2025-02-01 at Clarkson

adamw
Do you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?

Umm, because you can’t share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.

adamw
Schools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.

Weren’t you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?

My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there’s almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.

BTW, I’m not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.

had we had the 26 rule this year we wouldnt have had a full team for some games

BearLover

adamw
Do you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?

Umm, because you can’t share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.

The point is that, the decision to not opt-in may be based on other factors besides signaling to the world that "we don't have enough revenue."

BearLover

adamw
Schools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.

Weren’t you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?

My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there’s almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.

BTW, I’m not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.

Denver has decided to opt in, by the way.

I don't disagree that it will have minimal impact on hockey. But it will definitely have some. I am only countering your contention that North Dakota's decision means anything in that regard. The fact that it's temporary is further evidence of this. The article also says that North Dakota (and Vermont, among others) will eventually opt in once the rules are settled.

It's still true that, because Denver doesn't have a football team to support, it can opt in, and use whatever portion of revenue share they want towards other things. There's no obligation to spend the $22 million if you opt in. Our article lays out the pros and cons. So, if they decide to spend $500,000/year on hockey to pay players, that's still significant. And it allows them to keep up with the Michigans of the world, who will probably spend that much on hockey, and $21.5 million on football and basketball (roughtly).

North Dakota will eventually do the same, or something similar, with hockey, whether it be added scholarships or whatever.

Again, merely trying to point out that North Dakota has plenty of resources for hockey, and they'll use it. The opt-out decision is not an indicator that contradicts that.

I think a school like Cornell will be OK, since most of its recruits are going there for reasons beyond hockey. A school like Clarkson - and probably moreso St. Lawrence - is up a creek, IMO. I don't say that happily -- for the sake of all the Clarkson fans you're forwarding my messages to. We'll see.

Roster size and scholie management will be interesting going forward

They can still split scholies so everyone can get full or partial or none

Cornell had like 29 kids last this year. That will go down to 26.

Denver only has 24 so they could go up and offer more scholies.

No scholie and less depth will hurt IVY schools

adamw

BearLover

adamw
Do you understand what opting in means? You are not obligated to revenue share if you opt in -- so why would opting in or not be a decision based upon the amount of revenue you have to share?

Umm, because you can’t share revenue unless you opt in?? If a team had revenue to share, and wanted to share it, and it outweighed the costs (roster limits), then they would opt in.

The point is that, the decision to not opt-in may be based on other factors besides signaling to the world that "we don't have enough revenue."

BearLover

adamw
Schools that don't have massive football programs, have no real incentive to opt-in. They are harming their student athlete population as a whole by doing so. If you opt-in, you have to cut players and you will be doling out fewer overall benefits.

Weren’t you saying a week ago that schools like Denver without massive football programs have a lot to gain under revenue sharing because, unlike e.g. Michigan, they can allocate much of the revenue to hockey?

My point is: the House settlement is unlikely to play a significant role in college hockey. This is because (1) those schools earning substantial revenue are the power 4 schools who are going to spend it on football/basketball and (2) the other schools are earning so little revenue that there’s almost nothing to be shared. It has been argued, including on CHN, that revenue sharing might help schools without big-time football programs, because the money can be allocated to hockey. It seems like now you are arguing the opposite: that there is no reason for such schools to opt into revenue sharing.

BTW, I’m not reading much into the reasons provided by the NoDak AD in this article or the Denver AD in your podcast. It was a good podcast, but ADs are only going to paint their own departments in the best light possible. So far, NoDak has opted out, and the Denver AD seemed very hesitant/noncommittal on the podcast. This suggests to me that, for these schools, the benefits of revenue sharing will barely, if at all, outweigh the downsides.

Denver has decided to opt in, by the way.

I don't disagree that it will have minimal impact on hockey. But it will definitely have some. I am only countering your contention that North Dakota's decision means anything in that regard. The fact that it's temporary is further evidence of this. The article also says that North Dakota (and Vermont, among others) will eventually opt in once the rules are settled.

