Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

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

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    framingham, ma
    Posts
    5,312

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

    Quote Originally Posted by D2D View Post
    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
    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 by CLS; 11-10-2014 at 09:48 AM.

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Less than 10 minutes from Yost...
    Posts
    1,876

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    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.
    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.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    6,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    6,721
    Quote Originally Posted by CLS View Post
    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.
    When looking at the Big Ten and "gentlemen's" agreements, just check how Don Lucia and Mike Eaves feel about recruiting.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    7,732

    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.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Soo
    Posts
    1,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    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.
    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..

    https://sports.yahoo.com/news/ohl-ups...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.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Soo
    Posts
    1,838

    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?

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    237

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

    Those schools in the MAC (BGSU, WMU, Miami) will also be partaking in cost of attendance: https://www.mac-sports.com/news/2015/...118153038.aspx
    Co-Founder/Editor of BGSUHockey.com

  9. #29
    Still upright
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    40.7829N, w 073.9659
    Posts
    6,917

    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.
    MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

    It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

  10. #30
    All Hail
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,629

    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.
    "Through the years, we ever will acclaim........"

  11. #31
    #BanBiddy Dirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    55,846

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

    Does this mean Penn State can now officially pay their players to rape little kids?
    Hollywood Hair Care Tip for Infinity (Directly from Hollywood himself)
    when its minus 20 and u have to go outside.. make sure u wear a winter hat as the mohawk does not enjoy the winter weathe(r)
    Hollywood Amazingness

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,969

    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.
    CCT '77 & '78
    4 kids
    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

  13. #33
    Still upright
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    40.7829N, w 073.9659
    Posts
    6,917

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    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.
    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.
    MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

    It never get's easier, you just go faster. -Greg Lemond

  14. #34
    lucky penguin
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    16,891

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    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).
    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.
    Originally posted by dicaslover
    Yep, you got it. I heart Maize.

    Originally posted by Kristin
    Maybe I'm missing something but you just asked me which MSU I go to and then you knew the theme of my homecoming, how do you know one and not the other?

    Western College Hockey Blog

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinwi View Post
    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.)
    Merrimack is D-2

  16. #36
    2147483647
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    23,799

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

    I hope college hockey parity is ruined. Maybe my team will win more!

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    38,969
    Quote Originally Posted by The Zlax45 View Post
    Merrimack is D-2
    Aren't they reclassifying to D1?

    Add: AIC is a NE-10 school.

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,955

    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?
    My understanding is the Minnesota has committed to all D-I scholarshiped athletes. No idea about the others.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •