Yet Another Frankenfollie? NAHL Rule Has Teeth Removed Before It Even Starts A policy designed to strengthen the NAHL and NA3HL pipeline is already facing serious questions.

Back in March, the North American Hockey League announced a policy that, on paper, was designed to put an end to one of the more obvious problems in junior hockey.

Players competing in a United States junior league that is not sanctioned by USA Hockey would become ineligible to compete in the NAHL for the remainder of that league year. The policy was announced March 26 and was clearly aimed at preventing NAHL prospects from leaving the sanctioned system to play in competing, non-sanctioned leagues during the season.

It made sense.

In fact, it probably should have been in place nearly a decade ago.

The NAHL has spent years building a development model around its own league structure and the NA3HL. Establishing the NA3HL as the primary in-season development and call-up pathway is a logical business and hockey decision. If a player is developing inside the NAHL system, there is little reason for the league to encourage that player to jump into another U.S. junior league during the season and then return to the NAHL when it becomes convenient.

The March announcement appeared to draw a line in the sand.

But apparently the line has already been moved.

Welcome to another potential Frankenfollie.

I coined that phrase some time ago to describe the seemingly endless collection of questionable decisions and operational moves coming out of the NAHL under Commissioner Mark Frankenfeld. The phrase stuck because, unfortunately, there always seems to be another example waiting around the corner.

This one could be particularly damaging because it takes a policy that initially made perfect sense and creates a very different set of rules depending on which NAHL team you happen to play for.

The NAHL's newly created Mountain Division is at the center of the controversy.

The division consists of the Billings Cattle Punchers, Grand Junction River Hawks, Idaho Falls Spud Kings, Ogden Mustangs and Pueblo Peppers.

The backgrounds of those organizations are important.

Idaho Falls, Ogden and Grand Junction were members of the NCDC. Billings was announced as a new NCDC franchise for the 2026-27 season but never actually played an NCDC game before switching to the NAHL. Pueblo is a different situation entirely. The Chippewa Steel franchise relocated to Pueblo and became the Peppers, while the Pueblo Bulls had been the NCDC organization in that market.

The NAHL Board of Governors approved the five Mountain Division memberships in June.

And now, according to league operators, the five Mountain Division teams are exempt from the March non-sanctioned-league rule.

That changes everything.

The March policy was supposed to prevent NAHL call-up prospects from competing in non-sanctioned U.S. junior leagues and then returning to the NAHL. Yet four of the five Mountain Division organizations came directly from the NCDC structure, while the fifth, Billings, had been preparing to enter the NCDC before making the jump to the NAHL.

So what exactly is the point of the rule if the teams with the strongest connection to the NCDC are exempt from it?

That's the question operators around the league are asking.

And there is another question that needs to be asked.

Who approved the exemption?

The NAHL has a Board of Governors. Major league decisions are supposed to be governed through that structure. The league itself announced that the Mountain Division memberships were approved by the Board of Governors.

But if the exemption from the March policy was not voted on by the governors, then the league has a serious governance problem.

If it was voted on, then the league should simply say so.

There should be nothing controversial about telling team owners exactly how a league-wide rule is being applied.

Instead, the current situation has created confusion among coaches and operators who are now wondering whether the March policy is actually a rule or simply a suggestion with enough exceptions to make it meaningless.

That matters.

A league policy cannot be selectively enforced without consequences.

If one group of teams is permitted to operate under a different interpretation of the rule, other teams will naturally begin looking for their own exceptions. Coaches will ask whether they can use similar carve-outs to bring players up from the NCDC. Organizations will examine the language and determine how much flexibility they have.

Pretty soon, everyone is operating under their own interpretation.

At that point, the policy has lost its teeth.

And that would be a shame because the original concept was good.

The NAHL has every right to protect its league and strengthen its own development pipeline. It makes perfect sense to encourage players to remain within the NAHL and NA3HL system rather than allowing prospects to move freely between competing U.S. junior leagues.

But you cannot tell one group of teams that the rule is absolute while another group is effectively told it does not apply.

That's not a development model.

That's inconsistency.

The NAHL has also positioned itself as a serious development league for players pursuing NCAA, college, and even professional hockey. Its own materials emphasize the importance of player development and advancement.

That makes transparency even more important.

Owners invest substantial money into these organizations. Coaches build rosters around league rules. Families make decisions about where their sons will play based in part on the opportunities and pathways a league provides.

They deserve to know what the rules actually are.

If the March policy is still the rule, enforce it equally.

If there are legitimate exemptions, publish them.

If the Mountain Division has been granted a special exemption, explain why.

And if the Board of Governors approved it, say that too.

There is nothing wrong with changing a policy when circumstances change. There is something wrong with pretending a policy is universal while quietly allowing exceptions that materially affect the competitive landscape.

The March announcement could have been a significant step forward for the NAHL and NA3HL.

Instead, before the rule has even had a chance to take effect, it appears to have developed enough exceptions to raise serious questions about whether it has any teeth left.

Maybe the policy is still a rule.

Maybe it is a suggestion.

Maybe, like those mysterious league operational standards that everybody knows about but nobody seems to have actually seen, it is somewhere in between.

Whatever it is, the NAHL should tell its owners, coaches, players and fans.

Because when a league creates a rule, everyone should know where the line is.

And if the line moves depending on which jersey you wear, don't be surprised when people start asking who moved it.

Another Frankenfollie?

It certainly looks that way.