Und hockey gets 2 million dollar donation, hopefully we have some big donors doing dinkytown athletes https://www.valleynewslive.com/2024/06/06/5-million-gift-given-und-athletics-academic-scholarships/
Key of this is its for scholarships, not NIL.
@upnorthkid thats what it says, would be shocked if none of it was used as NIL, that may be enough scholarship money for the decade lol, my tuition at UND was 5k a semester a couple of years ago
Paging @skiumahlaw to the NIL thread.
I'll wait for the expert opinion, but from my understanding, they cannot use that money for NIL. Scholarships, yes, NIL, no.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
As we sit here today, a school cannot engage in NIL activities. So money given to the school cannot be used by the school to fund NIL stuff. It certainly can be used by the school for scholarships as we have traditionally used them.
The House lawsuit settlement may blow that door open-- but even then there are lots of considerations there to review before that door is opened. It is probably a year or two before rules on that shake out-- and I would expect conferences to make rules about NIL activities of its member schools that apply across the conference. So UND would have to live with the Summit League rules-- and if UNO and USD block NIL activities by schools, UND would need to live with that or find a new conference. Same goes for the NCHC-- and you can imagine that SCSU and UMD would be pretty wary in allowing UND/DU to run roughshod with that advantage.
The biggest unknown now is how Title IX would apply. Two considerations:
1. If UND were to right now funnel this $5M into a collective to distribute to men's hockey, there is a very realistic possibility that that would be considered a Title IX issue unless a commensurate amount was provided somewhere for women's opportunities. That will radically change how this money can or would be used. The workaround is to create strict independence of the collective-- but that means a coach cannot communicate with the collective and a collective then gets to control which players get what. Do you think NCAA coaches would allow the loss of control of their program like that?
2. If the school engages in NIL won't it need to do so with an eye on Title IX? Unless the students are not there for education (which might be debatable in Grand Forks) it would apply and these funds need to provide women's opportunities as well-- just like with scholarship funds.
My guess is that UND will stick it into their equivalent of the Gopher fund and seek to endow more scholarships to reduce the yearly impact on the budget. But they get to ultimately decide what they do with it or what the donor really wanted with it.
As we sit here today, a school cannot engage in NIL activities. So money given to the school cannot be used by the school to fund NIL stuff. It certainly can be used by the school for scholarships as we have traditionally used them.
The House lawsuit settlement may blow that door open-- but even then there are lots of considerations there to review before that door is opened. It is probably a year or two before rules on that shake out-- and I would expect conferences to make rules about NIL activities of its member schools that apply across the conference. So UND would have to live with the Summit League rules-- and if UNO and USD block NIL activities by schools, UND would need to live with that or find a new conference. Same goes for the NCHC-- and you can imagine that SCSU and UMD would be pretty wary in allowing UND/DU to run roughshod with that advantage.
The biggest unknown now is how Title IX would apply. Two considerations:
1. If UND were to right now funnel this $5M into a collective to distribute to men's hockey, there is a very realistic possibility that that would be considered a Title IX issue unless a commensurate amount was provided somewhere for women's opportunities. That will radically change how this money can or would be used. The workaround is to create strict independence of the collective-- but that means a coach cannot communicate with the collective and a collective then gets to control which players get what. Do you think NCAA coaches would allow the loss of control of their program like that?
2. If the school engages in NIL won't it need to do so with an eye on Title IX? Unless the students are not there for education (which might be debatable in Grand Forks) it would apply and these funds need to provide women's opportunities as well-- just like with scholarship funds.
My guess is that UND will stick it into their equivalent of the Gopher fund and seek to endow more scholarships to reduce the yearly impact on the budget. But they get to ultimately decide what they do with it or what the donor really wanted with it.
was just going to say the same. This is clearly just a large endowment they've given with things earmarked to specific cases. it is a little interesting that the split is 3million to men's sports (football gets a million) and 1million to womens. @skiumahlaw is that "allowed" from a title IX standpoint? I get it's not equal, but assumedly it doesn't have to be "exactly" equal but a ratio
But the short is, this is a donation to the school and cannot be used for NIL at this time. Key being, at this time given things are going to keep being pretty dynamic for the foreseeable future
was just going to say the same. This is clearly just a large endowment they've given with things earmarked to specific cases. it is a little interesting that the split is 3million to men's sports (football gets a million) and 1million to womens. @skiumahlaw is that "allowed" from a title IX standpoint? I get it's not equal, but assumedly it doesn't have to be "exactly" equal but a ratio
But the short is, this is a donation to the school and cannot be used for NIL at this time. Key being, at this time given things are going to keep being pretty dynamic for the foreseeable future
Short answer to what is a very long and complicated analysis: Title IX does not require equal treatment, but it does require equivalent opportunities between the genders.
The burden is on the school to show that it is providing such equivalent opportunities, however. And if your pot of resources for your men's sports is BIG and your pot for women's sports is small, you are going to have a hard time proving that you are providing equivalent opportunities between the genders.
I’ve been against NIL deals and the portal before the ideas of both. Though over time I tolerate the idea of NIL’s over the portal. NIL deals truly need limits and control. Though the portal just a crapshoot with athletes having no responsibility or commitment.
