What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Another NCAA Plot Twist

Ditra - the cuts will come from "non scholarship" athletes in current programs. There is now a hard roster limit. For hockey I believe it is 23 total players (including goalies)? Most programs carry more than that, and those players maybe get partial scholarships at best. Now they no longer have a spot on the team. No more "walk-ons" either - all players on a roster have a fully scholarship. But, I am very concerned that these new rules will force a lot of schools to cut programs. The athletic department just got "22% poorer" as the revenue producing sports will now have to pay their players. Unless there is some big benefactors for the non-revenue sports, that money will have to come from somewhere and the easiest thing is to cut some of those programs.
 
Cornholio said:
Ditra - the cuts will come from "non scholarship" athletes in current programs. There is now a hard roster limit. For hockey I believe it is 23 total players (including goalies)? Most programs carry more than that, and those players maybe get partial scholarships at best. Now they no longer have a spot on the team. No more "walk-ons" either - all players on a roster have a fully scholarship. But, I am very concerned that these new rules will force a lot of schools to cut programs. The athletic department just got "22% poorer" as the revenue producing sports will now have to pay their players. Unless there is some big benefactors for the non-revenue sports, that money will have to come from somewhere and the easiest thing is to cut some of those programs.
Click to expand...

The roster limit for ice hockey next year will be 26. Men and women.
 
Cornholio said:
The athletic department just got "22% poorer" as the revenue producing sports will now have to pay their players. Unless there is some big benefactors for the non-revenue sports, that money will have to come from somewhere and the easiest thing is to cut some of those programs.
Click to expand...

Is it "have to pay" or "can pay"? I agree with you it will be bad of student athletes/programs but I guess there aren't any of those going forward. The article also states that ticket prices are being raised. That is not surprising. Can't wait to see how they decide how much somebody is "worth". With the transfer rules there is the potential for even more movement when an athlete decides they aren't being treated fairly. These rulings seem to create more issues than they are suppose to solve in my opinion.
 
robertearle said:
The roster limit for ice hockey next year will be 26. Men and women.
Click to expand...

That's four full lines of forwards, four full lines of defenders, three goalies, and three extra players (a fifth line of forwards, fifth line of defenders, or ?). I wouldn't call that a "limit", really.
 
ZedLeppelin said:
That's four full lines of forwards, four full lines of defenders, three goalies, and three extra players (a fifth line of forwards, fifth line of defenders, or ?). I wouldn't call that a "limit", really.
Click to expand...

We did this once before (IIRC) and some people came up with 'east' women's teams that carry that many players. But my (limited) experience is that men's teams will carry that many because they will have players miss games more often due to minor bumps-and-bruises injury (because of checking?) than women's teams. Yeah, 26 seems to be more than good enough. The much bigger change is no limits on how many can be on scholarship, or how much partial-vs-total those scholarships can be.
 
Ditra said:
Is it "have to pay" or "can pay"? I agree with you it will be bad of student athletes/programs but I guess there aren't any of those going forward. The article also states that ticket prices are being raised. That is not surprising. Can't wait to see how they decide how much somebody is "worth". With the transfer rules there is the potential for even more movement when an athlete decides they aren't being treated fairly. These rulings seem to create more issues than they are suppose to solve in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Schools can opt out of this House agreement.
 
Windchill22 said:
Wouldn't a school opting out basically be remove themselves from contention in given sport/conference/division? With the possible expeption of the Ivies?
Click to expand...

They can still give scholarships if they opt out. It's complicated. And you do bring up an interesting point -- what are their respective conferences going to want their teams to do? Are they going to care? Will it make a difference?
 
Russell Jaslow said:
They can still give scholarships if they opt out. It's complicated. And you do bring up an interesting point -- what are their respective conferences going to want their teams to do? Are they going to care? Will it make a difference?
Click to expand...

It does seem very complicated. It seems that part of the settlement by the NCAA is just reclassifying money that was distributed to all schools in the past as part of the payout which is what the South Dakota lawsuit is trying to point out. So opting out might mean you don't have to follow some of the rules but the institution still would see less monies from the NCAA anyway.
 
Russell Jaslow said:
More and more opposition to the original deal with some very valid arguments.. Keeps sounding like it's going to collapse.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for any new updates on South Dakota's lawsuit against the House settlement, the last one I saw was back in November. SD filed it in state court where they'd have the edge and the NCAA wants it moved to Federal court where they hope House will be considered as legal precedent.
 
Last edited:
Just saw that the Department of Education is saying Title IX applies to NIL payments. Not sure if that will stand up but sure to cause more chaos to the current state of affairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top