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.

University of Maine 2024–2025: Freel-ing good

If you read this(which was updated today) it has a section on being able to exceed the 26 roster limit, I think.

www.collegehockeyinc.com

CHI House Settlement FAQ

College Hockey Inc. - Your NCAA Hockey Resource
www.collegehockeyinc.com www.collegehockeyinc.com

*******************

What happens to a student-athlete who loses a roster spot due to the roster cap legislation?

Answer: Under the new settlement Division I schools will have the option to exempt any athlete who was on a roster in 24-25, who has been or would have been removed for 2025-26 because of the new roster limits for the remainder or their career. It also lets schools/teams accommodate any high school senior who was recruited to be or was assured they would be on a Division I roster for the 2025-26 season. These athletes will be identified by the institutions as “Designated Student-Athletes” for the remainders of their career. Athletes who feel they should be designated as such should contact their on-campus compliance office.

********************

Doesn’t this mean you can have 28 players as long as you pick too players from the 24-25 roster and say they would have been cut to make 26. So we call them “Designated Student-Athletes” and they get their scholarships and the roster stays at 28? You could pick Stewart and Pichette and then Maine can hold those two extras for three seasons more and Maine will be at 28 players for 3 seasons. Not sure if my interpretation is right.
 
Last edited:
Sparkee said:
I think this is a mistake. I think it will be hard for Maine to compete for top talent with 8 less full time scholarships.
Click to expand...
This wasnt really a surprise. Dont see where this is detrimental to hockey for 25/26. The roster is about set anyway.
They can embrace it for 26/27 if needed
 
Last edited:
NorthMike said:
This
Wasnt really a surprise. Dont see where this is detrimental to hockey for 25/26. The roster is about set anyway.
They can embrace it for 26/27 if needed
Click to expand...
Let’s hope scholarships weren’t promised that now can’t be delivered on. Otherwise decommits and/or transfer portal entries from the 25/26 roster can happen.
 
Regarding Whistle Boy and his sources - in this day and age there is no such thing as exclusive sources. Anybody that is talking to him is talking to others. And there are several here with deep ties to the program. So it is inconceivable for it to be true that Barr is creating a toxic environment - others would have already heard it and passed it on. On the other hand, there will always be malcontents in any program. Guys who think they "deserve" more playing time. Spoiler alert: they don't. And instead of looking inward for the source of their issues, take the easy way and blame the coach.
 
I asked ChatGPT to analyze what would happen in its estimation to UMaine hockey program by not opting in. It lines up with my fears and feelings. Everything it said made sense. It even went so far as to do calculations of costs of scholarships. I had it make a summary. It is scary, we would be headed back to the Red Gendron days. It is very disappointing UMaine can get donors to give them $200M dollars for new facilities and upgrades to existing ones, but can’t find money for the extra scholarships and revenue sharing. Here is what ChatGPT predicts…

**************
Choosing not to opt in to the House v. NCAA settlement may initially appear to be a prudent financial decision for UMaine. In the short term, the program could maintain its momentum, buoyed by recent success, existing roster depth, and a growing NIL infrastructure. For a season or two, UMaine might remain nationally competitive, especially if the current coaching staff continues to develop talent effectively and keep the locker room stable.

However, that stability is unlikely to last beyond the 2025–26 or 2026–27 seasons. As schools like Boston University, BC, UMass, Providence, and UConn, begin to fully leverage the benefits of opting in—such as offering up to 26 full scholarships and directly sharing millions in annual revenue with athletes—UMaine’s recruiting position will become increasingly vulnerable. Recruits and their families will naturally gravitate toward programs with greater financial support, more scholarship availability, and the promise of direct athlete compensation. As that talent gap widens, UMaine will not only struggle to attract top players but also to retain the ones it develops, with the transfer portal serving as a revolving door through which high-performing athletes exit for better-funded programs.

This erosion of competitive standing will be gradual at first but will compound over time. By 2027–28, depth limitations will become apparent, especially during the second half of the season and in the playoffs, where opt-in schools will benefit from larger, more robust rosters. UMaine’s coaching staff may try to mitigate these disadvantages by doubling down on player development and team culture, but those intangible advantages will be harder to sustain as results begin to decline. Recruiting will become even more difficult as the perception of the program shifts from one of national relevance to regional survival.

The long-term risks of not opting in are significant. On the competitive front, UMaine will likely fall into the lower tier of Hockey East, a position from which it will be hard to recover without major reinvestment. This drop-off will reduce the program’s visibility and its ability to generate revenue through ticket sales, sponsorships, and merchandising. Donors who once rallied behind a championship-caliber program may become disillusioned or shift their giving to programs that demonstrate a commitment to staying nationally competitive. Coaching turnover could follow, especially if current staff feel they can no longer compete on an even playing field.

