Since several threads seem to have devolved into speculation about rev share and NIL and other payments to players and there have been calls for "evidence", here's a thread to post published stories that relate to hockey schools and their payment efforts.
Maine:
https://www.mainepublic.org/education-news/2026-03-23/umaine-launches-fund-to-directly-pay-student-athletes?fbclid=IwVERFWAQvmqZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe4rnYbPFHuhH_X-P9kMZ4WIykg3Rtfec5LcEqJ_zQkAwoFcHR3ZoV0TVCSaI_aem_jnziwQ-6DxHC2DUQqnmFIw
Thanks for the thread. I'll post what I can find. As for the above article about Maine, sounds like very little paying of players is happening at the moment.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48288787/inside-impact-nil-revenue-sharing-college-hockey
Stories like this one are why I find this topic so frustrating. Thousands of words, yet almost no information. Not a single hard number in the entire article. ESPN couldn't even confirm the McKenna number? As usual, half the quotes in the article are from college administrators saying they have no idea what other schools are doing.
The quote from Pecknold comports with my own understanding of the situation: a bunch of smaller schools are endeavoring to pay players to stay competitive with the Big 10, but they just don't have the money. So the coaches plead with the school to divert money from other sources, or plead with donors to step up. These same donors were already keeping the program afloat, and now they're asked to donate even more. Sounds hard to pull off in practice...
Quote from: BearLover on March 25, 2026, 02:42:39 PMhttps://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48288787/inside-impact-nil-revenue-sharing-college-hockey
Stories like this one are why I find this topic so frustrating. Thousands of words, yet almost no information. Not a single hard number in the entire article. ESPN couldn't even confirm the McKenna number? As usual, half the quotes in the article are from college administrators saying they have no idea what other schools are doing.
The quote from Pecknold comports with my own understanding of the situation: a bunch of smaller schools are endeavoring to pay players to stay competitive with the Big 10, but they just don't have the money. So the coaches plead with the school to divert money from other sources, or plead with donors to step up. These same donors were already keeping the program afloat, and now they're asked to donate even more. Sounds hard to pull off in practice...
Great - they beat me to it. This is Part 2 of my report. Next week. But it will probably frustrate you just as much. No one wants to say what they are doing on the record. Neither you or I will probably ever get real numbers. I can only tell you what I can glean from talking to a couple dozen people. That's as good as it will get. But it is real.
This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
Quote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
Quote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
Larry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.
I have 200 billion dollars.
Can I just buy us players now? How would I do that?
Quote from: Trotsky on April 13, 2026, 04:45:25 PMLarry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.
I have 200 billion dollars.
Can I just buy us players now? How would I do that?
First there's the 10 billion dollar research fee to your attorney...
Quote from: Beeeej on April 13, 2026, 04:49:01 PMQuote from: Trotsky on April 13, 2026, 04:45:25 PMLarry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.
I have 200 billion dollars.
Can I just buy us players now? How would I do that?
First there's the 10 billion dollar research fee to your attorney...
Attorneys! Just wait for me to pass the bar please <3
Quote from: stereax on April 13, 2026, 05:53:26 PMQuote from: Beeeej on April 13, 2026, 04:49:01 PMQuote from: Trotsky on April 13, 2026, 04:45:25 PMLarry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.
I have 200 billion dollars.
Can I just buy us players now? How would I do that?
First there's the 10 billion dollar research fee to your attorney...
Attorneys! Just wait for me to pass the bar please <3
Easy to "Pass the bar" in T-Mobile Arena because beer was almost $20.
Quote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Quote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMDenver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football
BU fans just shot their TVs.
Quote from: Weder on April 13, 2026, 11:06:41 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMDenver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football
BU fans just shot their TVs.
Bless 'em.
Quote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMIt shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money.
beware the numbers of a motivated accountant
Quote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
Quote from: Weder on April 13, 2026, 11:06:41 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMDenver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football
BU fans just shot their TVs.
Should've said - the only two that have opted in to the House settlement. BU has not opted in --- yet --- which means it cannot, currently, give out revenue share money. All word is that it will opt in soon. The deadline to declare is coming up.
Quote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 01:32:32 AMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
I mean, it's not an argument - I'm giving you factual information. I don't have a factual answer - yet - for why this chart shows what it shows, and yes, historically most athletic teams lose money. But I believe (conjecture) this is fancy accounting. Another possible explanation is that schools without football can devote more energy towards making sure other prominent sports are their money drivers. And I'm just telling you that it's a universal belief within hockey that those are the schools that will have an advantage, and that the ones that are in that boat at the moment, are in the best shape outside of (most) B10 schools.