Neither do coaches...so why should they get to leave whenever they want but not players?
Yeah… life’s not fair. I don’t like that coaches can leave, but oh well. Not everything on life has to be equal. You sound like my 10 yr. old when I tell him to do something and not the 5 yr. old.
This is such a bad take...and rather lazy. Just because things in life aren't fair doesn't mean they shouldn't be. You always should be striving for at least the appearance of fairness. If everyone thought like you nothing would ever change.
Players deserve as much money and freedom as coaches. Period end of story. Will that cause a massive shift and likely kill off the 40+ crowd as a fanbase myself included...yes. So what it is the right thing to do. We don't get to say "Sorry, life sucks deal with it" just because we want things the way we like them. This is still America and the players rights matter too.
The problem isn't the players or the coaches, its that NCAA knew this was coming a long time ago and chose to keep ignoring it until it was too late. They could have had rules and guardrails in place that would have prevented the all out chaos but they never read the tea leaves. Now they have zero power and control and one of their major sports is such a disaster it is almost parody.
As we sit here today, a school cannot engage in NIL activities. So money given to the school cannot be used by the school to fund NIL stuff. It certainly can be used by the school for scholarships as we have traditionally used them.
The House lawsuit settlement may blow that door open-- but even then there are lots of considerations there to review before that door is opened. It is probably a year or two before rules on that shake out-- and I would expect conferences to make rules about NIL activities of its member schools that apply across the conference. So UND would have to live with the Summit League rules-- and if UNO and USD block NIL activities by schools, UND would need to live with that or find a new conference. Same goes for the NCHC-- and you can imagine that SCSU and UMD would be pretty wary in allowing UND/DU to run roughshod with that advantage.
The biggest unknown now is how Title IX would apply. Two considerations:
1. If UND were to right now funnel this $5M into a collective to distribute to men's hockey, there is a very realistic possibility that that would be considered a Title IX issue unless a commensurate amount was provided somewhere for women's opportunities. That will radically change how this money can or would be used. The workaround is to create strict independence of the collective-- but that means a coach cannot communicate with the collective and a collective then gets to control which players get what. Do you think NCAA coaches would allow the loss of control of their program like that?
2. If the school engages in NIL won't it need to do so with an eye on Title IX? Unless the students are not there for education (which might be debatable in Grand Forks) it would apply and these funds need to provide women's opportunities as well-- just like with scholarship funds.
My guess is that UND will stick it into their equivalent of the Gopher fund and seek to endow more scholarships to reduce the yearly impact on the budget. But they get to ultimately decide what they do with it or what the donor really wanted with it.
was just going to say the same. This is clearly just a large endowment they've given with things earmarked to specific cases. it is a little interesting that the split is 3million to men's sports (football gets a million) and 1million to womens. @skiumahlaw is that "allowed" from a title IX standpoint? I get it's not equal, but assumedly it doesn't have to be "exactly" equal but a ratio
But the short is, this is a donation to the school and cannot be used for NIL at this time. Key being, at this time given things are going to keep being pretty dynamic for the foreseeable future
People are allowed to donate how they choose. (for example the McNamara Fund used to only really go to Football I believe and basketball used to have specific ones) The Government does not regulate that. All that matters is UND has Women's scholarships to match how they are funded does not really matter.
Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
I get that - but I'm getting the impression that that's not being done (or can't be done) and if not why not? If the concern is Title IX or the fact it won't be used for NIL, why not just give it to a collective? I would imagine UND has their own?
Could possibly be due to the unknowns with DTA? If you're giving away millions of dollars and choose to give that to the U of M, you have a fairly good idea that the money you donate is safe and will be spent wisely.Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
I get that - but I'm getting the impression that that's not being done (or can't be done) and if not why not? If the concern is Title IX or the fact it won't be used for NIL, why not just give it to a collective? I would imagine UND has their own?
With Dinky town athletics or any similar NIL group, do we know how they're run, how much money goes to the players vs employees? Is there an endowment vs hand to mouth expenditures? Questions I don't have to worry about with my measly donations are important to some when the dollars climb into the 5+ figures.
Could possibly be due to the unknowns with DTA? If you're giving away millions of dollars and choose to give that to the U of M, you have a fairly good idea that the money you donate is safe and will be spent wisely.Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
I get that - but I'm getting the impression that that's not being done (or can't be done) and if not why not? If the concern is Title IX or the fact it won't be used for NIL, why not just give it to a collective? I would imagine UND has their own?
With Dinky town athletics or any similar NIL group, do we know how they're run, how much money goes to the players vs employees? Is there an endowment vs hand to mouth expenditures? Questions I don't have to worry about with my measly donations are important to some when the dollars climb into the 5+ figures.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is quite simple. Since the U is a non-profit, donations are tax deductible. DTA is not a non-profit, so donations are NOT tax deductible.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the answer is quite simple. Since the U is a non-profit, donations are tax deductible. DTA is not a non-profit, so donations are NOT tax deductible.
Bingo.
These collectives are scary places for schools. If the collectives start exercising control over who is on the roster and who is not...how can a University-employed coach do their job?
