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... 😂