2025-02-01 at Clarkson

[adamw]

On the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.

The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.

Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

Perhaps, but they managed to hire away from the AHL a seemingly very good coach who is evidently recruiting well with his connections in Quebec/major juniors.

Because he's an alum. And Casey has a long history of being one of the top recruiters around.  But really, I don't know why I'm engaging with you, since you will always twist everything imaginable to fit your gloom and doom narrartive.  Someone take away my keyboard.

[adamw]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

[BearLover]

On the Clarkson Hockey Roundtable (thanks ugarte for reminding me as to the existence of this website), the posters have been celebrating Casey's departure and are very optimistic about their new coach. While Casey was there they consistently called for his firing. The posters criticize Casey for "dump and chase hockey" and are thrilled with their new coach's "possession" style. They also still blame Casey for the losses this season, under the logic that the new coach inherited his players.

The "dump and chase" criticism is pretty funny. Casey certainly understands dump and chase hockey is not a high percentage play, and I'm sure his teams were doing it out of necessity rather than as a strategy. But the posters are under the impression dump and chase was Casey's preferred style.

Casey had more success at Clarkson than any coach there since the '90s, when the landscape was VASTLY different. There are no shortage of delusional, ignorant fans on any team's message board/thread. Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

Perhaps, but they managed to hire away from the AHL a seemingly very good coach who is evidently recruiting well with his connections in Quebec/major juniors.

Because he's an alum. And Casey has a long history of being one of the top recruiters around.  But really, I don't know why I'm engaging with you, since you will always twist everything imaginable to fit your gloom and doom narrartive.  Someone take away my keyboard.

I don't think my comment was particularly adversarial tbh.

[Trotsky]

Cornell at Clarkson is my second-favorite favorite RS game every year.  I love the history and tradition of the ECAC and I hope it will outlive me.  I mean FFS low bar.

[BearLover]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

[BearLover]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/

[adamw]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

You didn't listen closely I guess, because the reason for not committing to opting in, yet, is because of the potential roster cap, and general uncertainty, not because of lack of resources. Even if they don't opt-in, nothing prevents them from doling out revenue in some way -- which they will -- at least as much as Michigan does, which is all that matters. If you don't think they have revenue to "throw around," then, yet again, you know not of what you speak.  Again, they'll have at least as much as the B10 schools have -- and again, that's all that matters in this context.

[adamw]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/

That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.

[BearLover]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/

That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.

Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.

[adamw]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/

That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.

Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.

If Denver is required to give equal value to women's players, then everyone else they're competing with in hockey will be in the same boat. The bottom line remains, schools like North Dakota and Denver have nothing to worry about vis-a-vis "the big schools" when it comes to hockey.  Clarkson is in a disastrous spot.  Cornell remains to be seen -- though I am leaning on the side that Cornell will not be as negatively affected as some would think.  They'll recruit the same players as always. The problem is moreso the consolidation of power elsewhere, making it harder to compete against the elite teams, moreso than Cornell backsliding - though the effect may look the same.  It remains to be seen.  All of college athletics is a mess right now - and it may be my cue to retire. Some may like that.

[Trotsky]

ESPN+ link not working for me.  Sadness.

Edit: Fixed by going through the site search. Happiness.

[stereax]

Stanley???

[Trotsky]

Welcome back Hoyt Stanley.

[fastforward]

Stanley 1-0

[BearLover]

Clarkson will be lucky to have a program in 5 years.

I assume because D-3 in other sports?  I sure hope not.  Denver, CC, NoDak and others in the same boat IINM.

Denver and NoDak are D1 across the board

But, very relevantly, mid-major in football and basketball, so their athletic departments don't have excess revenue to throw around for "revenue sharing."

They have the exact opposite issue to what you believe.  Denver doesn't even have a football program - which is a positive.  They may have less revenue, but it also means they don't need to throw $20 million in revenue sharing at it.  Listen to my recent podcast with Denver AD Josh Berlo.

Denver will have just as much money as any Big Ten school to devote to paying hockey players.  Michigan, for example, is capped at $22 million to spend. How much of that will go to hockey?  More than likely, less than what Denver will spend.

I listened to the podcast. The fact Berlo wouldn't even commit to opting into the settlement was telling. The fact is, their athletic department either breaks even or loses money, like every athletic department in the country outside of the power 4 football schools. They have no revenue to throw around. I agree Michigan probably won't distribute much/any of the $22m to hockey, but Denver can't either. Unless they have major influxes of revenue or cost-cutting measures on the way.

Here's an article on this point: https://duclarion.com/2024/06/nil-update-how-du-athletics-will-be-affected-by-new-settlement/

That article doesn't contradict anything I said in any way. I also go to most home Denver games - and I've seen the Clarion there maybe twice? I wouldn't suggest they have much insight into their hockey program.

Well, the article says that were they to opt in (something their AD sounded very uncertain about), they'd have a budget of only $3m to spread among all of their athletes, including women (the DoE recently ruled male and female athletes would need to receive the same amount under revenue sharing) and their basketball team, which is competing within a world of NIL and trying to make the NCAA tournament and will demand much more money than the other sports.

If Denver is required to give equal value to women's players, then everyone else they're competing with in hockey will be in the same boat. The bottom line remains, schools like North Dakota and Denver have nothing to worry about vis-a-vis "the big schools" when it comes to hockey.  Clarkson is in a disastrous spot.  Cornell remains to be seen -- though I am leaning on the side that Cornell will not be as negatively affected as some would think.  They'll recruit the same players as always. The problem is moreso the consolidation of power elsewhere, making it harder to compete against the elite teams, moreso than Cornell backsliding - though the effect may look the same.  It remains to be seen.  All of college athletics is a mess right now - and it may be my cue to retire. Some may like that.

I personally think revenue sharing doesn't seem likely to be a big factor in hockey. Michigan won't pay hockey players much because almost all the money will go to football, Denver/NoDak won't because their schools don't have much revenue to spend. Clarkson may be doomed, but for other reasons.