Doesn’t really seem like it’ll change much of anything as most of the time the pairwise and rpi mirror pretty well. There have only been a few times h2h had enough weighting to move teams up and down
why wodon once again decides to roll this into the home regional debate I dunno. His approach to the argument is really quite blah.
Hasn't stuff like this more or less always existed, it was just hidden by a few more layers of obscurity? We all know guys like Cam Newton were getting paid and that athletic facilities/programs were funded by big money boosters.
I haven't followed any of the funding things closely. But skimming the article, it seems like both schools claim they are only involved as far as ticket sales. But it also talks about athletic dept shortfalls at the schools. I thought the word was Big 10 schools were ahead of everyone else for athletic budgets thanks to B1G income? And that with the profit sharing with athletes, this would set Big schools ahead of everyone else for recruiting. Anyone able to explain all of this?
Ive been fully expecting him not to play college hockey next season even given his returning announcement. Still don’t think he plays college next year
Per Mike McMahon, the NHL and NHLPA are close to a change in draft rights.
Sources: Here's what standardized NHL draft rights will likely look like
The NHL and NHLPA are close to agreeing on a change to NHL Draft rights, now that the NCAA has changed its player eligibility rules on CHL players.
Under the current rules, an NHL team holds a player’s draft rights for two years if the player is drafted from the CHL, and four years if a player is drafted from the NCAA or Europe. If a player has not signed an entry-level contract, he becomes an unrestricted free agent (or, in some cases, can re-enter the draft if he’s under 20 years old).
According to NHL sources, the NHL and NHLPA are close to agreeing on a new structure, now that players can be drafted from the CHL, but eventually matriculate to the NCAA.
Sources said the new structure will be based on a player’s age at the time he’s drafted, and will expire when the player is 22 years old. This will be standardized across the board, no matter which league a player played in the year he was drafted.
So, for example:
Drafted at 18 years old: NHL team holds the rights for (4) years.
Drafted at 19 years old: NHL team holds the rights for (3) years.
Drafted at 20 years old: NHL team holds the right for (2) years.
All drafted and unsigned players will become UFAs in their 22-year-old year.
I don’t have a clear sense of whether this will begin to apply with the 2026 NHL Draft, or if players drafted this weekend in the 2025 NHL Draft will be subject to the new rule. The same goes for players already drafted but unsigned (from 2024, 2023, and 2022). Will they be grandfathered or subject to the new guideline? I’m not sure.
Sources said that the NHL and NHLPA weren’t far apart on what they wanted once talks began. The NHLPA originally wanted a three-year rights window, and they settled on the sliding scale based on draft age.
This change will also likely include the ability for teams to sign players to AHL contracts starting at 19 years old, sources said. Drafted players from the CHL cannot currently be played in the AHL until they are 20 years old.
Nothing’s official until it’s announced, but multiple NHL sources said they expect that model (or something very similar) to be implemented for draft rights.
I was recently informed by a GPLer that I'm related to Airey
In the era of NIL and collectives, this is going to be weird.
You may convince a high end guy for an undesirable location in the NHL to come back (or do you force TB to trade Howard last year) so they can be a UFA coupled with guys like say Javon Moore who will be a UFA after his Jr season who may be more prone to leave early. Brody Lamb would also be in theory a UFA now or a guy like Huglen would've played 2 years at the U as a UFA under this concept (of course depending on the timing of when you decide they're UFAs, fall or at completion of their season).
Kind of a weird move when you don't mandate when any of these guys have to come into these leagues to see the rights terminate with ongoing NCAA eligibility when the pay is going to increase there down the road. May be some things that will really change how NHL teams handle their NCAA guys
In the era of NIL and collectives, this is going to be weird.
You may convince a high end guy for an undesirable location in the NHL to come back (or do you force TB to trade Howard last year) so they can be a UFA coupled with guys like say Javon Moore who will be a UFA after his Jr season who may be more prone to leave early. Brody Lamb would also be in theory a UFA now or a guy like Huglen would've played 2 years at the U as a UFA under this concept (of course depending on the timing of when you decide they're UFAs, fall or at completion of their season).
Kind of a weird move when you don't mandate when any of these guys have to come into these leagues to see the rights terminate with ongoing NCAA eligibility when the pay is going to increase there down the road. May be some things that will really change how NHL teams handle their NCAA guys
This doesn't really change much for college kids. These rules are more for protecting NHL teams who will have players going from Juniors into NCAA. Now its an even playing field for everyone
In the era of NIL and collectives, this is going to be weird.
