Ben Robertson transfer

[BearLover]

To think NIL is not involved in college hockey is really off base. Some Big Ten schools are floating upwards of $100,000/year at players - currently. It would be pretty obvious Robertson got something, plus a full ride.

The notion that $100,000 payments are remotely commonplace directly contradicts this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/31/business/nil-money-ncaa.html

The chart at the end says annual NIL earnings for men's hockey players is $3,518 among the "top 50 players at their position."

Anecdotally, we have high draft picks like William Whitelaw transferring from  Michigan to Western Michigan, which offers no NIL. We have articles like this saying BU, which recruits better than any school in the country, does not have NIL: https://hockey.dailyfreepress.com/2024/09/27/joe-pereira-bu-hockeys-not-so-secret-weapon/. Why would Boisvert transfer somewhere with almost no NIL if he could get $100K at Minnesota? There are top players from Big 10 schools bolting for AHL deals that pay $75K or less.

Outside of some specific cases like Snuggerud returning to Minnesota for his junior season, player movement seems largely consistent with this NYT study. If NIL matters in college hockey, the effect seems small. I have yet to see, anywhere on the internet, a single documented example of an NCAA player receiving high NIL. Can somebody point me to one?

Look dude -- the idea that Western isn't giving NIL is also laughable. I know for a fact numerous players on their team that are. Someone floated out there that thing about Western not giving NIL, and a couple of us just literally laughed at it.

What's your definition of "commonplace"? You sure love to twist words into something that sounds more extreme than was actually said, eh?

As for why Whitelaw would transfer? Again, no one said every B10 player was getting 100,000 - never said anything remotely close to that. He's been underwhelming at Michigan, and he's going to a place where forwards become the best version of themselves. Not a shocker there. He'll probably get some NIL, but I'm sure it wasn't his main factor or relevant (or contradictory) to this discussion. Isaac Howard will probably get between 50 and 100k to return to Michigan State - but that wasn't the main factor in his decision. It was his inability to burn a year on his ELC that was the main factor.  A lot goes into these things.

Listen, I don't want to be an ass here and pull rank. I come here because I love Cornell hockey, despite the fact that I run a theoretically impartial web site. But I talk to a lot of people, all the time, especially at the Frozen Four. That includes agents, two of which I spoke to yesterday.  If I say something like this here, I assure you, I know what I'm talking about. And I can assure you I know more than 99% of the college hockey articles out there.  If it's just my opinion or guess, I'll make that clear too.  My comment about Robertson WAS speculation - but reasonably informed speculation based on the prevailing atmosphere, which is that players of HIS ILK - ARE getting NIL. I don't know that for a fact with Robertson - but I said it appears highly likely.

I'm giving this information here to be helpful - not to sound like a big shot.  If you don't want to believe me, so be it.

On Western "giving" NIL:
You'll have to define what you mean by "giving" NIL. If you mean "some players on the team earn NIL," which is what it seems based on the following sentences, then by that standard Cornell also gives NIL. Many athletes, even at Cornell, are making small amounts of money from NIL websites or sponsorships that they sought out individually. Which is vastly different from huge NIL collectives or NIL earnings in the five figures. So while yes, I'm certain that players on WMU earned NIL from local partnerships or jersey sales, these figures are likely so small as to not move the needle at all. Anyway, this is where the "WMU has no NIL" stuff is coming from:
https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3542779/for-the-love-of-the-game-western-michigan-won-the-college-hockey-national-championship-without-spending-a-single-penny-on-nil

I'm not endorsing Barstool as a source. But to be fair, the hockey podcast hosts are fairly well sourced in the hockey world. I suspect NIL at WMU is extremely minimal even though it technically does exist.

On my definition of "commonplace":
I guess my definition is that it's common enough to have real bearing on Robertson's situation, which is what we're discussing here. So, is it common outside the top very few players.

