Opponents and other news and results 2026-2027

[Dafatone]

While it's highly plausible protocols weren't followed, as far as I can tell every insinuation they were not followed has come from the Mayich family attorney? So I don't understand why people are jumping to conclusions (on both sides) and declaring "heads must roll," "the coach must be fired," "this is a common workout and nothing was handled incorrectly." Why don't people wait for the facts to come out in a neutral forum? Way too much conjecture going on here. Firing a bunch of people or canceling the season is not going to bring this poor kid back and it isn't going to stop the family's grieving.

On the other hand, prison.

[Dafatone]

While it's highly plausible protocols weren't followed, as far as I can tell every insinuation they were not followed has come from the Mayich family attorney? So I don't understand why people are jumping to conclusions (on both sides) and declaring "heads must roll," "the coach must be fired," "this is a common workout and nothing was handled incorrectly." Why don't people wait for the facts to come out in a neutral forum? Way too much conjecture going on here. Firing a bunch of people or canceling the season is not going to bring this poor kid back and it isn't going to stop the family's grieving.

On the other hand, prison.

To be clear, BL is right that we will need all the facts. Just, what is currently alleged is criminal bad.

[The Rancor]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source. Coach: Fired, if not worse. Training Staff: Fired, if not worse. Athletes shouldn't lose their season, but they are about to, if they can't get a coach ASAP. Schaefer?

[Iceberg]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source. Coach: Fired, if not worse. Training Staff: Fired, if not worse. Athletes shouldn't lose their season, but they are about to, if they can't get a coach ASAP. Schaefer?

I can't see certain people in the coaching staff, athletics, or even certain back office university roles (e.g. compliance, procurement) keeping their jobs after this. There seem to be failures on many fronts

[BearLover]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source.

Try again.

From the CHN article on its front page:

"A report Tuesday in the Arizona Republic said that Timothy Ziesel, the Green Beret who led the workout, was not properly approved by the school, as is required by school policy. According to CHN sources, that's inaccurate. They say that though a contract was not signed, his appearance was approved."

"School policy calls for at least seven days of acclimation, and Carey said Mayich only had five, though that has been refuted by sources who say he had eight.

According to multiple sources close to the ASU program, there is evidence to refute the allegations from the Mayich family lawyer, and numerous current and former players who want to speak."

[adamw]

Wrote the part 2 of the small schools competing. Yes you definitely need money to retain players consistently. For RPI, Cornell, and the other Ivies, they probably have to lean into the academic reputation and recruiting good students who care about their education to have their roster retention without being able to pay players directly

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/how-the-new-ncaa-landscape-changes

Thanks for this piece. I have a couple quibbles/questions:
1. You mention the "going rate" for first round picks is 75-100K. While I could see this being the case for transfers or CHL kids who commit at the very last second after they've already been drafted or are surefire first-rounders, this wouldn't apply to most blue-chippers who commit at age 16 or so. Unless those kids are shaking down their programs before matriculating or the program is promising 16-year-olds 75-100K, I doubt such kids are getting this much, even the ones who turn out to be first rounders.

Landon Dupont getting $175 to $200k or so ... whether you want to believe it or not.

[adamw]

More on the ASU - Matthew Mayich situation: No Contract, No Vetting (paywall)

heads need to roll. as per adam, asu is going to hold their season, but holy shit heads need to roll for the disregard to policy. especially because it led to a kid who's, from my understanding, basically dead.

Also per my most recent article, there are numerous people close to the program who refute all of this. I can't say who ... yet. Still working on it.

Note: No one should take any of this to mean I am stating my opinion either way. If ASU effed up, I'll be the first to say so. I am just trying to figure out facts as best I can. My only opinion is that I don't believe any conclusions can yet be made. Which won't stop the Internet mob from doing so.

[adamw]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source.

Try again.

From the CHN article on its front page:

"A report Tuesday in the Arizona Republic said that Timothy Ziesel, the Green Beret who led the workout, was not properly approved by the school, as is required by school policy. According to CHN sources, that's inaccurate. They say that though a contract was not signed, his appearance was approved."

