Would this help recruiting? 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

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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.

[Swampy]

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?

[marty]

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.

[Swampy]

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?

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

[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?

[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.

[Robb]

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.

[ice]

Cost of hockey:

https://torontosun.com/2015/12/18/the-cost-of-hockey-it-takes-money-and-plenty-of-it-to-play-our-game/wcm/79391d0a-f4db-4f62-9b2f-b6493a5d3156

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/sports/hockey/canada-youth-hockey-cost.html

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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!

[Jim Hyla]

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.