On Isaac Howard "probably getting between 50k and 100k to return":
Well, yeah, that wouldn't shock me. He's definitionally the best player in all of college hockey this year and going into next year he certainly will be. He's one of the few players who COULD be getting that much NIL. But if the absolute best player is getting maybe as low as 50K, what does that mean for somebody like Robertson?

My guess: Robertson will get some NIL at Michigan. But not a ton. How much of that will be funneled to him through collectives, or was promised to him when he committed, I don't know. I would guess he'll earn no more than 15K. After taxes, agent percentages, etc., maybe he takes home an extra 10K. And that's being generous, tbh. It's also way higher than the 3.5K in the NYT piece I linked to.

[marty]

To think NIL is not involved in college hockey is really off base. Some Big Ten schools are floating upwards of $100,000/year at players - currently. It would be pretty obvious Robertson got something, plus a full ride.

The notion that $100,000 payments are remotely commonplace directly contradicts this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/31/business/nil-money-ncaa.html

The chart at the end says annual NIL earnings for men's hockey players is $3,518 among the "top 50 players at their position."

Anecdotally, we have high draft picks like William Whitelaw transferring from  Michigan to Western Michigan, which offers no NIL. We have articles like this saying BU, which recruits better than any school in the country, does not have NIL: https://hockey.dailyfreepress.com/2024/09/27/joe-pereira-bu-hockeys-not-so-secret-weapon/. Why would Boisvert transfer somewhere with almost no NIL if he could get $100K at Minnesota? There are top players from Big 10 schools bolting for AHL deals that pay $75K or less.

Outside of some specific cases like Snuggerud returning to Minnesota for his junior season, player movement seems largely consistent with this NYT study. If NIL matters in college hockey, the effect seems small. I have yet to see, anywhere on the internet, a single documented example of an NCAA player receiving high NIL. Can somebody point me to one?

Look dude -- the idea that Western isn't giving NIL is also laughable. I know for a fact numerous players on their team that are. Someone floated out there that thing about Western not giving NIL, and a couple of us just literally laughed at it.

What's your definition of "commonplace"? You sure love to twist words into something that sounds more extreme than was actually said, eh?

As for why Whitelaw would transfer? Again, no one said every B10 player was getting 100,000 - never said anything remotely close to that. He's been underwhelming at Michigan, and he's going to a place where forwards become the best version of themselves. Not a shocker there. He'll probably get some NIL, but I'm sure it wasn't his main factor or relevant (or contradictory) to this discussion. Isaac Howard will probably get between 50 and 100k to return to Michigan State - but that wasn't the main factor in his decision. It was his inability to burn a year on his ELC that was the main factor.  A lot goes into these things.

Listen, I don't want to be an ass here and pull rank. I come here because I love Cornell hockey, despite the fact that I run a theoretically impartial web site. But I talk to a lot of people, all the time, especially at the Frozen Four. That includes agents, two of which I spoke to yesterday.  If I say something like this here, I assure you, I know what I'm talking about. And I can assure you I know more than 99% of the college hockey articles out there.  If it's just my opinion or guess, I'll make that clear too.  My comment about Robertson WAS speculation - but reasonably informed speculation based on the prevailing atmosphere, which is that players of HIS ILK - ARE getting NIL. I don't know that for a fact with Robertson - but I said it appears highly likely.

I'm giving this information here to be helpful - not to sound like a big shot.  If you don't want to believe me, so be it.

On Western "giving" NIL:
You'll have to define what you mean by "giving" NIL.

No he doesn't - he doesn't have to waste his time on eLynah.

[BearLover]

To think NIL is not involved in college hockey is really off base. Some Big Ten schools are floating upwards of $100,000/year at players - currently. It would be pretty obvious Robertson got something, plus a full ride.

The notion that $100,000 payments are remotely commonplace directly contradicts this article: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/31/business/nil-money-ncaa.html

The chart at the end says annual NIL earnings for men's hockey players is $3,518 among the "top 50 players at their position."

