the recent NCAA changes, however, that commitment number already dipped to 137, 40 fewer than the previous season.

That number seems likely to continue falling.

The USPHL’s top full pay-to-play division, the USPHL Premier, lists more than 90 commitments to NCAA Division II and III programs for the 2024-25 season, while the NA3HL lists about 50. There was a time when the USPHL’s commitments equaled or surpassed the EHL.

Entering the 2025-26 season, the USPHL Premier has 87 teams, so the average number or players per team that committed to NCAA Division III programs last year was fewer than two. The NA3HL has 38 teams, so the per-team average there was similar. With 18 teams, the EHL averaged about seven commitments per team. Of course, those are just averages, and some organizations traditionally do a much better job moving players to that level than others.

Usually the New England-based EHL teams end up with the most commitments – and some organizations seem to routinely produce more commits than most of the others – but in general, pretty much all of the teams in that league have moved players to Division III programs. A little deeper dive into the numbers reveals that about a third of those commits play regularly once they get to college, with another third seeing a fair amount of game action and a third hardly playing.

This is the type of information players being asked to pay five figures by junior teams should be trying to uncover.

Do the teams have a proven track record for advancing players to higher levels? How many players usually appear on a team’s roster and play in games? Are they patient with their players and work hard to develop them or is there a constant revolving door of new guys coming in? What do past players say about their experience playing for an organization?

Most of the scouts and coaches recruiting for junior programs will talk about their organization’s successes in these areas, but it’s important for prospective players to do their homework. Teams and leagues have become adept at putting a spin on the facts to support a specific narrative, and recruiters also understand that too many prospective customers either won’t take the time to investigate or simply may not know where to start.

Those who investigate their various pay-to-play junior options will notice that the USPHL and NA3HL list the number of players who are tendered or drafted by NCDC and NAHL teams as part of their development and advancement sales pitch. It’s important to understand that the USPHL is the parent organization overseeing the NCDC and the NAHL is affiliated with the NA3HL.

Those organizations require their higher-level junior organizations to draft or tender a minimum number of players each year. While a few of those players might ultimately advance to play in the higher-level leagues, nothing is guaranteed and many do not.

The less-scrupulous pay-to-play junior organizations also are aware that many players and parents love to tell everyone about all the offers they get. There is an excitement about being wanted and being handed a contract, especially when they can be one of the first players from their youth team to sign with a junior organization that supposedly plays at a higher level. Egos and FOMO – the fear of missing out – are real and often are driving forces behind the decisions players and families make.  

If a team moves that quickly to offer someone a contract, the organization must really love that player, right? Sure, it’s possible, but there’s no guarantee.

It’s probably more likely that the organization has a base number or players it needs to sign at full price to ensure that it will be able to operate financially for the upcoming season. Once that number is reached, the pressure subsides and the team can move forward recruiting better players for its top team. For organizations that operate more than one team, the primary goal often is to fill the lower-level roster first with players who may or may not be ready for juniors and then to fill in with players who can make their top team competitive.

Younger players who are more likely to be excited by receiving a junior offer and playing at what they believe will be a higher level than what 16U or 18U might provide frequently are the targets for this type of approach. The younger ones also are more likely to be understanding if they don’t end up on the organization’s top team, as they will be told that they have plenty of time to develop and will get a lot more ice time and opportunities to play in key situations for the weaker team.

That’s usually not what initially was presented to them, however. They often believe that they will either be key contributors for the top team or at the very least have a real opportunity to compete for playing time at that level. In a worst case, they may be told that they will practice with both teams and get called up to play at least a handful of games with the better club. Details of conversations between the team and players often do not appear in the generic contracts that are handed out.

Realistically, very few players at age 16 or 17 physically are equipped to compete effectively against opponents who may be several years older in the EHL, USPHL Premier or NA3HL– much less to play an important role on a team that is competitive in those leagues. In fact, even very good players who are 18 or 19 and making the jump to that level of juniors often find the transition difficult and rarely dominate or end up being top players immediately.

The level of play in the best pay-to-play junior leagues can be very good, but there also are teams and leagues that offer a level of play is below what may be available to players with 16U and 18U eligibility remaining. Either way, the players are older, bigger and stronger than the opponents those kids are accustomed to competing against, which means that the sales pitch that had them believing they immediately were going to move into the top of the lineup on an organization’s highest-level team probably wasn’t truthful.

That brings us to the next reality of junior hockey: getting scratched.