You may convince a high end guy for an undesirable location in the NHL to come back (or do you force TB to trade Howard last year) so they can be a UFA coupled with guys like say Javon Moore who will be a UFA after his Jr season who may be more prone to leave early. Brody Lamb would also be in theory a UFA now or a guy like Huglen would've played 2 years at the U as a UFA under this concept (of course depending on the timing of when you decide they're UFAs, fall or at completion of their season).
Kind of a weird move when you don't mandate when any of these guys have to come into these leagues to see the rights terminate with ongoing NCAA eligibility when the pay is going to increase there down the road. May be some things that will really change how NHL teams handle their NCAA guys
This doesn't really change much for college kids. These rules are more for protecting NHL teams who will have players going from Juniors into NCAA. Now its an even playing field for everyone
More meaning, current rule give you rights until the guy leaves college (and then 30 days). So in theory, the guy who you drafted like say Kvas this year you could push out in the WHL for a year or two then have him go to the U and keep him there for 3-4 years while still having rights (in theory). Then there's the question of when do they become UFAs. Is it immediately on season's end or is it the usual later date for retaining rights? Aidan Thompson would've been an example this year who signed with the Blackhawks this year at 23 because they still had his rights but would've been a UFA instead and gotten to choose his landing spot despite only being a Jr. because he wasn't drafted until later.
Or do they move your rights to you retain them until they finish (or leave) NCAA if they go that route?
The college rules are nuanced and dependent on when they actually enter college. That's more what I'm referring to as some of the nuance in how they push players through and when they may push to sign them if it's just a blanket rights are gone at 22. Won’t impact first rounders or guys who come in at 18, but not always the case with juniors which is what I’m curious with how they’ll do it
(c) College Players.
(i) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(ii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to
ARTICLE 8 8.6-8.6
graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for such Player’s services through and including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class.
More meaning, current rule give you rights until the guy leaves college (and then 30 days). So in theory, the guy who you drafted like say Kvas this year you could push out in the WHL for a year or two then have him go to the U and keep him there for 3-4 years while still having rights (in theory). Then there's the question of when do they become UFAs. Is it immediately on season's end or is it the usual later date for retaining rights? Aidan Thompson would've been an example this year who signed with the Blackhawks this year at 23 because they still had his rights but would've been a UFA instead and gotten to choose his landing spot despite only being a Jr. because he wasn't drafted until later.
Or do they move your rights to you retain them until they finish (or leave) NCAA if they go that route?
The college rules are nuanced and dependent on when they actually enter college. That's more what I'm referring to as some of the nuance in how they push players through and when they may push to sign them if it's just a blanket rights are gone at 22. Won’t impact first rounders or guys who come in at 18, but not always the case with juniors which is what I’m curious with how they’ll do it
(c) College Players.
(i) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(ii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to
ARTICLE 8 8.6-8.6
graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for such Player’s services through and including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class.
I don't have anything to add re: the NHL changes to draft rights, but as a practicing attorney I want to highlight the shoddy work produced by the NHL's lawyers here. This is such an awfully convoluted and over-engineered legal document. Could've just written "for a period of four calendar years, following the player's selection in the entry draft" or "for 1400 days post-draft" something like that, instead of all this "on the fourth June 1 after blah blah, or by the second June 1 blah blah". But I guess that'd reduce the billable hours on their invoice to Gary.
In the era of NIL and collectives, this is going to be weird.
You may convince a high end guy for an undesirable location in the NHL to come back (or do you force TB to trade Howard last year) so they can be a UFA coupled with guys like say Javon Moore who will be a UFA after his Jr season who may be more prone to leave early. Brody Lamb would also be in theory a UFA now or a guy like Huglen would've played 2 years at the U as a UFA under this concept (of course depending on the timing of when you decide they're UFAs, fall or at completion of their season).
Kind of a weird move when you don't mandate when any of these guys have to come into these leagues to see the rights terminate with ongoing NCAA eligibility when the pay is going to increase there down the road. May be some things that will really change how NHL teams handle their NCAA guys
This doesn't really change much for college kids. These rules are more for protecting NHL teams who will have players going from Juniors into NCAA. Now its an even playing field for everyone
More meaning, current rule give you rights until the guy leaves college (and then 30 days). So in theory, the guy who you drafted like say Kvas this year you could push out in the WHL for a year or two then have him go to the U and keep him there for 3-4 years while still having rights (in theory). Then there's the question of when do they become UFAs. Is it immediately on season's end or is it the usual later date for retaining rights? Aidan Thompson would've been an example this year who signed with the Blackhawks this year at 23 because they still had his rights but would've been a UFA instead and gotten to choose his landing spot despite only being a Jr. because he wasn't drafted until later.
