The State of College Hockey | Page 2 | The Boneyard

The State of College Hockey

We are now "post House" Did everyone in HE opt in? UVM the following year, but everyone else? Anyone hear about QU and Colgate in the ECAC?
Searchable by school/conference:
 

I am shocked at BU, but after more thought I guess not. I am actually shocked that Merrimack decided to opt in. Somehow this has the feel that opting in means you are playing at the 1A level, and not in the settlement means you are playing 1AA. We shall see what this means for hockey.
 
.-.
I am shocked at BU, but after more thought I guess not. I am actually shocked that Merrimack decided to opt in. Somehow this has the feel that opting in means you are playing at the 1A level, and not in the settlement means you are playing 1AA. We shall see what this means for hockey.
BU opted out to fall in line with the Patriot League stance of not doing rev share (where their basketball teams play) and because they don't want to be forced into the roster sizes. They also don't have football to be concerned about... Don't worry about BU, their 2025-2026 roster has the most NHL draft picks in the NCAA at 19; 7 defensemen, 11 forwards, and a world class goalie. Their NIL is very strong and because of that, they'll be more than ok financially.
 
BU opted out to fall in line with the Patriot League stance of not doing rev share (where their basketball teams play) and because they don't want to be forced into the roster sizes. They also don't have football to be concerned about... Don't worry about BU, their 2025-2026 roster has the most NHL draft picks in the NCAA at 19; 7 defensemen, 11 forwards, and a world class goalie. Their NIL is very strong and because of that, they'll be more than ok financially.
The roster size limit was an issue for many non-Ivies in the ECAC too I am told by reliable sources. Well, in a decade we will know which is better.
 
The roster size limit was an issue for many non-Ivies in the ECAC too I am told by reliable sources. Well, in a decade we will know which is better.
Yup - the Patriot and the Ivies are going down the same road on rev share/roster sizes. Ivies definitely taking a hard line stance on it as they have done so forever on athletic scholarships.
 
.-.
Mercyhurst abruptly cut their hockey program today.

Days after asking for donations and the coach thanking people for donating on their day of giving.

Apparently the players had no idea it was happening.
 
That is truly truly sad. There will be more I am afraid. I remember the days of UConn playing a D3 schedule. They were SO dominant.
Ridiculous from what people connected to Mercyhurst are saying. It’s the only sport in which they were nationally recognized.
 
.-.
Probably good news for Stonehill and LIU, which are looking for a conference home.
 
Ridiculous from what people connected to Mercyhurst are saying. It’s the only sport in which they were nationally recognized.
Well, this may happen some more. It may have been an expression of educational philosophy with the view that the tail is beginning to wag the dog; or, it may have spoken more to the finances of the institution with the view this is costing a lot more than it used to and the revenue generated does not cover the added costs.
 
Connecticut is a Division I independent in football. That said, they will all be soon giving good amounts for hockey players. UConn's and UMass' hockey rev share budgets are expected to hit $300,000 with the potential to climb near $500,000.

The Big Ten schools and Boston College are ready to play in the big pool, with budgets anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million. It's not clear if Notre Dame is doing that yet for hockey, but will need to.

In the case of Denver and Providence, in particular, this means looking at rev share budgets of at least $500,000. This is not necessarily where those programs are now, but it's heading in that direction, as needed.

At the high end, perhaps by itself, is North Dakota. Expect its hockey rev share budget to be up to the $500,000 range once it's in full gear.

Some will use a big chunk to lure in a player they really want, whether that's a recruit or someone in the portal. Others will distribute money evenly among all players on the roster, with essentially retention bonuses for each year they stay. Others will use the money just to retain players so they're not lost to the portal.

A common theme has emerged for a majority of the schools — the ones who aren't necessarily at the top end of spending but in the middle tier. Those schools, by and large, will not get into a bidding war.

"If you want to be competitive, the standard is going to be around $250,000," said one athletic director.

"There's a couple programs and a couple players where there's a considerable amount of money being thrown at them," Western Michigan athletic director Dan Bartholomae said recently to ESPN. "I still think it's a pretty unknown space beneath that. Like, what is your top-line player making at North Dakota or Denver? I don't know that. And how do you spread the money out? Is it going all to a McKenna? There's not much left for anybody else."

"We deserve a 'development fee' — take a player, OK, now you owe us, like European soccer," one coach said.

Said player agent George Bazos, "They recruit kids based on that. They'll tell them 'come here 2 years, we'll pump up your numbers and you can go somewhere else.'"

 
So BU and Clarkson just opted in. Any others? I would be surprised if the other four non-Ivies in the ECAC did not follow suit. The Ivies have a lot of very rich alums. That may not need to to stay on pace.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,706
Messages
4,591,778
Members
10,500
Latest member
Ghoul


Top Bottom