I do suspect that the 3 B1G teams are a little more equal than the others in the conference, but is that enough so to control that kind of vote?@steve-mn that’s actually an extremely good point, especially with the B10 teams in the conference being the minority of the conference
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
As SUML points out, if you add 8 men's scholarships, you have to add 8 for the women too. What happens if the WCHA says they're going to put a lower limit on than the 26, if B1G goes with 26 for the men's teams? I'm sure that Minnesota/WisconSIN/OSU are maybe a little more than equal to the rest of the schools when it comes to decision-making in the WCHA, but, I wonder if it's enough to dictate how they're going to go.
Who needs who more? There's no way those three B1G schools are going to be dictated to.
If it winds up only being one or two conferences, that’s really not going to be that drastically different for the likes of Mankato who aren’t getting blue chippers and maybe push them down their recruit lists very slightly.
I do think it will be a much different scenario for a number of schools. The reality with college hockey is very few kids over the years ever receive full rides. Even many of the best kids didn't get full rides but a higher partial ride. It is kind of like managing a salary cap for the head coach. You figure out how much scholarship you can parse around to build your roster.
If you have 26 full rides to hand out in the future, you not only will be offering a full rides across the board but you will also have more scholarships to build with... which allows you to build meaningful depth advantages. That's a lot different than a school that mainly has to do partials and has less to work with in total.
Not to mention, a recruit is going to want to to go where he feels he has the best chance to win. Is that going to be at a program with the full array of 26 scholarships? Or the school who has 18 (and mostly partial rides)? I think we know the answer... The parity won't be what it is right now.
If it winds up only being one or two conferences, that’s really not going to be that drastically different for the likes of Mankato who aren’t getting blue chippers and maybe push them down their recruit lists very slightly.
I do think it will be a much different scenario for a number of schools. The reality with college hockey is very few kids over the years ever receive full rides. Even many of the best kids didn't get full rides but a higher partial ride. It is kind of like managing a salary cap for the head coach. You figure out how much scholarship you can parse around to build your roster.
If you have 26 full rides to hand out in the future, you not only will be offering a full rides across the board but you will also have more scholarships to build with... which allows you to build meaningful depth advantages. That's a lot different than a school that mainly has to do partials and has less to work with in total.
Not to mention, a recruit is going to want to to go where he feels he has the best chance to win. Is that going to be at a program with the full array of 26 scholarships? Or the school who has 18 (and mostly partial rides)? I think we know the answer... The parity won't be what it is right now.
guys also want to play. You don’t make the NHL sitting. On top of that, high end teams recruit very differently than the Mankato of the world. It will change the targets moreso than the end product UNLESS it is the majority of teams. A guy who’s looking at first line minutes at Mankato (and probably a full or close to full ride) isn’t coming MN to play 3rd/4th line and lose out on showcasing their abilities for .2 of a scholarship. When we’re getting to playing 4th line here versus there, that’s going to be a style in the type of guy coaches want and it’ll just be the guy who ends up at the U gets the fortune of having a full ride. Same way everyone clamors over all the draft picks on numerous rosters. But ad we’ve seen, with hockey there are tons of ways to win.
we’ll see how it shakes out, I just don’t see it drastically changing parity of the game other than possibly making some ADs look at their budgets and wonder where the future is when hockey is not a money maker
edit: now this is a very fair point if you’re meaning a transfer of power to all teams within a conference comparatively (ie even the lower tier teams in say the NCHC) away from the conferences who don’t do this. I just don’t see it changing a ton for a MN, BC, DU, Mich, UND compared with a Mankato than it already is
In most sports pro and college Minnesota is at a distinct disadvantage for different reasons in different sports that we all know so I wouldn't go into the specifics but now the one sport/level where we have an advantage that could grow in the future it's a bad thing?
Do Yankees fans care or feel bad that they have HUGE advantages over the Twins ever time they beat us including ending our season many times? HELL NO
But we are going to say it's bad when the shoe might be on the other foot?
I say take the breaks when ever you can get them when it comes to sports after all we get very few of them.
I certainly suspect you're correct, but, it's an interesting question how that scenario would play out for a sport like hockey, where you have schools that are in mixed divisions in a single sport conference but in larger conferences for other sports.As SUML points out, if you add 8 men's scholarships, you have to add 8 for the women too. What happens if the WCHA says they're going to put a lower limit on than the 26, if B1G goes with 26 for the men's teams? I'm sure that Minnesota/WisconSIN/OSU are maybe a little more than equal to the rest of the schools when it comes to decision-making in the WCHA, but, I wonder if it's enough to dictate how they're going to go.
