NCAA ruling impact on hockey

Not an expert on this at all, can anyone here speak to how this impending settlement and new
landscape of collegiate athletics may impact NCAA hockey in general and our hockey program in
particular?

There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all. The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Still won't be able to pay Canadian players until other things change.

Trotsky
There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all. The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn’t football or basketball.

Our hope is that schools pay football and basketball players, but not hockey players. Otherwise, outlook appears to be pretty doomy. I’m hopeful the money is concentrated in football and basketball though. The gap should widen even further between Cornell and the Big 10/BC if those schools start paying players.

BearLover

Trotsky
There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all. The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn’t football or basketball.

There are different forms of payment.

Taxable?

Trotsky

BearLover

Trotsky
There's been a big debate on USCHO which appears to come down to two positions:

1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! The 2036 Frozen Four will be SEC vs Big 10.

2. No effect at all. The factory schools have always paid players under the table; now it will just be taxable.

Seems very unlikely that the factory schools havre been paying players under the table to any significant degree. Hockey isn’t football or basketball.

There are different forms of payment.

Taxable?

Even so, now the players will be getting paid on top of whatever other “benefits” they were previously receiving.

BearLover
Our hope is that schools pay football and basketball players, but not hockey players. Otherwise, outlook appears to be pretty doomy. I’m hopeful the money is concentrated in football and basketball though. The gap should widen even further between Cornell and the Big 10/BC if those schools start paying players.

My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues. Perhaps I'm woefully mistaken, but I don't think people are really clamoring for college football, in particular, to be an NFL Lite completely divorced from educational contexts. They've been fed that over the last couple of decades, but I hope this move represents a bridge too far. My interest has been falling off in the last few seasons: when they stopped telling us anecdotes about what classes the right guard was taking, you knew the jig was up. It's fakery.

In a "right-sized" world for college athletics, college football would become quite enjoyable again. I want kids who have no interest in getting a degree to have someplace to go, and I want kids who are interested in getting a degree while playing ball to have someplace to go. You know, like hockey. (I'm also of the opinion that there is way too little money in college hockey to make paying players [beyond the level already that we have with scholarships] make any sense.)

College basketball? 1) Who cares? 2) Probably going to become NBA Lite.

Scersk '97
My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues.

This, but how can it? TV advertising has been driving an upwards spiral. The spiral will now also include paying the people who make it all possible. The thing that destroyed college football and basketball was all the money sloshing around from TV. Given the fact of the money, the only people who should get paid are the players.

I think it is actually more likely the factory schools will just come clean, essentially admit their football and basketball players have never been students, and just run those programs as a revenue generating business the way they run the real estate empires. Separate the 64-ish power conference teams into an overt professional league that commands the TV rates. Return the rest of college athletics to, roughly, 1940. Collapse the D1/2/3 distinction among the remainder and have them compete for all the traditional college bowls and tournies. Sever those pro programs from the Title IX rules as they are net revenue generators, not net resource investments, and so they don't represent a lack of opportunity for women being driven by the university. (Who knows, women's hoops may be on its way to being the third overt pro league).

In short, end the open secret everyone has always known and stop pretending factory athletes in those sports are students.

Trotsky

Scersk '97
My hope is that the whole system collapses under the weight of having to turn a profit, forcing football and basketball to start legitimate developmental leagues.

This, but how can it? TV advertising has been driving an upwards spiral. The spiral will now also include paying the people who make it all possible. The thing that destroyed college football and basketball was all the money sloshing around from TV. Given the fact of the money, the only people who should get paid are the players.

I think it is actually more likely the factory schools will just come clean, essentially admit their football and basketball players have never been students, and just run those programs as a revenue generating business the way they run the real estate empires. Separate the 64-ish power conference teams into an overt professional league that commands the TV rates. Return the rest of college athletics to, roughly, 1940. Collapse the D1/2/3 distinction among the remainder and have them compete for all the traditional college bowls and tournies. Sever those pro programs from the Title IX rules as they are net revenue generators, not net resource investments, and so they don't represent a lack of opportunity for women being driven by the university. (Who knows, women's hoops may be on its way to being the third overt pro league).

In short, end the open secret everyone has always known and stop pretending factory athletes in those sports are students.

I would like to know what will happen when a bunch of Kentucky basketball players making $300K a year play against a bunch of dudes on Wichita State making $0. Are fans going to accept this? One could argue that this is already effectively happening under the current NIL model, but it being out in the open under the new system may make the uneven playing field impossible to ignore.

As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air. I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.

Unless you can count booster money as revenue, don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

abmarks
As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air. I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.

Unless you can count booster money as revenue, don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren’t profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

BearLover

abmarks
As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air. I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.

Unless you can count booster money as revenue, don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren’t profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

Red state universities don't need libraries. That's where those seditious books are kept, anyway.

Trotsky

BearLover

abmarks
As i understand It, the payments are to come from revenues.

Unless schools can boost their revenues, if they pay any of the athletes, they're going to be having to cut back somewhere else. The money doesn't come from thin air. I haven't seen anything that mentioned the revenues definition, like whether booster funds would be considered revenues.

Unless you can count booster money as revenue, don't see how schools would be able to increase revenues enough to cover direct payments to the athletes without having to cut budget dollars from somewhere else in the athletic department.

If Kentucky wants to give a million bucks to their basketball team, what are they cutting to find that million?

Kentucky currently spends an ungodly amount of money on their coaches, recruiting, facilities, etc. They could easily reallocate millions to the players. Or they could cut sports that aren’t profitable (which is all of them, aside from football and basketball), and pay the players with the money they save.

Red state universities don't need libraries. That's where those seditious books are kept, anyway.

Or Sociology departments. Or non-Western history.

Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

Troyfan
Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

You're saying, It's the system?

billhoward

Troyfan
Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

You're saying, It's the system?

I think what he is saying is that some of the money spent on hockey at the schools with major basketball or football programs will now be diverted from hockey to pay football or basketball players.

marty

billhoward

Troyfan
Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

You're saying, It's the system?

I think what he is saying is that some of the money spent on hockey at the schools with major basketball or football programs will now be diverted from hockey to pay football or basketball players.

We're premature on a number of assumptions. Alot of people are assuming revenue is a single school level bucket.

This plan has been described as a revenue sharing model... isn't it possible that the revenue share could be defined as sport-specific?

That would be the most straightforward and honest approach. There's absolutely no reason that players on the highest revenue/profit teams should.be paid the same as the athletes on the lowest revenue/biggest operating loss teams.

BearLover

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

[apnews.com]

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally. Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams. Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up. If not outright rebellions among the alumni.

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison. They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat. But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Troyfan

BearLover

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

[apnews.com]

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally. Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams. Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up. If not outright rebellions among the alumni.

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison. They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat. But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

BearLover

Troyfan

BearLover

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

[apnews.com]

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally. Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams. Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up. If not outright rebellions among the alumni.

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison. They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat. But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

RichH

BearLover

Troyfan

BearLover

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

[apnews.com]

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally. Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams. Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up. If not outright rebellions among the alumni.

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison. They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat. But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

It’s possible…but most of the hockey funds at those schools come from a couple of rich donors. I’d guess not much more than a tiny sliver of athletics funds at these schools are being allocated to hockey as-is. So I don’t really think there’s much that can get re-allocated towards football and basketball. With that said, UMass and UConn are interesting cases because they do NOT enjoy the massive television deals the other schools listed here do. You could make an argument that non-power 5 schools who still play D-1 football and/or basketball stand to lose the most here. Because they have to spend to compete in basketball/football, but they don’t have the money of Notre Dame/Wisco/UMich to do so. In these cases, the non-revenue sports like hockey could actually suffer.

BearLover

RichH

BearLover

Troyfan

BearLover

Troyfan
Cutting sports that aren't profitable might prove to be a backdoor benefit for Cornell. The $$$ to compete in football and basketball might get to be so huge that programs like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin will be forced to choose between them and minor sports. Even schools like Minnesota-Duluth and Denver might get squeezed.

Women's sports will have to be reckoned with, too. It's one thing for the WNBA to pay pennies on the NBA dollar, quite a different one for the NCAA. Women are almost certain to be in line ahead of the minor sports.

There isn't that much money to be made in hockey at the highest level and it is the highest levels that will drive college athletics from Notre Dame all the way to Colgate.

Cornell benefiting from just being in the right place doesn't seem that unlikely.

I’m confused by this post. Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin/Notre Dame will be forced to choose between football/basketball and non-revenue sports like hockey. But that’s because they’re the schools who actually have money to allocate in the first place. Other schools like Duluth/Denver/Colgate/Cornell probably won’t have a choice to make at all, because they don’t have that kind of money. For these schools I anticipate the only real option is business-as-usual.

[apnews.com]

AP speculates scholarship limits and roster sizes might go by the board also.

What I meant was that football and basketball are decisive, generally. Donations, TV, ticket sales from these eclipse whatever trickles in from hockey, lacrosse, womens' teams. Schools will have to pay big to stay competitive or see the dollars dry up. If not outright rebellions among the alumni.

What goes on at Michigan hockey, or Wisconin, etc., is a footnote by comparison. They can disappear without anyone noticing.

Colgate, Clarkson, BU, etc., stand to benefit. Those teams will always be a threat. But our most dangerous competitors might have ceded the battlefield.

Hockey is beloved at Michigan and Wisconsin, though. These programs already cost comparatively little to football and basketball (no exorbitant coaching salaries/NIL) and I doubt these schools would ever cut costs there.

Better examples would be Penn St, (la)OSU, Notre Dame, ASU, UMass, UConn

It’s possible…but most of the hockey funds at those schools come from a couple of rich donors. I’d guess not much more than a tiny sliver of athletics funds at these schools are being allocated to hockey as-is. So I don’t really think there’s much that can get re-allocated towards football and basketball. With that said, UMass and UConn are interesting cases because they do NOT enjoy the massive television deals the other schools listed here do. You could make an argument that non-power 5 schools who still play D-1 football and/or basketball stand to lose the most here. Because they have to spend to compete in basketball/football, but they don’t have the money of Notre Dame/Wisco/UMich to do so. In these cases, the non-revenue sports like hockey could actually suffer.

Yeah, but we haven't seen the end of realignment, which has seen such oddities as Stanford joining the ACC. Both UMass & UConn are adjacent to major TV markets. So, we could see them leaving the A10 & Big East to join, say, the Big 12 Conference. This might be synergistic: UM & UC qualify for potentially big-money football, and the B14 has a potentially lucrative TV market in the northeast.

As expensive as they are in outlays, factory schools' football and basketball more than make up for it with TV revenue, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So it isn't as if Alabama has to cut tennis to support football. They invest in football to reap the revenue windfall of TV to pay for tennis.

The racket will now get less profitable since they have to pay for labor (funny how history repeats for Alabama), but they'll still be rolling in it. The schools that don't kick in for power memberships to get the spoils will be shut out of the best athletes in football and basketball, just as they are now.

In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now. Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now. There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

The Ivies will no doubt make a big show of purity and appear to cut their own dicks off for sniff academic integrity, but, again, no different from now.

Trotsky
In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now. Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now. There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
don’t think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn’t a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don’t do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn’t be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he’d get paid.

BearLover

Trotsky
In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now. Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now. There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
don’t think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn’t a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don’t do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn’t be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he’d get paid.

The data that’s out there suggests that like 90% of NIL collective money across all DI schools goes to football and men’s basketball. Of the remaining 10% a big chunk goes to female athletes in gymnastics, softball and basketball. There just aren’t a lot of people interested in paying hockey players.

If hockey players want money they get paid and go play in the minors and take the signing bonus now for the most part.

upprdeck
If hockey players want money they get paid and go play in the minors and take the signing bonus now for the most part.

This is the scary part. It’s the one thing that separates hockey from most of the other non-revenue sports: outside monetary pressure from a professional league. While under the current rules a school doesn’t have much of an option when its player is weighing taking the money of a pro deal, now a school can offer that player money to narrow the pay difference between pro and college. For example, if Will Smith (who just left BC for the NHL) were getting paid $150K a year, surely that complicates his decision.

While other sports like lacrosse, wrestling, softball, etc. don’t have a lucrative pro league to put pressure on colleges to pony up, hockey does. That’s the one thing that sets hockey apart from the other non-revenue sports and which may lead to significant money coming into college hockey.

BearLover

Trotsky
In hockey I don't think there will be a big difference from now. Minnesota and Michigan will be able to pay their players ahem I mean students, but that's probably no different from now. There may be bidding wars for the very best, but those guys were going to distribute among the same schools anyway.