"School policy calls for at least seven days of acclimation, and Carey said Mayich only had five, though that has been refuted by sources who say he had eight.

According to multiple sources close to the ASU program, there is evidence to refute the allegations from the Mayich family lawyer, and numerous current and former players who want to speak."

Bro - don't quote my articles when you agree, but then refuse to believe how much players are getting paid.

Pick a lane.

[Trotsky]

On the other hand, prison.

#nopolitics

[BearLover]

Wrote the part 2 of the small schools competing. Yes you definitely need money to retain players consistently. For RPI, Cornell, and the other Ivies, they probably have to lean into the academic reputation and recruiting good students who care about their education to have their roster retention without being able to pay players directly

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/how-the-new-ncaa-landscape-changes

Thanks for this piece. I have a couple quibbles/questions:
1. You mention the "going rate" for first round picks is 75-100K. While I could see this being the case for transfers or CHL kids who commit at the very last second after they've already been drafted or are surefire first-rounders, this wouldn't apply to most blue-chippers who commit at age 16 or so. Unless those kids are shaking down their programs before matriculating or the program is promising 16-year-olds 75-100K, I doubt such kids are getting this much, even the ones who turn out to be first rounders.

Landon Dupont getting $175 to $200k or so ... whether you want to believe it or not.

Umm...okay? What's this supposed to be in response to? He committed a few months ago so he's not in the category I'm referencing about kids who commit years before they matriculate. He's also the consensus #1 overall pick in next year's draft so yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if someone like that is the highest paid player in college hockey.

[setting aside that afaik nobody knows how Canadian kids are allowed to get paid by colleges and setting aside you haven't given any details about what 175-200k means and whether that includes tuition or whether that's just for his freshman year]

[BearLover]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source.

Try again.

From the CHN article on its front page:

"A report Tuesday in the Arizona Republic said that Timothy Ziesel, the Green Beret who led the workout, was not properly approved by the school, as is required by school policy. According to CHN sources, that's inaccurate. They say that though a contract was not signed, his appearance was approved."

"School policy calls for at least seven days of acclimation, and Carey said Mayich only had five, though that has been refuted by sources who say he had eight.

According to multiple sources close to the ASU program, there is evidence to refute the allegations from the Mayich family lawyer, and numerous current and former players who want to speak."

Bro - don't quote my articles when you agree, but then refuse to believe how much players are getting paid.

Pick a lane.

The difference between the two situations is that in one case you make a fairly precise statement and it's clear who your sources are (someone associated with the hockey program and/or university), and in the other situation the statement is vague and you do not give any indication of who your source is or even what type of source it is (a coach, an agent, someone associated with the program...). Moreover, my whole point here is that there are conflicting statements being given by two sides in an adversarial matter (the family lawyer versus the university/hockey program), neither of whom is unbiased, and so we should wait for the facts.

I'm also not sure why you feel compelled to relitigate this in the middle of an unrelated topic.

[sezenack]

Wrote the part 2 of the small schools competing. Yes you definitely need money to retain players consistently. For RPI, Cornell, and the other Ivies, they probably have to lean into the academic reputation and recruiting good students who care about their education to have their roster retention without being able to pay players directly

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/how-the-new-ncaa-landscape-changes

Thanks for this piece. I have a couple quibbles/questions:
1. You mention the "going rate" for first round picks is 75-100K. While I could see this being the case for transfers or CHL kids who commit at the very last second after they've already been drafted or are surefire first-rounders, this wouldn't apply to most blue-chippers who commit at age 16 or so. Unless those kids are shaking down their programs before matriculating or the program is promising 16-year-olds 75-100K, I doubt such kids are getting this much, even the ones who turn out to be first rounders.
2. You mention an overall budget of $250K can "keep you competitive." Unless the plan is to use that $250K to fight over your own kids trying to leave through the portal or to steal other teams' top players from the portal, I would question whether $250K actually goes very far--that's less than $10K per player, and probably quite a bit less after taxes. And even if you are using the $250K on just a few players, I question the effect on team camaraderie. If a kid wants to leave, is it really worth bribing him to stay? Or having a couple kids making way more than everyone else?