And if the coach has control over the collective, law says it is an extension of the school and thus subject to Title IX.
As we sit here today, a school cannot engage in NIL activities. So money given to the school cannot be used by the school to fund NIL stuff. It certainly can be used by the school for scholarships as we have traditionally used them.
The House lawsuit settlement may blow that door open-- but even then there are lots of considerations there to review before that door is opened. It is probably a year or two before rules on that shake out-- and I would expect conferences to make rules about NIL activities of its member schools that apply across the conference. So UND would have to live with the Summit League rules-- and if UNO and USD block NIL activities by schools, UND would need to live with that or find a new conference. Same goes for the NCHC-- and you can imagine that SCSU and UMD would be pretty wary in allowing UND/DU to run roughshod with that advantage.
The biggest unknown now is how Title IX would apply. Two considerations:
1. If UND were to right now funnel this $5M into a collective to distribute to men's hockey, there is a very realistic possibility that that would be considered a Title IX issue unless a commensurate amount was provided somewhere for women's opportunities. That will radically change how this money can or would be used. The workaround is to create strict independence of the collective-- but that means a coach cannot communicate with the collective and a collective then gets to control which players get what. Do you think NCAA coaches would allow the loss of control of their program like that?
2. If the school engages in NIL won't it need to do so with an eye on Title IX? Unless the students are not there for education (which might be debatable in Grand Forks) it would apply and these funds need to provide women's opportunities as well-- just like with scholarship funds.
My guess is that UND will stick it into their equivalent of the Gopher fund and seek to endow more scholarships to reduce the yearly impact on the budget. But they get to ultimately decide what they do with it or what the donor really wanted with it.
was just going to say the same. This is clearly just a large endowment they've given with things earmarked to specific cases. it is a little interesting that the split is 3million to men's sports (football gets a million) and 1million to womens. @skiumahlaw is that "allowed" from a title IX standpoint? I get it's not equal, but assumedly it doesn't have to be "exactly" equal but a ratio
But the short is, this is a donation to the school and cannot be used for NIL at this time. Key being, at this time given things are going to keep being pretty dynamic for the foreseeable future
People are allowed to donate how they choose. (for example the McNamara Fund used to only really go to Football I believe and basketball used to have specific ones) The Government does not regulate that. All that matters is UND has Women's scholarships to match how they are funded does not really matter.
makes perfect sense. thanks!
Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
I get that - but I'm getting the impression that that's not being done (or can't be done) and if not why not? If the concern is Title IX or the fact it won't be used for NIL, why not just give it to a collective? I would imagine UND has their own?
it could be. You're just then paying for the NIL rights, not to fund their scholarship. And given it's a business deal for you, it's not able to be written off as a tax deduction.
would envision there would be some ways to write this off in your business underwritings (depending on what you own and then contract the athlete to do), but would have to think this is where it gets a lot hairier for people who are just looking to support athletes as a whole rather than convince a 5* they will give them the most dollars.
Maybe I'm reading previous posts incorrectly, but why couldn't a very large contribution such as what was donated at UND go to Dinkytown Athletics and therefore NIL instead of toward scholarships?
I haven’t followed this stuff much at all so I may be off base. But my understanding is that the donors would have to directly give to Dinkytown Athletics. The school (as things are set up now) could not be the go-between.
I get that - but I'm getting the impression that that's not being done (or can't be done) and if not why not? If the concern is Title IX or the fact it won't be used for NIL, why not just give it to a collective? I would imagine UND has their own?
it could be. You're just then paying for the NIL rights, not to fund their scholarship. And given it's a business deal for you, it's not able to be written off as a tax deduction.
would envision there would be some ways to write this off in your business underwritings (depending on what you own and then contract the athlete to do), but would have to think this is where it gets a lot hairier for people who are just looking to support athletes as a whole rather than convince a 5* they will give them the most dollars.
One step further.
A scholarship is generally not taxable income to the athlete.
NIL monies are taxable income to the athlete.
Expect to see more movement on the future of college sports soon. The D-1 Commissioners are meeting this week in Florida.
Could this mean the B1G would play its own tournament for hockey and just ignore the rest of college hockey?
Sounds like a terrible option.Expect to see more movement on the future of college sports soon. The D-1 Commissioners are meeting this week in Florida.
Could this mean the B1G would play its own tournament for hockey and just ignore the rest of college hockey?
Sounds like a terrible option.Expect to see more movement on the future of college sports soon. The D-1 Commissioners are meeting this week in Florida.
Could this mean the B1G would play its own tournament for hockey and just ignore the rest of college hockey?
would effectively kill college hockey
I would hope they could figure out a way around this if need be. Exclude certain sports or Break up the B1G hockey conference if need be. Why kill a major sport for 6 teams? That wouldn't make sense. This isn't much different than LaCrosse from a numbers perspective. In Lacrosse the ACC has 5 teams and one is Notre Dame.Sounds like a terrible option.Expect to see more movement on the future of college sports soon. The D-1 Commissioners are meeting this week in Florida.