There are also broader institutional consequences. UMaine hockey has long been a flagship brand for the university, driving alumni pride, media exposure, and even student enrollment. As that brand fades from national conversation, the university could lose one of its most effective tools for outreach and identity. Over time, the program’s profile may shift from a top-tier contender to a developmental program focused more on passion and academic values than winning. While there is honor in that model, it is a far cry from what Maine hockey has represented historically.

Ultimately, the decision to opt in is about more than money—it is about protecting the legacy of one of college hockey’s most iconic programs. UMaine already has the essential pieces in place: an elite coach, a passionate fan base, a renovated arena on the way, and a storied history that still resonates across the sport. What it now needs is the financial commitment to remain relevant in a rapidly evolving college athletics landscape. If the university wishes to continue competing for national championships, attracting top recruits, and maintaining its place among the sport’s elite, opting in to the House settlement is not just advisable—it is essential.
 
I also asked it if phasing out football would help UMaine feasibly opt in.

******************

Yes, cutting football would make it easier to fund the opt-in, stay Title IX-compliant, and elevate hockey—but the move requires bold political leadership and a carefully managed transition.

If UMaine’s leadership is willing to weather the short-term criticism, it could emerge leaner, more focused, and nationally competitive in the sport it cares about most: hockey.
 
It might be easier/cheaper for NIL to cover whatever scholarships don’t instead of opting in. I don’t see eight extra scholarships doing a ton anyway given how affordable the school already is.

This whole thing is a long way from finished. It’s a good time to be a sports lawyer.
 
Sparkee said:
I also asked it if phasing out football would help UMaine feasibly opt in.

******************

Yes, cutting football would make it easier to fund the opt-in, stay Title IX-compliant, and elevate hockey—but the move requires bold political leadership and a carefully managed transition.

If UMaine’s leadership is willing to weather the short-term criticism, it could emerge leaner, more focused, and nationally competitive in the sport it cares about most: hockey.
Click to expand...

Which women's programs are you also cutting to satisfy Title IX? Do you understand that the alternatives to football that would have to exist to be Title IX compliant would lose more money than the football gram already does?
 
dunbar said:
Which women's programs are you also cutting to satisfy Title IX? Do you understand that the alternatives to football that would have to exist to be Title IX compliant would lose more money than the football gram already does?
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

There are cheaper sports than football. When asked, ChatGPT recommends cutting football and replacing it with men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, and an expanded men’s track and field team. This free up money and allows Maine to fund the house settlement opt in.

From chatgpt
************
If UMaine were to eliminate its football program, it could dramatically improve its ability to fund revenue sharing under the House v. NCAA settlement while remaining compliant with Title IX. The football program, which supports roughly 100 male athletes and operates at an annual cost estimated between $4.5 and $5.5 million, does not generate significant revenue. In contrast, replacing football with a combination of lower-cost men’s sports—specifically men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, and an expanded men’s track and field team—would allow the university to maintain close to the same number of male athletic opportunities, but at a much lower cost. The combined expenses of these replacement programs would likely total between $1.55 and $2.15 million annually, freeing up approximately $2.5 to $4 million per year.

This reallocation would provide ample resources to support Maine’s opt-in to the House settlement. The expected revenue-sharing obligation—about $1.3 to $1.5 million per year across all sports—would now be entirely affordable. With football gone, the university could also afford to fully fund the new maximum of 26 scholarships for both men's and women's hockey, something it currently cannot support under its existing scholarship budget. The men’s and women’s hockey teams would both benefit directly from this transition through increased financial aid, compliance with Title IX’s proportionality requirements, and additional resources available for recruiting and retention.

Maintaining gender equity is a core concern, and this proposal meets that challenge without cutting any women’s teams. Football’s elimination reduces the number of male athletes, and the new sports—while smaller in scope—replace a majority of those lost roster spots. This allows UMaine to keep its current women's programs intact while also investing more in areas like women’s hockey and soccer. Such an approach satisfies the Title IX “substantially proportionate” participation standard while also aligning with UMaine’s institutional strengths and long-term goals.

The overall effect is a more efficient, focused athletic department. By reallocating funding from an underperforming football program to high-impact programs like men’s and women’s hockey, the university can not only meet its legal obligations under House and Title IX, but also strengthen its competitive position within Hockey East. UMaine would emerge leaner, more financially stable, and better positioned to recruit top-tier student-athletes in the new NCAA landscape.
 
Sparkee said:
You are wrong.

There are cheaper sports than football. When asked, ChatGPT recommends cutting football and replacing it with men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, and an expanded men’s track and field team. This free up money and allows Maine to fund the house settlement opt in.

