Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[adamw]

MSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Porter Martone gets about 300k - I have more or less verified it's at least around there. MSU got the better of that deal, vis-a-vis McKenna

[adamw]

MSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Pretty sure they do.

With regard to NIL in hockey, I would like to see a smidge of actual reporting, somewhere, anywhere, with specific details (players + amounts). Everyone just waives their hands and shouts "NIL!" whenever a good recruit signs with a top school. But there's no hard evidence anywhere. In football and basketball, we know NIL to be a major factor because such reporting exists. In hockey, we never get specific details. The one exception is Gavin McKenna receiving "$700,000," reported elsewhere as $500,000 or less, which is itself disputed by others (I heard on a hockey podcast it's under $250K). And then when you listen to the people who report these figures, it becomes clear they don't even know if it's NIL, or revenue sharing, or if it includes scholarship, or if it's just for McKenna's freshman year or if instead it only gets paid in full if he stays more than one year.

What I'm saying is, we're left totally in the dark on NIL in hockey, as any reporting is wildly vague. It sounds like the reporters themselves don't know.

I am sure NIL/revenue sharing in hockey exists, but I'm skeptical it exists to any real degree outside of specific circumstances. Money does not materialize out of thin air. Hockey programs were already reliant on donations to survive, so for NIL to be a major factor you'd need donors committing vast sums of money on top of what they were previously committing. That's certainly possible, but it's unlikely for most schools, even the big ones. And that's leaving out questions such as passing the new NIL clearinghouse or the difficulties of foreign players earning NIL.

NIL -- and moreso, revenue sharing -- 10000% exists to a significant basis (significant enough to sway recruiting even more towards big schools.) This is unquestioned. I have talked to enough people to know this. However, it's not my full-time job and I don't have time to dig on everyone's details. In fact, given the relatively popularity of football to hockey, there basically are no reporters that exists whose full-time job it is.

As for a Trotsky comment about how pro athletes' contracts are publicly known .... that's only because it's collectively bargained to be that way. There isn't some FOIA thing out there making it so. In fact, judges have been consistently and specifically striking down any attempt by media to get access to Player Aid Agreement contracts, even at public universities.

[BearLover]

MSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Pretty sure they do.

With regard to NIL in hockey, I would like to see a smidge of actual reporting, somewhere, anywhere, with specific details (players + amounts). Everyone just waives their hands and shouts "NIL!" whenever a good recruit signs with a top school. But there's no hard evidence anywhere. In football and basketball, we know NIL to be a major factor because such reporting exists. In hockey, we never get specific details. The one exception is Gavin McKenna receiving "$700,000," reported elsewhere as $500,000 or less, which is itself disputed by others (I heard on a hockey podcast it's under $250K). And then when you listen to the people who report these figures, it becomes clear they don't even know if it's NIL, or revenue sharing, or if it includes scholarship, or if it's just for McKenna's freshman year or if instead it only gets paid in full if he stays more than one year.

What I'm saying is, we're left totally in the dark on NIL in hockey, as any reporting is wildly vague. It sounds like the reporters themselves don't know.

I am sure NIL/revenue sharing in hockey exists, but I'm skeptical it exists to any real degree outside of specific circumstances. Money does not materialize out of thin air. Hockey programs were already reliant on donations to survive, so for NIL to be a major factor you'd need donors committing vast sums of money on top of what they were previously committing. That's certainly possible, but it's unlikely for most schools, even the big ones. And that's leaving out questions such as passing the new NIL clearinghouse or the difficulties of foreign players earning NIL.

NIL -- and moreso, revenue sharing -- 10000% exists to a significant basis (significant enough to sway recruiting even more towards big schools.) This is unquestioned.

This is obviously technically true—in that there are cases where players are swayed by NIL or rev sharing-but by itself the statement doesn't really mean anything. The degree of NIL/rev sharing, who pays it, and who gets it, matter a lot, and from that perspective we are left completely in the dark.
Which schools are paying players? Only power 5? Non-power 5 schools like NoDak? BU? Denver? Duluth?
Which types of players are getting paid? Entire rosters? Just one or two hotshot recruits per team? Do seniors who committed their whole careers to the program get anything? (If so, there's not much money left to spread around.)

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

[ugarte]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

[Beeeej]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

The Jeffrey T. Anbinder '94 Wall-Size Poster of Alexis Cournoyer

[ugarte]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

The Jeffrey T. Anbinder '94 Wall-Size Poster of Alexis Cournoyer

Where are you going to find twenty-six dollars?

[Beeeej]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

The Jeffrey T. Anbinder '94 Wall-Size Poster of Alexis Cournoyer

Where are you going to find twenty-six dollars?

Hold on, posting our Colgate tix...