Could this mean the B1G would play its own tournament for hockey and just ignore the rest of college hockey?
would effectively kill college hockey
I would hope they could figure out a way around this if need be. Exclude certain sports or Break up the B1G hockey conference if need be. Why kill a major sport for 6 teams? That wouldn't make sense. This isn't much different than LaCrosse from a numbers perspective. In Lacrosse the ACC has 5 teams and one is Notre Dame.
Big difference with lax is that the B1G is also a strong conference (Rutgers, Maryland, Johns Hopkins) so you can have a viable sport with two conferences.
In hockey, you have the B1G and only two other Power-4 schools that play-- and they are across the continent from one another.
Is Notre Dame included in this? For Hockey we have B1G + Notre Dame, Arizona and BC. And you also have UConn which may want to get in on this. In Lacrosse it's like 11 teams. I don't see it really being that different.I would hope they could figure out a way around this if need be. Exclude certain sports or Break up the B1G hockey conference if need be. Why kill a major sport for 6 teams? That wouldn't make sense. This isn't much different than LaCrosse from a numbers perspective. In Lacrosse the ACC has 5 teams and one is Notre Dame.
Big difference with lax is that the B1G is also a strong conference (Rutgers, Maryland, Johns Hopkins) so you can have a viable sport with two conferences.
In hockey, you have the B1G and only two other Power-4 schools that play-- and they are across the continent from one another.
AZ and BC would either have to join the B1G in hockey and try to make due with one conference of 9 teams or they'd have to disband the B1G hockey conference. Want to see attendance crash and turn a revenue generator into a money sucker?
AZ and BC would either have to join the B1G in hockey and try to make due with one conference of 9 teams or they'd have to disband the B1G hockey conference. Want to see attendance crash and turn a revenue generator into a money sucker?
Notre Dame is a B1G hockey school. And UConn is not in a P4 conference despite their basketball prowess.
The calculation for the B1G is can they make more running their own tournament than sharing a pot with the NCAA (and all other D1 conferences) for the Frozen Four. It may not be in Tampa, but a sold out Mariucci with how many future NHL draft picks playing is likely to get a pretty good market share (rather than watching smaller state schools field 5th-year overage seniors in the Frozen Four by playing clutch-and-trap).
AZ and BC would either have to join the B1G in hockey and try to make due with one conference of 9 teams or they'd have to disband the B1G hockey conference. Want to see attendance crash and turn a revenue generator into a money sucker?
Notre Dame is a B1G hockey school. And UConn is not in a P4 conference despite their basketball prowess.
The calculation for the B1G is can they make more running their own tournament than sharing a pot with the NCAA (and all other D1 conferences) for the Frozen Four. It may not be in Tampa, but a sold out Mariucci with how many future NHL draft picks playing is likely to get a pretty good market share (rather than watching smaller state schools field 5th-year overage seniors in the Frozen Four by playing clutch-and-trap).
I think they’d be very very very wrong. There’s a reason btn shows things like wrestling and gymnastics and volleyball over ensuring every hockey game is played on btn rather than btn+
They already have a B1G tourney and I don't think it's the revenue generator you're claiming. If you turn Div1 hockey into a Power 4 only hockey with nine teams and no national champion there is no way you will sell out Mariucci for anything. Hell, they already have a B1G tourney and I don't think it's the revenue generator you're claiming.AZ and BC would either have to join the B1G in hockey and try to make due with one conference of 9 teams or they'd have to disband the B1G hockey conference. Want to see attendance crash and turn a revenue generator into a money sucker?
Notre Dame is a B1G hockey school. And UConn is not in a P4 conference despite their basketball prowess.
The calculation for the B1G is can they make more running their own tournament than sharing a pot with the NCAA (and all other D1 conferences) for the Frozen Four. It may not be in Tampa, but a sold out Mariucci with how many future NHL draft picks playing is likely to get a pretty good market share (rather than watching smaller state schools field 5th-year overage seniors in the Frozen Four by playing clutch-and-trap).
Will NHL prospects choose B1G hockey over schools like DU, BC, BU, UND? Will they instead choose to play WHL, QJMHL? I would certainly not expect a move to Power 4 (B1G) hockey to mean the conference takes over the college world.
And I understand UConn isn't a Power 4 team, but my guess is they will be soon if the Power 4 cut out competition with non-Power 4 teams. They won't want to lose their basketball and I bet they have great funding (and TV draw) in that NY market.
With how geographically spread out Big Ten teams are and the fact that conference tournaments aren't that important for the top teams each season since they are going to make the NCAA tournament whether then win the conference tournament or not I think conference tournaments aren't that appealing for fans in terms of traveling a far distance hence there not being a large conference tournament setting.
We have to stop thinking of college sports conferences as having rationality in a "similar institution" mindset. Rather, we have now the American League and National League, and everyone else is minor league baseball.
With the B1G directly paying athletes and heading down the path they are with their brand, I don't see them weakening the image by allowing anyone other than another major league college into the club. It hurts the overall brand if the Twins would lose to the Buffalo Bisons, so why play it at all?
The B1G already is getting the bulk of NHL draft picks, and that amount is poised to grow with their ability to directly pay players and established NIL infrastructure. The B1G tournament alone was good, quality, exciting hockey-- a very good hockey product (albeit, merely hockey).