Although USA Hockey has altered its rules and is allowing older youth teams to carry up to 22 players this season, only the very top AAA programs in the country will roster that many. There is almost no chance that most of the 16U and 18U AA and AAA players in the U.S. ever will be scratched from their team’s lineup.

Players are scratched every night at the junior level, and although the leagues all claim to have roster limits, it seems like there often are a lot more players wearing suits in the stands than there should be based on the number of players a team is supposed to be allowed to roster.

For 16U and 18U players who end up on pay-to-play junior teams below the EHL and USPHL Premier levels, there are far better development opportunities available with many AAA and some AA youth programs. Just because something is called junior hockey doesn’t mean it’s better or guarantees a path to higher levels. Very few players who start at the absolute lowest pay-to-play levels of juniors advance to play at the higher tiers of junior hockey or for NCAA programs.

Some players from areas of the U.S. where there may not be legitimate opportunities to play for strong 16 or 18U programs that can help them develop may benefit from the ice time and level of play offered by a junior organization in their area. Those tend to be very isolated situations, however, and the move to pay-to-play juniors isn’t advisable for most players who still have remaining 16U or 18U eligibility.

Players at that age who are “fortunate” enough to make teams in the EHL, USPHL or NA3HL usually face a daunting transition in which they are being asked to compete against bigger, stronger and older players in games and for playing time. These younger players rarely earn a top spot in the lineup right away and often end up at the bottom just fighting to be in the lineup every day.

It's very difficult to advance to a higher level of juniors from a Tier 3 organization to begin with, and it’s impossible for players who are simply doing whatever they can to simply earn a spot in the lineup. Young players don’t develop by playing one game a week and only getting a handful of shifts per contest.

On top of that, the following year when Tier 2 junior scouts notice that a player didn’t play every game for a Tier 3 team or didn’t produce many points, that player will not even be considered for that level. Likewise, players who were on junior teams at the lowest levels of Tier 3 will have to work hard just to move up to their organization’s top team before it would even be worth attempting to contact scouts at the Tier 2 level.

Based on what we’ve seen since the CHL ruling, players in the United States who hope to play NCAA hockey are most likely going to have to advance to at least the NAHL or play for a tuition-free team in the NCDC to be guaranteed that opportunity. That doesn’t mean that all pay-to-play Tier 3 NCAA commitments will disappear completely, but what already is a challenging route is about to become even more difficult.

In the past, Tier 3 junior hockey has not proven to be a consistent feeder of players to higher-level junior leagues. Players who continue developing at the 16U and 18U levels while playing in many different game situations against opponents who are the same age and size without the fear of being scratched are far more likely to be considered and tracked by higher-level junior organizations because the path they chose is more likely to allow them to develop and reach their full potential.

There simply are no shortcuts to the highest levels of junior and NCAA hockey. It’s a process that can only play out over time as players who are fully committed to achieving their goals continue to work hard, develop and mature. Unfortunately, some of those involved in hockey who are supposed to be in the business of developing young players are simply in the business of staying in business.

There are a number high-character, great hockey people involved in pay-to-play junior hockey in the United States. They run winning programs, have no issues staying in business and are focused on developing players and helping them advance to the highest level they can achieve. These organizations offer tremendous opportunities for players who have aged out of 18U to continue playing, developing and possibly achieving their goals if they don’t get an opportunity to play Tier 1 or 2 juniors.

And there’s nothing wrong with players who simply want to play a little more competitive hockey before going to college heading off to play Tier 3 juniors after high school graduation even if they have a year of 18U left. Just like any student who takes a gap year before matriculating, a year away from home can allow hockey players to get comfortable living on their own while being responsible and accountable.

One of the additional effects of the CHL trickle down likely will be the level of college club hockey, already at an all-time high, continuing to rise. Players who have graduated from high school and choose a year of pay-to-play junior hockey over a final year of 18U may be better prepared to step in and contribute right away for a strong college club team. They also should benefit from the off-ice lessons and experiences that come with spending a year away from home and be ready to hit the ground running academically.

The best path for each individual player only can be determined by a player’s academic and hockey goals. Pay-to-play junior hockey might be a perfect option for those who want to keep playing but aren’t interested in the grind of trying to advance to play at the NCAA level.

There are plenty of well-run pay-to-play junior hockey organizations that can provide this type of experience, and hopefully more of them will pursue older players who fit this description instead of the ones who would benefit more by not rushing to juniors.