A quick look back at the season that was - NCAA chaos in 2025-2026

Preamble:

This article offers a comprehensive assessment of how the 2025-26 migration of players from Canadian U SPORTS hockey to NCAA programs and the broader shifts in eligibility that have affected U SPORTS teams. The changes at the NCAA level were the trigger for a season of chaos. There were a few monumental changes at NCAA hockey that reverberated across the hockey ecosystem. First, the NCAA was “gifted” a pool of talent that previously was not available as players with CHL experience were now eligible to compete for NCAA teams. Secondly, new, and significant financial resources are now available for universities to recruit and/or retain players. Finally, the CHL continued to be the primary feeder for U SPORTS talent however, this trend is declining rapidly. These changes have resulted in the most tumultuous and ever-changing landscape in history of junior and university hockey – and they are still evolving!

1. New Talent Pool

In August 2025, the NCAA removed long-standing restrictions that had barred Canadian Hockey League (CHL) players from NCAA hockey. As a result, many players who previously would have gone to U SPORTS or stayed in the CHL chose NCAA Division I programs instead — largely due to scholarship opportunities, perceived higher competition levels, and growing Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) prospects.

Until the 2025-2026 season, CHL players were deemed ineligible to play in the NCAA due to their “amateurism” philosophy. Even though organizations such as the International Olympic Committee stopped reference to “amateur” in 1976, the NCAA continued to deny athletes the opportunity to receive financial compensation for their athletic abilities and performance.

As of early March 2026, 221 CHL players had committed to the NCAA for 2026-2027, 109 for the 2027-2028 season and already 12 have committed for the 2028-2029 season. (NCAA and CHL Recruiting Battleground Tracker — The Dan K Show).

The players are better off today than they were prior to these changes. Young players (grade 10 or 11) no not need to make a decision on where they would play (i.e. CHL or NCAA) as there are now more pathways for the best players.

U SPORTS also reformed its rules for 2025-26 by eliminating the one-year sit-out period for players with professional experience, making it easier for former pros and transfers (including from NCAA) to compete immediately. U SPORTS eligibility reforms allowed smoother integration of former pros and transfers and attempted to stabilize roster quality amid shifting development pathways.

2. Revenue for Athletes

There are now 3 distinct revenue streams for athletes. The House Settlement

The House v. NCAA settlement allows participating institutions across the country to directly pay student-athletes. Each year, schools can distribute up to 22% of the average revenue among schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC from media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships  (primarily from football and basketball) – known as the revenue sharing cap. (Revenue Sharing).

The cap for the 2025-26 academic year was $20.5M per school. With a few potential exceptions, the cap will then increase 4% the following two years and will be re-evaluated every three years over the duration of the 10-year settlement period.

Eighty percent (80%) of the $20.5M is designated for men’s and women’s basketball and football. The other 20%, or $4.1M, must be distributed to all other sports. Schools such as university of North Dakota applied for an exemption because they do not have a Division I football program, but they were denied. These TV funds are used to attract and/or retain star players. This means that not everyone gets compensated, but the top tier players are handsomely paid, especially in football and basketball.

Hockey is not one of the top sports regarding the access to, and distribution of, TV revenue. The top sports are football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball, men’s volleyball, swimming, and then men’s hockey. In the US, hockey is not yet considered a “national” sport.

The impetus for the change in hockey was, in part, the result of a lawsuit by a player who was not allowed to run a hockey school and claimed he was denied the opportunity to earn a living. The courts quickly ruled in his favor and against the NCAA. This resulted in a massive financial windfall for the athletes.

b. NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness*)

These dollars are separate from the University. Players can get sponsors and represent a company (i.e. via social media posts) and negotiate a fee for the use of their NIL. A contract is written and must be given to the school for review within 5 days and to NIL GO, a branch of the NCAA (NIL Go is the official platform for NCAA D1 student-athletes to report third-party NIL deals).

[*A person’s name, nickname(s), picture, portrait, likeness, signature, voice, caricature, identifying biographical information, or other identifiable features].

All NCAA Division I student-athletes must report third-party NIL deals with a total value of six hundred dollars ($600) or more in the aggregate. The College Sports Commission utilizes NIL Go, an online portal built with assistance from Deloitte, to determine whether third-party NIL deals are made with the purpose of using a student-athlete’s NIL for a valid business purpose and do not exceed a reasonable range of compensation.( Student-Athlete NIL Deals).

