by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor (@chn-adam-wodon)
Our Summer Series, is a set of podcasts over the course of the offseason, usually with new head coaches. This year, there are 10 new head coaches, and we’ll get to most of them. But we started with Denver’s David Carle, always a compelling conversation.
For the complete conversation, listen to our podcast. This is a slightly edited down version, also edited for clarity.
For much more with David Carle, check out our Podcast.
Carle was again wooed by multiple NHL teams during the offseason, but again chose to stay at Denver. His reasons have been well-chronicled, but we started by asking him some follow ups.
CHN: It’s already well-worn territory about the NHL, and there’s no reason to get into your reasons again (for not making the leap.). But what has that felt like personally (to go through that)? Is it stressful or is it just go with the flow?
Carle: I think you always feel fortunate to have different opportunities to explore and you’re always learning from different people that you talk to within the hockey world. That’s wildly beneficial for myself and also for the program. I’m grateful for the interest, but also obviously very excited and happy to be staying at Denver, where my family and I call this place home. It probably reaffirmed and helped me learn even more that there is no rush to leave Denver.
CHN: Is there a risk of annoying NHL teams, or do you not even care — being out there and just saying “no, no, no” every year?
Carle: No, I don’t really worry about that because I’m not out there promoting that this is something that I want 100 percent to do. I’ve always been really truthful when asked about it privately and publicly, and I don’t plan on changing that. There’s a risk of that if, say, I had an agent that was calling every team that has an opening. But that’s not at all what’s happening. I don’t have an agent. It’s all happening very organically. And I think everyone knows eyes wide open coming in.
CHN: Last thing on this topic — it seems like you have like an incredibly high bar for anyone to get over. I mean, is there anything anyone could say? It seems like there’s no situation out there. I know you’ve talked about in the past (that) you don’t want to go to a situation where coaches are so disposable, but I don’t really know an NHL franchise that is not like that. You know what I mean? It’s almost an impossible bar for them at that point.
Carle: Yeah, I don’t know. We’ll evaluate it. It is a high bar, but it’s a high bar because of how wonderful of a place Denver is to work and live and have a young family. As long as those things remain stable and great, then the bar stays high. There’s no rush to leave here because it is such a wonderful place to work and for my family to grow up.
CHN: Well, as I sit here looking out my window at the mountains right now, I agree with you. And as I wrote in January, you don’t owe the NHL anything. Let’s move on to other enjoyable topics like us arguing about the Regionals situation, which is always fun as well. (The coaches) got to meet with (NCAA president) Charlie Baker in Florida at the coaches convention. What did you take out of that in terms of the Regional stuff.
Carle: I guess before getting into that … it was excellent that Charlie spent the time he had. He showed a knowledge base of the sport, which sometimes we can get into a room and think that we’re so far down the NCAA’s totem pole and nobody cares about us. It was really refreshing and helpful to hear Charlie talk about his experiences in college, as a governor in (Massachusetts) and talking about college hockey in a really educated way, and showing some level of passion and knowledge for it. He wants to make the organization more efficient, simpler, so that the people on the ground have the autonomy and the ability to make decisions that they feel is best for their sport. Because we’re obviously different in many ways than a lot of the other sports. Can there be a streamlined committee process where things can happen a little bit quick, and have a little bit more say in autonomy within their decision making. An example of that would be the delayed enrollment rule. There’s probably some concern that we’re an outlier in that rule, and would a non-hockey committee come in and say, “Well, let’s uniform this across the board,” and not really think of how that affects the hockey ecosystem with junior hockey and the delayed enrollment on our end. So he was able to speak to some of those things. (He said), “If it makes sense for you, then let’s keep it, or let’s change it if it makes sense for you to change.” So I thought it was a wonderful meeting. I think the group certainly got excited about hopefully having some more autonomy and control over different topics and matters that we feel directly impact our sport. As it relates to the Regional format, I mean I could talk for hours about that.
CHN: Well, what’s new? Let’s put it that way.