While alone it may not be a great moneymaker, but enough to maintain the brand and control the dollars-- rather than split it with others who are playing a different game altogether.
We have a strong tradition at Mariucci of building the game locally and playing opponents that have made the state of Minnesota (and its spillover) into a national hockey hotbed. But these decisions about the future of the B1G will instead be made with what is good for Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Penn State in mind. The question is: what really do they want? Based on the formation of the B1G and decisions made there, I think we know how they will choose to go-- and that future does not include consideration for UMD, Western Michigan, or Bowling Green much less Niagara, St. Lawrence or Providence.
@skiumahlaw very much get what you're saying, but in this matter the Big is alone comparatively with the rest of the country. I could 100% see your above scenario in football and basketball, where the pot is extremely large and the Big (and SEC, etc) feel they are the drivers of the revenue (they are). So I'd more expect that that group of commissioners meeting privately is doing so regarding making a "super league" of football and basketball (and maybe your Olympic sports), similar to what the European soccer clubs tried to do. Basketball overall gets a little hairier, as there are many additional top teams that are not in the "power" conferences. we'll see what the backlash is (think this would largely have to do with if the Big, SEC, etc., are willing to bring ALL their teams, or if they're going to try cut bait).
the reason i'd lean more this way is it puts teams that are offering additional sports in very difficult water. MN makes money on hockey as it is right now; it would likely not in a BIG only league. On top of that, most of the BIG does not offer hockey. Thus I would envision that those leagues with non-majority of partner schools sitting out to stand pat as they are. No one is tuning into watching 7 teams play hockey against each other in perpetuity (same as Lacrosse with 6 teams, one of which is Hopkins. Are you going to kick them out?).
Do note I am not advocating that the B1G take such actions necessarily.
But as a group we have to stop thinking about the NCAA and its rules. How strong is any sport the NCAA offers without the B1G/$EC participating? We call it FCS, and while SDSU and NDSU have had great runs, they cannot come close to garnering any interest outside the participating schools.
The shift here is that the B1G and $EC are now more powerful than the NCAA, and essentially will make their own rules going forward in all sports. You already have B1G coaches complaining that the bouncyball tournament selection is rigged in favor of the non-majors-- so what changes will that lead to? Who would watch a March Madness where the B1G, $EC, ACC and Big XII+X decided to do their own thing? In contrast, who would pay for a basketball tournament that only involved P4 schools?
But maintaining the brand will become even more important, and losing to a no-name in a non-revenue sport is not going to help the B1G brand across the board. So what would the Frozen Four be if the B1G schools decided they wouldn't participate in the NCAA tournament-- would it make enough money to pay for itself even? Further, without any real political opposition in hockey, why would anyone think the B1G wouldn't simply run the narrative for itself?
These are crazy days.
So form a 7-team league that only plays each other? Because if the B1G separates all the supposed also-rans are not going to schedule the B1G during their regular season.
Do note I am not advocating that the B1G take such actions necessarily.
But as a group we have to stop thinking about the NCAA and its rules. How strong is any sport the NCAA offers without the B1G/$EC participating? We call it FCS, and while SDSU and NDSU have had great runs, they cannot come close to garnering any interest outside the participating schools.
The shift here is that the B1G and $EC are now more powerful than the NCAA, and essentially will make their own rules going forward in all sports. You already have B1G coaches complaining that the bouncyball tournament selection is rigged in favor of the non-majors-- so what changes will that lead to? Who would watch a March Madness where the B1G, $EC, ACC and Big XII+X decided to do their own thing? In contrast, who would pay for a basketball tournament that only involved P4 schools?
But maintaining the brand will become even more important, and losing to a no-name in a non-revenue sport is not going to help the B1G brand across the board. So what would the Frozen Four be if the B1G schools decided they wouldn't participate in the NCAA tournament-- would it make enough money to pay for itself even? Further, without any real political opposition in hockey, why would anyone think the B1G wouldn't simply run the narrative for itself?
These are crazy days.
really all that comes down to is will a major network give them a TV deal. Maybe they would negotiate for the full league rights (that will get weird given what I mentioned about non-participating teams, conferences, etc. and splitting revenue) but projecting for non-revenue sports gets really murky. no one wants to pick up hockey, baseball, wrestling, etc. aside from the regional and conference networks, which already exist and are at capacity in what they can stream/show while making a profit (there's a reason they have students broadcasting games for hockey). Further, for hockey, I don't think there's a big enough nationwide market share to get anyone interested in wanting to show games (hell ESPN puts the NCAA tournament games in the early afternoon on ESPNNews and they've decided they wanted to recommit to hockey).
as far as the "brand" commentary, again this applies to things like basketball and football. Not enough people "care" about hockey (ditto for wrestling, volleyball, baseball, etc) outside of those who actually follow to notice that the Gophers lost to Mankato or let's say Tennessee dropped a baseball game to Evansville. the Frozen Four would still make money locally without the Big Ten. The league only started in 2013 and there have been multiple recent Frozen Fours without any of those teams making it (2016 in Tampa, 2019 in Buffalo)
Again I think this is very plausible they explore this for football and basketball. I don't think there will be the appetite in the other sports (I'd actually think you'd see more schools shutting down programs if it comes to this point because then it will truly just be about money and it's easier to axe your non-money making sports while keeping title IX balance of course).
the Big actually has a major advantage right now in hockey in that they get to drive the narrative going forward. There's no reason to dampen their pot by going down to a solo conference or trying to poach additional teams to make a 12 team single conference. Maybe it would help them short term, but they know it would hurt long term. Thus I'd expect they'll leave it (and all non-revenue sports) alone if they can. Only way it changes is if they try pull out football and basketball and everyone else gives them the middle finger and won't play with them at all (foolish on their part as some money is better than none).