NIL Go offers a straightforward way for student-athletes to report third-party NIL deals to be evaluated for rules compliance. NIL Go also provides student-athletes the option to clear a third-party NIL deal prior to accepting the deal to confirm that acceptance will not affect their eligibility, allowing student-athletes to move forward with their deals confidently while protecting their eligibility. Upon registration and onboarding, student-athletes may each designate one representative to enter deals into NIL Go on their behalf, for submission by the student-athlete. NIL contracts are evaluated based on:

• Associated Status

  • The relationship(s) between the Deal Sponsor and/or Deal Facilitator and a given institution.

• Valid Business Purpose (VBP)

  • Whether a deal is being made with the purpose of using the student-athlete’s NIL for a valid business purpose related to the promotion or endorsement of goods or services being provided to the general public for profit.

• Range of Compensation (RoC)

  • Whether the compensation paid to the student-athlete is commensurate with compensation paid to similarly situated individuals.

Some of the bigger US schools now have their own department to oversee and administer the NIL contracts.

c. Collectives

Many schools have developed “collectives,” which are independent of a university, and are groups that most often pool funds from boosters, advertisers, sponsors, and local businesses to help facilitate NIL deals for athletes and create their own ways for athletes to monetize their brands. In many cases the funds from Collectives are meant to “fill the gap” and offer some compensation for players not in the top tier.

In other cases, some collectives have provided a consistent amount to all players – for both men’s and women’s hockey.

Overall, alumni tend to recognize the importance of recruiting and use their personal wealth as leverage to not only attract but also maintain a roster. Because of this, collectives have illustrated the lengths that alumni and schools are willing to go to build a skilled team. There is a direct correlation between booster generosity and substantial success in recent years.

It is no secret that college football recruits are signing as high as 7-figure NIL deals. While extremely high deals are not indicative of 99% of the opportunities for student-athletes, the expensive deals that certain recruits are being offered is something that has been extremely noteworthy this year. An interesting side note indicates that many NCAA women’s basketball players are remaining with their NCAA school as they are receiving more money than the rookie salary for WNBA players.

3. Immediate Impact on U SPORTS hockey

U SPORTS conducted a survey in the fall (2025) with their member schools for transfers in and out of the NCAA for all sports. Regrettably, only 28 of 58 schools respond. Across all sports (for the 28 schools that has responded) there were 94 student athletes that came to U SPORTS from the NCAA for 2025-2026 and 59 student athletes departed U SPORTS for the NCAA.

Specific to men’s hockey (again, data from the 28 schools that responded), there were 32 in from NCAA and 24 out to NCAA for 2025-2026. For Canada West (on 7 responding schools), there were 12 in and 10 out for men’s hockey. However, based on information compiled by Steve Knowles, 39 players bolted from U SPORTS teams to the NCAA:

• Positional breakdown: Goaltenders (3), Defencemen (14), Forwards (22).

• Year of eligibility: 1 Year (22), 2 Years (13), 3 Years (2), 4 Years (2).

• Conference breakdown: Canada West Hockey (13), AUS (16), and OUA (10).

• NCAA schools: 21

Understandably, the departed players were in the top echelon of players from their respective teams. Thirty-five (35) of which were first- or second-years players on their U SPORTS team. Additionally, many teams lost players they had recruited and were counting on to join their teams in 2025-2026, to the NCAA. NCAA programs are not done raiding CHL and U SPORTS teams.

Such change makes it exceedingly difficult to put a team together for the future. Coaches count on players and then they are gone. Volatility is not good for the game. It creates opportunity but hinders long term stability.

There is an abundance of great universities (the University of Alberta is among the best!) with great academic programs and all are affordable - especially compared to schools to the south of us. They are great programs for development - as players and future leaders - leaders that are engaged, responsible, accountable, and contributing members of their respective communities.

