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.

Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

D2D said:
As I understand it the Power 5 hockey programs are the six Big 10 schools:
1. Michigan
2. Michigan State
3. Minnesota
4. Ohio State
5. Penn State
6. Wisconsin

Plus the two Atlantic Coast Conference schools that play hockey:
7. Boston College
8. Notre Dame

I wonder if the changes will also apply to the five schools that have women's hockey programs?
3. Minnesota
4. Ohio State
5. Penn State
6. Wisconsin
7. Boston College
Click to expand...

I also wonder whether it needs to apply to all sports. For example, could the P5 conferences offer stipends to revenue generating sports like football and basketball, but not, say, water polo?

Offering a benefit to a men's hockey player but not to a women's hockey player and offering a benefit to a football player (which has no women's version) but not other sports smell like a Title IX violations to me. And for the P5 schools to have a "gentlemen's agreement" not to offer extra benefits to hockey players smells like a combination in restraint of trade to me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

CLS said:
I also wonder whether it needs to apply to all sports. For example, could the P5 conferences offer stipends to revenue generating sports like football and basketball, but not, say, water polo?

Offering a benefit to a men's hockey player but not to a women's hockey player and offering a benefit to a football player (which has no women's version) but not other sports smell like a Title IX violations to me. And for the P5 schools to have a "gentlemen's agreement" not to offer extra benefits to hockey players smells like a combination in restraint of trade to me.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it, probably just Football. Thus my comment. I also believe IF they ever actually start doing this it won't end well.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Agreed.

Keep in mind that basically we're talking solely about the Power 5 (and other schools that can afford to pay the stipend) getting a recruiting edge. How many kids is a school like Ferris State going to normally draw away from a program like Michigan to begin with? My guess is the kid who would normally pick Ferris over Michigan isn't going to change his mind because he can get an extra $5k/year (or whatever the number turns out to be) to go to Ann Arbor. I think this is especially true when you factor in that many kids that play hockey at that level are from families that aren't really struggling too much (and yes, this is a very broad generalization).

The real difference could be if a school like Ferris State pays the stipend where say a school like Lake Superior State does not. The way I see it, this could make a difference if you have two schools (or a group of schools) that battle over the same recruits, and some of this group have the stipend where others don't. Even then, I'm not entirely sold that it will make a big impact in college hockey.
Click to expand...

The real difference is a kid that the Ann Arbor college was offering a half scholarship that Ferris or Western or St Cloud could offer a full. Now the Ann Arbors can offer a half plus a stipend.
 
CLS said:
I also wonder whether it needs to apply to all sports. For example, could the P5 conferences offer stipends to revenue generating sports like football and basketball, but not, say, water polo?

Offering a benefit to a men's hockey player but not to a women's hockey player and offering a benefit to a football player (which has no women's version) but not other sports smell like a Title IX violations to me. And for the P5 schools to have a "gentlemen's agreement" not to offer extra benefits to hockey players smells like a combination in restraint of trade to me.
Click to expand...

When looking at the Big Ten and "gentlemen's" agreements, just check how Don Lucia and Mike Eaves feel about recruiting.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

I'm not sure that any plan designed to force schools to spend more money on college sports is necessarily positive. Smaller programs will ultimately follow along, although maybe not to the same extent as the larger schools, but that's always been the case.

But if there is a positive for college hockey that results from this move by the Power 5, it's this. College hockey has always complained that it faces an uphill recruiting battle with Canadian Junior leagues for two reasons. First, the built in bias that apparently exists in NHL front offices in favor of Canadian junior leagues over college, a bias that seems to be slowly disappearing. But second, the money Canadian junior league teams offer, or allegedly offer, recruits.

The money the Power 5 proposes to offer may not equate with what some Canadian junior teams allegedly offer, but at least the gap will be narrowed.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

SJHovey said:
I'm not sure that any plan designed to force schools to spend more money on college sports is necessarily positive. Smaller programs will ultimately follow along, although maybe not to the same extent as the larger schools, but that's always been the case.