These are the others without football:
Vermont, Northeastern, UMass Lowell, Quinnipiac, Niagara, Canisius
Quinnipiac is in very good shape as well. Niagara, Canisius and Lowell have no money in general, so that's a different story. Northeastern will be in good shape once its arena is done. Vermont has $150,000 at its disposal. I was told that this weekend from a rock solid source. Not a ton, but more than what may have been expected.
I will let you know what the reaction is to this chart, if I get a reliable response.
Quote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 01:32:32 AMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of
not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of
subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.
Quote from: stereax on April 13, 2026, 05:53:26 PMQuote from: Beeeej on April 13, 2026, 04:49:01 PMQuote from: Trotsky on April 13, 2026, 04:45:25 PMLarry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.
I have 200 billion dollars.
Can I just buy us players now? How would I do that?
First there's the 10 billion dollar research fee to your attorney...
Attorneys! Just wait for me to pass the bar please <3
If someone can endow your position, I'll hire ya.
I wonder when the flip to making money on sports became a thing.
I know if you go back into the 1920-30-40 or whatever, costs were vastly different but schools didnt derive tons of money from sports to fund other sports. I dont recall much talk about it in the 70s-80s either. Its when TV suddenly kicked in that it started to lead to all this spending and huge budgets.
Quote from: Beeeej on April 14, 2026, 09:13:04 AMQuote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 01:32:32 AMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.
I am not assuming that at all - just pointing out that other sports don't make any money, and without football to fund them, hard to see where revenue sharing money is going to come from.
Quote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 12:40:11 PMQuote from: Beeeej on April 14, 2026, 09:13:04 AMQuote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 01:32:32 AMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.
I am not assuming that at all - just pointing out that other sports don't make any money, and without football to fund them, hard to see where revenue sharing money is going to come from.
and yet - it's there
Quote from: BearLover on April 14, 2026, 01:32:32 AMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 10:51:22 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 13, 2026, 03:59:43 PMQuote from: adamw on April 13, 2026, 02:25:27 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 09, 2026, 09:29:15 AMThis is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large
true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.
if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.
This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.
here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.
Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.
All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.
Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.
Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.
Asked around - and here's the consensus on why pretty much everyone in hockey believes non-football schools are easier.
Yes - football makes the most revenue and funds the whole department
Yes - football also has the most expenses, and now needs to pay its plays $18 million or so ... so football is a beast that needs to keep getting fed
The belief - and this has been told to me directly by Denver's AD, as well - is that it's easier to manage raising new money for your elite hockey program, when football is not an issue.
In other words - if efforts are being made to raise more money for the department, they're going to the football team first. Without that in the way, any new fundraising efforts can be focused on hockey.
But this does not mean the athletic department has magical leftover revenue to blow. In either case - with or without football - teams need to raise new funds. It's just easier without football.
Any every hockey program is desperately raising funds. Denver has $500k+ to deal with each year, and gets massive institutional support. Then there's a team like New Hampshire, which basically gets no support from the administration and has to raise its own funds and hope for the best - every year.
And there's a lot of other schools in between. But all are raising $$ for the purpose of paying players.
One coach said "it's easier for donors to spend money on a player, than to say it's for skates"
Then again, I had someone else say - some donors like the certainty of just funding the team's expenses, rather than a player who may bomb out or leave.
Quote from: adamw on April 15, 2026, 02:59:30 PMThen again, I had someone else say - some donors like the certainty of just funding the team's expenses, rather than a player who may bomb out or leave.
imagine if someone like BL dropped cash on cournoyer and then he hopped... 😂
I encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
Quote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 12:15:55 PMI encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.
And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.
Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 12:55:42 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 12:15:55 PMI encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.
And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.
Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.
So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?
Quote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 01:01:07 PMQuote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 12:55:42 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 12:15:55 PMI encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.
And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.
Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.
So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?
OK - allow me to be more specific in my language ...
He's not the horse I'm referring to. So ...
Now - he's being very precise with language. LAST YEAR, Denver didn't give NIL (which they can't even do directly) or rev share per se. However, every player is getting Alston money, and Denver has the highest Cost of Attendance in the NCHC. Both of which are fully covered. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars right there. In addition, every Denver player was promised to be "taken care of" going forward as the school ramps up its rev share machine.
Denver has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for rev share, to be distributed annually. Denver just beat out Michigan for a 1st Rounder recruit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1salui9/projected_first_round_pick_ryan_lin_commits_to_du/
There is ZERO chance in hell that kid isn't getting 50,000 to 100,000 in rev share money. Denver is also in the mix right now for Landon Dupont ... potential 1st overall pick ... again, reported to be competing with Michigan ...
https://www.nhl.com/news/landon-dupont-at-the-very-top-of-2027-draft-class-scouts-say
Again - that ain't happenin' without rev share money.
I literally know - for a fact - the money that Denver is raising for rev share. Are they doing this for sh**s and giggles?
Like I said - the landscape is changing fast. Throw out anything before 2024 as an indicator of anything going forward. How many Ivy League players transfer or don't, etc... whatever - none of it matters before the last year. Denver built itself up by doing a lot of things the right way and having a great coaching staff. They should get massive amount of credit for that. But to suggest it won't be a player in the rev share game going forward is utterly laughable and disingenuous.
Cornell was on even ground with Denver a couple years ago. Cornell is one of just two teams to defeat Denver in the NCAA Tournament. Now look what happened this year. This is just a microcosm. It's going to get harder and harder and harder to the point of being impossible going forward for these great ECAC teams going forward to keep up. Even most Hockey East teams It already is.
The House v. NCAA settlement allows participating institutions across the country to directly pay student-athletes, as follows.
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 – known as the revenue sharing cap.
The cap for the 2025-26 academic year is $20.5 million 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.
Now I assume that means the $20.5M is for every participating school. So for example Denver, a NCHC non-power conference team, has the same budget to throw around. AFAIK Denver doesn't even have a football team, so the lion's share of that take can go to other sports, chief among them hockey (and, I dunno, alpine skiing?).
So to get in on the same action we have 2 huge obstacles.
(1) The Ivy prohibition on participation in revenue sharing. This is the same old con of shoring up the (rapidly eroding) Ivy brand by creating distance between athletics and academics. In principle, laudable. In practice, deeply cynical bordering on criminal. The first thing to do is to get rid of the Invisible Sky Daddy of no athletic scholarships and no revenue sharing.
So let's say a miracle occurs and we do that. I dunno, maybe for once the STEMmies will be a force for good rather than an anti-intellectual profanation and they can help break open that rotting elitist tree stump and flame thrower the old money-worshipping cockroaches that scurry out. On now to the other problem.
(2) Cornell football. A.k.a. old assholes still grasping life around the throat, suffocating all who come after, terrified of going into that dark night (cf. housing, capitalism, ethics, etc...). If hockey has to compete with lacrosse for assets, so be it. The lax community has its own severe moral problems but at least the team is relevant. Football OTOH is so obsolete it may as well be Mayan handball. It doesn't need to die, but it cannot be permitted to vaccuum up assets that could be used to help the relevant teams. So the second thing to do is castrate the football lobby. Fortunately, Father Time is already on the case.
Will either thing ever happen? Well, a lot has happened the last decade I'd have called impossible, so who knows? Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 01:20:58 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 01:01:07 PMQuote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 12:55:42 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 12:15:55 PMI encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.
And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.
Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.
So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?
OK - allow me to be more specific in my language ...
He's not the horse I'm referring to. So ...
Now - he's being very precise with language. LAST YEAR, Denver didn't give NIL (which they can't even do directly) or rev share per se. However, every player is getting Alston money, and Denver has the highest Cost of Attendance in the NCHC. Both of which are fully covered. That's hundreds of thousands of dollars right there. In addition, every Denver player was promised to be "taken care of" going forward as the school ramps up its rev share machine.
Denver has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for rev share, to be distributed annually. Denver just beat out Michigan for a 1st Rounder recruit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1salui9/projected_first_round_pick_ryan_lin_commits_to_du/
There is ZERO chance in hell that kid isn't getting 50,000 to 100,000 in rev share money. Denver is also in the mix right now for Landon Dupont ... potential 1st overall pick ... again, reported to be competing with Michigan ...
https://www.nhl.com/news/landon-dupont-at-the-very-top-of-2027-draft-class-scouts-say
Again - that ain't happenin' without rev share money.
I literally know - for a fact - the money that Denver is raising for rev share. Are they doing this for sh**s and giggles?
Like I said - the landscape is changing fast. Throw out anything before 2024 as an indicator of anything going forward. How many Ivy League players transfer or don't, etc... whatever - none of it matters before the last year. Denver built itself up by doing a lot of things the right way and having a great coaching staff. They should get massive amount of credit for that. But to suggest it won't be a player in the rev share game going forward is utterly laughable and disingenuous.
Cornell was on even ground with Denver a couple years ago. Cornell is one of just two teams to defeat Denver in the NCAA Tournament. Now look what happened this year. This is just a microcosm. It's going to get harder and harder and harder to the point of being impossible going forward for these great ECAC teams going forward to keep up. Even most Hockey East teams It already is.
Not sure if you listened to the podcast but you're not actually disputing anything Carle said. He specifically mentions Alston money and COA. Denver's COA is $4K. Alston money is capped below $6K. As I said, this season Denver paid $0 in NIL and $0 in revenue sharing. It did pay COA and Alston money, like many schools do. And Carle said he's trying to grow the revenue sharing budget. But it was a complete non-factor this season.
The rest of your post is off-point. You don't need to sell me on the environment making it harder for Cornell to win. The
only thing we disagree on is how much of this is due to paying players.
The last bit about this year's NCAA tournament game versus Denver as compared to our games a few years ago being a microcosm of the environment - that's silly. Cornell actually finished closer to Denver in the NPI this season than it did in 2023 (when it beat Denver) or 2024 (when it barely lost).
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 01:20:58 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 01:01:07 PMQuote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 12:55:42 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 12:15:55 PMI encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098
BL vindicated again.
David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.
And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.
Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.
So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?
https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1salui9/projected_first_round_pick_ryan_lin_commits_to_du/
There is ZERO chance in hell that kid isn't getting 50,000 to 100,000 in rev share money. Denver is also in the mix right now for Landon Dupont ... potential 1st overall pick ... again, reported to be competing with Michigan ...
Actually seems like a very high chance this kid is getting less than 50K in rev share money. On account of the fact Denver's revshare budget this year was $0. Kids choose schools for a lot of different reasons, and there are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Denver.
Quote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 02:34:31 PMActually seems like a very high chance this kid is getting less than 50K in rev share money. On account of the fact Denver's revshare budget this year was $0. Kids choose schools for a lot of different reasons, and there are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Denver.
Once again - you are disputing a fact. He is an incoming freshman - and is getting between 50k and 100k in rev share money next season. Factual comment. Denver's rev share money going forward will be 500k+/year - factual comment.
Just about every kid transferring right now is getting money. $25k to Quinnipiac's new goalie, $30k to most of the players Arizona State just brought in - including Muthersbaugh. All factual comments.
Are all of them doing it "just for the money"? Probably not. To say it's not a factor is naive at best, and maddeningly intentionally argumentative at worst.
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 03:39:18 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 02:34:31 PMActually seems like a very high chance this kid is getting less than 50K in rev share money. On account of the fact Denver's revshare budget this year was $0. Kids choose schools for a lot of different reasons, and there are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Denver.
Once again - you are disputing a fact. He is an incoming freshman - and is getting between 50k and 100k in rev share money next season. Factual comment. Denver's rev share money going forward will be 500k+/year - factual comment.
Just about every kid transferring right now is getting money. $25k to Quinnipiac's new goalie, $30k to most of the players Arizona State just brought in - including Muthersbaugh. All factual comments.
Are all of them doing it "just for the money"? Probably not. To say it's not a factor is naive at best, and maddeningly intentionally argumentative at worst.
If you believe Owen Murray, it's usually not solely about the money... but the money helps.
Quote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 02:34:31 PMActually seems like a very high chance this kid is getting less than 50K in rev share money. On account of the fact Denver's revshare budget this year was $0. Kids choose schools for a lot of different reasons, and there are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Denver.
There are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Cornell over Western Michigan. And Cornell gets some of them. But is Cornell not hamstrung by its inability to give athletic scholarships? Does Cornell not lose players all the time to scholarship schools because of the scholarship?
If somehow you agree with that statement, and don't think the ability to give rev share money isn't also a factor, then that's just intentionally contradictory. Because it's the same thing. Money is money.
"Money doesn't matter" is what Yankees fans tell themselves to make themselves feel better. Now Dodgers too. Don't ask about the Mets though. All of creation's money won't help them.
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 03:39:18 PMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 02:34:31 PMActually seems like a very high chance this kid is getting less than 50K in rev share money. On account of the fact Denver's revshare budget this year was $0. Kids choose schools for a lot of different reasons, and there are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Denver.
Once again - you are disputing a fact. He is an incoming freshman - and is getting between 50k and 100k in rev share money next season. Factual comment. Denver's rev share money going forward will be 500k+/year - factual comment.
Just about every kid transferring right now is getting money. $25k to Quinnipiac's new goalie, $30k to most of the players Arizona State just brought in - including Muthersbaugh. All factual comments.
Are all of them doing it "just for the money"? Probably not. To say it's not a factor is naive at best, and maddeningly intentionally argumentative at worst.
I really don't know what you mean by "fact"...you previously told me it was a fact Denver had a substantial revenue share budget this year, yet Carle just said it was zero. I have no way to judge the veracity of your claims but some of them seem directly at odds with what the coach himself is saying. The "factual comment" that this recruit is getting between 50K and 100K next season is...based on what exactly? It could be true, I don't know, but it would be weird for Denver to go from a place where zero players on the team are receiving revenue sharing to a place where one guy is getting 50-100K. It seemed your basis for saying this was that Denver won a recruiting battle against Michigan. But Denver is the best college hockey program in the country, so it's really not hard to fathom how they could win a recruiting battle against Michigan even if they offer a kid next to no money.
QuoteThere are a lot of non-monetary reasons to choose Cornell over Western Michigan. And Cornell gets some of them. But is Cornell not hamstrung by its inability to give athletic scholarships? Does Cornell not lose players all the time to scholarship schools because of the scholarship?
If somehow you agree with that statement, and don't think the ability to give rev share money isn't also a factor, then that's just intentionally contradictory. Because it's the same thing. Money is money.
"Money doesn't matter" is what Yankees fans tell themselves to make themselves feel better. Now Dodgers too. Don't ask about the Mets though. All of creation's money won't help them.
I have never claimed money doesn't matter. Giving players money certainly matters. But it could also be true that the money isn't that substantial (yet) or that the money is one of many factors and doesn't move the needle much in most cases. Many of us on this forum chose Cornell over a much cheaper state school. Carle says it himself on the podcast: if you're trying to make the NHL and sign contracts worth millions of dollars, it's much more important to pick a program that will develop you than it is to pick one that can pay an extra $50K.
Quote from: adamw on April 16, 2026, 04:24:32 PM"Money doesn't matter" is what Yankees fans tell themselves to make themselves feel better. Now Dodgers too. Don't ask about the Mets though. All of creation's money won't help them.
(https://media.tenor.com/FW6AFb43iREAAAAM/cheers-beer.gif)
BL, by "fact" I assume Adam means he's heard it from someone in a position to know and that Adam trusts. I think Adam has earned plenty of goodwill over the years and I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: JasonN95 on April 17, 2026, 07:48:27 AMBL, by "fact" I assume Adam means he's heard it from someone in a position to know and that Adam trusts. I think Adam has earned plenty of goodwill over the years and I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I get it. But some of these "facts" feel like they might be second- or third-hand whispers from sources with incomplete information. That's my own view, and you don't have to agree with me. In this case, the Denver coach himself is claiming things directly at odds with some of these "facts." I'm not trying to stoke another flame war, and I do value Adam's reporting, but I think exercising some skepticism here is warranted given other reporting and publicly available information.
So tiresome. But at least you got your Russian bots back.
Quote from: The Rancor on April 17, 2026, 09:13:38 AMSo tiresome. But at least you got your Russian bots back.
Thanks. Check out the above-mentioned interview with David Carle. You might find it educational.
Quote from: BearLover on April 17, 2026, 09:08:51 AMQuote from: JasonN95 on April 17, 2026, 07:48:27 AMBL, by "fact" I assume Adam means he's heard it from someone in a position to know and that Adam trusts. I think Adam has earned plenty of goodwill over the years and I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I get it. But some of these "facts" feel like they might be second- or third-hand whispers from sources with incomplete information. That's my own view, and you don't have to agree with me. In this case, the Denver coach himself is claiming things directly at odds with some of these "facts." I'm not trying to stoke another flame war, and I do value Adam's reporting, but I think exercising some skepticism here is warranted given other reporting and publicly available information.
Nothing I just said contradicts Carle - so you're grasping just to be argumentative. Carle said that last year they gave no NIL and Rev Share -- then said himself they are going to start doing so.
I told you that an incoming first rounder is getting between $50k and $100k - straight from ONE OF the horse's mouths. I said Denver will have $500k to spend on rev share going forward - factually - straight from ONE OF the horse's mouths.
