Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Maine Off-season 2024: Insert Pun Here

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ryecheers
    replied
    First we got the extra Covid year. Next came the eased transfer rule. Then came NIL for the wealthier and/or better sponsored programs. Now the athletes may receive salaries (In addition to scholarships, potentially worth as much as $300K).

    Will the next “innovation “ be bidding wars aimed at hiring other teams’ players who have performed well but may be “underpaid”?

    Leave a comment:


  • 9twenty
    replied
    Originally posted by amkirby10 View Post
    Maybe Im just naive or an optimist, but I don't really see the introduction of essentially player salaries to NCAA as likely to have a huge impact on hockey. It's somewhat niche and not really a revenue sport as it is, so accordingly it's players probably couldn't demand much, if any, salary. It may further the power imbalance of haves and have nots, since schools like those in the B1G might be the ones able to offer salaries while others can't, but that was a) already endemic to the NCAA model, and b) was likely to be further cemented by penalty free transfers and NIL money anyway. So I don't necessarily see it as being a death blow to the sport?

    Now, the pessimist in me says that maybe men's hockey is the exact sport, or in the range of the exact sport, that stands to get decimated by this ruling. I mean this in the sense that (P5) men's basketball and football were already huge revenue generators, so they can afford to siphon some off the top to the players doing the majority of the generation of that massive income. On the other end of the spectrum, more obscure men's sports like rifle, bowling, etc, and almost all women's sports will probably be in the position of their players not having any expectation of income anyway, so they won't be effected much or at all by the ruling. Leaving the more middle tier sports, like men's hockey specifically, as it has the NHL, a major professional league with high salaries and media coverage (relatively speaking) as the end goal of its players, they may have more expectation of earnings that schools with a hockey program will not, or cannot, provide.

    Or maybe I, along with anyone else, won't know for sure how it will play out and we will just have to be along for the ride and wait and see.
    That's my take on it...wait and see...pretty much all we can do.

    Leave a comment:


  • amkirby10
    replied
    Maybe Im just naive or an optimist, but I don't really see the introduction of essentially player salaries to NCAA as likely to have a huge impact on hockey. It's somewhat niche and not really a revenue sport as it is, so accordingly it's players probably couldn't demand much, if any, salary. It may further the power imbalance of haves and have nots, since schools like those in the B1G might be the ones able to offer salaries while others can't, but that was a) already endemic to the NCAA model, and b) was likely to be further cemented by penalty free transfers and NIL money anyway. So I don't necessarily see it as being a death blow to the sport?

    Now, the pessimist in me says that maybe men's hockey is the exact sport, or in the range of the exact sport, that stands to get decimated by this ruling. I mean this in the sense that (P5) men's basketball and football were already huge revenue generators, so they can afford to siphon some off the top to the players doing the majority of the generation of that massive income. On the other end of the spectrum, more obscure men's sports like rifle, bowling, etc, and almost all women's sports will probably be in the position of their players not having any expectation of income anyway, so they won't be effected much or at all by the ruling. Leaving the more middle tier sports, like men's hockey specifically, as it has the NHL, a major professional league with high salaries and media coverage (relatively speaking) as the end goal of its players, they may have more expectation of earnings that schools with a hockey program will not, or cannot, provide.

    Or maybe I, along with anyone else, won't know for sure how it will play out and we will just have to be along for the ride and wait and see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drew S.
    replied
    Originally posted by walrus View Post

    No I just wanted to say I used Notre Dame as an example. Not worded very well. Not sure on North Dakota though, they fill that arena every game, its around 11 or 12K??
    What does Notre Dame’s financial situation look like once they have to start to pay players? I could see them and similar schools getting majorly squeezed. It’s easy for me to see not much for college sports other than football and basketball in the very near future.

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    Originally posted by CornellFan13 View Post
    If by UND you mean North Dakota, their athletics revenue is minuscule compared to the Power 5 schools’. Outside of cutting a bunch of programs or operating at a huge loss, I don’t see how they are going to be able to afford to pay players.

    Of the D-1 hockey schools, only those in the Big 10 + BC appear to have the the revenue to pull off paying a salary to their athletes without running a major deficit.
    No I just wanted to say I used Notre Dame as an example. Not worded very well. Not sure on North Dakota though, they fill that arena every game, its around 11 or 12K??

    Leave a comment:


  • CornellFan13
    replied
    Originally posted by walrus View Post

    Notre Dame doesn't need to make money off hockey, they can make it in Football and subsidize hockey, use UND as an example, lots of other schools(big 10 ) can do the same
    If by UND you mean North Dakota, their athletics revenue is minuscule compared to the Power 5 schools’. Outside of cutting a bunch of programs or operating at a huge loss, I don’t see how they are going to be able to afford to pay players.