From chatgpt
************
If UMaine were to eliminate its football program, it could dramatically improve its ability to fund revenue sharing under the House v. NCAA settlement while remaining compliant with Title IX. The football program, which supports roughly 100 male athletes and operates at an annual cost estimated between $4.5 and $5.5 million, does not generate significant revenue. In contrast, replacing football with a combination of lower-cost men’s sports—specifically men’s lacrosse, men’s volleyball, and an expanded men’s track and field team—would allow the university to maintain close to the same number of male athletic opportunities, but at a much lower cost. The combined expenses of these replacement programs would likely total between $1.55 and $2.15 million annually, freeing up approximately $2.5 to $4 million per year.

This reallocation would provide ample resources to support Maine’s opt-in to the House settlement. The expected revenue-sharing obligation—about $1.3 to $1.5 million per year across all sports—would now be entirely affordable. With football gone, the university could also afford to fully fund the new maximum of 26 scholarships for both men's and women's hockey, something it currently cannot support under its existing scholarship budget. The men’s and women’s hockey teams would both benefit directly from this transition through increased financial aid, compliance with Title IX’s proportionality requirements, and additional resources available for recruiting and retention.

Maintaining gender equity is a core concern, and this proposal meets that challenge without cutting any women’s teams. Football’s elimination reduces the number of male athletes, and the new sports—while smaller in scope—replace a majority of those lost roster spots. This allows UMaine to keep its current women's programs intact while also investing more in areas like women’s hockey and soccer. Such an approach satisfies the Title IX “substantially proportionate” participation standard while also aligning with UMaine’s institutional strengths and long-term goals.

The overall effect is a more efficient, focused athletic department. By reallocating funding from an underperforming football program to high-impact programs like men’s and women’s hockey, the university can not only meet its legal obligations under House and Title IX, but also strengthen its competitive position within Hockey East. UMaine would emerge leaner, more financially stable, and better positioned to recruit top-tier student-athletes in the new NCAA landscape.
Click to expand...

You lost me at ChatGPT. Come up with your own argument.

Maine is not dropping football. If they were, it would've happened 30 years ago.
 
Maine’s not dropping football. They should, but won’t. You can satisfy title IX multiple ways, including equal spending. Or equal scholarship opportunities. Cutting football, but adding M soccer, and taking the football budget and splitting it between all the men’s sports, would keep the proportions.

And I agree. Stop pasting AI slop into this thread.
 
boblav1 said:
www.collegehockeyinc.com

CHI House Settlement FAQ

College Hockey Inc. - Your NCAA Hockey Resource
www.collegehockeyinc.com www.collegehockeyinc.com

According to Mike McMahon:
Here are the schools that had previously announced their intentions.

Opt In: Arizona State, Boston College, Colorado College, Connecticut, Denver, Merrimack, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Niagara, Northeastern, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Providence, Robert Morris, Quinnipiac, Wisconsin

Opt Out: Air Force, Army, Brown, Canisius, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, North Dakota, Princeton, Vermont, Yale

That still leaves 34 unannounced programs. Schools have until June 15 to formally decide, and a list of participating schools will be made public soon thereafter.

According to the Maine thread, Maine will opt out for now.
Click to expand...

Taken from the UML thread. I struck out the schools that had no choice but to opt-in or opt-out. There doesn't seem to be a consensus among the "Hockey Only" schools. I would generally prefer to be included with the opt-in group, but not to a worrying degree. If we truly get left in the dust, we can readjust and opt-in. Though I would be curious how the "Designated Student-Athlete" clause would be enforced for schools opting-in late.
 
Maine should absolutely add men's soccer if that opportunity ever arises in the future! I mean freakin Vermont just won the National Championship and a brand new soccer stadium will open on campus this fall. Duh!
 
I don't think not opting in this year is the end of the world. The school had less than two weeks from the official settlement was finalized to the deadline to opt in this year. Like I said in February, Barr didn't seem very enthusiastic about opting in when he was on the CHN Insiders podcast, and nothing he has said since then makes me think he wanted to opt in. Schools don't have to fund the additional scholarships if they opt in, they just need to balance any additional scholarships with Title 9. I imagine if Barr decides he wants to opt in next year that Maine does it, and just doesn't change the scholarship limits for most sports.

Also, it's not looking great for Miguel Marques coming to Orono next year. He unfollowed Maine and Loic Usereau on Instagram, he still follows UConn.
 
blackbears9 said:
I don't think not opting in this year is the end of the world. The school had less than two weeks from the official settlement was finalized to the deadline to opt in this year. Like I said in February, Barr didn't seem very enthusiastic about opting in when he was on the CHN Insiders podcast, and nothing he has said since then makes me think he wanted to opt in. Schools don't have to fund the additional scholarships if they opt in, they just need to balance any additional scholarships with Title 9. I imagine if Barr decides he wants to opt in next year that Maine does it, and just doesn't change the scholarship limits for most sports.

Also, it's not looking great for Miguel Marques coming to Orono next year. He unfollowed Maine and Loic Usereau on Instagram, he still follows UConn.
Click to expand...
ouch on marques, maybe someone should refer him to the highlights from march 22nd :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top