I can't really comment on how 16 year olds get recruited since my knowledge is lacking there, but I'm sure the top ones still end up getting quite a bit of money once they actually make it to campus even if they weren't promised anything initially.

This is a good question. Not every player needs to get paid. The part that I mentioned in the recruiting section for a small school also basically applies here. There's enough talent out there now that most players don't need to get paid extra beyond the normal scholarship money. Most players in the lineup don't need to get paid anything. If a third liner tried to demand money, the coach would just let him walk because he's so easily replaceable. That $250K would likely just get split between the top 5-10 players that the program wants to stop from entering the portal. For the second part of this, it may be bad for camaraderie, but I think it is worth it to "bribe" the kid to stay. I would disagree with the term "bribery" because it implies a level of corruption or a lack of morality. As I said in the article, these players are mostly never going to have long-term lucrative pro careers, so it's hard to turn down getting paid to play. For the hockey part of it, if they don't get him to stay, then the small school has to try to find a player at a big school who entered the portal because he wasn't getting ice time, and HOPE he can replace the guy who left on the top line. If there's multiple players in that position who left, I'd imagine the odds of going 3/3 or 4/4 on that are not too good. Keeping the proven commodity is definitely better and leaves out that uncertainty.

[BearLover]

Wrote the part 2 of the small schools competing. Yes you definitely need money to retain players consistently. For RPI, Cornell, and the other Ivies, they probably have to lean into the academic reputation and recruiting good students who care about their education to have their roster retention without being able to pay players directly

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/how-the-new-ncaa-landscape-changes

Thanks for this piece. I have a couple quibbles/questions:
1. You mention the "going rate" for first round picks is 75-100K. While I could see this being the case for transfers or CHL kids who commit at the very last second after they've already been drafted or are surefire first-rounders, this wouldn't apply to most blue-chippers who commit at age 16 or so. Unless those kids are shaking down their programs before matriculating or the program is promising 16-year-olds 75-100K, I doubt such kids are getting this much, even the ones who turn out to be first rounders.
2. You mention an overall budget of $250K can "keep you competitive." Unless the plan is to use that $250K to fight over your own kids trying to leave through the portal or to steal other teams' top players from the portal, I would question whether $250K actually goes very far--that's less than $10K per player, and probably quite a bit less after taxes. And even if you are using the $250K on just a few players, I question the effect on team camaraderie. If a kid wants to leave, is it really worth bribing him to stay? Or having a couple kids making way more than everyone else?

I can't really comment on how 16 year olds get recruited since my knowledge is lacking there, but I'm sure the top ones still end up getting quite a bit of money once they actually make it to campus even if they weren't promised anything initially.

This is a good question. Not every player needs to get paid. The part that I mentioned in the recruiting section for a small school also basically applies here. There's enough talent out there now that most players don't need to get paid extra beyond the normal scholarship money. Most players in the lineup don't need to get paid anything. If a third liner tried to demand money, the coach would just let him walk because he's so easily replaceable. That $250K would likely just get split between the top 5-10 players that the program wants to stop from entering the portal. For the second part of this, it may be bad for camaraderie, but I think it is worth it to "bribe" the kid to stay. I would disagree with the term "bribery" because it implies a level of corruption or a lack of morality. As I said in the article, these players are mostly never going to have long-term lucrative pro careers, so it's hard to turn down getting paid to play. For the hockey part of it, if they don't get him to stay, then the small school has to try to find a player at a big school who entered the portal because he wasn't getting ice time, and HOPE he can replace the guy who left on the top line. If there's multiple players in that position who left, I'd imagine the odds of going 3/3 or 4/4 on that are not too good. Keeping the proven commodity is definitely better and leaves out that uncertainty.

"Bribe" is a strong term but I really do think it's problematic for a program to be in the business of paying players to stick around after they've already informed the program they're looking to leave for a payday elsewhere. First, you're committing to a guy who already told you he wants to ditch the program; do you really want a guy on the team who wants to leave? Second, doing things on such an ad hoc basis leads to unpredictability and sets a precedent that any good player on the roster can shake down the program at the end of the season. Third, it doesn't strike me as positive locker room culture when you have 1-5 players making 50k and everyone else making next to nothing. Fourth, it's humiliating! The kid already told you he doesn't want to be here!