Honestly I think it is more dire than all of that. If something isn't done to fix the structure of college sports college hockey is likely to lose a lot of teams. There are plenty already that struggle to make ends meet and if they don't have P4 Football bringing in massive amounts of revenue you are going to see contraction either with schools closing up shop or moving down to avoid the issues. Schools that can't find benefactors to either donate for NIL or scholarships (most likely both) are going to be pinched hard and really struggle to get top talent to show up.
Honestly it might not be that the Big Infinity chooses to have their own tournament...it might be necessity. How many smaller state schools are going to be able to afford to fund a ton of scholarships without the attendance to back it up? Some of the schools out East, Michigan and even here in Minnesota (I am looking at you SCCC) are going to run into serious problems.
The Haves/Have-nots in the other sports are bad enough, but in a sport like hockey where it is niche and it is very costly? It is going to be ten times worse. The Big Infinity is going to be able to buy all the talent they want top to bottom thanks to the structure of the league. Do you really think the NCHC is going to be able to compete on a money scale? UND can and I would assume Denver can because it is private but the rest? They are going to be like the Gophers in basketball, hoping to find a bunch of lower level guys who can play up on the cheap. That is a recipe for disaster in a sport like hockey. (NCAA basketball is in a much better place and the Gophers are in a much richer conference)
Honestly I think it is more dire than all of that. If something isn't done to fix the structure of college sports college hockey is likely to lose a lot of teams. There are plenty already that struggle to make ends meet and if they don't have P4 Football bringing in massive amounts of revenue you are going to see contraction either with schools closing up shop or moving down to avoid the issues. Schools that can't find benefactors to either donate for NIL or scholarships (most likely both) are going to be pinched hard and really struggle to get top talent to show up.
Honestly it might not be that the Big Infinity chooses to have their own tournament...it might be necessity. How many smaller state schools are going to be able to afford to fund a ton of scholarships without the attendance to back it up? Some of the schools out East, Michigan and even here in Minnesota (I am looking at you SCCC) are going to run into serious problems.
The Haves/Have-nots in the other sports are bad enough, but in a sport like hockey where it is niche and it is very costly? It is going to be ten times worse. The Big Infinity is going to be able to buy all the talent they want top to bottom thanks to the structure of the league. Do you really think the NCHC is going to be able to compete on a money scale? UND can and I would assume Denver can because it is private but the rest? They are going to be like the Gophers in basketball, hoping to find a bunch of lower level guys who can play up on the cheap. That is a recipe for disaster in a sport like hockey. (NCAA basketball is in a much better place and the Gophers are in a much richer conference)
to be honest, I don't know. I don't think there's going to be as big an arms race in hockey as there is in other sports. CFB players are held captive for 3 years and the salaries are huge when you jump from college to pro. Ditto for the NBA (minus the captive for 3 years, but 1 instead). Couple that with that the revenues are huuuge for these sports. What AD is going to tell the Big Ten that they can have a budget of let's say $1million in surplus to sign kids for more (that would be about 50k/athlete over 21 skaters)? There's no incentive to them.
to use the actual numbers (from 2022 UMN budget https://gophersports.com/documents/2023/1/18/FY22_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_-_01.13.23.pdf), they made about 4.5 million this year for men's hockey. Expenses were 5.7million. Why would they want to go another 1million in debt when the recoupled financial gains there are near 0? There is no media deal for B10 hockey and the conference and NCAA distribution is tiny even if you go deep in the postseason. They've been given the option to pay players, not that they have to. And until the numbers get quite large, the difference in 25-50k to go somewhere probably isn't going to sway a ton of players more than what happens now. Not to mention the issues with roster construction and these guys wanting to get to the league if you only sign 5* guys. The NIL money will be what buys that talent, not the big deciding to throw money at sports most people don't care about.
Honestly I think it is more dire than all of that. If something isn't done to fix the structure of college sports college hockey is likely to lose a lot of teams. There are plenty already that struggle to make ends meet and if they don't have P4 Football bringing in massive amounts of revenue you are going to see contraction either with schools closing up shop or moving down to avoid the issues. Schools that can't find benefactors to either donate for NIL or scholarships (most likely both) are going to be pinched hard and really struggle to get top talent to show up.
Where would players they get now go otherwise? There's only so many roster spots available at B1G and similar like programs.
They will go to Juniors or the few non Big Infinity teams that have money.