But if there is a positive for college hockey that results from this move by the Power 5, it's this. College hockey has always complained that it faces an uphill recruiting battle with Canadian Junior leagues for two reasons. First, the built in bias that apparently exists in NHL front offices in favor of Canadian junior leagues over college, a bias that seems to be slowly disappearing. But second, the money Canadian junior league teams offer, or allegedly offer, recruits.

The money the Power 5 proposes to offer may not equate with what some Canadian junior teams allegedly offer, but at least the gap will be narrowed.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis and something that I did not consider. It makes sense now as to why the CHL topped up its packages this past winter. At first I thought it was to head off or placate unionization but now I'm sure the big power conference moves had something to do with it..

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ohl-up...ges-to-player-benefit-packages-223242217.html


As to the general impact on over-all membership, I think this will have a detrimental effect on smaller schools. I know the program I am a fan of is struggling just to maintain the current status quo and there is no way the school will be able to afford an increase in costs, especially one that involves the payment of monthly stipends to its athletes. Naturally this will further separate the halves and halve nots and I do wonder if the end result will be the reformation of a D-II hockey league.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

Power 5 conferences have formally approved the "enhanced" scholarship proposal. B.C. was the lone dissenting vote. Question now is will the various hockey programs in Hockey East allow a school like B.C. to offer monthly stipends and can anything be done about the Big10?
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

I understand( not from anyone important) that costs for small schools have already started up and that they expect them to continue to rise. I can't see a way that costs do not escalate significantly over time. I think the bigger schools are fine with it. It's not a good thing for hockey if you ask me though.

Some of the small school may be able to cope, but it will be a challenge and basically they will end up getting lower quality recruits. Schools with larger endowments shouldn't have a problem regardless of size.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

Boston College was the lone vote against the various autonomy proposals because it realizes that even a relatively well-off private school like BC isn't going to be able to keep up with the enormous state universities now that they've decided to (officially) become minor leagues for pro football and basketball at taxpayer expense. This doesn't bode well for any other sports. Just take a look at what's been happening at the so-called big schools in the past few years. Non-revenue and "lesser" sports have increasingly been cut back or eliminated in order to feed the increasingly ravenous appetite of the football monster. Hockey expansion in the B1G? Forget about it.

We can bid farewell to college sports as we have known it.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

And
A student-athlete (HA!) can now borrow against his/her future earnings. Does that mean just pro sports or also if the SA becomes a doctor, lawyer, or Wall Street mogul (thinking of the Ivy league here).

Scholarships are now a full commitment. No more cutting a player and the school reassigning the scholarship to somebody else.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

joecct said:
And
A student-athlete (HA!) can now borrow against his/her future earnings. Does that mean just pro sports or also if the SA becomes a doctor, lawyer, or Wall Street mogul (thinking of the Ivy league here).

Scholarships are now a full commitment. No more cutting a player and the school reassigning the scholarship to somebody else.
Click to expand...

Recently, the CHL was sued by the players trying to force them to pay them more. it's still on going as far as I know.. you can check Heisenberg's web site for progress, but you have to wonder how it will shake out if major junior players are getting significantly more money.
And at least in Hockey, the players are student athletes.
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

joecct said:
And
A student-athlete (HA!) can now borrow against his/her future earnings. Does that mean just pro sports or also if the SA becomes a doctor, lawyer, or Wall Street mogul (thinking of the Ivy league here).
Click to expand...

They can only borrow against future earnings to purchase loss-of-value insurance. I guess if a future doctor wanted to go through the waiver process to buy insurance in case he loses his doctoring ability playing hockey, he probably could.
 
stuckinwi said:
D1 in hockey sure, but not other sports. That's what they are referring to. Tech is definitely only D1 in hockey, along with Union, MSU, Ferris, UMD, Robert Morris, and NMU. (That's without looking them up... I think I'm close though.)
Click to expand...

Merrimack is D-2
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

I hope college hockey parity is ruined. Maybe my team will win more!
 
Re: Will 'Power 5' changes kill college hockey's parity?

Originally Posted by D2D View Post
I wonder if the changes will also apply to the five schools that have women's hockey programs?
Click to expand...

My understanding is the Minnesota has committed to all D-I scholarshiped athletes. No idea about the others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top