Journalism Regarding Paying Hockey Players

[BearLover]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

[adamw]

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football

BU fans just shot their TVs.

Should've said - the only two that have opted in to the House settlement. BU has not opted in --- yet --- which means it cannot, currently, give out revenue share money.  All word is that it will opt in soon. The deadline to declare is coming up.

[adamw]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

I mean, it's not an argument - I'm giving you factual information. I don't have a factual answer - yet - for why this chart shows what it shows, and yes, historically most athletic teams lose money. But I believe (conjecture) this is fancy accounting. Another possible explanation is that schools without football can devote more energy towards making sure other prominent sports are their money drivers. And I'm just telling you that it's a universal belief within hockey that those are the schools that will have an advantage, and that the ones that are in that boat at the moment, are in the best shape outside of (most) B10 schools.

These are the others without football:
Vermont, Northeastern, UMass Lowell, Quinnipiac, Niagara, Canisius

Quinnipiac is in very good shape as well. Niagara, Canisius and Lowell have no money in general, so that's a different story. Northeastern will be in good shape once its arena is done. Vermont has $150,000 at its disposal. I was told that this weekend from a rock solid source. Not a ton, but more than what may have been expected.

I will let you know what the reaction is to this chart, if I get a reliable response.

[Beeeej]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.

[Beeeej]

Larry Ellison drops dead tonight and I wake Tuesday to find myself his sole heir due to an incident at the Molly Pitcher rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1983 I had expunged from my memory but which he treasured forever.

I have 200 billion dollars.

Can I just buy us players now?  How would I do that?

First there's the 10 billion dollar research fee to your attorney...

Attorneys! Just wait for me to pass the bar please <3

If someone can endow your position, I'll hire ya.

[upprdeck]

I wonder when the flip to making money on sports became a thing.

I know if you go back into the 1920-30-40 or whatever, costs were vastly different but schools didnt derive tons of money from sports to fund other sports.  I dont recall much talk about it in the 70s-80s either. Its when TV suddenly kicked in that it started to lead to all this spending and huge budgets.

[BearLover]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.

I am not assuming that at all - just pointing out that other sports don't make any money, and without football to fund them, hard to see where revenue sharing money is going to come from.

[adamw]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

I think your biggest problematic assumption here is that the economic effect of not having a football program's revenue or expenses at all at a hockey school is somehow the same as the economic effect of subtracting the revenue from the football program at an existing football + hockey school, and there's no reason that has to be true.

I am not assuming that at all - just pointing out that other sports don't make any money, and without football to fund them, hard to see where revenue sharing money is going to come from.

and yet - it's there

[adamw]

This is not entirely on point, but I saw this online. Assuming it's accurate, it shows the extreme difficulty of revenue sharing for any school that doesn't have big-time football:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HFbbcipWQAAzxO4?format=jpg&name=large

true in one sense - quite the opposite in another.

if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program ... see: Denver and Providence.

This graphic is specific to PSU and of course does not apply to every school, but your conclusion definitely can't be drawn from this graphic. It shows that once you subtract football from the equation, PSU athletics are far in the red. Basketball barely breaks even, everything else loses money. Football props up everything else. Schools without football are going to have a much more difficult time finding anything left over to share with athletes.

here we go again my man ... I am telling you factual information. Literally everyone is talking about the landscape in these terms. This is not me making subjective assertions out of thin air. Just for one example -- at the Frozen Four (and not for the first time) College Hockey Inc's director specifically mentioned (again) that the schools that add hockey going forward will be those without football programs. Why? Because of what I said. This is universally understood to be the case within hockey - yet for some reason, you tell me this isn't true. Amazing.

Denver and Providence, specifically -- the only two prominent hockey schools without football -- are going to be dedicating $500,000-plus of rev share money to hockey - which puts them in the upper 10% of hockey-playing schools. Conversely, Arizona State is getting $0 because all of its rev share money is going to football and basketball.

All of that is also in my Special Report, which I know you read.

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument. But you're responding to a chart that shows that, at PSU, football makes a ton of money, basketball breaks even, and every other sport, including hockey, loses a ton of money. Remove football from the equation and the athletic department is massively in the red. So why then are you saying that, "if a school has no football team at all, and hockey is important to that school, it leaves a bunch of money left over for the hockey program?" That's not what this chart shows at all! Sure, are there some special unicorn schools out there for which that's true. Probably North Dakota, uhh Denver hockey probably barely breaks even so I'll give you that one too. But that's not what this graphic shows.

Obvious caveats being this graphic is specifically for PSU and the accountant could have messed with the numbers. However, these numbers are similar to almost every state school's numbers that I've ever looked at.

Asked around - and here's the consensus on why pretty much everyone in hockey believes non-football schools are easier.

Yes - football makes the most revenue and funds the whole department
Yes - football also has the most expenses, and now needs to pay its plays $18 million or so ... so football is a beast that needs to keep getting fed
The belief - and this has been told to me directly by Denver's AD, as well - is that it's easier to manage raising new money for your elite hockey program, when football is not an issue.

In other words - if efforts are being made to raise more money for the department, they're going to the football team first. Without that in the way, any new fundraising efforts can be focused on hockey.

But this does not mean the athletic department has magical leftover revenue to blow. In either case - with or without football - teams need to raise new funds. It's just easier without football.

Any every hockey program is desperately raising funds. Denver has $500k+ to deal with each year, and gets massive institutional support. Then there's a team like New Hampshire, which basically gets no support from the administration and has to raise its own funds and hope for the best - every year.