Carle: Yeah, he openly said, “You’re one of the few sports that doesn’t use home sites. Why is that?” I took it as, let’s have a conversation about this and it was, I think, one of the major parts of the meeting. We actually have people getting to the floor and using the microphone and communicating to him directly outside of just the panel, so he was able to hear some different thoughts and ideas. A specific question was, what’s the actual capacity difference between Regional sites and if we were to move to a home site model, is it enough to warrant at least having a conversation about that and potentially making that move. And then I invited up Steve Metcalf, the commissioner of Hockey East, to get up and speak. I obviously made it very clear that I don’t speak for all coaches. Obviously, there’s certainly a group of us, and I think a growing group, that are open to change and having a conversation about how do we make this better. But Steve got up and spoke about the importance of neutrality for many of the coaches in the room, and that’s certainly something that I don’t look past or take lightly. But it’s a point of conversation and it feels like the conversation, at least, is being had a little bit more, which I think is a healthy thing for our sport. … My point in the whole thing was, how do we, on the next TV deal, make it so that we have a carve out for (getting the Frozen Four on) ABC. The NCAA and ESPN came to terms on this wonderful TV deal that increased a lot of exposure and a lot of money, but they made carve outs on ABC for women’s basketball, women’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics, FCS football, and then guaranteed exposure for softball and baseball. In our championship, they celebrate the fact that (ratings were) up 30 percent over last year’s championship. They failed to say that last year’s championship was down 50 percent from the year before. And it was broadcast on ESPN2. And so that was my point in trying to share that with the group. What can we do as a group so that our sport actually grows and we are afforded the opportunity to be on ESPN or to be on ABC for our Frozen Four, because there’s a huge difference in visibility in being on ESPN2 and this new TV deal. I feel we’re being passed by other sports. This is direct hard data that people at the NCAA and people at ESPN feel that these other sports are more deserving and more marketable to be on ABC than hockey is. And I think that’s an issue when we are one of the four major sports, the NHL and ESPN have a major TV deal. If we’re not getting that, then we need to look in the mirror and say how do we make our product, in the playoffs, more exciting for TV and for our fans. And if they ask those questions, we’re selling ourselves short, which is not good.
CHN: You can get the Frozen Four on ABC, as you said, without necessarily changing the Regional format, right? I mean, they’re not necessarily connected, because I’d agree with you, I think it should be.
Carle: Yeah, I think we can all agree that it should be or that we want it to be. But what are we doing to make our sport more exciting and more attractive to have ESPN (say that) hockey needs to be on ABC? This needs to be a carve out in the next contract. Because on the last contract, some of these other sports didn’t have the carve outs, now they do. How do we actually move the needle and force our way into that conversation as a sport? That’s what I’m interested in.
CHN: I agree. I just don’t know, the two issues, if they are related. Maybe they are.
Carle: I think that’s an easy thing for someone to say who doesn’t agree with changing the format. It’s so easy to throw shade on a new idea and say, “Well, maybe that wouldn’t help.” Well, of course, maybe it wouldn’t help. But I know what’s not helping us is the current format. Look at the TV data. It does not support growth.
CHN: Again, we’ve had this discussion before. We’ve written a zillion things about it. So I mean, I would love to see growth for sure. Although you know, we could go six ways on what that means. To me, it’s a balance between — as I wrote recently — the neutrality and the atmosphere. I could concede that atmosphere is better with home sites. It’s just a matter of whether someone comes down on believing that that’s worth more than the neutral aspect of it. So. we have to get past certain — I get hate mail from all sorts of people about this topic. So we can’t do that within (hockey). I hope people within the sport believe each other and their genuineness on their belief and not just, like you just said, that I was throwing shade on it. It’s a genuine belief.
Carle: But it’s an easy way to counter an argument that you’re not on the side of. That’s all I’m saying. I think too many times (we say), “How would it work with TV? How would it work with travel.” OK, then let’s just keep doing the same thing because that’s working so well.
CHN: Well, it depends on the definition.
Carle: Well, what would be your definition? Because you don’t want it to change. So what? Why do you think it should not change?
CHN: I go way back and I’ve seen it the other way. So again, it was considered progress to not have it that way. I mean, at the time (moving to neutral sites) was hailed as a great step forward.
Carle: So let’s get out of 35 years ago and let’s talk about today. Why would we continue on as we are today?
CHN: I’d be concerned that changing things would have negatives that I wouldn’t want to see. So it’s easy to say, “Let’s just change it and see what happens.” There’s nothing new here. I just wrote about this, that the decision for basing who is a home team is based upon math that is prone to not being very precise. So is that fair to teams? That is going to happen where people are going to be upset about who’s home and who’s away. Now again, it’s really up to each individual’s opinion as to whether that matters. You could say, well, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. You know, going into the season that you may wind up on the road for a 9/8 game. And you just live with it, because it’s worth the better atmosphere situation that you’re discussing. I’m just coming down on the side of, to me, it’s not worth it. But, I respect both sides of that.