That would be a difference from now, though. I
don’t think NCAA hockey players are being paid almost anything at all at the moment. Even the best ones. There just isn’t a market for that like there is in football or basketball. If Minnesota and Michigan start paying players, that would be bad, so we should hope they don’t do that. It would hurt Harvard more than us, since they compete for the same caliber of player as Minn/Mich, but it still wouldn’t be good when the 20th best player on Minn/Mich is better than our best player because he chose to go some place where he’d get paid.

The 20th best player on Mich/Minn isn't going to get paid enough to be a discriminator if he was coming here in the non-pay scenario. 1. Ivy cachet is still a going concern; witness the extremes we go to maintain it. 2. The 20th best player there is a 4th liner or doesn't even start, whereas he is going to be a solid contributor with any Ivy and probably a first line starter at Princeton, Yale, or Brown.

The major payment a non-marquee factory player has received hitherto, besides the scholarship, is the ability to skate to his degree with no effort. That always existed, and it was valuable, since it allowed him to spend all his non-Francois Villon time learning his professional craft. That's still going to be the case.

If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don’t typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.

chimpfood
If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don’t typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.

The blue chip factory players may stay longer if they are getting paid. Hahvahd alums can pay their players and the school can't stop them.

So can ours, but I don't think any of us are hedge fund criminals.

Trotsky

chimpfood
If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don’t typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.

The blue chip factory players may stay longer if they are getting paid. Hahvahd alums can pay their players and the school can't stop them.

So can ours, but I don't think any of us are hedge fund criminals.

Harvard is not going to be paying its players.

BearLover

Trotsky

chimpfood
If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don’t typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.

The blue chip factory players may stay longer if they are getting paid. Hahvahd alums can pay their players and the school can't stop them.

So can ours, but I don't think any of us are hedge fund criminals.

Harvard is not going to be paying its players.

there is an interesting question from the Ivy league perspective. The league as a whole doesn't offer scholarships. Sure hyp have more financial aid available, but it's with no scholarships it's a fairly level playimg field.

I wonder what the league"s desired position is on NIL collectives paying players per the existing NCAA rules, what it's desired position will be on paying players via the revenue sharen model we've been reading about, and then what the lawyers will actually allow the league to do collectively.

Clearly so far it's been a non issue to collectively agree not to offer athletic scholarships.

I can see a few scenarios where the league would be legally required to pay players, like if college athletes end up legally classified as employees,.or if as NCAA members the schools.end up having to participate in that rev share model.

If either of those happen, then I could see trouble, because coming up with a one size fits all salary structure for the athletes might well be considered illegally collusive. And if so, then payment levels will vary by school and sport.

abmarks

BearLover

Trotsky

chimpfood
If anything this should help us no? I could see teams like Harvard struggle as the super talented players that they usually recruit will just go elsewhere but our team is always built around players staying all four years and those types of players don’t typically get recruited by many, if any, better colleges.

The blue chip factory players may stay longer if they are getting paid. Hahvahd alums can pay their players and the school can't stop them.

So can ours, but I don't think any of us are hedge fund criminals.

Harvard is not going to be paying its players.

there is an interesting question from the Ivy league perspective. The league as a whole doesn't offer scholarships. Sure hyp have more financial aid available, but it's with no scholarships it's a fairly level playimg field.

I wonder what the league"s desired position is on NIL collectives paying players per the existing NCAA rules, what it's desired position will be on paying players via the revenue sharen model we've been reading about, and then what the lawyers will actually allow the league to do collectively.

Clearly so far it's been a non issue to collectively agree not to offer athletic scholarships.

I can see a few scenarios where the league would be legally required to pay players, like if college athletes end up legally classified as employees,.or if as NCAA members the schools.end up having to participate in that rev share model.

If either of those happen, then I could see trouble, because coming up with a one size fits all salary structure for the athletes might well be considered illegally collusive. And if so, then payment levels will vary by school and sport.

Well, earlier this year the NLRB voted that members of Dartmouth's men's basketball team are indeed employees. And team members didn't even need athletic scholarships to qualify as employees.

If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

you still can pay Canadian players

upprdeck
you still can pay Canadian players

i assume this is a typo but ... can't

Yea can't sorry.

upprdeck
Yea can't sorry.

Instead of mackerel perhaps cases of Molson could work as script.