Ben Robertson transfer

[adamw]

On Denver, they did opt in, but their athletic department (like the athletic departments for all other non-power 4 schools) does not turn a profit. So what does that mean for revenue sharing? Will the "revenue" being shared be less than 10K? Nodak (and I assume Q, BU, etc) did not opt in, and that is very telling. There's no revenue to be shared...

Like I said - you'll never admit you're wrong. Ever. You've repeated this a zillion effing times - and I've told you over and over that "not opting in" -- YET (important) -- has ZERO to do with how much revenue there is to be shared. ZERO. Not only is it obvious, because there are other reasons to not opt in yet, but I've been told this straight from the horse's mouths (the ADs of those schools).  But you keep coming here and friggin repeating it.  So, that's why everyone thinks of you what they think of you.

The big schools are throwing around money - and that includes North Dakota and BU, and all the Big Ten, and will include Denver too. I don't know what else to tell you at this point.

[adamw]

Adam kinda knows what he's talking about and at some point one should feel queasy in the stomach getting topped, repeatedly, by an IC grad. (Aside: One of my classmates transferred to Ithaca and turned it into a pretty good career in TV broadcasting. IC is the right place for a lot of things.)

Add, ABC News anchor Bill Muir who earns $8 million plus.  Not bad for a grad of that other school in Ithaca.

Bob Iger also a grad - Muir's employer - I could go on. Alas, not I.

It's David Muir by the way - he was a twerpy freshman when I was a senior. He looked up to me then. I taught him everything he knows.

[BearLover]

On Denver, they did opt in, but their athletic department (like the athletic departments for all other non-power 4 schools) does not turn a profit. So what does that mean for revenue sharing? Will the "revenue" being shared be less than 10K? Nodak (and I assume Q, BU, etc) did not opt in, and that is very telling. There's no revenue to be shared...

Like I said - you'll never admit you're wrong. Ever. You've repeated this a zillion effing times - and I've told you over and over that "not opting in" -- YET (important) -- has ZERO to do with how much revenue there is to be shared. ZERO. Not only is it obvious, because there are other reasons to not opt in yet, but I've been told this straight from the horse's mouths (the ADs of those schools).  But you keep coming here and friggin repeating it.  So, that's why everyone thinks of you what they think of you.

The big schools are throwing around money - and that includes North Dakota and BU, and all the Big Ten, and will include Denver too. I don't know what else to tell you at this point.

I'm wrong all the time and I will happily admit it. For example, a couple weeks ago I made the point that Cornell may even benefit from the current NCAA environment because their players never transfer out and rarely sign pro deals early. Well, turns out my premises were flawed, so my post was stupid.

On the other hand, that reason I won't "admit that I'm wrong" on teams opting into the House settlement is because your argument makes no sense! That's just my opinion, obviously, but I won't admit I'm wrong because I don't think I'm wrong! Let me spell this out again:

A team, let's say North Dakota (ND), is faced with the decision whether to opt into the House settlement. Opting in entails certain benefits: (1) the ability to share revenues with players and (2) the ability to award scholarships above the existing 18-scholly limit.

Opting in also has a cost: roster sizes cannot go above 26.

Let's denote the benefits as B and the costs as C.

ND will opt into the settlement if B>C.

ND did not opt into the settlement because B
If revenue sharing were a large enough benefit, B>C and then they would opt in. But they didn't opt in, because revenue sharing is not a substantial enough benefit to counteract the cost.

It's interesting Denver did opt in, despite what sounded like serious hesitation on the part of their AD on your podcast (which I did listen to).

Let's see what other schools do in the future. My point on this issue remains the same: outside of the power 4 schools, these athletic depts break even at best, and there seems to be little if any revenue to be shared. I think the fact ND didn't opt in is very revealing, given they run probably the biggest revenue generating hockey program in the NCAA.

We'll see how things change in the future. LGR

[BearLover]

"Carle says they don't pay players. He can see the value in NIL — if done right — so they're considering it for the future."

CJ Kirst probably makes a lot of money from NIL (or he could if he wanted). That doesn't mean Cornell is paying it or facilitates it. Probably the same for Buium and other stars at Denver.

[tretiak]

I feel like we're a year or two away from having the CHN joke article "what if college hockey had a trade deadline?" become reality. Eventually a new structure will form but this is an absolute mess.

[Iceberg]

BL will never admit he's wrong - so again, just for everyone else ...

Mankato Assistant Coach reveals their two top recruits were paid $80-90k by a B1G school to decommit from MNSU

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1k1u3ea/mankato_assistant_coach_reveals_their_two_top/

Happening all over. Also, Denver coach (who I know well) is definitely fudging a bit. The school opted in for a reason, and whether this is NIL or Revenue Share money, is going to be irrelevant soon.

Also, ignoring Bill's IC jab (I did laugh)

For some perspective, that's more than the annual salary of a lot of Americans. Yikes

[CU2007]

BL will never admit he's wrong - so again, just for everyone else ...