Carle: OK. So you would say it’s worth holding potentially the tournament hostage and the growth of the sport for a tight math comparison on the 8-9 seed? That’s that’s your opinion, which is fine.
CHN: Yeah, and 7/10, and potentially 6/11. Let’s just say 7-8-9-10 for sure. It’s subject to a lot of whims. Let’s put it that way. Even just looking at what I wrote with the with (how) the Committee is going to be in the in the process of determining what the home/road weighting is, what the overtime weighting is, all that stuff. Those are subjective decisions made by human beings who have gGenuine feelings about it. I’m not knocking them. But they’re very subjective. The math doesn’t really hold up.
Carle: Why is it OK for every pro sports league to have the 4-5 split and the four gets the home game and the five has to go on the road?
CHN: Well, for one, because it’s a best-of-7 series. And two, because it’s determined by standings, which are very cut and dry. They’re not using a NPI or RPI.
Carle: What is the difference? The team might have an injury for the first half of the season that lowered their position in the standings, and that’s not truly reflective of where they are at the end of the season. I mean, you could make all these little nuanced arguments. Teams have to be ranked and slotted somewhere. So whatever system you have, in my opinion, is imperfect. I’d love to do best-of-3. I’d love to do best-of-5, but nobody’s going to agree to that. (Note, NHL best-of-7 is even home/road until game 7, college hockey’s best-of-3 would be all three in one place.). So people like the single-game shot that are on your side of the argument. I’m very willing to concede that and say, yeah, that’s fine. It would be better if it was best-of-3. You’d create more energy and atmosphere, but I get that single game is the way it should be, but you have to rely on something at some point to rank the teams.
CHN: You do. Every time this comes up, people ask me the same question and I answer it and it still comes up — why is it OK to rank the teams this way but not OK to choose home ice this way? Because the alternative to not using the NPI, RPI or whatever is six guys in a room deciding who makes the tournament. We saw what happened in 2021. You didn’t like that. None of us want that to happen. The alternative is horrendous. But there is an alternative here that is not horrendous, which is the way we have it now in terms of seeding. In terms of who plays who and what not. So that’s the distinction between us. Yes, there has to be a formula of some kind, but we have to acknowledge that that formula is not that precise. It’s tough to determine exact seedings. I’ve (actually) argued for years that the committee should sit there at the end of the day and take some of these things (like injuries, late season play, etc…) into consideration, knowing that it’s not that precise.
Carle: So we’ve highlighted one thing. What would be others you’re concerned about why you wouldn’t want it to change?
CHN: I don’t think any of these things are that new. I think that changing, in a way, can be seen as a step backwards for the sport. You could potentially have atmospheres which aren’t very good and think it’s a panacea but really it’s not, because there are a lot of arenas that students are on break, depending on the timing. You look at conference tournament playoff games and attendance is always abysmal compared to regular-season games. So I always worry that that’s a factor and I could be wrong. We could change it, it could be the most wonderful thing in the world. I’m going by what I’ve seen in the past.
Carle: Is CHL players being eligible for college hockey, good or bad? Because that was something we had in the past that’s now back.
CHN: I’ve been on the fence, like probably all of hockey has been for 30 years on that topic. So I’m pretty blase on that at this point. It’s probably whatever. Let’s put it this way — I’ve had a lifelong philosophy that I’m not against change, but also sometimes it can go both ways. I’m not a Luddite who thinks everything should always stay the same, but by the same token, sometimes things are fine the way they are. And, again, I’m not saying it’s perfect the way it is now, because there’s a lot of problems which (I’ve documented, but) I believe can be addressed in other ways. But it’s impossible to tell really. It’s all opinion until you actually do it. So then you can have the comparison.
Carle: Well, there’s some hard data that we can like concretely say. I believe it’s 30 schools would have hosted in the first round in the last 10 years, almost half the body. Twenty-one schools would have hosted in the second round in the last 10 years. That’s hard data that you can actually tangibly look at.
CHN: Well, we don’t know how many of those arenas would have been filled for their game. There’s no way to know that.