Or do they move your rights to you retain them until they finish (or leave) NCAA if they go that route?
The college rules are nuanced and dependent on when they actually enter college. That's more what I'm referring to as some of the nuance in how they push players through and when they may push to sign them if it's just a blanket rights are gone at 22. Won’t impact first rounders or guys who come in at 18, but not always the case with juniors which is what I’m curious with how they’ll do it
(c) College Players.
(i) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(ii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to
ARTICLE 8 8.6-8.6
graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for such Player’s services through and including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class.
In your Kvasnicka example above, you would lose his rights in 2 years under the current rules. The only thing that is changing as it pertains to the NCAA side is that players no longer have to declare that they're leaving school to become a free agent, and teams aren't getting a free year(s) of rights if the player stays in school past 4 years from when he was drafted.
@j22 no not saying for or against it. Just a difference so will be interesting to see if it changes how they approach things. I like the standardization and limiting ways to prolong attaining rights of players if they stay in college. Makes way more sense to me (and I’m massively a fan if it streamlines more kids to come into college right away, as I’ve always felt it should be a 4 year clock immediately at hs graduation for hockey or however you want to word that )
under the current CBA: if a player drafted from the CHL becomes bona-fide college student before the end of their rights, they are considered college student and the rights are maintained for 4years.
So, if/when, Kvasnicka gets drafted this week, the team has his rights for 4 years as long as he enrolls in school full-time within 2 years.
More meaning, current rule give you rights until the guy leaves college (and then 30 days). So in theory, the guy who you drafted like say Kvas this year you could push out in the WHL for a year or two then have him go to the U and keep him there for 3-4 years while still having rights (in theory). Then there's the question of when do they become UFAs. Is it immediately on season's end or is it the usual later date for retaining rights? Aidan Thompson would've been an example this year who signed with the Blackhawks this year at 23 because they still had his rights but would've been a UFA instead and gotten to choose his landing spot despite only being a Jr. because he wasn't drafted until later.
Or do they move your rights to you retain them until they finish (or leave) NCAA if they go that route?
The college rules are nuanced and dependent on when they actually enter college. That's more what I'm referring to as some of the nuance in how they push players through and when they may push to sign them if it's just a blanket rights are gone at 22. Won’t impact first rounders or guys who come in at 18, but not always the case with juniors which is what I’m curious with how they’ll do it
(c) College Players.
(i) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(ii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19 is a bona fide college student at the time of his selection in the Entry Draft, or becomes a bona fide college student prior to the first June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, and does not remain a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain exclusive rights for the negotiation of his services until the later of: (a) the fourth June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft, or (b) thirty (30) days after NHL Central Registry receives notice that the Player is no longer a bona fide college student; provided that if the Player ceases to be a bona fide college student on or after January 1 of an academic year and the Player: (1) is in his fourth year of college and has commenced his fourth year of NCAA eligibility, or (2) is in his fourth year of college and is scheduled to
ARTICLE 8 8.6-8.6
graduate from college at the end of his fourth year, then in the circumstances described in (1) or (2), the Club shall retain the exclusive right of negotiation for such Player’s services through and including the August 15 following the date on which he ceases to be a bona fide college student. The Club need not make a Bona Fide Offer to such Player to retain such rights.
(iii) If a Player drafted at age 18 or 19, who had received a Bona Fide Offer in accordance with Section 8.6(a)(ii) above, becomes a bona fide college student prior to the second June 1 following his selection in the Entry Draft and remains a bona fide college student through the graduation of his college class, his drafting Club shall retain the exclusive rights of negotiation for his services through and including the August 15 following the graduation of his college class.
I don't have anything to add re: the NHL changes to draft rights, but as a practicing attorney I want to highlight the shoddy work produced by the NHL's lawyers here. This is such an awfully convoluted and over-engineered legal document. Could've just written "for a period of four calendar years, following the player's selection in the entry draft" or "for 1400 days post-draft" something like that, instead of all this "on the fourth June 1 after blah blah, or by the second June 1 blah blah". But I guess that'd reduce the billable hours on their invoice to Gary.
My guess is its designed around the players draft eligibility date and intended to keep every player with a June 1st date. The draft date changes each year. Additionally, the draft occurs across several days each year. If they wrote the rule based on the player's draft date, they would have to track thousands of different players who could have different draft dates. Using the above article, they only have to know the year the player was drafted.