Anecdotally, we have high draft picks like William Whitelaw transferring from  Michigan to Western Michigan, which offers no NIL. We have articles like this saying BU, which recruits better than any school in the country, does not have NIL: https://hockey.dailyfreepress.com/2024/09/27/joe-pereira-bu-hockeys-not-so-secret-weapon/. Why would Boisvert transfer somewhere with almost no NIL if he could get $100K at Minnesota? There are top players from Big 10 schools bolting for AHL deals that pay $75K or less.

Outside of some specific cases like Snuggerud returning to Minnesota for his junior season, player movement seems largely consistent with this NYT study. If NIL matters in college hockey, the effect seems small. I have yet to see, anywhere on the internet, a single documented example of an NCAA player receiving high NIL. Can somebody point me to one?

Look dude -- the idea that Western isn't giving NIL is also laughable. I know for a fact numerous players on their team that are. Someone floated out there that thing about Western not giving NIL, and a couple of us just literally laughed at it.

What's your definition of "commonplace"? You sure love to twist words into something that sounds more extreme than was actually said, eh?

As for why Whitelaw would transfer? Again, no one said every B10 player was getting 100,000 - never said anything remotely close to that. He's been underwhelming at Michigan, and he's going to a place where forwards become the best version of themselves. Not a shocker there. He'll probably get some NIL, but I'm sure it wasn't his main factor or relevant (or contradictory) to this discussion. Isaac Howard will probably get between 50 and 100k to return to Michigan State - but that wasn't the main factor in his decision. It was his inability to burn a year on his ELC that was the main factor.  A lot goes into these things.

Listen, I don't want to be an ass here and pull rank. I come here because I love Cornell hockey, despite the fact that I run a theoretically impartial web site. But I talk to a lot of people, all the time, especially at the Frozen Four. That includes agents, two of which I spoke to yesterday.  If I say something like this here, I assure you, I know what I'm talking about. And I can assure you I know more than 99% of the college hockey articles out there.  If it's just my opinion or guess, I'll make that clear too.  My comment about Robertson WAS speculation - but reasonably informed speculation based on the prevailing atmosphere, which is that players of HIS ILK - ARE getting NIL. I don't know that for a fact with Robertson - but I said it appears highly likely.

I'm giving this information here to be helpful - not to sound like a big shot.  If you don't want to believe me, so be it.

On Western "giving" NIL:
You'll have to define what you mean by "giving" NIL.

No he doesn't - he doesn't have to waste his time on eLynah.

Okay, thank you for this literal interpretation of my post which was obviously not a demand for him to do anything. Maybe you are unfamiliar with basic English expressions like "you'll have to explain that to me later," which, once again, is not a demand but rather a figure of speech.

[RichH]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

[dag14]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

+1

[Al DeFlorio]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

Wondering if we still need to have "investigative reporting" done on why the first half of the season was disappointing.

[BearLover]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

Wondering if we still need to have "investigative reporting" done on why the first half of the season was disappointing.

I'd love to see that! I'm so curious what happened and if it may have led to one of our best players transferring out. But at the same time, there are lots of good reasons why no such reporting exists, as interesting as it would be. Thanks for reviving this discussion btw!

[Al DeFlorio]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

Wondering if we still need to have "investigative reporting" done on why the first half of the season was disappointing.

I'd love to see that! I'm so curious what happened and if it may have led to one of our best players transferring out. But at the same time, there are lots of good reasons why no such reporting exists, as interesting as it would be. Thanks for reviving this discussion btw!

Among many other matters, you don't comprehend sarcasm either.

[BearLover]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

Wondering if we still need to have "investigative reporting" done on why the first half of the season was disappointing.

I'd love to see that! I'm so curious what happened and if it may have led to one of our best players transferring out. But at the same time, there are lots of good reasons why no such reporting exists, as interesting as it would be. Thanks for reviving this discussion btw!