Mankato Assistant Coach reveals their two top recruits were paid $80-90k by a B1G school to decommit from MNSU

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1k1u3ea/mankato_assistant_coach_reveals_their_two_top/

Happening all over. Also, Denver coach (who I know well) is definitely fudging a bit. The school opted in for a reason, and whether this is NIL or Revenue Share money, is going to be irrelevant soon.

Also, ignoring Bill's IC jab (I did laugh)

For some perspective, that's more than the annual salary of a lot of Americans. Yikes

He is also more "skilled" than most Americans.

[underskill]

Can't Cornell get Larry Tannenbaum to fund a men's hockey collective and just try to buy a championship?

[adamw]

On the other hand, that reason I won't "admit that I'm wrong" on teams opting into the House settlement is because your argument makes no sense! That's just my opinion, obviously, but I won't admit I'm wrong because I don't think I'm wrong! Let me spell this out again:

A team, let's say North Dakota (ND), is faced with the decision whether to opt into the House settlement. Opting in entails certain benefits: (1) the ability to share revenues with players and (2) the ability to award scholarships above the existing 18-scholly limit.

Opting in also has a cost: roster sizes cannot go above 26.

Let's denote the benefits as B and the costs as C.

ND will opt into the settlement if B>C.

ND did not opt into the settlement because B
If revenue sharing were a large enough benefit, B>C and then they would opt in. But they didn't opt in, because revenue sharing is not a substantial enough benefit to counteract the cost.

It's interesting Denver did opt in, despite what sounded like serious hesitation on the part of their AD on your podcast (which I did listen to).

Let's see what other schools do in the future. My point on this issue remains the same: outside of the power 4 schools, these athletic depts break even at best, and there seems to be little if any revenue to be shared. I think the fact ND didn't opt in is very revealing, given they run probably the biggest revenue generating hockey program in the NCAA.

We'll see how things change in the future. LGR

Your logic is not only flawed - but my information comes straight from the horse's mouth of multiple ADs. So again - whatever.

North Dakota will literally opt in next year, when the dust settles. So there alone throws everything out the window. When I told their AD there are some people who believe it meant they didn't have enough revenue, he literally laughed out loud.  So you can dream whatever you want into North Dakota's decision and conclude in fantasy land that it's "very revealing" - but it's literally not at all revealing. shrug.

I'm not sure where you heard hesitation from the Denver AD in regards to the amount of revenue. You're inventing that. His only hesitation was over the roster limits, and not wanting to jump the gun until they had a chance to discuss as a university. They have no concern over revenue. I chat with him every time I see him at Denver home games - and just saw him in St. Louis.

You keep repeating the remarks about how most schools lose money on athletics, and generally, this is true over the years. It's also irrelevant to this topic. It has no bearing.  The entire economic structure is changing.  And operating at a loss has not stopped schools from using charters, adding scholarships, adding full cost of attendance (Alston money), coordinating NIL deals, etc...  Do you think St. John's athletic department operates at a loss?  Yet Rick Pitino had $4 million of NIL available to him last year - thanks to one rich dude.  The whole point is moot.  How programs are funded -- it's all changing.

[Trotsky]

Can't Cornell get Larry Tannenbaum to fund a men's hockey collective and just try to buy a championship?

If the funding model is moving in the same direction as everything else in this benighted timeline, this may not be far from truth.

In a world where title hopes are the probability of having hatched a billionaire asshat overcompensating for his (it's always his) deficiencies IRL, we are in a strong position.  Trust the Process!

[BearLover]

Can't Cornell get Larry Tannenbaum to fund a men's hockey collective and just try to buy a championship?

This but unironically

[upprdeck]

they would have to remove all the Canadian kids wouldnt they to pay NIL like that?

[abmarks]

they would have to remove all the Canadian kids wouldnt they to pay NIL like that?

Not necessarily.  Was reading an article that talked about workarounds.  If the Canadian kids get a different visa than the standard student visa was one way.   Another was getting the nil for services rendered in Canada.  And the third was an example where you sold your nil rights to a company-and since that company controlled how your value was exploited, and you no longer did, you were safe that way too.

[Trotsky]

they would have to remove all the Canadian kids wouldnt they to pay NIL like that?

Not necessarily.  Was reading an article that talked about workarounds.  If the Canadian kids get a different visa than the standard student visa was one way.   Another was getting the nil for services rendered in Canada.  And the third was an example where you sold your nil rights to a company-and since that company controlled how your value was exploited, and you no longer did, you were safe that way too.

Yeah couldn't a student visa just be a work visa?  What happens with grad students who get stipends to teach?

[abmarks]

they would have to remove all the Canadian kids wouldnt they to pay NIL like that?

Not necessarily.  Was reading an article that talked about workarounds.  If the Canadian kids get a different visa than the standard student visa was one way.   Another was getting the nil for services rendered in Canada.  And the third was an example where you sold your nil rights to a company-and since that company controlled how your value was exploited, and you no longer did, you were safe that way too.

Yeah couldn't a student visa just be a work visa?  What happens with grad students who get stipends to teach?

I'll have to look for the article I read and see if I can find a link.

Another avenue was the visa type that Melania got.  The exceptional talent visa or whatever it's called. I'd assume that's the one that NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL etc would get if they aren't US citizens.