NCAA ruling impact on hockey

[billhoward]

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

You're saying, It's the system?

[marty]

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

You're saying, It's the system?

I think what he is saying is that some of the money spent on hockey at the schools with major basketball or football programs will now be diverted from hockey to pay football or basketball players.

[abmarks]

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

You're saying, It's the system?

I think what he is saying is that some of the money spent on hockey at the schools with major basketball or football programs will now be diverted from hockey to pay football or basketball players.

We're premature on a number of assumptions.  Alot of people are assuming revenue is a single school level bucket.

This plan has been described as a revenue sharing model... isn't it possible that the revenue share could be defined as sport-specific?

That would be the most straightforward and honest approach.  There's absolutely no reason that players on the highest revenue/profit teams should.be paid the same as the athletes on the lowest revenue/biggest operating loss teams.

[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.

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.

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-scholarships-8a355a1274f2cef644449833b4099d21

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.  

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally.  Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams.  Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up.  If not outright rebellions among the alumni.  

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison.  They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat.  But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

[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.

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-scholarships-8a355a1274f2cef644449833b4099d21

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.  

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally.  Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams.  Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up.  If not outright rebellions among the alumni.  

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison.  They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat.  But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

[RichH]

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.

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-scholarships-8a355a1274f2cef644449833b4099d21

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.  

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally.  Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams.  Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up.  If not outright rebellions among the alumni.  

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison.  They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat.  But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

[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.

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-scholarships-8a355a1274f2cef644449833b4099d21

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.  

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally.  Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams.  Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up.  If not outright rebellions among the alumni.  

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison.  They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat.  But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

It's possible...but most of the hockey funds at those schools come from a couple of rich donors. I'd guess not much more than a tiny sliver of athletics funds at these schools are being allocated to hockey as-is. So I don't really think there's much that can get re-allocated towards football and basketball. With that said, UMass and UConn are interesting cases because they do NOT enjoy the massive television deals the other schools listed here do. You could make an argument that non-power 5 schools who still play D-1 football and/or basketball stand to lose the most here. Because they have to spend to compete in basketball/football, but they don't have the money of Notre Dame/Wisco/UMich to do so. In these cases, the non-revenue sports like hockey could actually suffer.

[Swampy]

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.

https://apnews.com/article/ncaa-settlement-scholarships-8a355a1274f2cef644449833b4099d21

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.  

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally.  Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams.  Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up.  If not outright rebellions among the alumni.  

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison.  They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat.  But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

It's possible...but most of the hockey funds at those schools come from a couple of rich donors. I'd guess not much more than a tiny sliver of athletics funds at these schools are being allocated to hockey as-is. So I don't really think there's much that can get re-allocated towards football and basketball. With that said, UMass and UConn are interesting cases because they do NOT enjoy the massive television deals the other schools listed here do. You could make an argument that non-power 5 schools who still play D-1 football and/or basketball stand to lose the most here. Because they have to spend to compete in basketball/football, but they don't have the money of Notre Dame/Wisco/UMich to do so. In these cases, the non-revenue sports like hockey could actually suffer.

Yeah, but we haven't seen the end of realignment, which has seen such oddities as Stanford joining the ACC. Both UMass & UConn are adjacent to major TV markets. So, we could see them leaving the A10 & Big East to join, say, the Big 12 Conference. This might be synergistic: UM & UC qualify for potentially big-money football, and the B14 has a potentially lucrative TV market in the northeast.

[Trotsky]

As expensive as they are in outlays, factory schools' football and basketball more than make up for it with TV revenue, otherwise they wouldn't do it.  So it isn't as if Alabama has to cut tennis to support football.  They invest in football to reap the revenue windfall of TV to pay for tennis.

The racket will now get less profitable since they have to pay for labor (funny how history repeats for Alabama), but they'll still be rolling in it.  The schools that don't kick in for power memberships to get the spoils will be shut out of the best athletes in football and basketball, just as they are now.  

In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now.  Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now.  There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

The Ivies will no doubt make a big show of purity and appear to cut their own dicks off for sniff academic integrity, but, again, no different from now.

[BearLover]

In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now.  Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now.  There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
 don't think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn't a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don't do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn't be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he'd get paid.

[Weder]

In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now.  Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now.  There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
 don't think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn't a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don't do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn't be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he'd get paid.

The data that's out there suggests that like 90% of NIL collective money across all DI schools goes to football and men's basketball. Of the remaining 10% a big chunk goes to female athletes in gymnastics, softball and basketball. There just aren't a lot of people interested in paying hockey players.

[upprdeck]

If hockey players want money they get paid and go play in the minors and take the signing bonus now for the most part.

[BearLover]

If hockey players want money they get paid and go play in the minors and take the signing bonus now for the most part.

This is the scary part. It's the one thing that separates hockey from most of the other non-revenue sports:  outside monetary pressure from a professional league. While under the current rules a school doesn't have much of an option when its player is weighing taking the money of a pro deal, now a school can offer that player money to narrow the pay difference between pro and college. For example, if Will Smith (who just left BC for the NHL) were getting paid $150K a year, surely that complicates his decision.

While other sports like lacrosse, wrestling, softball, etc. don't have a lucrative pro league to put pressure on colleges to pony up, hockey does. That's the one thing that sets hockey apart from the other non-revenue sports and which may lead to significant money coming into college hockey.

[Trotsky]

In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now.  Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now.  There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
 don't think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn't a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don't do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn't be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he'd get paid.

The 20th best player on Mich/Minn isn't going to get paid enough to be a discriminator if he was coming here in the non-pay scenario.  1. Ivy cachet is still a going concern; witness the extremes we go to maintain it.  2. The 20th best player there is a 4th liner or doesn't even start, whereas he is going to be a solid contributor with any Ivy and probably a first line starter at Princeton, Yale, or Brown.

The major payment a non-marquee factory player has received hitherto, besides the scholarship, is the ability to skate to his degree with no effort.  That always existed, and it was valuable, since it allowed him to spend all his non-Francois Villon time learning his professional craft.  That's still going to be the case.

[chimpfood]

If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don't typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.