And there's a lot of other schools in between.  But all are raising $$ for the purpose of paying players.

One coach said "it's easier for donors to spend money on a player, than to say it's for skates"

Then again, I had someone else say - some donors like the certainty of just funding the team's expenses, rather than a player who may bomb out or leave.

[stereax]

Then again, I had someone else say - some donors like the certainty of just funding the team's expenses, rather than a player who may bomb out or leave.

imagine if someone like BL dropped cash on cournoyer and then he hopped... 😂

[BearLover]

I encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098


BL vindicated again.

[adamw]

I encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098


BL vindicated again.

David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.

And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.

Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.

[BearLover]

I encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098


BL vindicated again.

David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.

And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.

Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.

So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?

[adamw]

I encourage everyone to listen to the David Carle interview on the latest Spittin' Chiclets podcast. He eloquently breaks down how paying college players works, and then gives more insight into his own program's situation than I have ever heard a coach say publicly. He says: this season Denver players earned $0 from NIL collectives and $0 from revenue sharing. He is trying to grow the revenue sharing number in the future, but this year it was a complete non-factor.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spittin-chiclets-episode-637-featuring-david-carle/id1112425552?i=1000761237098


BL vindicated again.

David Carle is 100% full of sh** - OK maybe 99% - he's playing creative word games.

And I know this from the horse's mouth. I really can't say more than this - sorry.

Right now, within college hockey circles, we are all mocking David's media campaign, including his fellow coaches.

So he's lying through his teeth publicly and telling you something completely different privately?

OK - allow me to be more specific in my language ...

He's not the horse I'm referring to. So ...

Now - he's being very precise with language. LAST YEAR, Denver didn't give NIL (which they can't even do directly) or rev share per se.  However, every player is getting Alston money, and Denver has the highest Cost of Attendance in the NCHC. Both of which are fully covered.  That's hundreds of thousands of dollars right there.  In addition, every Denver player was promised to be "taken care of" going forward as the school ramps up its rev share machine.

Denver has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for rev share, to be distributed annually. Denver just beat out Michigan for a 1st Rounder recruit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegehockey/comments/1salui9/projected_first_round_pick_ryan_lin_commits_to_du/

There is ZERO chance in hell that kid isn't getting 50,000 to 100,000 in rev share money.  Denver is also in the mix right now for Landon Dupont ... potential 1st overall pick ... again, reported to be competing with Michigan ...

https://www.nhl.com/news/landon-dupont-at-the-very-top-of-2027-draft-class-scouts-say

Again - that ain't happenin' without rev share money.

I literally know - for a fact - the money that Denver is raising for rev share. Are they doing this for sh**s and giggles?

Like I said - the landscape is changing fast.  Throw out anything before 2024 as an indicator of anything going forward.  How many Ivy League players transfer or don't, etc... whatever - none of it matters before the last year. Denver built itself up by doing a lot of things the right way and having a great coaching staff.  They should get massive amount of credit for that.  But to suggest it won't be a player in the rev share game going forward is utterly laughable and disingenuous.

Cornell was on even ground with Denver a couple years ago. Cornell is one of just two teams to defeat Denver in the NCAA Tournament.  Now look what happened this year.  This is just a microcosm.  It's going to get harder and harder and harder to the point of being impossible going forward for these great ECAC teams going forward to keep up. Even most Hockey East teams It already is.

[Trotsky]

The House v. NCAA settlement allows participating institutions across the country to directly pay student-athletes, as follows.

Each year, schools can distribute up to 22% of the average revenue among schools in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC from media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships – known as the revenue sharing cap.

The cap for the 2025-26 academic year is $20.5 million per school. With a few potential exceptions, the cap will then increase 4% the following two years and will be re-evaluated every three years over the duration of the 10-year settlement period.

Now I assume that means the $20.5M is for every participating school.  So for example Denver, a NCHC non-power conference team, has the same budget to throw around.  AFAIK Denver doesn't even have a football team, so the lion's share of that take can go to other sports, chief among them hockey (and, I dunno, alpine skiing?).

So to get in on the same action we have 2 huge obstacles.

(1) The Ivy prohibition on participation in revenue sharing.  This is the same old con of shoring up the (rapidly eroding) Ivy brand by creating distance between athletics and academics.  In principle, laudable.  In practice, deeply cynical bordering on criminal.  The first thing to do is to get rid of the Invisible Sky Daddy of no athletic scholarships and no revenue sharing.

So let's say a miracle occurs and we do that.  I dunno, maybe for once the STEMmies will be a force for good rather than an anti-intellectual profanation and they can help break open that rotting elitist tree stump and flame thrower the old money-worshipping cockroaches that scurry out.  On now to the other problem.

(2) Cornell football.  A.k.a. old assholes still grasping life around the throat, suffocating all who come after, terrified of going into that dark night (cf. housing, capitalism, ethics, etc...).  If hockey has to compete with lacrosse for assets, so be it.  The lax community has its own severe moral problems but at least the team is relevant.  Football OTOH is so obsolete it may as well be Mayan handball.  It doesn't need to die, but it cannot be permitted to vaccuum up assets that could be used to help the relevant teams.  So the second thing to do is castrate the football lobby.  Fortunately, Father Time is already on the case.

Will either thing ever happen?  Well, a lot has happened the last decade I'd have called impossible, so who knows?  Thank you for your attention to this matter.