—— There is going to be a second transfer portal window that opens from July 7 - August 5. The portal is re-opening for players who have been named “Designated Student-Athletes” by their current programs. DSAs are players who would have otherwise been cut due to new roster limits (before the NCAA re-shaped the House settlement to grandfather those players as DSAs).
Any player who has been tagged a DSA will not count towards a team’s 26-player roster cap. That designation travels with the player for the extent of his career, even if he transfers.
This could result in a trickle of players entering the portal next week. I don’t believe we’ll see a heavy flow of DSAs in the portal in men’s hockey. Most players who will be designated as DSAs were already cut in April as teams prepared for the 26-player cap. So in other words, they’re already in the portal.
I was recently informed by a GPLer that I'm related to Airey
Minnesota State has opted in the NCAA settlement. I have NO idea what that means for the program but I hope to hear the details soon.
Essentially it means they owe a piece of the settlement to former players (I think UND was expecting a responsibility of about $250,000 per year), and can pay athletes up to $20.5M per year (scholarships count toward that number), and all players on the roster can be on scholarship.
It will mean significant increase in athletic department expenses-- remember, if you do it for the men, you will likely need to do it for the women. So you just signed up for additional costs as an athletic department. Will revenues increase too?
But you cannot risk being left behind or you will be a second tier school in perpetuity.
Minnesota State has opted in the NCAA settlement. I have NO idea what that means for the program but I hope to hear the details soon.
Essentially it means they owe a piece of the settlement to former players (I think UND was expecting a responsibility of about $250,000 per year), and can pay athletes up to $20.5M per year (scholarships count toward that number), and all players on the roster can be on scholarship.
It will mean significant increase in athletic department expenses-- remember, if you do it for the men, you will likely need to do it for the women. So you just signed up for additional costs as an athletic department. Will revenues increase too?
But you cannot risk being left behind or you will be a second tier school in perpetuity.
The big D1s will get bigger, and in that level of "second tier schools" as for sports, the private/rich schools will also see that separation from their peers, due to boosters/alumni/donors.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
I am just really curious how it will differ for the Mankato and Duluth's of the hockey world being D1/D2 schools as compared to the Minnesota and Wisconsin's who are just D1? Doing a quick Google search MSU's athletic budget was just over $15M last year. So that brings up the question of how much will they have to raise for opting into this settlement? Full scholarships for 26 players at MSU will be around $500K. Just a lot of questions for non-D1 athletic programs.
I am theofficial Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
This again shows you need major cash to start a hockey program. If other B1G can't do it, it is very difficult unless you have a big time donor.
There are so many hurdles, in my opinion, that any college will face no matter their standing in the landscape. Even a college like Iowa would face those same hurdles that necessitate a MAJOR financial donor to make it happen. Just because there is an ice facility nearby it will take tens of millions of dollars to start up a D1 program, and yes I know that the idea would be to elevate their ACHA club program...still takes tens of millions of american dollars. Then...be able to sustain that. Iowa let alone Tennessee are not exactly hockey hotbeds. So...not surprised by this news.
I am theofficial Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the NIL Go platform and further guidance based on early trends.
NIL Go Usage & Deal Clearance
Since it launched on June 11, NIL Go has seen broad usage. Over 12,000 student-athletes and over 1,100 institutional users are registered and approved to use the system, and student-athletes have added over 1,500 representatives/agents into the system. In the past week, around 500 students and 300 institutional users logged into NIL Go on an average day.
Thus far, over 1,500 deals have been cleared, ranging in value from three figures to seven figures. Other deals have been submitted but either are awaiting verification of certain information from the payor or the institution or have been returned to student-athletes for clarification or correction of data and are awaiting resubmission.
In the past several days, the College Sports Commission ("CSC") has begun notifying some student-athletes that their deals cannot be cleared as submitted, and more notifications of this kind are forthcoming. In some of these cases, notification was or has been delayed while certain aspects of settlement implementation were finalized. Since many of these deals cannot be cleared for similar reasons, we are providing additional guidance below.