Who needs who more? There's no way those three B1G schools are going to be dictated to.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
If it winds up only being one or two conferences, that’s really not going to be that drastically different for the likes of Mankato who aren’t getting blue chippers and maybe push them down their recruit lists very slightly.
I do think it will be a much different scenario for a number of schools. The reality with college hockey is very few kids over the years ever receive full rides. Even many of the best kids didn't get full rides but a higher partial ride. It is kind of like managing a salary cap for the head coach. You figure out how much scholarship you can parse around to build your roster.
If you have 26 full rides to hand out in the future, you not only will be offering a full rides across the board but you will also have more scholarships to build with... which allows you to build meaningful depth advantages. That's a lot different than a school that mainly has to do partials and has less to work with in total.
Not to mention, a recruit is going to want to to go where he feels he has the best chance to win. Is that going to be at a program with the full array of 26 scholarships? Or the school who has 18 (and mostly partial rides)? I think we know the answer... The parity won't be what it is right now.
guys also want to play. You don’t make the NHL sitting. On top of that, high end teams recruit very differently than the Mankato of the world. It will change the targets moreso than the end product UNLESS it is the majority of teams. A guy who’s looking at first line minutes at Mankato (and probably a full or close to full ride) isn’t coming MN to play 3rd/4th line and lose out on showcasing their abilities for .2 of a scholarship.
Under this new landscape MN won't have to offer partial scholarships anymore.
Keep in mind that the limits are exactly that-- limits. Nothing requires a school to spend to the limits, and I think few schools will actually spend to the limits in all sports-- at least initially. They don't have to offer full scholarships to everyone.
The scholarship component is a nice deal, but when combined with the ability to pay players on top of it AND offer NIL opportunities-- it is a HUGE advantage the B1G schools could offer over anyone else.
If anything the B1G will be the likely prime destination for the transfer portal-- have a successful year in the CCHA? Then maybe you secure a spot on a B1G team.
If it winds up only being one or two conferences, that’s really not going to be that drastically different for the likes of Mankato who aren’t getting blue chippers and maybe push them down their recruit lists very slightly.
I do think it will be a much different scenario for a number of schools. The reality with college hockey is very few kids over the years ever receive full rides. Even many of the best kids didn't get full rides but a higher partial ride. It is kind of like managing a salary cap for the head coach. You figure out how much scholarship you can parse around to build your roster.
If you have 26 full rides to hand out in the future, you not only will be offering a full rides across the board but you will also have more scholarships to build with... which allows you to build meaningful depth advantages. That's a lot different than a school that mainly has to do partials and has less to work with in total.
Not to mention, a recruit is going to want to to go where he feels he has the best chance to win. Is that going to be at a program with the full array of 26 scholarships? Or the school who has 18 (and mostly partial rides)? I think we know the answer... The parity won't be what it is right now.
guys also want to play. You don’t make the NHL sitting. On top of that, high end teams recruit very differently than the Mankato of the world. It will change the targets moreso than the end product UNLESS it is the majority of teams. A guy who’s looking at first line minutes at Mankato (and probably a full or close to full ride) isn’t coming MN to play 3rd/4th line and lose out on showcasing their abilities for .2 of a scholarship.
Under this new landscape MN won't have to offer partial scholarships anymore.
i know. I’m saying a guy getting a .8 at Mankato isn’t leaving playing first line there for a chance to play 3rd line here for .2 extra of a scholarship.
@skiumahlaw that middle paragraph I think is by far the biggest deal in this. The extra portion of a scholarship is going to be small beans compared to the difference in NIL that can be offered by the haves
If it winds up only being one or two conferences, that’s really not going to be that drastically different for the likes of Mankato who aren’t getting blue chippers and maybe push them down their recruit lists very slightly.
I do think it will be a much different scenario for a number of schools. The reality with college hockey is very few kids over the years ever receive full rides. Even many of the best kids didn't get full rides but a higher partial ride. It is kind of like managing a salary cap for the head coach. You figure out how much scholarship you can parse around to build your roster.
If you have 26 full rides to hand out in the future, you not only will be offering a full rides across the board but you will also have more scholarships to build with... which allows you to build meaningful depth advantages. That's a lot different than a school that mainly has to do partials and has less to work with in total.