Carle: No, but I think you look at — the best barometer of it would be, at least in my opinion, when I watch the difference between NHL regular season and NHL playoffs, is the atmosphere of the fans, the intensity of the games. And we also know the potential capacity that it could be versus what it is. We know that we wouldn’t be selling all-session passes (like happens at Regionals). Over the last 10 years, if the top 8 hosts the bottom 8 in a single game, capacity was 507,000 seats. The actual attendance over the last 10 years in the first round — and again these are all session passes — was 451,000. You have to almost divide that number in half, like the number’s too big not to explore this and looking at it from a revenue perspective and an eyeballs perspective and a viewership perspective and, truthfully, the student-athlete experience, I think if you were to actually start asking players — you look at the players after the Atlantic Hockey championship game, the Bentley press conference, all they spoke about was the atmosphere. You look at Nate Lehman’s press conference after (Providence) played at UConn. He literally says the atmosphere was amazing. That’s what playoff hockey is all about. You start to ask more and more people and you start to talk about it and you see what people are saying online and what fans actually want. I think the overwhelming support would be that they want to come to campus sites and they want home ice rewarded. You really named one thing that you’re concerned about. If we’re just worried about four teams in the middle, then I would say to those four teams — because we were the 9 (seed) — I’d be the first to tell you, and I said it, this game should be played in Friartown. I said that.
CHN: I don’t deny your genuineness on it.
Carle: No, but if we wanted it played in Denver, then we should have won more hockey games. That’s on us. We need to win more if we want to have higher seedings. It’s on us. It’s not on a math formula. It’s not on some arbitrary thing. It’s in our control.
CHN: But if you use NPI, which we’re going to next year over RPI, you would have gotten the home game. So that’s my point.
Carle: Then, OK, then Providence should have won one more hockey game. The players and the teams want to have control of their destiny. If you talk to (Arizona State coach) Greg Powers, he doesn’t blame the math formula (for missing the tournament). He says he should have won more hockey games. That’s what it’s about. So trying to sit here and throw shade on a formula that’s not perfect and it could screw a team — let’s talk about times where teams have been screwed in the current system and whether they’ve been able to fight through it or not. And there’s a lot of wrongs that have happened in our current system.
CHN: Yep. I agree with addressing all of those as well. So you can’t say that that I’m 100 percent satisfied with the way things are. I’ve been pretty clear for 25 years about all the things I think are wrong currently. It’s not a black and white thing where I love it this way and you love it that way. I can concede many things. It’s just my solution may not be there yet.
Carle: But I’m trying to press on what is the actual (problem).
CHN: Well you might not consider any of these arguments good enough to persuade you, but in my mind, they’re good enough. So that’s just where I am now. But again, I’ve conceded on the atmosphere and so on and so forth. And I would love to do an A/B test for three years, but maybe it’ll happen. We’ll see.
Carle: It’d be wonderful if it did.
CHN: I’ll be retired and you’ll be 39 and still plugging away. Let’s put it this way. I’ve gone around and around with yourself and Brad Schlossman and many other people for years. The point now is, what next? Where does this go? You know, 2029 is the next time this could possibly change. What has to happen between now and then for you to get what you want?
Carle: What I want is for us to be on ABC for our game to grow. I think some people think it has more to do with Denver or our league or any of those types of things. There’s nothing to do with that.
CHN: I can say the same thing. I have no dog in this fight at all. I’m not even a coach whatsoever so.
Carle: Yeah, for sure. So what needs to happen is we need to continue to have these types of conversations. People need to get engaged. I think media needs to start asking the question more. This is the first year really it was asked at a Regional to any of the players, or brought up in on any capacity, to have a voice on it. You have to really be creative and look for a way to force it into a conversation. I think having the platform to be able to have a conversation like this is critical. I think when you have coaches on, asking them the question, especially coaches in the East. That’s your job, but it’s many other people’s job who are covering the game of college hockey to start asking more questions on the matter to generate more conversation. What really needs to happen is, the NCAA needs to take a look. Is it feasible logistically, does the growth warrant the opportunity or study to look at it. And then ultimately, between them and our championships committee, recommendation and different things would be made to try and actually implement the change. So we have some time. We’re obviously locked into our current format for the next number of years, which is totally fine. We need to continue to have conversations around it. So that’s what I’ll do. I’ll continue trying to talk to coaches and I think you and the media need to do the same.