Again - choose to not believe this all you want - I'll continue saying it for the benefit of others so that the only thing they hear is not your unfounded "skepticism."
Ok. I'm dropping this topic. Until I revive it again ;D
Quote from: BearLover on April 17, 2026, 09:58:33 AMOk. I'm dropping this topic. Until I revive it again ;D
Любитель медведей снова доказывает, что ошибается
Quote from: marty on April 17, 2026, 10:03:38 AMQuote from: BearLover on April 17, 2026, 09:58:33 AMOk. I'm dropping this topic. Until I revive it again ;D
Любитель медведей снова доказывает, что ошибается
Любитель медведей был полностью оправдан самим тренером «Денвера», но никто не хочет этого признавать
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/692A/production/_98622962_9..jpg.webp)
Quote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 05:32:50 PMI have never claimed money doesn't matter. Giving players money certainly matters. But it could also be true that the money isn't that substantial (yet) or that the money is one of many factors and doesn't move the needle much in most cases. Many of us on this forum chose Cornell over a much cheaper state school. Carle says it himself on the podcast: if you're trying to make the NHL and sign contracts worth millions of dollars, it's much more important to pick a program that will develop you than it is to pick one that can pay an extra $50K.
Carle is absolutely correct. However, in this feeding frenzy, that doesn't stop 85% of the players from making the absolute wrong decision for themselves, hockey-wise. So his statement is not one that explains the current landscape - it's more like best case scenario. He is lucky because he took over a great program and built it even greater, and so, sure, he can lure kids there simply with the hope of being on a great team in many cases. Or at least, has been able to to this point. That is why for as much as I think David is great and get along with him, I often tell him that his pie-in-the-sky point of view only works for him, not for most of college hockey. People only see what they see.
Just talked to two agents yesterday who said some variation of "I try to tell him you're better off where you are, but they aren't listening to me"
And here's McMahon commenting today: "Actually, Houde is still on the market. This has happened a few times this cycle. Things appear done, and then programs up offers late in the game. ... I get the sense money is playing a larger role in this portal cycle more than any other year to this point."
How can we know whether guys are better off moving or not until we have seen this play out over a decade or more for the various talent levels?
This will be self-correcting. Everybody is highly incentivized to get it right (for their respective benefits, which may be adversarial). Everybody has good if not perfect information. I may be a dirty Kropotkinist, but even I recognize when a market is the most efficient determinant of value.
Quote from: Trotsky on April 17, 2026, 12:04:16 PMHow can we know whether guys are better off moving or not until we have seen this play out over a decade or more for the various talent levels?
when it benefits us it's good, when our freshman tendy who we thought would be our starter for at least 2 more years enters the portal leaving a gaping void in net it's bad. hope this helps 🥰
Quote from: Trotsky on April 17, 2026, 10:30:53 AM(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/692A/production/_98622962_9..jpg.webp)
Смерть России и ватниким ботам
Quote from: adamw on April 17, 2026, 10:45:47 AMQuote from: BearLover on April 16, 2026, 05:32:50 PMI have never claimed money doesn't matter. Giving players money certainly matters. But it could also be true that the money isn't that substantial (yet) or that the money is one of many factors and doesn't move the needle much in most cases. Many of us on this forum chose Cornell over a much cheaper state school. Carle says it himself on the podcast: if you're trying to make the NHL and sign contracts worth millions of dollars, it's much more important to pick a program that will develop you than it is to pick one that can pay an extra $50K.
Carle is absolutely correct. However, in this feeding frenzy, that doesn't stop 85% of the players from making the absolute wrong decision for themselves, hockey-wise. So his statement is not one that explains the current landscape - it's more like best case scenario. He is lucky because he took over a great program and built it even greater, and so, sure, he can lure kids there simply with the hope of being on a great team in many cases. Or at least, has been able to to this point. That is why for as much as I think David is great and get along with him, I often tell him that his pie-in-the-sky point of view only works for him, not for most of college hockey. People only see what they see.
Just talked to two agents yesterday who said some variation of "I try to tell him you're better off where you are, but they aren't listening to me"
And here's McMahon commenting today: "Actually, Houde is still on the market. This has happened a few times this cycle. Things appear done, and then programs up offers late in the game. ... I get the sense money is playing a larger role in this portal cycle more than any other year to this point."
Looks like this dude McMahon references went to ASU instead, when they swooped in late and offered him $35k