Not to mention, a recruit is going to want to to go where he feels he has the best chance to win. Is that going to be at a program with the full array of 26 scholarships? Or the school who has 18 (and mostly partial rides)? I think we know the answer... The parity won't be what it is right now.
guys also want to play. You don’t make the NHL sitting. On top of that, high end teams recruit very differently than the Mankato of the world. It will change the targets moreso than the end product UNLESS it is the majority of teams. A guy who’s looking at first line minutes at Mankato (and probably a full or close to full ride) isn’t coming MN to play 3rd/4th line and lose out on showcasing their abilities for .2 of a scholarship.
Under this new landscape MN won't have to offer partial scholarships anymore.
i know. I’m saying a guy getting a .8 at Mankato isn’t leaving playing first line there for a chance to play 3rd line here for .2 extra of a scholarship.
Depends. What year are they in school/how many years left do they plan to play in college, how many guys do they know at Minnesota, do they prefer Minnesota's style of play, does MN look like more of a national contender, etc., etc.
Plus a 1st-liner at Mankato is often going to be talented enough to compete for 2nd-line minutes at Minnesota.
Let's keep in mind that hockey is a drop in the bucket as to revenue at most schools. Most of the nil style monies coming from this settlement will be going to football and basketball and hockey will be treated like baseball and soccer. Then, taking into account title IX (to which NiL has not yet really been subject) means that pot will be shifted even further.
The Big ten schools make so much money and will likely create a significant advantage to being a student athlete at one. But make no mistake: Big 10 schools are likely to cut Olympic sports to afford this, or put restrictions as to compensation on sports other than football and basketball.
And I can't see Big 10 schools willingly giving an advantage to other NCAA schools to play at the same level.
But if I could get a full scholarship plus cost of attendance plus $10,000 per year to play hockey at Ohio State, or be awarded a partial scholarship with part cost of attendance and play in the NCHC, the choice is pretty easy.
To reference NIL in college hockey though, right now an egregious booster can shift the market by offering huge deals to anyone who plays at their chosen school. Under the new rules, that NIL is subject to Title IX balance and a Clearinghouse to ensure that the NIL deal is a market rate and not a masked payment. As such, you'll see a diminishment of the impact of NIL except in extreme circumstances.
@slap-shot in your setting, they’re going for the opportunity, not the scholarship differential. That’s what I’ve been saying in my other posts.
I’ve been expecting that this settlement isn’t going to move much in hockey other than for a few who have big money donors who wants to dump money in. I agree there’s just not enough revenue and interest in hockey where splashing the money makes any sense for people, especially the athletic department in terms of scholarships and paying extra. And I agree, if the B10 does this across the board at their institutions, they’re way more likely to just start cutting sports
but if it’s going to happen, it’ll be via NIL
Let's keep in mind that hockey is a drop in the bucket as to revenue at most schools. Most of the nil style monies coming from this settlement will be going to football and basketball and hockey will be treated like baseball and soccer. Then, taking into account title IX (to which NiL has not yet really been subject) means that pot will be shifted even further.
The Big ten schools make so much money and will likely create a significant advantage to being a student athlete at one. But make no mistake: Big 10 schools are likely to cut Olympic sports to afford this, or put restrictions as to compensation on sports other than football and basketball.
And I can't see Big 10 schools willingly giving an advantage to other NCAA schools to play at the same level.
But if I could get a full scholarship plus cost of attendance plus $10,000 per year to play hockey at Ohio State, or be awarded a partial scholarship with part cost of attendance and play in the NCHC, the choice is pretty easy.
To reference NIL in college hockey though, right now an egregious booster can shift the market by offering huge deals to anyone who plays at their chosen school. Under the new rules, that NIL is subject to Title IX balance and a Clearinghouse to ensure that the NIL deal is a market rate and not a masked payment. As such, you'll see a diminishment of the impact of NIL except in extreme circumstances.
So the NIL, which is meant to be a payment from a non-school entity to an athlete to use their name, image, and likeness (advertising) will be subject to Title IX?
So a company that wants to pay the LSU QB $2M to be their spokesperson, must also pay $2M to female athletes? Or is it up to the school to somehow convince those donors to balance payments? How can they put this on the school?
Livvy Dunne is going to be a billionaire. 😳
I'll let SUML comment for sure, but I believe that's only if it's coordinated through the school itself acting as a clearinghouse.So the NIL, which is meant to be a payment from a non-school entity to an athlete to use their name, image, and likeness (advertising) will be subject to Title IX?