CHN: Yeah, I know you’re a rabid listener of our podcast, but I ask every time I can to the point of repetitiveness, which may be why I don’t ask all the time anymore. So if you know anyone who’s changed their mind in the last few years, feel free and I’ll be sure to talk to them about it. But it’s been a topic for a long time. … I’ll bring up another point before we move on, but this is a little bit selfish, but maybe not. It’s a lot harder for people like me to cover the tournament when you have it in eight different places that you don’t know where it’s going to be. ESPN has billions of dollars and I don’t. So they could adapt, but I don’t know if it’s a factor for them. (But) I know, for example, covering the conference tournaments at the moment is very difficult. And not only is it difficult logistically, but some home buildings are like, “Oh, we don’t have any more room for another one of you guys in our press box.” Sadly, there aren’t a lot of people covering the sport as much as there was 30 years ago, to be honest with you. All the daily newspapers in America, half of them are out of business at this point. (This) does play into the exposure thing.
Carle: I can understand that. And I think that’s probably the biggest hurdle is the actual logistics of eight different sites on a weekend. Other sports find a way to do it and that’s where in my conversations, the data at least warrants looking at this. If the study comes back and says, you know what, this just is not physically, logistically possible, then that’s the answer. But we owe it to ourselves and our sport to turn over some stones to figure out how can we make this better than it currently is. And I don’t disagree with you, especially with the selection show on Saturday or Sunday, games are going to start Thursday. I get it. The turnaround is challenging and it’s not something I haven’t thought about. (But) I made the point on the 8-9 and holding the tournament hostage for two teams, that doesn’t resonate with me. And I get it, “hostage” is a little inflammatory and you’re smirking about it. And it’s all good.
CHN: Because I want to know that we’re both genuine on our beliefs, not throwing crap out there.
Carle: A hundred percent. And so I would put a higher value on the home atmosphere and the experience of the student athletes than making sure the 8-9 is like the perfect math formula to decide it, or that every game could be on ESPN2 or ESPN-U. Because I understand that maybe they could only get five of the eight games, or six of the eight games, or CHN could only be at five of the eight games, or six of the eight games, rather than all eight games. I would be willing to sacrifice some of the games for the greater good of the event. That’s my personal stance on it to at least see what it would look like, and maybe the event is so exciting and big and the atmospheres are so great that you want to find a way to get to all eight sites with eight different reporters. And maybe you’d sit here and say, “David, that’s just never going to happen.” But maybe the event builds itself to a level where it has to happen. And that’s a little bit of my point with ABC. We want it to be such an event that If you build it, they will want to be a part of it. I get it that it’s not there today, but our current model is plateaued to what the growth of college hockey asks of it. My opinion is that we’ve tapped out what we’re currently doing and if you’re not growing, I think that’s not good. We need to be growing.
CHN: Well, I hear you and I know it’s 35 years ago, but that was the exact argument then for going the other way. They’ve tapped out where you could go with that and neutral sites was seen as an improvement. … So does the autonomy situation playing into this? Charlie Baker sounded pretty definitive that it’s going to happen, not like it might happen. I guess July 1st (the NCAA is) going to come out with some sort of structure for how that’s going to work and obviously that doesn’t … I don’t know what it means. You’re not going to be able to play 60 games, you’re not going to be able to have 28-year old freshmen. So there’s gotta be some limits. But what? What is your take on what that’s going to mean for hockey?
Carle: I don’t totally know the answer to that. I don’t speak on things that I’m not passionate about. … (But) I use the example earlier of the delayed enrollment and making sure that hockey has its delayed enrollment rule stay in place. I think the majority of our body likes that. The ability to streamline things. What’s the length of our transfer portal window? What does our recruiting calendar look like? Do those processes get easier? Maybe. Does it get as far as game count and could we have the autonomy to say to go to 40 games from 34? I don’t know the answer to that. I mean I certainly have ideas around all those things, but I don’t know if that’s if it’s true autonomy or just kind of trying to streamline the process of change between, say, the college hockey decision makers and the commissioners and our presidents.
CHN: Just one example from the past is that you wouldn’t have to pull as much teeth to get the CHL stuff through. You could make that decision on your own and not have to rely upon people from Oklahoma, no offense to them, making those decisions.
Carle: That’s probably what he means. You know the Division I Council doesn’t have a ton of hockey representation on it. And that’s where the fear of the delayed enrollment comes into place for some people. We always hear that there’s non-hockey people making hockey decisions. That’s the big fear. And so I think the hope would be that whatever new process is created that hockey people are able to make hockey decisions. And that doesn’t mean we’re all going to agree on everything, but at least we can hash it out amongst us and know that we have a little bit of control of our own destiny and it’s not going to be left to some committee in Indianapolis that we don’t really know where the conversation is going to go.
