NCAA ruling impact on hockey

[617BigRed]

Not an expert on this at all, can anyone here speak to how this impending settlement and new
landscape of collegiate athletics may impact NCAA hockey in general and our hockey program in
particular?

[Trotsky]

There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!  The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all.  The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

[upprdeck]

Still won't be able to pay Canadian players until other things change.

[BearLover]

There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!  The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all.  The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn't football or basketball.

Our hope is that schools pay football and basketball players, but not hockey players. Otherwise, outlook appears to be pretty doomy. I'm hopeful the money is concentrated in football and basketball though. The gap should widen even further between Cornell and the Big 10/BC if those schools start paying players.

[Trotsky]

There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!  The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all.  The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn't football or basketball.

There are different forms of payment.

Taxable?

[BearLover]

There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!  The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all.  The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn't football or basketball.

There are different forms of payment.

Taxable?

Even so, now the players will be getting paid on top of whatever other "benefits" they were previously receiving.

[Scersk '97]

Our hope is that schools pay football and basketball players, but not hockey players. Otherwise, outlook appears to be pretty doomy. I'm hopeful the money is concentrated in football and basketball though. The gap should widen even further between Cornell and the Big 10/BC if those schools start paying players.

My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues. Perhaps I'm woefully mistaken, but I don't think people are really clamoring for college football, in particular, to be an NFL Lite completely divorced from educational contexts. They've been fed that over the last couple of decades, but I hope this move represents a bridge too far. My interest has been falling off in the last few seasons: when they stopped telling us anecdotes about what classes the right guard was taking, you knew the jig was up. It's fakery.

In a "right-sized" world for college athletics, college football would become quite enjoyable again. I want kids who have no interest in getting a degree to have someplace to go, and I want kids who are interested in getting a degree while playing ball to have someplace to go. You know, like hockey. (I'm also of the opinion that there is way too little money in college hockey to make paying players [beyond the level already that we have with scholarships] make any sense.)

College basketball? 1) Who cares? 2) Probably going to become NBA Lite.

[Trotsky]

My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues.

This, but how can it?  TV advertising has been driving an upwards spiral.  The spiral will now also include paying the people who make it all possible.  The thing that destroyed college football and basketball was all the money sloshing around from TV.  Given the fact of the money, the only people who should get paid are the players.

I think it is actually more likely the factory schools will just come clean, essentially admit their football and basketball players have never been students, and just run those programs as a revenue generating business the way they run the real estate empires.  Separate the 64-ish power conference teams into an overt professional league that commands the TV rates. Return the rest of college athletics to, roughly, 1940. Collapse the D1/2/3 distinction among the remainder and have them compete for all the traditional college bowls and tournies.  Sever those pro programs from the Title IX rules as they are net revenue generators, not net resource investments, and so they don't represent a lack of opportunity for women being driven by the university.  (Who knows, women's hoops may be on its way to being the third overt pro league).

In short, end the open secret everyone has always known and stop pretending factory athletes in those sports are students.

[BearLover]

My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues.

This, but how can it?  TV advertising has been driving an upwards spiral.  The spiral will now also include paying the people who make it all possible.  The thing that destroyed college football and basketball was all the money sloshing around from TV.  Given the fact of the money, the only people who should get paid are the players.

I think it is actually more likely the factory schools will just come clean, essentially admit their football and basketball players have never been students, and just run those programs as a revenue generating business the way they run the real estate empires.  Separate the 64-ish power conference teams into an overt professional league that commands the TV rates. Return the rest of college athletics to, roughly, 1940. Collapse the D1/2/3 distinction among the remainder and have them compete for all the traditional college bowls and tournies.  Sever those pro programs from the Title IX rules as they are net revenue generators, not net resource investments, and so they don't represent a lack of opportunity for women being driven by the university.  (Who knows, women's hoops may be on its way to being the third overt pro league).

In short, end the open secret everyone has always known and stop pretending factory athletes in those sports are students.

I would like to know what will happen when a bunch of Kentucky basketball players making $300K a year play against a bunch of dudes on Wichita State making $0. Are fans going to accept this? One could argue that this is already effectively happening under the current NIL model, but it being out in the open under the new system may make the uneven playing field impossible to ignore.

[abmarks]

As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air.  I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.  

Unless you can count booster money as revenue,  don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

[BearLover]

As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air.  I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.  

Unless you can count booster money as revenue,  don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren't profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

[Trotsky]

As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air.  I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.  

Unless you can count booster money as revenue,  don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren't profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

Red state universities don't need libraries.  That's where those seditious books are kept, anyway.

[Swampy]

As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air.  I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.  

Unless you can count booster money as revenue,  don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren't profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

Red state universities don't need libraries.  That's where those seditious books are kept, anyway.

Or Sociology departments. Or non-Western history.

[Troyfan]

Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell.  The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports.  Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.  

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too.  It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA.  Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

[BearLover]

Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell.  The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports.  Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.  

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too.  It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA.  Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I'm confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that's because they're the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won't have a choice to make at all, because they don't have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.