I think another example that has been lamented on this board is the Halliday case. He was highly touted as a 15/16 year old(#1 pick in the USHL futures draft) and it was a big get for UND. He then plateaued and many considered him to have under-performed. He went from being a project Top 10 pick as a 16 year old to someone who is currently undrafted (although I am guess he is drafted this year). UND either asked him to play another year of juniors or outright pulled the offer. After he became an open commit, it took quite some time for him to pick another school (over a year I believe). I am only speculating, but I am guessing other schools saw what UND did. The kid worked hard during the off season and improved the lacking aspects of his game and is now having a great USHL season as a 19 year old. My money is that the perceived insult of being asked to delay (or offered pulled) prompted the change in effort and he likely now projects as a solid college player. Not sure he will be the Top-10 player everyone imagined early on, but I am certain had he come in when scheduled this board would be calling for him to enter the portal. Spicer may or may not suffer if he does not play another year of juniors, but I think looking at this stats would suggest the coaches made the right call/suggestion. If the player disagrees, it is their right to find a different route.