Honestly I think it is more dire than all of that. If something isn't done to fix the structure of college sports college hockey is likely to lose a lot of teams. There are plenty already that struggle to make ends meet and if they don't have P4 Football bringing in massive amounts of revenue you are going to see contraction either with schools closing up shop or moving down to avoid the issues. Schools that can't find benefactors to either donate for NIL or scholarships (most likely both) are going to be pinched hard and really struggle to get top talent to show up.
Honestly it might not be that the Big Infinity chooses to have their own tournament...it might be necessity. How many smaller state schools are going to be able to afford to fund a ton of scholarships without the attendance to back it up? Some of the schools out East, Michigan and even here in Minnesota (I am looking at you SCCC) are going to run into serious problems.
The Haves/Have-nots in the other sports are bad enough, but in a sport like hockey where it is niche and it is very costly? It is going to be ten times worse. The Big Infinity is going to be able to buy all the talent they want top to bottom thanks to the structure of the league. Do you really think the NCHC is going to be able to compete on a money scale? UND can and I would assume Denver can because it is private but the rest? They are going to be like the Gophers in basketball, hoping to find a bunch of lower level guys who can play up on the cheap. That is a recipe for disaster in a sport like hockey. (NCAA basketball is in a much better place and the Gophers are in a much richer conference)
to be honest, I don't know. I don't think there's going to be as big an arms race in hockey as there is in other sports. CFB players are held captive for 3 years and the salaries are huge when you jump from college to pro. Ditto for the NBA (minus the captive for 3 years, but 1 instead). Couple that with that the revenues are huuuge for these sports. What AD is going to tell the Big Ten that they can have a budget of let's say $1million in surplus to sign kids for more (that would be about 50k/athlete over 21 skaters)? There's no incentive to them.
to use the actual numbers (from 2022 UMN budget https://gophersports.com/documents/2023/1/18/FY22_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_-_01.13.23.pdf), they made about 4.5 million this year for men's hockey. Expenses were 5.7million. Why would they want to go another 1million in debt when the recoupled financial gains there are near 0? There is no media deal for B10 hockey and the conference and NCAA distribution is tiny even if you go deep in the postseason. They've been given the option to pay players, not that they have to. And until the numbers get quite large, the difference in 25-50k to go somewhere probably isn't going to sway a ton of players more than what happens now. Not to mention the issues with roster construction and these guys wanting to get to the league if you only sign 5* guys. The NIL money will be what buys that talent, not the big deciding to throw money at sports most people don't care about.
(your link is broken FYI)
Its not so much an arms race as it is there is only so much actual talent (top end blue chip types) that come to college and they already narrow down their choices...and now the Big Infinity schools have an advantage most other schools do not. Even if you assume they won't pay (they will sooner or later) most smaller schools will have issues putting collectives together to bring in talent. Sure the UNDs of the world can but do you really think a bunch of rich alumni are going to throw money at Michigan Tech or SCCC? So schools of that size and budget are going to have to hope there is either someone who grew up wanting to play there or they find diamonds in the rough. Then, because they can, those players will transfer anyways the second someone comes calling.
And the overall budget is what matters anyways at a school like ours. Its not like hockey will have to take money from their profits, they can use any of the money from the Big Ten contract or other contracts if they want to. Now maybe they won't but if say Michigan starts doing it you can bet your ass they will as well. And even if it is not a ton of money...something is better than nothing.
The college system isn't built to deal with any of this...so the Power Schools and conferences have everything tilted their way. Unless they revamp all of the rules everything will collapse under the pressure. Basketball is already on the slow boat to ritualistic suicide (and if they expand the tourney again that will another step in that direction) and football is going to be 2 conferences when this is all said if they don't make some changes.
Honestly I think it is more dire than all of that. If something isn't done to fix the structure of college sports college hockey is likely to lose a lot of teams. There are plenty already that struggle to make ends meet and if they don't have P4 Football bringing in massive amounts of revenue you are going to see contraction either with schools closing up shop or moving down to avoid the issues. Schools that can't find benefactors to either donate for NIL or scholarships (most likely both) are going to be pinched hard and really struggle to get top talent to show up.
Honestly it might not be that the Big Infinity chooses to have their own tournament...it might be necessity. How many smaller state schools are going to be able to afford to fund a ton of scholarships without the attendance to back it up? Some of the schools out East, Michigan and even here in Minnesota (I am looking at you SCCC) are going to run into serious problems.
The Haves/Have-nots in the other sports are bad enough, but in a sport like hockey where it is niche and it is very costly? It is going to be ten times worse. The Big Infinity is going to be able to buy all the talent they want top to bottom thanks to the structure of the league. Do you really think the NCHC is going to be able to compete on a money scale? UND can and I would assume Denver can because it is private but the rest? They are going to be like the Gophers in basketball, hoping to find a bunch of lower level guys who can play up on the cheap. That is a recipe for disaster in a sport like hockey. (NCAA basketball is in a much better place and the Gophers are in a much richer conference)
to be honest, I don't know. I don't think there's going to be as big an arms race in hockey as there is in other sports. CFB players are held captive for 3 years and the salaries are huge when you jump from college to pro. Ditto for the NBA (minus the captive for 3 years, but 1 instead). Couple that with that the revenues are huuuge for these sports. What AD is going to tell the Big Ten that they can have a budget of let's say $1million in surplus to sign kids for more (that would be about 50k/athlete over 21 skaters)? There's no incentive to them.
