Would this help recruiting? NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

I think an athlete in the Boston or Minneapolis area would have a better chance to make money from their likeness or from endorsements than one in Ithaca.

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

The New York Times had an article this weekend about how the high cost of hockey is driving Canadian kids away from it. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to find the link.) Also over the weekend, I noticed that out of 29 players we have 21 from Canada (plus one from Russia and one from China). By comparison, Brown has only 7 from Canada (plus one each from Finland and Norway). And Toothpaste has 15/29 (with 1 from Switzerland).

Now I'm not entirely convinced the Times story is 100% true, and if true, I don't know what the impacts on recruiting for U.S. college hockey would be.

And the same cost factors are probably driving U.S. youth players, so I'm not sure what, if any, implications the trend in Canada might have. But it's hard to imagine these cost-push effects having no impact on college hockey. What do you think they are?

Swampy

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

The New York Times had an article this weekend about how the high cost of hockey is driving Canadian kids away from it. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to find the link.) Also over the weekend, I noticed that out of 29 players we have 21 from Canada (plus one from Russia and one from China). By comparison, Brown has only 7 from Canada (plus one each from Finland and Norway). And Toothpaste has 15/29 (with 1 from Switzerland).

Now I'm not entirely convinced the Times story is 100% true, and if true, I don't know what the impacts on recruiting for U.S. college hockey would be.

And the same cost factors are probably driving U.S. youth players, so I'm not sure what, if any, implications the trend in Canada might have. But it's hard to imagine these cost-push effects having no impact on college hockey. What do you think they are?

I'm assuming this means Swampy isn't getting in line to buy a limited edition Morgan Barron signature toque.

marty

Swampy

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

The New York Times had an article this weekend about how the high cost of hockey is driving Canadian kids away from it. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to find the link.) Also over the weekend, I noticed that out of 29 players we have 21 from Canada (plus one from Russia and one from China). By comparison, Brown has only 7 from Canada (plus one each from Finland and Norway). And Toothpaste has 15/29 (with 1 from Switzerland).

Now I'm not entirely convinced the Times story is 100% true, and if true, I don't know what the impacts on recruiting for U.S. college hockey would be.

And the same cost factors are probably driving U.S. youth players, so I'm not sure what, if any, implications the trend in Canada might have. But it's hard to imagine these cost-push effects having no impact on college hockey. What do you think they are?

I'm assuming this means Swampy isn't getting in line to buy a limited edition Morgan Barron signature toque.

What would I do with another one?

Jeff Hopkins '82

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

I think an athlete in the Boston or Minneapolis area would have a better chance to make money from their likeness or from endorsements than one in Ithaca.

I beg to differ. Cornell has more engaged and more wealthy fans across the Northeast vs BU hockey is not even top 5 sports in Boston.

Plus, once you get better players than before, you create a virtuous cycle: more success = more fans = more money.

Those who lose out are smaller schools with niche alumni base and lack of branding (think most ECAC and Hockey East peers). They used to be able to get around it by giving scholarships, but that advantage is being eroded away.

All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

ajh258

Jeff Hopkins '82

ajh258
This came out a while ago and was mainly about football and basketball, but I think it could have major implications for hockey recruiting as well.

If student athletes are allowed to profit from their image, could that tip the scale more in favor of Cornell?

I thought a big issue historically was Ivy League did not give athletics scholarships, so even the smart kids went to BU/Minnesota/Penn State because they could attend for free.

Would this help us get more quality players down the road? We definitely have a fan base that could financially support this if we can pack MSG every year.



NCAA Permit Athletes to Profit

I think an athlete in the Boston or Minneapolis area would have a better chance to make money from their likeness or from endorsements than one in Ithaca.

I beg to differ. Cornell has more engaged and more wealthy fans across the Northeast vs BU hockey is not even top 5 sports in Boston.

Plus, once you get better players than before, you create a virtuous cycle: more success = more fans = more money.

Those who lose out are smaller schools with niche alumni base and lack of branding (think most ECAC and Hockey East peers). They used to be able to get around it by giving scholarships, but that advantage is being eroded away.

Well, I was thinking in terms of endorsement money going to the players. A TV ad on NESN would reach a much bigger audience than a radio ad on WHCU.

ajh258
All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

Easily? You're going to have to show me how that would be easy.

What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship and eligibility?

Jim Hyla

ajh258
All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

Easily? You're going to have to show me how that would be easy.

Ask some rich alumnus to establish a trust of $50m to “buy” athlete merchandise, and make the coaches the trustees.

We can all contribute to the trust as well. $1,500,000 / 15 home games / 4500 = $22 per ticket per game. That’s not crazy if we can get half there, half from donations.

ajh258

Jim Hyla

ajh258
All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

Easily? You're going to have to show me how that would be easy.

Ask some rich alumnus to establish a trust of $50m to “buy” athlete merchandise, and make the coaches the trustees.

We can all contribute to the trust as well. $1,500,000 / 15 home games / 4500 = $22 per ticket per game. That’s not crazy if we can get half there, half from donations.

That's not how revenue, expenses, and profit work. To offset $1.5M in scholarships, your events have to have a net *profit* of $1.5M, not revenue. I know you said "half" but you don't really think those events generate 50% profit, do you? If they did, every hedge fund on Wall Street would be founding hockey leagues instead of buying up tech firms.

Cost of hockey:

[torontosun.com]

[www.nytimes.com]

Robb

ajh258

Jim Hyla

ajh258
All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

Easily? You're going to have to show me how that would be easy.

Ask some rich alumnus to establish a trust of $50m to “buy” athlete merchandise, and make the coaches the trustees.

We can all contribute to the trust as well. $1,500,000 / 15 home games / 4500 = $22 per ticket per game. That’s not crazy if we can get half there, half from donations.

That's not how revenue, expenses, and profit work. To offset $1.5M in scholarships, your events have to have a net *profit* of $1.5M, not revenue. I know you said "half" but you don't really think those events generate 50% profit, do you? If they did, every hedge fund on Wall Street would be founding hockey leagues instead of buying up tech firms.

I'd invest with those kind of returns!

ajh258

Jim Hyla

ajh258
All the team has to do is take the revenue they make from merchandise and attribute it to players' likeness. That money used to go to the team and cannot be directly used to subsidize tuition and school costs due to Ivy League rules while the other schools have been doing it for years.


$50k tuition x 30 players = $1.5m to completely cover athletes' cost of attendance.

$1.5m can easily be raised between MSG, Harvard games, and various events given the popularity.

Easily? You're going to have to show me how that would be easy.

Ask some rich alumnus to establish a trust of $50m to “buy” athlete merchandise, and make the coaches the trustees.

We can all contribute to the trust as well. $1,500,000 / 15 home games / 4500 = $22 per ticket per game. That’s not crazy if we can get half there, half from donations.

Show me how easy it is to find that $50m alum.

So I have 4 season tickets, you want me to pay another $1300 and still donate to the hockey program?

We can't get students to fill the rink at today's prices and you want to increase ticket prices by $22 each?

Pie in the sky.

Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money. They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

Maybe we should hire someone to help drive revenues here if Ivy League allows this.

$1.5m profitability is not a crazy sales profitability target even if we can't find a rich alumnus.

ajh258
Maybe we should hire someone to help drive revenues here if Ivy League allows this.

$1.5m profitability is not a crazy sales profitability target even if we can't find a rich alumnus.

One of us studied to do exactly this. Just sayin'.

Trotsky
Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money. They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

Rita
What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar.

I believe the rationale behind not allowing bake sales and whatnot is that it's a vector for skirting the rules on alumni gifts to athletes. Imagine:

Top HS Football Player: "Oh, I'm also an aspiring cake artist."
Rich alum: "Really? Can you do a cake for my daughter's birthday during your redshirt year here? Make it really luxurious, my birthday cake budget is $10,000. I'm sure some other folks in the football boosters would like similar cakes for their kids..."

ugarte

Trotsky
Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money. They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

In the absence of litigation risk I can see the Ivies taking a pointless principled stance on this for league marketing reasons, but I agree it won't matter to the athletes. That's not just an Ivy thing, either - outside of a few places like Minnesota I don't think D-I hockey players will generate meaningful revenue from likeness or image so I can't imagine this'd be useful as a recruiting tool in general.

As far as I understand it this rule change really only affects top tier D-I Football and Basketball, plus a handful of international superstar level players (maybe US Women's Soccer team players who are still in college, that sort of thing).

Tom Lento

Rita
What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar."

I don't think so. NIL rights aren't about sponsorship, I don't think. It's about jerseys with your name on it or to use your name/stats/likeness for EA College Football or Topps cards.

ugarte

Tom Lento

Rita
What about the next Cornellian, who happens to play hockey, that wants to create a better version of the beer tap? Under the new NC$$ regs, would s/he be able to get the patent and profit and still keep their eligibility?

That part of the NC$$ rules always bugged me. If an athlete has talent in another area (musician, cupcake baker) why couldn't they make money from that and still keep their scholarship and eligibility?

Based on the press article, the NCAA rule change is limited to likeness, name, and image. Assuming that's correct, the athlete can sign a deal with Nike or Reebok or EA Sports but can't sell other things. What'd be interesting, though, is if the athlete entered a business deal with a manufacturer to sell a beer tap as the "Douglas Murray Beer Tap" or similar."

I don't think so. NIL rights aren't about sponsorship, I don't think. It's about jerseys with your name on it or to use your name/stats/likeness for EA College Football or Topps cards.

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

Tom Lento

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

Tom Lento

ugarte

Trotsky
Regardless of what the NC$$ decides, the Ivies will never permit student athletes to earn money. They have a lucrative marketing brand principles to protect.

If the NCAA relents on NIL rights it will be because of litigation fears. The Ivies will allow it if for no other reason than NIL rights for Ivy athletes are probably negligible.

In the absence of litigation risk I can see the Ivies taking a pointless principled stance on this for league marketing reasons, but I agree it won't matter to the athletes. That's not just an Ivy thing, either - outside of a few places like Minnesota I don't think D-I hockey players will generate meaningful revenue from likeness or image so I can't imagine this'd be useful as a recruiting tool in general.

As far as I understand it this rule change really only affects top tier D-I Football and Basketball, plus a handful of international superstar level players (maybe US Women's Soccer team players who are still in college, that sort of thing).

I think sports like lacrosse might be affected. Unlike hockey or soccer, there’s no professional league whose superheroes attract all the attention, yet there’s a growing population of kids who would ask Uncle Punch & Aunt Judy to spend a few more bucks for a birthday present (lacrosse stick, jersey, or cleats) with Jeff Teat’s name on it.

ugarte

Tom Lento

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

ugarte

ugarte

Tom Lento

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

I smell a podcast.

Beeeej

ugarte

ugarte

Tom Lento

Oh, interesting. Still, unless Doug Murray branded the Ubertap with his name, I imagine that still wouldn't apply, and even then only to the licensing for the name, right?

putting your name on a product is an endorsement, not a NIL issue. NIL is about being able to sell the three things in the acronym, as themselves, as opposed to the school or another third party being able to exploit them without compensating you. It's not Doug Murray on the Doug Murray Ubertap, but using the name Doug Murray itself in a college hockey video game (name) with his stats and an avatar designed to accurately represent him (likeness) and a picture of him in uniform on the packaging (image).

i've been noodling around and NIL rights in this context may actually include endorsement deals but the NCAA may be involved in capping the value

I smell a podcast.

I’d give that a listen.