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Does Ed McMahon show up to the players house with a giant check and a bouquet of balloons?I'll let SUML comment for sure, but I believe that's only if it's coordinated through the school itself acting as a clearinghouse.So the NIL, which is meant to be a payment from a non-school entity to an athlete to use their name, image, and likeness (advertising) will be subject to Title IX?
One thing to think about is that athletic scholarship don't recognize academic scholarships. So athletes can get 3/4 athletic and 1/2 academic and make money in that sense on a 1.25 ride. So especially smaller schools will give a higher academic guy less athletically and still get it to a full ride in different ways. Though teams that will go 26 full will have players making money on what they get academically.
Let's keep in mind that hockey is a drop in the bucket as to revenue at most schools. Most of the nil style monies coming from this settlement will be going to football and basketball and hockey will be treated like baseball and soccer. Then, taking into account title IX (to which NiL has not yet really been subject) means that pot will be shifted even further.
The Big ten schools make so much money and will likely create a significant advantage to being a student athlete at one. But make no mistake: Big 10 schools are likely to cut Olympic sports to afford this, or put restrictions as to compensation on sports other than football and basketball.
And I can't see Big 10 schools willingly giving an advantage to other NCAA schools to play at the same level.
But if I could get a full scholarship plus cost of attendance plus $10,000 per year to play hockey at Ohio State, or be awarded a partial scholarship with part cost of attendance and play in the NCHC, the choice is pretty easy.
To reference NIL in college hockey though, right now an egregious booster can shift the market by offering huge deals to anyone who plays at their chosen school. Under the new rules, that NIL is subject to Title IX balance and a Clearinghouse to ensure that the NIL deal is a market rate and not a masked payment. As such, you'll see a diminishment of the impact of NIL except in extreme circumstances.
So the NIL, which is meant to be a payment from a non-school entity to an athlete to use their name, image, and likeness (advertising) will be subject to Title IX?
So a company that wants to pay the LSU QB $2M to be their spokesperson, must also pay $2M to female athletes? Or is it up to the school to somehow convince those donors to balance payments? How can they put this on the school?
Livvy Dunne is going to be a billionaire. 😳
Yes, but not exactly (how is that for lawyer-speak?).
The settlement contemplates that any NIL deals for athletes more than $600 must be certified through a neutral, independent clearinghouse to ensure the deal meets market value. The details on this are sketchy, but the intent is clear: to prohibit NIL for influencing decisions for athletes to choose one school after another. (As such, Livvy Dunne will make her bank whether she is at LSU/Auburn/St. Cloud State/or Hamline).
But because schools are allowed to participate in NIL, their activities are subject to Title IX scrutiny. So to the extent schools engage in NIL (say, hiring a student athlete as a spokesperson for the school), a Title IX analysis is attached (note I don't think that necessarily is an issue unless the dollar amount gets way out of whack-- such as the school hiring the entire football starting offense at a high rate and not doing a commensurate amount for female sports).
Note that the existing system is in litigation currently with the use of booster clubs to provide NIL dollars to some athletes on behalf of the school as a Title IX problem. This current system is really scary to schools-- to avoid Title IX scrutiny the school cannot have any control over it, but then you allow an outside group to start handing out benefits to athletes. Who runs the show then: the coach or the booster?
Only schools receiving Federal funds are subject to Title IX. Boosters are not. Businesses are not. So I could hire the LSU QB at a market rate for their services under these proposed settlement rules-- but could not pay them in excess of that. That isn't subject to Title IX.
One thing to think about is that athletic scholarship don't recognize academic scholarships. So athletes can get 3/4 athletic and 1/2 academic and make money in that sense on a 1.25 ride. So especially smaller schools will give a higher academic guy less athletically and still get it to a full ride in different ways. Though teams that will go 26 full will have players making money on what they get academically.
I am not sure what you propose is true. Tax law would certainly have something to say about getting scholarships as income, and the NCAA would have looked for this loophole as well. It might not count against the athletic budget, but I am pretty sure an academic award does count against the NCAA scholarship allotment.
In any event, remember that for a team to get up to 26 full scholarships they have to adopt the settlement rules, including revenue sharing with athletes. They cannot refuse to pay athletes 23% of their athletic budget AND get the full max on scholarships. They have to be willing to do both. And if they cheat by not paying out the full revenue share, they will get hammered in a courtroom.
Random (and admittedly dumb) question for the summer offseason.. who has a better chance of playing college hockey this season?