It's still true that, because Denver doesn't have a football team to support, it can opt in, and use whatever portion of revenue share they want towards other things. There's no obligation to spend the $22 million if you opt in. Our article lays out the pros and cons. So, if they decide to spend $500,000/year on hockey to pay players, that's still significant. And it allows them to keep up with the Michigans of the world, who will probably spend that much on hockey, and $21.5 million on football and basketball (roughtly).

North Dakota will eventually do the same, or something similar, with hockey, whether it be added scholarships or whatever.

Again, merely trying to point out that North Dakota has plenty of resources for hockey, and they'll use it. The opt-out decision is not an indicator that contradicts that.

I think a school like Cornell will be OK, since most of its recruits are going there for reasons beyond hockey. A school like Clarkson - and probably moreso St. Lawrence - is up a creek, IMO. I don't say that happily -- for the sake of all the Clarkson fans you're forwarding my messages to. We'll see.

I ain’t talkin’ to no Clarkson fans. They’re reading the posts on this forum themselves.

$500,000 to men’s hockey per year would be a lot. It would move the needle. That’s almost $20,000 per player on the roster. I’d be surprised if the number were that high (I’d guess closer to $0), but yeah, that would change things. Simply paying for 8 more scholarships would almost amount to $500,000, so maybe that’s where this is headed: it won’t be the sharing of revenue that creates the haves and have-nots, but rather the fact that the haves have 26 scholarships to give out and the have-nots have 18. (Remember though, scholarships are subject to Title IX, so any school that increases men’s scholarships would have to commensurately increase women’s scholarships as well. This gets very expensive very quickly.)

At the end of the day, as far as I can tell, things look fine at Clarkson. They have a very good new coach and the CHL rule change seems to benefit them more than almost any other team (close proximity to Canada, the coach speaks French, and they don’t currently compete for blue-chippers so wider range of potential commits helps them). To the extent Clarkson is in danger, it seems to be the result of factors outside the hockey program—declining enrollment and slashing of funds in the university as a whole.

upprdeck
Roster size and scholie management will be interesting going forward

They can still split scholies so everyone can get full or partial or none

Cornell had like 29 kids last this year. That will go down to 26.

Denver only has 24 so they could go up and offer more scholies.

No scholie and less depth will hurt IVY schools

Cornell isn’t opting in, so they can have as many players on the roster as they want. (I think.)

I thought so too.. But I have not found one story that says thats true.

Also likely few writers understand the issue to know to find out.

I see someone on the lAX forum saying no limit

I see some on Volleyball forum saying optin/out does not change the limits

upprdeck
I thought so too.. But I have not found one story that says thats true.

Also likely few writers understand the issue to know to find out.

I see someone on the lAX forum saying no limit

I see some on Volleyball forum saying optin/out does not change the limits

The CHN article adamw posted says no roster limits if you don’t opt in

upprdeck
had we had the 26 rule this year we wouldnt have had a full team for some games

The 26 rule worries me tbh. I get why they do it, so programs don't hoard kids, but a "full" roster of 12+6+2 is 20. That's only 6 extras, 1 of which is almost assuredly a third goalie, so you can carry maybe 3 extra forwards and 2 extra defensemen and you're at 26 already. The average NHL team, for reference, used 34.25 players last year - while some of this can be chalked up to trades, longer seasons, and the like, you simply need injury replacements, especially at the collegiate level where playing through an injury can jeopardize a future career and potentially the rest of one's pain-free life. Plus, even one or two players having season-ending injuries can be catastrophic - never mind players who aren't healthy to start a season and are expected out for the year, like Devlin and Wallace. Will teams be forced into a situation where they either have to carry "dead weight" or cut players from the team?

Looks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.

BearLover
Looks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.

Re.clarkson and recruiting.


Clarkson's Houle is quoted:

We’ve relied on players from the USHL, BCHL and CCHL but we’re committed to finding the best players and we’ll concentrate our recruiting on the QMJHL, OHL and WHL,” said Jean-François Houle who left the Laval Rocket last summer to coach at his alma mater, Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y.

Read more at: [www.montrealgazette.com]

BearLover
Looks like Clarkson upgraded at coach since last season. Up 1-0 on Quinnipiac and still alive for first place in the ECAC.

It's amazing how with data from 1 (year) we can make sweeping statements.

By the way, now that Princeton beat Clarkson, taking away any chance, do we change positions?