to use the actual numbers (from 2022 UMN budget https://gophersports.com/documents/2023/1/18/FY22_NCAA_Online_Report_-_FINAL_-_01.13.23.pdf), they made about 4.5 million this year for men's hockey. Expenses were 5.7million. Why would they want to go another 1million in debt when the recoupled financial gains there are near 0? There is no media deal for B10 hockey and the conference and NCAA distribution is tiny even if you go deep in the postseason. They've been given the option to pay players, not that they have to. And until the numbers get quite large, the difference in 25-50k to go somewhere probably isn't going to sway a ton of players more than what happens now. Not to mention the issues with roster construction and these guys wanting to get to the league if you only sign 5* guys. The NIL money will be what buys that talent, not the big deciding to throw money at sports most people don't care about.
(your link is broken FYI)
Its not so much an arms race as it is there is only so much actual talent (top end blue chip types) that come to college and they already narrow down their choices...and now the Big Infinity schools have an advantage most other schools do not. Even if you assume they won't pay (they will sooner or later) most smaller schools will have issues putting collectives together to bring in talent. Sure the UNDs of the world can but do you really think a bunch of rich alumni are going to throw money at Michigan Tech or SCCC? So schools of that size and budget are going to have to hope there is either someone who grew up wanting to play there or they find diamonds in the rough. Then, because they can, those players will transfer anyways the second someone comes calling.
And the overall budget is what matters anyways at a school like ours. Its not like hockey will have to take money from their profits, they can use any of the money from the Big Ten contract or other contracts if they want to. Now maybe they won't but if say Michigan starts doing it you can bet your ass they will as well. And even if it is not a ton of money...something is better than nothing.
The college system isn't built to deal with any of this...so the Power Schools and conferences have everything tilted their way. Unless they revamp all of the rules everything will collapse under the pressure. Basketball is already on the slow boat to ritualistic suicide (and if they expand the tourney again that will another step in that direction) and football is going to be 2 conferences when this is all said if they don't make some changes.
thanks for letting me know it was broken. No idea why or how to fix it, but you can google the UMN athletic budgets as they’re all public info if you’re interested.
what I’m saying is why would they pay? The top 10 teams by and large already land them and no one below is punching up to get in that tier (maybe UST does some day?). Some guys like Cooley, Celebrini, Fantilli, etc may command some dollars, but they’re not going to start Shelling major dollars to 16 year olds that can back out at any time. Maybe we’ll get into bidding wars with BC, BU, UND, DU and the B10. But I just don’t think the huge donors are there like they are in basketball and football (throwing 100s of 1000s at players). And even if it did, it’s not going change the way the current blue chips distribute. If we’re arguing will they pay the top 10-15 blue chips nationally each year, then yeah I agree that’ll happen as it’s already happening via nil right now (which is what I’d expect to continue).
again there is no large scale money in Big Ten contracts for hockey (BTN money generated from hockey is nothing) that are going to drive this from a pay for play standpoint. Ask the AD where they’re going to put any “extra” and it’s going to be to football and basketball as making a bowl game is worth more than what the every non revenue sport generates in terms of their bowl payout. They’re not going to throw large enough dollars into the pot to recruit “better” hockey players to win a title that doesn’t change their bottom line (they would be an extremely bad AD if they did so, despite that I would love it if they did and we would finally win another damn title).
they have the advantage in that we have the best facilities, coaches, and resources presently which isn’t going to change. Couple that with that the Big Ten is full of blue blood teams that carry a lot of weight in talks and driving interest in the sport (but not all as we’ve seen by legislation efforts to make age caps fall short despite coming from the B10).
If they decided to separate (in hockey), it’s only going to increase their costs and further decrease their revenue which loses you money. Could I see them adding a small “incentive” to all U scholarship athletes in that their scholarship is a little higher? Sure. But the money just isn’t there in terms of tv revenue like in basketball and football. Which again, that’s the what matters here and is why football and basketball are the only ones I see changing dramatically. I do think they will kill college football and basketball as we know it in this arms race and it will kill many fans’ interest (I’ve always greatly enjoyed CBB but with how it is now, I’ll just watch the wolves instead if teams are just going to buy players). If it happens in college hockey, I’ll be very surprised as this is all about dollars and there’s just not the money in hockey nationally to make it lucrative for a University at this point in time.
Handy most of the kids in college are there because they want to play college hockey - not juniors. Otherwise they'd already be playing junior hockey instead.
In 2019 33% of players in the NHL game from college and per this: https://collegehockeyinc.com/in-the-nhl.php
A record 349 former college players skated in the NHL in 2021-22, a number that has increased by 65% over the last 19 years.
College hockey, in short, is the fastest growing development path for the NHL.
Those numbers can't be limited to the B1G and similar moneyed programs. Also how many times have we heard about junior hockey wanting their players to be NCAA eligible?
I'm not arguing the NCAA landscape isn't going to change and perhaps it will change dramatically, but I just can't foresee the B1G closing down the ranks into such a tiny circle unless it's because there is a mass exodus of teams from Div I.