NCAA to propose new level of D-I where athletes can be paid

[mac2351]

(#357) NCAA to propose new level of D-I where athletes can be paid

In today’s issue, in a letter to 350 Division I schools on Tuesday, NCAA president Charlie Baker is calling for a total reformation of Division I athletics, including a new tier where schools will be allowed to pay athletes directly. What does this mean for college hockey? It could have a...

open.substack.com

In hockey, the programs most likely affected would include the Big Ten (Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin), Arizona State, and Boston College.

However, it’s possible other prominent basketball schools (especially those with FBS football programs) — UConn, Providence, UMass — could also choose this new subdivision.

What happens then? Are we looking at a future where 10-12 programs operate on a different level than the rest of college hockey, but they all play for the same championships?

Could this lead to widespread realignment?

Will the rest of the NCHC want to compete against Arizona State if the Sun Devils can pay players but the rest of the league can’t? It could be a mess in Hockey East, where two or three programs operate differently than everyone else.
Will this new subdivision create a scenario where these schools all join the Big Ten as affiliate hockey members?

Take Hockey East for example … if BC is the only school in the league to operate under the new subdivision, will the rest of Hockey East want them to continue in the league? I could see a scenario where the other 10 schools want BC out, because they’d be operating under different rules than the rest of the league.

 

[CTBballfan243]

(#357) NCAA to propose new level of D-I where athletes can be paid

In today’s issue, in a letter to 350 Division I schools on Tuesday, NCAA president Charlie Baker is calling for a total reformation of Division I athletics, including a new tier where schools will be allowed to pay athletes directly. What does this mean for college hockey? It could have a...

open.substack.com

In hockey, the programs most likely affected would include the Big Ten (Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin), Arizona State, and Boston College.

However, it’s possible other prominent basketball schools (especially those with FBS football programs) — UConn, Providence, UMass — could also choose this new subdivision.

What happens then? Are we looking at a future where 10-12 programs operate on a different level than the rest of college hockey, but they all play for the same championships?

Could this lead to widespread realignment?

Will the rest of the NCHC want to compete against Arizona State if the Sun Devils can pay players but the rest of the league can’t? It could be a mess in Hockey East, where two or three programs operate differently than everyone else.
Will this new subdivision create a scenario where these schools all join the Big Ten as affiliate hockey members?

Take Hockey East for example … if BC is the only school in the league to operate under the new subdivision, will the rest of Hockey East want them to continue in the league? I could see a scenario where the other 10 schools want BC out, because they’d be operating under different rules than the rest of the league.

BC is not going to be able to hang Financially with the Big Ten Teams. I’m not sure they would be all in on “pay to play“. Especially when the ACC fall apart and they get regulated.

 

[RSTuthill]

This could lead to those schools who play FBS football to drop men's hockey because of Title IX.