    Of the D-1 hockey schools, only those in the Big 10 + BC appear to have the the revenue to pull off paying a salary to their athletes without running a major deficit.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthMike
    replied
    Originally posted by walrus View Post

    Notre Dame doesn't need to make money off hockey, they can make it in Football and subsidize hockey, use UND as an example, lots of other schools(big 10 ) can do the same
    Aint that the truth!
    Its hard not to take a pessimistic outlook on what this could do to D1 hockey. The nil dough could vastly change the landscape too.
    Wait and see.

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    Originally posted by NorthMike View Post

    Gutting college sports and realignments on the way. It seems hoops and football at the big schools will wrestle first with this, but their at a way different level anyway.
    Hockey will be interesting, most schools dont make enough $ off it to be buying players.
    Maybe a whole bunch of schools drop out of D1 and go D3.
    Notre Dame doesn't need to make money off hockey, they can make it in Football and subsidize hockey, use UND as an example, lots of other schools(big 10 ) can do the same

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthMike
    replied
    Originally posted by Drew S. View Post

    I think it is much more than just small schools. Do varsity sports make a ton of sense for BU and Northeastern? Other than hockey I don’t think theyre nationally competitive in any other sports. They’re very strong academically and located where land is at a massive premium. Not sure if they will do away with sports but I think there will be schools like them who will. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Ivy League moves in a direction away from the NCAA as well.
    Gutting college sports and realignments on the way. It seems hoops and football at the big schools will wrestle first with this, but their at a way different level anyway.
    Hockey will be interesting, most schools dont make enough $ off it to be buying players.
    Maybe a whole bunch of schools drop out of D1 and go D3.

    Leave a comment:


  • jstadts
    replied
    Will the taxpayers of the state schools get stuck with even a bigger burden for what a long gone and hated poster use to call puck slappers? This is HUGE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drew S.
    replied
    Originally posted by walrus View Post
    This changes everything for small schools. Possible unlimited scholarships?
    https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-power-...001736810.html
    I think it is much more than just small schools. Do varsity sports make a ton of sense for BU and Northeastern? Other than hockey I don’t think theyre nationally competitive in any other sports. They’re very strong academically and located where land is at a massive premium. Not sure if they will do away with sports but I think there will be schools like them who will. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Ivy League moves in a direction away from the NCAA as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    This changes everything for small schools. Possible unlimited scholarships?
    https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-power-...001736810.html

    Leave a comment:


  • walrus
    replied
    Two things, first teams who are getting help thru the portal have to be near the top in league/ nationally. Second, has to be a place guys want to play. Alfond helps that believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparkee
    replied
    Originally posted by 9twenty View Post

    The roster being bigger now is alot different then during the Walsh era...back then there was no Portal...so a player either sat and waited and made progress year by year or transfered and sat a season out...but now if a player does not like or want to wait he can leave and do so multi times. Different now with the Portal as a players ace in the hole. So now it is way harder to keep a solid roster together...players either buy in or wave good bye.
    The system is less friendly for both the players and the coaches. The coaches have to recruit the portal or wind up getting a depleted roster, then they might have to push recruits off a year thereby losing them. And the players can be told they won’t have a spot next year. The portal is like free agency in pro sports. I’m not really a fan of it, but you evidently need to take advantage of it or be left potentially having a max exodus depleted roster scenario. And we have some players now that will attend three different schools before they finish in four years. How far are we away from seeing a player go to four different schools before they are done? Seems absurd but…

    Leave a comment:


  • 9twenty
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparkee View Post

    The only one listed on Heisenberg site set to join as a freshman is Brian Morse(RD) from Chiliwack of BCHL. He is an ‘03 birthdate so he has no more junior eligibility. So I assume this means he will definitely join Maine this year unless he pulls his verbal commitment to join somewhere else. I doubt we see any other additions unless the coaching staff considers a guy an upgrade, which is likely what they saw in Djurecevic. The roster is as big as we have seen since the Walsh days. Walsh used to have a big roster because he liked having a lot of competition for ice time, it pushed the depth to be as good as they could be.
    The roster being bigger now is alot different then during the Walsh era...back then there was no Portal...so a player either sat and waited and made progress year by year or transfered and sat a season out...but now if a player does not like or want to wait he can leave and do so multi times. Different now with the Portal as a players ace in the hole. So now it is way harder to keep a solid roster together...players either buy in or wave good bye.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X