Valid Business Purpose
In most of the deals that cannot be cleared as submitted, the valid business purpose requirement of the Settlement, as set forth in NCAA Rule 22.1.3, has not been satisfied. An entity with a business purpose of providing payments or benefits to student-athletes or institutions, rather than providing goods or services to the general public for profit, does not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement of Rule 22.1.3. The requirement is not met even if the particular deal with the student-athlete purports to provide goods or services to the general public. For example, a NIL collective that has a business purpose to pay student-athletes associated with a particular school or schools does not satisfy Rule 22.1.3 when it reaches a deal with a student-athlete to make an appearance on behalf of the collective at an event even if that event is open to the general public and the collective charges an admission fee (e.g., a golf tournament). In this example, the NIL collective's purpose is to raise money at the event to pay that student-athlete and potentially fund deals with other student-athletes at that school, which are not goods or services available to the general public for profit. The same collective's deal with a student-athlete to promote the collective's sale of merchandise to the public would not satisfy the valid business purpose requirement for the same reason; the collective's whole purpose in selling merchandise is to raise money to pay that student-athlete and potentially other student-athletes at a particular school or schools, which is not a valid business purpose under NCAA Rule 22.1.3.
These same deals would satisfy the valid business purpose requirement if the entities paying the student-athletes, and receiving the proceeds from the general public, were businesses that had a broader purpose outside of paying student-athletes at a particular school or schools (e.g., a golf course, an apparel company). Such deals might also satisfy the requirement even if the NIL collective made the payments to the student-athletes, provided that there is documentation establishing that the sources of those specific funds were the entities with a valid business purpose that received the benefit of the student's NIL (e.g., the golf course, the apparel company). In other words, NIL collectives may act as marketing agencies that match student-athletes with businesses that have a valid business purpose and seek to use the student's NIL to promote their businesses.
Payor Information
Other deals have yet to be cleared because schools have failed to respond to requests for information about the entity involved in the deal (e.g., whether it is an associated entity).
Responses to this information are critical to the ability of the CSC to evaluate submitted deals in a timely manner. Going forward, please ensure that your institution is promptly responding to these inquiries to facilitate clearance of your student-athletes' deals.
If you have questions about anything in this memorandum, please reach out to your conference's general counsel or compliance lead or to the NCAA's compliance staff. In the coming months, the CSC will grow its staff to the point where it can receive inquiries directly from schools. Thank you for your patience.
Do not like how this board is run? Get your own board! ♃
And I thought there was some sort of limit on what a Canadian on a student visa could make?
In theory he could just get paid by the school with the 20.5 million they're allow to spend, at least I think that's true? In which case they wouldn't need NIL for that.
More times then not, the team the start of the season who’s the favorite to win it all, does not win it. I’m fine with PSU being the heavy favorite on the Sportsbook. I’m fine with PSU fans drooling all over McKenna. He’s one player and yes they do have a good supporting cast. Just all the pressure to win and their dreams to be busted. And by the way, I’ve never put much stock into sportsbooks and college hockey. Most of the time it’s predictable and blue blood name heavy. I haven’t had a chance to look at Ceasers Place Sportsbook to compare to DraftKings. Ceasers is more laughable.
I was told that McKenna could be under a different kid of Visa than other CHL kids. Not a student Visa but an entertainment Visa that would allow him to "earn" that kind of money.
I am theofficial Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
And I thought there was some sort of limit on what a Canadian on a student visa could make?
In theory he could just get paid by the school with the 20.5 million they're allow to spend, at least I think that's true? In which case they wouldn't need NIL for that.
That 20.5M is technically NIL monies on behalf of the school. The school can either count scholarship money toward that, but most B1G schools are using this only as NIL monies and are not counting scholarship money here.
As a result, recipients will get a IRS Form 1099 to demonstrate income for those monies, which is taxable (unlike scholarship money).
And, PSU would need to share that $20.5M among all their sports (football/volleyball/MBB/WBB/etc.). If they are like the U of MN, only a very small percentage is going to men's hockey. Which would mean less available for football.
In my conversations with folks in NIL at UMN they are not sure the McKenna figure is accurate. But if PSU was to spend on men's hockey commensurate to what UMN would do, the amount McKenna is receiving would be in line with the entire men's hockey budget there.
If that is the case, is it worth spending the entire budget on one player?
More times then not, the team the start of the season who’s the favorite to win it all, does not win it. I’m fine with PSU being the heavy favorite on the Sportsbook. I’m fine with PSU fans drooling all over McKenna. He’s one player and yes they do have a good supporting cast. Just all the pressure to win and their dreams to be busted. And by the way, I’ve never put much stock into sportsbooks and college hockey. Most of the time it’s predictable and blue blood name heavy. I haven’t had a chance to look at Ceasers Place Sportsbook to compare to DraftKings. Ceasers is more laughable.
Am I wrong to go googlyeyed that Minnesota is even on this list...?