CHN: When it comes to the transfer window and making that smaller. From what I saw, is that done — it’s going to be 30 days instead of 45?
Carle: I think that was probably the feedback that was given to the from the body to the committee that we would like that to get shortened.
CHN: But that would be shortened at the end, though, right? It wouldn’t change at the beginning.
Carle: That’s correct. The start would be the same and then the end would be sooner.
CHN: So does that really address the problem, or can anything address the problem? Because the problem to me is that you’re transferring before the Frozen Four is over and there’s guys in the Frozen Four dealing with this, not to mention the off the record stuff which starts in January or maybe even earlier. I don’t know how you could even put the lid on that. So those are the real issues. Is the 30/45 days even really going to change or help anything?
Carle: If you look at when kids entered, it’s mostly front loaded and not a lot of activity happens at the end. I know a lot of schools very much support shortening the window. The conversation is around when to start it and it’s funny because it kind of goes back to the hostage comment in a way. You know my point on the portal is that it’s not necessarily for the schools in the Frozen Four, it’s for the kids on the teams at the Frozen Four. Maybe you’re the eighth defenseman or the 12th forward on that team and you want to transfer. The marketplace has been open for a week, a week and a half, and decisions are being made. From kids entering the portal to schools taking kids out of the portal. Western found a way to fight through, but I don’t think it’s probably great for them to have to feel the urge that they have to commit kids out of the portal while their current team is still playing.
CHN: Which was happening for sure.
Carle: Absolutely it was. But then you have 60 other teams that are like, “We don’t really care about that. We’re going to hold this up for four teams? Why would we do that?” And their point is very valid, too, because sometimes their seasons end early or mid-March and now they’ve got kids who have been working out, training, they’ve had their year end meetings. They’re not having the honest conversation with the coach. And then once the portal opens, they’ve invested 3-4 weeks of training into this person and now they’re out. So I totally understand that side of it. I think the way it is, starting before the Frozen Four teams are done, the staffs can navigate it. I think the way we’re doing it is proper. It’s not great for the four teams’ kids that are in the Frozen Four, but ultimately those kids are probably going to be able to find homes and find spots.
CHN: It’s gotta be weird, though. If you’ve got a kid on your team — they’re gonna hear about it. Some kids transferred, he knows he’s coming in next year, he’s gonna probably take his spot. but he’s still got to play on that team.
Carle: When someone asked the question, they said, “What’s the difference between the kid committing out of the portal and the kid committing during that window that’s playing in Waterloo that’s one of the best players in the USHL?” What’s the difference in that? And you know, maybe we’re making too big of a deal and there’s really not that big of a difference. So I think there’s no perfect time because of the timing of when the season ends for different teams. This is the best middle ground approach and I’m excited for it to be at 30 days. Players have plenty and ample opportunity to go in and seek new opportunity if they would like to, but it doesn’t drag on into the middle of May.
CHN: Well, NHL free agency doesn’t start until well after the Stanley Cup Finals end and you know and there’s no tampering allowed either. They have tampering rules.
Carle: Yeah. And so do we. But they’re not very harsh.
CHN: And you don’t have any enforcement mechanism. That’s the problem really. I mean, nothing real.
Carle: Well, there is, but it’s very challenging to pin anything concrete. But there is a mechanism to report. And you’re absolutely right. I mean phones start ringing in January (from agents saying), “What are you looking for next year?” It’s not healthy that way at all, certainly in our opinion. But again, to your point, I don’t know how you curtail that because private conversations are private conversations and how do you manage that?
CHN: Well, they do in the NHL. Those would not be allowed. I guess you could sort of have a conversation with your wife about what you kind of want to do, but you couldn’t talk to another team, that’s for sure.
Carle: Correct. But you do see deals that are struck within two minutes of free agency opening. That things aren’t happening prior to July 1 is false, too, probably. I think in basketball there’s many players that were in the portal that were playing in the NCAA Tournament and so we’re not at that point.
CHN: Well, in basketball, there’s more media scrutiny. And so more of it’s going to get out.
Carle: Correct. And so I guess my point is, maybe it’s better because we’ve had kids transfer in. I’d be naive to think that some of those conversations weren’t happening prior to our season ending, and maybe it’s better that those were happening discreetly rather than public-facing like it does in basketball.