For those interested, there is still a path to professional hockey. Not necessarily top professional leagues but some great second tier ones and occasionally some top ones, and European leagues. 4. Development Focus and MORE For the CHL clubs and U SPORTS teams, the focus must be on development and MORE. These programs should not, and cannot, compete with the NCAA on a financial basis. The option is to focus on development which might mean a reduced schedule (for CHL teams), support services to enhance performance (strength and conditioning, nutritional support, sport psychology, specialty coaches, facilities, mentorship programs etc.).

Programs and coaches need to adopt a philosophy of development, where their programs will help the player get better and help them go to where they want to go, even if that means heading south. Some Universities and CHL teams are already seen to be cooperating with select schools rather than fighting against what is happening. They work together seeking what is considered best for the athlete and their desires.

From a marketing and recruitment perspective, it will be important to stress what U SPORTS teams offer. The “and MORE” refers to development, and in many cases, more importantly, development of the person and may include offering longer term connection and support with an active Alumni organization and assistance with mentoring opportunities, connecting with Alumni for business and career advice. It also includes investing in the player experience – pursuing their hockey dream, their academic interests, and their life goals.

It also includes staying closer to home, a good education, lower costs, scholarships, post career support. These benefits need to be widely shared to promote U SPORTS and secure players.

Generally, NCAA teams now have less focus on development. They fill their roster with proven talent rather than investing in “projects” to be developed over time. Why would a coach risk one of 26 precious spots on an 18-year-old freshman when a 21- or 22-year-old "battle-tested" transfer is available in the portal?

5. Returning Players

Many thought that several players going to the NCAA for the 2025-2026 season would return to the CHL and/or U SPORTS based on a less-than-optimal experience during the year. Thus far, that return to Canada is not evident.

To reduce the flow of players, both athletes and coaches need to understand the distinction between recruiting and selling. Coaches must not promise players before they see them play – i.e., you will play on the first line, play on the power play etc. If promises are made and they do not happen, players will leave.

6. The Role of the Canadian Universities

The biggest influencer of change and greatest impact on the current situation is that the University, and in particular Athletics Departments, must understand there is a difference between equity and excellence. At most prestigious Universities, there is pride and exceptional support towards the focus on excellence in teaching, research, and community engagement. Regrettably, a different standard is applied to sport at these Canadian Universities that appear not to embrace or pursue excellence in athletics. There is a serious need to change the perception of U SPORTS hockey and consistently speak to its role as an elite development option for players. To retain and sustain the quality of play U SPORTS programs must offer quality support services – clean and attractive facilities (facilities are the biggest barrier today!), per diems, towel and laundry services, tutors, mental health, ancillary support services (psychology, nutrition, strength and conditioning), mentoring and so on. Todays top recruits are used to these supports and are abundantly aware when these supports are not available.

Successful programs, such as the Golden Bears, bring consistent recognition to the University and have a profound impact on the profile of the institution, beyond the University campus. Sport elevates all of us!

There is a need for committed leadership in U SPORTS such as a Commissioner for each of the 3 conferences. A Commissioner can make appeals on behalf of the athletes, coaches, and Alumni to the Athletic Directors, to U SPORTS leadership, to University Presidents, to Hockey Canada, to CHL leadership and other potential partner agencies.

7. A Role for the NHL?

Initial reaction suggests the NHL they are just watching. Statistics would suggest that between 40-48 players per birth year join the NHL. It seems the NHL is not concerned whether they are developed in the CHL or NCAA or elsewhere. This season there are 818 active players in the NHL and 563 (68.83 percent) never played on an NCAA campus.

The NHL is a “winner” with the current situation. The NHL is now able to see the development in a player before having to commit resources to that player (i.e., a contract offer). The NHL teams now have 4 years to sign a drafted player. Previously it was 2 years for CHL players and 4 years for NCAA players. It is now 4 years across the board.

The NHL could play a leadership role in developing an agreement regarding player recruitment and player movement between the CHL and NCAA.

8. The Future

U SPORTS teams are currently in the midst of recruiting and are experiencing difficulties in attracting CHL players and top Tier 2 players. These athletes seem to be enthralled with the NCAA.

There are 63 Division I schools in the USA and, with respect, there are only 18-20 that are legitimate top tier programs. The constant flux may stabilize in the next 2-3 years but for now players, and their agents, are shopping around for the best financial deal. In men's hockey, the transfer window will be 15 days, starting the Monday after the final of the Division I Men's Ice Hockey Championship (April 11, 2026). The online transfer portal for men’s hockey is open April 13-27, 2026.