1. Rhett Pitlick
2. Rutger McGroarty
I will take Rutger slightly.
Neither
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
Pretty in-depth article on the passing of Mike Sertich
I’ll never forget when Sertich slid into the net after we lost in embarrassing fashion in the first round up there in 1998.
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
As an honest question because I just don’t know, how many guys would we realistically expect to go the CHL—>NCAA route?
I would expect that many who don't get drafted would see the benefit to go and spend a few years in the NCAA to try to get noticed and have the opportunity to sign a free agent deal.
if that were to become an option, it would be the better route of development for any player with real NHL aspirationsAs an honest question because I just don’t know, how many guys would we realistically expect to go the CHL—>NCAA route?
I have to assume that the chances of winning this suit depend on the exact language in the NCAA ban on major-junior players. I'm sure SUML will be around eventually to comment on this with a (much) more educated understanding.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
As an honest question because I just don’t know, how many guys would we realistically expect to go the CHL—>NCAA route?
It's also been pondered that an NCAA stop would be beneficial for the high end guys who can't go to the AHL yet, but probably aren't ready to go right to the NHL.
Just imagine Riley Heidt playing his 19-yr-old season with the Gophers instead of heading back to CHL.
Yawn.
I am not sure why a CHL player has a "right" to play NCAA hockey.
To be sure, the NCAA has lost a lot of lawsuits recently-- especially by those student-athletes who earned money for the schools but did not get compensated accordingly-- or were restricted from other activities outside their chosen sport unfairly.
But even then, most courts have held that the NCAA can create its own eligibility rules within the games being played for a level playing field.
To be clear there is a technical difference between payment for NIL and payment-for-play-- one relates to a person's brand and one relates to a person's performance, and the NCAA cannot restrict the former-- but can restrict the latter.
So I am not sure that this class action will be successful to anyone but the lawyers.
Might that change if the B1G starts paying athletes directly? Possibly. But that hasn't happened yet-- so this case is not yet ripe in my opinion.
My guess is Rutger will now turn professional.
https://twitter.com/friedgehnic/status/1826651306356080895?s=42&t=UtlPiq7Vt1Te97QT76L7LQ
Looks to be official.
https://twitter.com/frank_seravalli/status/1826663011769110837
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
Signs a month later than Cooley did last year. Will be interesting to see what Michigan does
They just released a kind of hype video for the season like two days ago and he’s in it 😬. It was something about their jerseys this year and he’s right there with Hughes and Truscott.
Signs a month later than Cooley did last year. Will be interesting to see what Michigan does
If you’ve followed their portal/recruiting work they’ve kind of planned ahead for this. They have guys already on the roster that will be elevated.
Losing Brindley, Nazar, Duke, Casey and McGroarty plus Gridin went CHL instead. Quite the offseason for Ann
Pretty in-depth article on the passing of Mike Sertich
A bit late to this but...
Mike Sertich was a nice man. Many years ago (at least 15 years ago I am guessing), I received some emails from him unexpectedly. He must have seen some of my posts online and, at some point, he must have seen me mention that my father grew up in Virginia.
Since Sertich grew up in Virginia too, he emailed me to ask about my family... specifically mentioning that he knew a "Hammy" during his late teens to early 20s. He said he played softball with him and "Hammy" always looked out for him. Turns out he was talking about my father. My dad is six years older (still alive) so I guess my dad must have taken Sertich under his wing back in the day. When I told him that he was talking about my dad, he had a good laugh about it and he reminisced about those days, etc. A good sense of humor...
Of course, I felt a little guilty after that for having hated on the Dogs back when Sertich was coach. But he certainly took no offense and understood the dynamics of it all. He was a nice man and a classy person.
RIP Coach
There is certainly room for a fan's hatred of a team, while still acknowledging that individuals associated with that team are very likeable and worthy of respect.Of course, I felt a little guilty after that for having hated on the Dogs back when Sertich was coach. But he certainly took no offense and understood the dynamics of it all. He was a nice man and a classy person.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Didn’t know Brad Schlossman needed help covering North Dakota, Jess😉
https://twitter.com/jessrmyers/status/1828516963070742821?s=46&t=AvtsG2WfNuGRyXzbYJqB7g
The media polls are starting to come out.
https://twitter.com/MikeMachnikCHN/status/1832900068573315409
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
@frozen4champs surprised to see Maine so high. They lose a lot of talent. I'd be interested to know what their recruiting class looks like.