Among many other matters, you don't comprehend sarcasm either.

There is somebody here who doesn't comprehend sarcasm, but it isn't me...

[Snowball]

Anyway. I'm happy Robertson is going somewhere where he'll likely have better opportunities to show off his abilities and make it to the big leagues, and I wish him the best. Just not at Lynah

I'm old enough to remember when this was the normal, standard response to such news. Or something along the lines of "well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons."  This year, we're turning everything into a Warren Commission investigation.

My take? Well, that's too bad. Something like this is a personal decision and I'm sure he has his reasons.

+2

[abmarks]

"Adam said some B1G schools, not all schools"
If some B1G schools were paying 100K, that would be reflected in the data. It is mathematically impossible for the average to be as low as 3K if multiple players were making 100K.

You still fail the ol' logic test. .

• That dataset ends as of June 2024.
• Adam said that there were some guys getting offered 100k "currently".
  
• if there are "offers" "currently", that implies offers being made now.   It doesn't imply that those offers were being made prior to the 24-25 season. And again, that data cuts off in June of 24.

As I noted in my earlier post, they say

Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024..less than a third of the money that student athletes are making is publicly known .

Let's use Adam's example about Howard getting his 50-100k "to return".   That would be money for 25-26, so that's not captured in that dataset.   And even if it was in the timeframe, what makes you assume that he is going to enter his data into that system? He's not- I checked, he doesn't have an individual listing on the site and Michigan State isn't listed as one of the school partners.

"I can't believe you are once again arguing with a hockey journalist"
Appeal to authority fallacy. Which is funny, coming from you, because I'm sure you'd be bitching and moaning about me doing the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Appeal to authority fallacy? You are laughingly tossing out a phrase that doesn't apply.

The appeal to authority fallacy (also known as ad verecundiam) is a logical fallacy where a claim is accepted as true simply because it's supported by an authority figure, regardless of whether the authority is an expert on the specific topic or not. It's flawed because an authority's opinion, even if respected, doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Elaboration:
What it is:
The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone uses the authority of a person or institution to validate a claim, without providing any evidence or reasoning for the claim itself.
Why it's a fallacy:
While it's often logical to rely on expert opinions, blindly accepting an authority's word without examining the evidence or reasoning behind it is a fallacy.
Examples:
"Dr. Smith, a famous doctor, said this diet is healthy, so it must be true." (Even a doctor might not be an expert on nutrition)
"My favorite celebrity said this product works, so I'm going to buy it." (Celebrities are not necessarily experts in all areas)
Distinguishing legitimate appeals to authority:
A legitimate appeal to authority involves citing an expert who is qualified in the relevant field and their statement is directly related to the subject at hand.

Pretty sure my statements backing Adam's info hit the mark of the bolded portion.  Long-time well-respected hockey journalist who didn't comment here for clicks or hot-takes and has been a reliable straight shooter here for a very long time. He even said very specifically that he had talked with two agents in recent days- and says that when he speculates, he makes it clear he is speculating, and otherwise he is giving a hard fact.  There's no fallacy here.   This isn't Bobby Kennedy spewing nonesense about vaccines without data.  Adam directly relayed relevant personal interactions with those who would know best - player agents.

"NIL seems to be increasing exponentially"

Nope. Not exponentially. And there's absolutely no evidence this is the case in hockey or other non-revenue sports.

Wrong again.  I read the actual opendorse report from last year. I took one of their data charts and added in the growth curve.  Technically quadratic is best ft, not exponential, but look at the impact from this year to next due to the expected house settlement. That curve is going to stay steep.  The chart is at the end of the post.


Anyone else up for joing the KKK 2.0?   (aka Keyboard Karen Killers)

[underskill]

Another possibility is Michigan donors cutting bigger NIL checks due to missing the tourney plus MSUs rise as a top program again. Apples to oranges but look at the money they cut for the freshman QB

[upprdeck]

The one thing that makes it all hard to project is supply of money

Contracts in sports go up as revenue goes up.