When a head coaching change occurs, an additional 15-day period will open five days after the new head coach is announced. If a new head coach is not announced within 30 days of the previous head coach's departure — and the 31st day after the head coach's departure is after the championship game — a 15-day window will open. The additional head coach departure window is available only after the ice hockey transfer window opens through January 2. (Division I Cabinet adopts new transfer windows in several sports - NCAA.org).

As mentioned, the transfer portal for men’s hockey is open mid April, however, already close to 240 CHL players are scheduled to leave the CHL for NCAA Division I hockey in 2026-2027, all with CHL eligibility remaining (www.dankshow.com). How many others within the NCAA will declare an intention to transfer? There are also talks about adding a 5th year of eligibility in the NCAA.

Thus far there has been a lack of oversight from the NCAA. There are no consistent guidelines for teams to follow. There are approximately 250 US born players who did not play in the NCAA this year as their schools reneged on their commitments and yanked their scholarships to attract Canadian (CHL and U SPORTS) and European players. The NCAA has a looming eligibility issue.

There are many unanswered questions in the “untamed hockey wild.” Many in the US now refer to “college pro hockey” and do not refer just to “college hockey” anymore.

9. U SPORTS National Championships

The 63rd version of the University Cup featured an 8 team, single elimination format. Three of the schools (Saskatchewan, MRU, and Queens) returned to the championships for a second year. This was the 3rd year in a row for Moncton and the 11th consecutive appearance for UNB (2015-2026). The Bears appeared in 10 consecutive championships (1997-2006).

Congratulations to UQTR (Trois-Rivieres) who won their sixth University Cup national championship with its 3-2 OT win over Saint Mary’s. It is the Patriotes second title in their last four appearances, last winning the University Cup in 2022. It marked the 11th time the University Cup final was decided in OT.

Canadian Hockey League (CHL) alumni continue to feed the U SPORTS programs. Of the 215 players in the 8-team tournament, 165 (75%) are from the CHL (75 - QMJHL, 48 - OHL, and 47 - WHL, with five alumni having played in more than one Member League).

The CHL continue to invest in the academic advancement of their players with approximately $10 million each year in the education of current and former players across the CHL. (165 CHL alumni are set to compete in the 2026 U SPORTS University Cup in Halifax | Canadian Hockey League).

The Golden Bears took a big hit this season with respect to the number and quality of players they lost and they could not quickly replace the talent that was lost. Many other teams will experience a talent drain as they enter the 2026-2027 season based on players leaving for professional opportunities, termed out on eligibility, retirements, move to NCAA.

10. Overall Assessment of the 2025–2026 Season

The 2025–2026 U SPORTS men’s hockey season has been widely characterized as a transitional and uncertain year for Canadian university hockey, driven primarily by new NCAA eligibility rules that dramatically changed the North American player pipeline. The rule change effectively reordered the traditional development ladder. U SPORTS programs suddenly faced competition from NCAA schools for the same players, including athletes already enrolled in Canadian universities.

This was the first time that U SPORTS programs were directly losing developed players to south of the border. Despite roster losses, the on-ice product remained competitive, but the season has been marked by:

a. Roster volatility (some teams losing key players after development years).

b. Recruiting uncertainty (coaches increasingly recruiting older players or transfers).

c. Shorter player tenures (programs becoming cautious about investing development resources in younger players who might leave).

U SPORTS has begun adjusting policy to adapt to this new landscape. One major step was a new transfer rule allowing student-athletes in their first or second academic year to transfer without penalty beginning in 2026–27, giving players more flexibility in choosing their programs. This change reflects recognition that the North American hockey development system is becoming more fluid. The focus must be on the quality of player development.

In the short term, and until new recruiting strategies are developed, it can be expected that the quality of the junior player entering U SPORTS will be less than has been in previous years. Temporarily, the calibre will be down a notch but, overtime, will be elevated to previous levels. In the meantime, there is still high-quality hockey and great competition.

Top tier CHL players will continue to pursue the professional option. The new trend is for the second tier CHL players to go to the NCAA. What will be the impact on U SPORTS programs?

The season is widely seen as the beginning of a new era rather than a single disruptive year.