Can you imagine Ben Robertson coming into Mike Schafer's office in April 2025 to inform his coach he's planning to transfer, and Schafer telling Robertson that Cornell can put together 50K to entice him to stay? No chance! Schafer, and I believe Casey as well, would tell Robertson to kick rocks; they want players who want to be here.

I'll admit that because almost nobody transfers out of the Ivies, I believe we are in a privileged position where we aren't in constant danger of a bunch of players leaving all of a sudden. But I certainly would not want Cornell to run its program this way (even if it could offer players money). 

[Dafatone]

Wrote the part 2 of the small schools competing. Yes you definitely need money to retain players consistently. For RPI, Cornell, and the other Ivies, they probably have to lean into the academic reputation and recruiting good students who care about their education to have their roster retention without being able to pay players directly

https://www.rpifieldhouse.com/p/how-the-new-ncaa-landscape-changes

Thanks for this piece. I have a couple quibbles/questions:
1. You mention the "going rate" for first round picks is 75-100K. While I could see this being the case for transfers or CHL kids who commit at the very last second after they've already been drafted or are surefire first-rounders, this wouldn't apply to most blue-chippers who commit at age 16 or so. Unless those kids are shaking down their programs before matriculating or the program is promising 16-year-olds 75-100K, I doubt such kids are getting this much, even the ones who turn out to be first rounders.

Landon Dupont getting $175 to $200k or so ... whether you want to believe it or not.

Umm...okay? What's this supposed to be in response to? He committed a few months ago so he's not in the category I'm referencing about kids who commit years before they matriculate. He's also the consensus #1 overall pick in next year's draft so yeah, I wouldn't be shocked if someone like that is the highest paid player in college hockey.

[setting aside that afaik nobody knows how Canadian kids are allowed to get paid by colleges and setting aside you haven't given any details about what 175-200k means and whether that includes tuition or whether that's just for his freshman year]

Couldn't players who wind up high draft picks after committing to a college at 16 just decommit and seek payment, or tell the school they committed to "it's $100k (or whatever) or I bail?"

[adamw]

The guy the coach brought in to run these workouts was, according to his own lawyer's statement, not vetted or contracted by the University or Athletic Department- it's in the article. That is a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't put in an ice bath, also  a direct violation of protocol. He wasn't acclimated for the time laid out by the protocol. WTF else is there? BL as always, just asking questions that are clearly answered in a legitimate news source.

Try again.

From the CHN article on its front page:

"A report Tuesday in the Arizona Republic said that Timothy Ziesel, the Green Beret who led the workout, was not properly approved by the school, as is required by school policy. According to CHN sources, that's inaccurate. They say that though a contract was not signed, his appearance was approved."

"School policy calls for at least seven days of acclimation, and Carey said Mayich only had five, though that has been refuted by sources who say he had eight.

According to multiple sources close to the ASU program, there is evidence to refute the allegations from the Mayich family lawyer, and numerous current and former players who want to speak."

Bro - don't quote my articles when you agree, but then refuse to believe how much players are getting paid.

Pick a lane.

The difference between the two situations is that in one case you make a fairly precise statement and it's clear who your sources are (someone associated with the hockey program and/or university), and in the other situation the statement is vague and you do not give any indication of who your source is or even what type of source it is (a coach, an agent, someone associated with the program...). Moreover, my whole point here is that there are conflicting statements being given by two sides in an adversarial matter (the family lawyer versus the university/hockey program), neither of whom is unbiased, and so we should wait for the facts.

There is no difference. I have stated who my sources are. All of the above. You've just chosen to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Zenack's piece you cited was about the going rate for first rounders being $100k ... I pointed out Dupont getting upwards of $200k.  Yes, I know he's the possible No. 1 overall. The point is, that's the high end - but that $100k for a "mid to bottom" first rounder is indeed the going rate, as evidenced by $200k being the top - and as evidenced by every coach I've spoken to who has told me as such.