NIL is going up, but there is very little revenue projection for almost all the kids being paid

How long will deep pockets throw money away?

Sure its been going on for a long time in some hidden way, but it was not so many kids and it was not for so many teams.

Some teams have more donors so they will continue to throw money around. But the number of schools that have people who want to donate multi millions year after year is short.

In the past you could throw money at a kid and get him to your school until went pro, now you never know if throwing money at a kid means you get him for one year until the next school comes along

Lots of kids are making NIL with zero value to the people footing the bill.  Do we really think people are buying cars locally because of some NIL deal?

Any also some numbers are bogus.  Agent have a job to make money, best way to make money is to increase the payout. Over stating the market helps drive more market.

[BearLover]

"Adam said some B1G schools, not all schools"
If some B1G schools were paying 100K, that would be reflected in the data. It is mathematically impossible for the average to be as low as 3K if multiple players were making 100K.

You still fail the ol' logic test. .

• That dataset ends as of June 2024.
• Adam said that there were some guys getting offered 100k "currently".
  
• if there are "offers" "currently", that implies offers being made now.   It doesn't imply that those offers were being made prior to the 24-25 season. And again, that data cuts off in June of 24.

As I noted in my earlier post, they say

Data is based on N.I.L. transactions disclosed through or processed by Opendorse between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2024..less than a third of the money that student athletes are making is publicly known .

Let's use Adam's example about Howard getting his 50-100k "to return".   That would be money for 25-26, so that's not captured in that dataset.   And even if it was in the timeframe, what makes you assume that he is going to enter his data into that system? He's not- I checked, he doesn't have an individual listing on the site and Michigan State isn't listed as one of the school partners.

"I can't believe you are once again arguing with a hockey journalist"
Appeal to authority fallacy. Which is funny, coming from you, because I'm sure you'd be bitching and moaning about me doing the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.

Appeal to authority fallacy? You are laughingly tossing out a phrase that doesn't apply.

The appeal to authority fallacy (also known as ad verecundiam) is a logical fallacy where a claim is accepted as true simply because it's supported by an authority figure, regardless of whether the authority is an expert on the specific topic or not. It's flawed because an authority's opinion, even if respected, doesn't necessarily make it correct.
Elaboration:
What it is:
The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone uses the authority of a person or institution to validate a claim, without providing any evidence or reasoning for the claim itself.
Why it's a fallacy:
While it's often logical to rely on expert opinions, blindly accepting an authority's word without examining the evidence or reasoning behind it is a fallacy.
Examples:
"Dr. Smith, a famous doctor, said this diet is healthy, so it must be true." (Even a doctor might not be an expert on nutrition)
"My favorite celebrity said this product works, so I'm going to buy it." (Celebrities are not necessarily experts in all areas)
Distinguishing legitimate appeals to authority:
A legitimate appeal to authority involves citing an expert who is qualified in the relevant field and their statement is directly related to the subject at hand.

Pretty sure my statements backing Adam's info hit the mark of the bolded portion.  Long-time well-respected hockey journalist who didn't comment here for clicks or hot-takes and has been a reliable straight shooter here for a very long time. He even said very specifically that he had talked with two agents in recent days- and says that when he speculates, he makes it clear he is speculating, and otherwise he is giving a hard fact.  There's no fallacy here.   This isn't Bobby Kennedy spewing nonesense about vaccines without data.  Adam directly relayed relevant personal interactions with those who would know best - player agents.

"NIL seems to be increasing exponentially"

Nope. Not exponentially. And there's absolutely no evidence this is the case in hockey or other non-revenue sports.

Wrong again.  I read the actual opendorse report from last year. I took one of their data charts and added in the growth curve.  Technically quadratic is best ft, not exponential, but look at the impact from this year to next due to the expected house settlement. That curve is going to stay steep.  The chart is at the end of the post.


Anyone else up for joing the KKK 2.0?   (aka Keyboard Karen Killers)

Are you intentionally obtuse, or just dishonest? You're quoting things from my post out of context and claiming I was responding to something different from what I was responding to. For example, you previously argued against the 3k average NIL amount by making the point that Adam was referring to big 10 schools, not all schools. I said that this number was intended to average the dataset, and that it would be mathematically impossible for there to be 100k contracts factored in if the top 50 averaged out to 3k.

You are now responding by saying that the 3k wouldn't capture these cases because these cases are more recent than the dataset. Yes, I know that, I acknowledged that several times. But that was clearly not what my statement was in response to.

The dataset is limited by various factors. It is still real, compiled data comprising 1/3 of NIL contracts as of one year ago, as compared to random rumors and speculations.

As to the appeal to authority fallacy, the fallacy is that you're accepting as true the opinion of someone who himself admits he's speculating. You are exercising no critical thinking of your own to evaluate this speculation.

And I'm not going to suffer through a stupid argument over the shape of a curve you just admitted isn't exponential right after I said it wasn't exponential.

Lastly, the term "keyboard Karen" has been in use for like five years now over social media. It wasn't edgy then and it definitely isn't now.

I personally think the most illustrative thing here is that you said few thought Roberson could make the Michigan roster. That shows to me that you haven't actually been following these things. You're just bullshitting, you don't follow college hockey, you just want to yell at me because you're obsessed for some reason.

[adamw]

BL,

Some one is being intentionally obtuse here, that's for sure. Belaboring minute details as a way to hammer home points, claiming "gotchas" that don't exist - these are the things that earn someone a reputation.

The only reason I chimed in was to correct the notion that NIL is playing little to no factor in college hockey. This is just factually untrue at this point.  If you want to then twist the definition of "factor" to say - "well, yeah, ok, they are getting it, but it's a small amount and blah blah" ... then sure.  To me, that's moving the goalposts - and really, I don't care to debate semantics in 47 posts.

So anyway - I said what I said - and if you want to now argue the significance, go for it.

The point was to say that Robertson has his reasons. I can't get into every little detail, and I don't know him well enough to know his personal situation. Again, you can nitpick and belabor until the cows come home, but the over-arching point was to defend what happened -- defend both Cornell and Robertson, really -- and to counteract these breathless "sky is falling posts."  Not so much to debate you - which is a waste of time - but for the sake of others.

On the Western Michigan point -- I don't have a ton of issue with Barstool, but it's not like they're around college hockey much. They're liable to buy a line of PR fairly easily. They also may not care about the particulars, or that things may be changing by the minute. Again you nitpick me saying "giving" ... I fully realize that technically WMU is not allowed to give it - there's no need to hammer that.  However, it's naive to think that the schools don't arrange it via known benefactors, even if informally. So in essence, it's no difference. When a kid picks up the phone from a coach, and is told that "we'll have this much NIL for you" - those donors are not on the call. That gets figured out later. It's a promise.  And there have been college football lawsuits for promises made that weren't delivered.  Not in hockey yet.

Another point is that NIL will soon not even be the point. Michigan, for example, will have $20.5 million of revenue sharing to give out. Obviously, probably less than $1 million will go to hockey - maybe $500,000 tops? Who knows. Point being that Robertson could have -- speculation -- been offered a significant chunk of THAT. NOT the NIL.  Who knows.  Both are now in play.

Oh. as for the "authority" part ... Look, I've been on this message board for 20+ years and schmoozed with others on here in different forums for at least a decade before that. I'm uncomfortable making any statements about myself like that. Pretty sure Trotsky dissed me in 1996 for something like that - not my first rodeo . You can probably count on one hand the times I've used that card here. It's only in the face of blow-hardy, know-it-all opinions (that are false) that I feel the need to say something. Again, take it FWIW.

"BearLover out" really had a nice ring to it. Alas.