Opponent and other news and results 2025-2026

[adamw]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

[stereax]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

For real? 👀

[ugarte]

https://x.com/SchlossmanGF/status/2039356887250964661?s=20

This is bad. It is bad when the weaker members of our conference get even worse.

What if he wants to play at Lynah?

[stereax]

https://x.com/SchlossmanGF/status/2039356887250964661?s=20

This is bad. It is bad when the weaker members of our conference get even worse.

What if he wants to play at Lynah?

Very good.

But somehow I doubt it.

[The Rancor]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

Great article. Thank you, Adam.

I wonder if transfer restrictions could be limited to 2 or 3 total? One, you can play immediately, but there is a 2 year (season) wait until the next one, which then would result in a one season red-shirt, which wouldn't count against your 4. If you had eligibility left after that, no restriction (eg for a grad year)

[ursusminor]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

Very informative and scary article. I am sure that you know that RIT is not in the ECAC, although it is in the Liberty League in other sports with the four ECAC D-III schools.

[adamw]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

Great article. Thank you, Adam.

I wonder if transfer restrictions could be limited to 2 or 3 total? One, you can play immediately, but there is a 2 year (season) wait until the next one, which then would result in a one season red-shirt, which wouldn't count against your 4. If you had eligibility left after that, no restriction (eg for a grad year)

I think I mentioned that in Part 1 - it really wouldn't help anything. There are over 300 transfers in college hockey - and only 27 are on team 3.

[adamw]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

Very informative and scary article. I am sure that you know that RIT is not in the ECAC, although it is in the Liberty League in other sports with the four ECAC D-III schools.

thanks - that sentence was supposed to say "four of them are in the ECAC" - having "five" there makes it seem like I was calling RIT an ECAC team. Fixed it.

[ursusminor]

I assume an April Fools joke.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DWmE69XDiHq/

[BearLover]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

FWIW, nothing in here is that surprising to me personally, though that may be because we've been hashing this topic out awhile now. I still have the same gripes about the wishy-washiness of a lot of the language/numbers--there's quite a bit of hedging, speculating, ballpark estimating, etc. I have some object-level criticisms with a few of the numbers but I don't think either of us want to get into this argument again. So I'll just say that I appreciate you covering this topic.

Thanks also for the bit about robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a major crux that I think a lot of people don't account for. The hockey team does not magically come up with 500K for revenue sharing. Rather, they divert that money from elsewhere or have to milk their donors for even more. This is much easier said than done and, even if it does happen, may come at the expense of other parts of their program like facilities or coaching salaries. One other thing I did not see mentioned is that opting into 8 additional scholarships is itself extremely expensive, particularly given that Title IX requires 8 additional women's scholarships on top of that. These scholarship costs alone surpass any team's revenue sharing budget. I.e., opting in is even harder to afford than most realize.

The one question I have pertains to this line:
"Now, the challenge is much greater. It works like this:
Colgate — 18 scholarships
Michigan — 18 scholarships + 8 more scholarships + COA and Alston money + maybe $50,000 to $250,000."

You say earlier that Big 10 schools have a budget between 500K and 1m. Does that include COA and Alston money? Because otherwise shouldn't the last term of the Michigan equation say "+ maybe $500,000 to $1,000,000"?

[stereax]

I assume an April Fools joke.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DWmE69XDiHq/

Those fuck severely.

[ursusminor]

I assume an April Fools joke.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DWmE69XDiHq/

Those fuck severely.

That was the intention.

[ursusminor]

Podcast interview about RPI's past season and the future with coach Eric Lang. (interviewers Stephen Zenack, Brendan O'Gara, and Chris McGarvey)

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/season-wrap-up-with-coach-lang

[adamw]

Colgate, Union, St. Lawrence will probably all lose their top players.

My Part 2 Special Report is posted today, if anyone is interested:

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2026/03/31_CHN-Special-Report-Part-.php

FWIW, nothing in here is that surprising to me personally, though that may be because we've been hashing this topic out awhile now. I still have the same gripes about the wishy-washiness of a lot of the language/numbers--there's quite a bit of hedging, speculating, ballpark estimating, etc. I have some object-level criticisms with a few of the numbers but I don't think either of us want to get into this argument again. So I'll just say that I appreciate you covering this topic.

Thanks also for the bit about robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is a major crux that I think a lot of people don't account for. The hockey team does not magically come up with 500K for revenue sharing. Rather, they divert that money from elsewhere or have to milk their donors for even more. This is much easier said than done and, even if it does happen, may come at the expense of other parts of their program like facilities or coaching salaries. One other thing I did not see mentioned is that opting into 8 additional scholarships is itself extremely expensive, particularly given that Title IX requires 8 additional women's scholarships on top of that. These scholarship costs alone surpass any team's revenue sharing budget. I.e., opting in is even harder to afford than most realize.

The one question I have pertains to this line:
"Now, the challenge is much greater. It works like this:
Colgate — 18 scholarships
Michigan — 18 scholarships + 8 more scholarships + COA and Alston money + maybe $50,000 to $250,000."

You say earlier that Big 10 schools have a budget between 500K and 1m. Does that include COA and Alston money? Because otherwise shouldn't the last term of the Michigan equation say "+ maybe $500,000 to $1,000,000"?

Good question, and by the way, I don't disagree with you on the robbing Peter to pay Paul part, and I thought of you when I wrote that. Heh. That's acknowledged quite a bit in the article. However, there are also numerous people quoted - and others alluded to - that say they hope not to do that, and are doing whatever they can to avoid that. On top of that, however, is that, even if it's true, it doesn't take away from the fact that it will go directly to players, and that has an impact - which is what we were arguing/discussing in the first place.  If worst case scenario, your arena falls behind in its weight room facilities, but you've paid $50,000 for a 2nd round draft pick - then going forward, that's impactful.

Now, back to your question - I believe what I meant there was $50,000 to $250,000 for a particular player. Though I admit that snippet is confusing.

[Chris '03]

I'm sure this won't complicate the situation at all:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/urgent-national-action-to-save-college-sports/