CHN: It’s a little bit crazy right now, but it is what it is. But you guys are opting in to this (House) settlement, assuming it ever goes through, which I guess we’ll find out pretty soon. But what does that mean for you? Do you know yet?
Carle: Not much more than you do. I’m of the opinion we just play by whatever rules that we’re given and it’s our jobs to react and ensure that we’re on top of it and playing within that framework. Obviously the 26-man roster is a major component of it and the ability to revenue share is the other major component. Those are the two major ones that I see.
CHN: Let’s put it this way — there’s no shame in any of this conversation. I mean, you are going to be given a budget apparently. If it goes through, you opt in, which means the University of Denver can share up to $20 million. It probably won’t, but you’re going to be given some number to work with at some point.
Carle: And every place will be very different. I know (WMU coach) Pat (Ferschweiler) got a lot of attention for saying that they didn’t have a single player getting NIL dollars. And that’s the same for our team. We don’t have any organized collective or NIL. Although we’re opting in, our plan is not to rev share this coming season. You can rev share via a lot of different vehicles. Where that money comes from doesn’t necessarily matter.
CHN: But is there any reason to be coy about it? I know Pat said that and a couple of people rolled their eyes, including me, because I’m sure there’s players that are getting something from someone, even if it’s not organized by the school. But there’s no shame in there. I mean, at this point, that’s what everyone’s going to be doing. So why even be coy about it?
Carle: I think there’s a lot of maybe coyness with it because … there’s a lot of high-profile CHL players (rumored) to be getting offered very large sums of money. And if you’re a school that’s potentially doing that — and they would all say it’s rumor and potentially maybe it is, who knows — but you would want that quiet. If there’s maybe a senior who’s your captain who’s a point per game player that’s not getting nearly the dollar value that the incoming freshman is getting, and now you’ve got to combat that within your locker room and manage that situation. And so that would be a reason to be coy about it.
CHN: I got you. But that’s why I’m asking you generally, is there going to be some budget to work with? I’m not gonna ask you for specifics of who you’re going to give it to.
Carle: Yeah, I think some teams will have a budget, some teams will create their own budget based on what they can philanthropically find a way to fund some of this. It may change year to year. Some might be on a case by case basis, like, “Hey, we really need some money for this one kid.” I will tell you, that’s not how we are going to operate. We’re not going to have one guy making a huge sum of money and everybody else not making anything. But every school is going to be different and how it’s managed is stylistically going to be very different. So that’s what I said previously (about) keeping the information down, but also there’s still a lot of unknown. The settlement hasn’t even occurred yet, we don’t really know the ground rules that we’re going to get to play with, and every place is going to have their own internal compass and rules that they’re going to have to navigate. So we’re no different in that. Do we plan on rev sharing at some point? Yes, we do. How much, how it’s spread — I don’t know the answer to those things. But we’re going to be very thoughtful and careful with how we do it. And then it’s, is it in our team’s best interest and does it align with the values of what we want to be and what we want to do as a program, as far as being team-first and selfless and wanting to win championships and continue to do.
CHN: Just vaguely speaking, you have some Big Ten school that is capable of throwing money at some guys. I mean it can’t be a negative for you or anyone in the NCHC to have also at their disposal something. You have to decide how to manage it as a program, and there’s probably good ways to do that and bad ways to do that, but generally speaking, it’s not bad to have that at your disposal to do it the right way.
Carle: Yes, for sure. Correct. And there’s no difference with the portal that’s been around for what, four or five years now. Some teams have managed it extremely well, other teams have managed it extremely poorly. And I think you can sit there and evaluate who’s done a good job, who’s done a poor job, and it’s going to be no different with this. Who manages the 26-man roster the best? Who manages whether you get a budget or it changes year to year or however you’re going to manage your rev share. Whoever manages that the best is going to maximize the perceived benefit from whatever rule change occurs. Everything is an opportunity to try and make your program better, and you need to be really thoughtful within how you do that. And I would say that’s our approach with every rule that comes into place — transfer portal, 26-man roster, rev share — whatever it is, we’re going to try and make sure it aligns with what we care about, which is recruit really good kids from good families that care about being part of something bigger than themselves and want to win while developing to try and play in the NHL. And get a great degree living in the mountains and sunshine and all of that. So that doesn’t change just because some of the rules change. You shouldn’t lose who you are and what’s giving you success.
For more, listen to the podcast.