[stereax]

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Just as a thought experiment, I think the answer may lie in how direct an impact your money is going to have. In other words, some well-heeled donors may be more willing to buy a five-star recruit than they are to throw cash into the fungible pot of money that Cornell, Athletics or the hockey team get to distribute. Friedman bought a wrestling facility with his name on it, donors are enticed by having their names on endowed positions. You're targeting a very specific class of donor when you ask them to jump in the NIL game.

The Jeffrey T. Anbinder '94 Wall-Size Poster of Alexis Cournoyer

Where are you going to find twenty-six dollars?

Hold on, posting our Colgate tix...

Will they take a $40 CTB gift card?

[stereax]

Christian Kirsch, G, to Quinnipiac.

[VIEWfromK]

MSU must have some massive NLI for hockey, as they (along with BU) are cleaning up with the elite guys (McKenna excepted).

Pretty sure they do.

With regard to NIL in hockey, I would like to see a smidge of actual reporting, somewhere, anywhere, with specific details (players + amounts). Everyone just waives their hands and shouts "NIL!" whenever a good recruit signs with a top school. But there's no hard evidence anywhere. In football and basketball, we know NIL to be a major factor because such reporting exists. In hockey, we never get specific details. The one exception is Gavin McKenna receiving "$700,000," reported elsewhere as $500,000 or less, which is itself disputed by others (I heard on a hockey podcast it's under $250K). And then when you listen to the people who report these figures, it becomes clear they don't even know if it's NIL, or revenue sharing, or if it includes scholarship, or if it's just for McKenna's freshman year or if instead it only gets paid in full if he stays more than one year.

What I'm saying is, we're left totally in the dark on NIL in hockey, as any reporting is wildly vague. It sounds like the reporters themselves don't know.

I am sure NIL/revenue sharing in hockey exists, but I'm skeptical it exists to any real degree outside of specific circumstances. Money does not materialize out of thin air. Hockey programs were already reliant on donations to survive, so for NIL to be a major factor you'd need donors committing vast sums of money on top of what they were previously committing. That's certainly possible, but it's unlikely for most schools, even the big ones. And that's leaving out questions such as passing the new NIL clearinghouse or the difficulties of foreign players earning NIL.

NIL -- and moreso, revenue sharing -- 10000% exists to a significant basis (significant enough to sway recruiting even more towards big schools.) This is unquestioned.

This is obviously technically true—in that there are cases where players are swayed by NIL or rev sharing-but by itself the statement doesn't really mean anything. The degree of NIL/rev sharing, who pays it, and who gets it, matter a lot, and from that perspective we are left completely in the dark.
Which schools are paying players? Only power 5? Non-power 5 schools like NoDak? BU? Denver? Duluth?
Which types of players are getting paid? Entire rosters? Just one or two hotshot recruits per team? Do seniors who committed their whole careers to the program get anything? (If so, there's not much money left to spread around.)

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Now that there is no more radio broadcast maybe the East Hill Car Wash and Mountain Dew Code Red money can be tapped back into

[Iceberg]

Christian Kirsch, G, to Quinnipiac.

With both of Q's goaltender being juniors, it makes me wonder if Pecknold brings in this guy next fall and one of the current juniors transfers out. It's no secret that goaltending is that team's biggest issue

[adamw]

This is obviously technically true—in that there are cases where players are swayed by NIL or rev sharing-but by itself the statement doesn't really mean anything. The degree of NIL/rev sharing, who pays it, and who gets it, matter a lot, and from that perspective we are left completely in the dark.
Which schools are paying players? Only power 5? Non-power 5 schools like NoDak? BU? Denver? Duluth?
Which types of players are getting paid? Entire rosters? Just one or two hotshot recruits per team? Do seniors who committed their whole careers to the program get anything? (If so, there's not much money left to spread around.)

I've also yet to see an explanation provided for where the money would be coming from. Take Cornell for example. We do not have NIL or rev share, but let's imagine a world where tomorrow the Ivy League opts into the House settlement (so Ivies can rev share), and also Cornell goes ahead and sets up an NIL fund that donors can contribute to. That in itself changes absolutely nothing. That's because Cornell athletics runs at a deficit, and Cornell hockey itself already uses every donation it gets just to sustain its facilities, recruiting, etc. So you would need huge ongoing donations on top of all that to pay players. That's life for almost every non-power 5 school in the country, and even the power 5 schools are resorting to measures such as jacking up ticket prices just to keep up with football rev sharing. Money doesn't grow on trees and NIL/rev share funding doesn't either.

Every school that is allowed to pay players, is paying players - something. The big schools are paying just about all their players at least ... something. Every school you mentioned is paying players.

[stereax]

Brown's coach is getting slow canned.

[underskill]

He's taking FMLA leave per CHN

[stereax]

He's taking FMLA leave per CHN

Starting Feb 20. And then when he comes back, will be "transitioning" into a new role in athletics and they'll be looking for a new HC.