LOWELL – The UMass Lowell hockey team’s full 2025-26 slate has been revealed, with the season kicking off against Hockey East foe Merrimack College on Friday, Oct. 3.

The schedule will consist of 34 regular-season games, with opponents from five different conferences, including Hockey East. It is highlighted by a two-game home set against the defending national champions.

The slate will feature 15 home games, including the addition of a home exhibition against Bentley University on Dec. 28. The remaining 20 games will be played on the road on opposing ice or at neutral sites. This is a change of pace from last season, which featured 17 games at the Tsongas Center.

Following opening night against Merrimack, the River Hawks will hit the road to take on the Warriors again on Oct. 10, before hosting defending national champion Western Michigan on Oct. 17 and 18.

That brings the team to a three-game stretch of away games, beginning in Erie, Pa., for a two-game set at Mercyhurst on Oct. 24 and 25, and returning to Hockey East action with an away-and-home series with Providence to close out the month (Oct. 31 and Nov. 1).

November will continue with more conference play, as the River Hawks take on New Hampshire on Nov. 7 and 8, before another road trip to New York the next week (Nov. 14 & 15). The squad will play Union to begin the weekend, before a matchup with RPI the next day.

The team will then be on a bye week after the trip to prepare for a return to New York for the Adirondack Winter Invitational in Lake Placid on Nov. 28 and 29, where they will look to take home the title for the second consecutive year. They will face off against Clarkson on Friday, with St. Lawrence waiting for them on Saturday afternoon.

UMass Lowell takes on two conference opponents during December, as a home-and-away series with Boston College is in the cards for Dec. 5 and 6, following by a solo game with Maine in Portland, Maine on Wednesday, Dec. 10 to finish off the month’s games. However, the exhibition with Bentley at home on Dec. 28 will warm the River Hawks back up after a break, preparing them for an action-packed second half of the season.

The new year will be rung in at the 2026 Cactus Cup, a tournament that will be hosted by UMass Lowell for the second consecutive year in Palm Springs, Calif., at Acrisure Arena on Jan. 2 and 3.

The River Hawks will be joined by Minnesota State University, Mankato, St. Cloud State and Yale and will open up the tournament against Minnesota State on day one. The tournament format calls for the losers of the first-round games to square off first on night two, followed by the championship game between the two round-one winners on Saturday evening. The River Hawks will look to repeat as tournament champs.

UMass Lowell will then play Hockey East games only for the remainder of the regular season, beginning with a two-game set with Connecticut on Jan. 9 and 10, followed by two series against Boston University (Jan. 16 and 17) and Maine (Jan. 23 and 24) to bring them into February.

It will be a battle of the UMass schools to kick off February, as the River Hawks will take on the Massachusetts Minutemen three consecutive times, first with a solo daytime matchup on Sunday, Feb. 1, before a two-game set the next weekend on Feb. 6 and 7. The River Hawks then follow that up with a two-game road trip to Vermont (Feb. 13 and 14) and an away-and-home series with Northeastern (Feb. 20 and 21), as a bye week rounds out the month.

March begins with another road matchup with Merrimack on March 6, before hosting Boston University the next night for the regular season finale. The Hockey East playoffs are set for March 11-21.

For the likes of the Michigan Wolverines, the House vs. NCAA settlement was a small blip in the spending the athletic program already participates in every year, and it will be merely a percentage that must be allocated to athletes rather than other expenses.

But that’s not the case for the entire country, let alone the rest of the Big Ten. While Michigan and Ohio State bring in more than $160 million in athletic revenue every year, other Big Ten members such as Maryland, UCLA and Rutgers are much lower on the list, generating $81 million, $82 million and $72 million, respectively.

While these are still big numbers to the untrained eye, the Big Ten has been given direction to give $20.5 million to its athletes as part of direct revenue sharing during the 2025-26 academic year. While this is 10 percent of its revenue for Ohio State, it is 28 percent for Rutgers, according to NIL-NCAA. This could cause a massive disparity in salary caps, funds towards travel, training facilities expenses, staffing and many more costs that some programs just do not have the money for.

Under the direction of House vs. NCAA, Division I programs are asked to follow a model that gives 75 percent of the $20.5 million to football (coming out to $15,375,000), 10 percent to men’s basketball ($2,050,000), five percent to women’s basketball ($1,025,000) and five percent to the school’s other varsity sports.

While this is a nice, overarching framework, that may not be practical in the grand scheme of things. If a program like Rutgers wants to be competitive for years to come, other strategies may need to be enlisted regarding the allocation of that money.

How revenue sharing should be distributed across the Big Ten

The Wolverines have 29 varsity sports that Warde Manuel is dedicated to keeping. The Buckeyes have 36, Maryland has 20, Northwestern has 19. As you can see, giving five percent to sports other than football and basketball can vary greatly between schools, and this is where strategy may come into play.

Take UCLA for example, a powerhouse in women’s gymnastics. Or USC, the national leader in beach volleyball. If programs want to compete for both Big Ten championships and national championships, putting money into these smaller programs could be where we see dynasties start forming.

While football has the big, flashy number now, things can change very quickly when programs start getting ahead of the competition.

Say in a year that athletic departments have more flexibility with their allocation of revenue sharing money. With scholarship limits already increased for the upcoming academic year, there is little-to-no oversight on how schools should be spending their money. Sure, if Michigan is spending $146,000 per year on each of their football players, it may be more difficult to compete with that by taking money away from other football programs.

However, realizing there are other ways of competing may be the first domino that needs to fall for schools to pivot and find their lane elsewhere. Here is a list of one sport outside of football and basketball that each Big Ten should prioritize going forward based on recent success (i.e. Big Ten championships and standings):

1. Iowa – Wrestling
2. Illinois – Men’s and Women’s Golf
3. Indiana – Men’s Soccer
4. Maryland – Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse
5. Michigan – Ice Hockey
6. Michigan State – Ice Hockey
7. Minnesota – Ice Hockey
8. Nebraska – Women’s Volleyball
9. Northwestern – Field Hockey
10. Ohio State – Women’s Volleyball
11. Oregon – Baseball
12. Penn State – Ice Hockey
13. Purdue – Wrestling
14. Rutgers – Rowing
15. USC – Beach Volleyball
16. UCLA – Women’s Gymnastics
17. Washington – Men’s and Women’s Track and Field
18. Wisconsin – Women’s Volleyball

This list displays a very unique situation in which school’s of different sizes, athletic program revenue and geographical location could potentially run a particular sport if they allocate the right amount of money to that sport.

When asked questions about other potential revenue pools, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said, “We thought volleyball could be a sport that could drive more revenue.”

Similarly, Penn State athletic director Dr. Patrick Kraft said, “We’re trying to be able to manage the money so that if we need to move on someone, no matter what the sport is, we have the ability to say, ‘Hey, there’s the No. 1 fencer in the world, and we need to go use rev-share to maybe tilt it our way, we’re going to be able to do that.”

From golf to wrestling to lacrosse and every sport in between, we could see Big Ten schools separate themselves from one another, taking home Big Ten championships, the prize money and the publicity that would come with it.

How can the Big Ten leave their mark as a conference, and individually?

Revenue sharing is meant to create many benefits for programs. It increases the scholarships a school can give out, giving programs more flexibility with recruiting and roster spots. It should make athletes happier about their worth, and it gives coaches and staff another resource to use when recruiting and retaining athletes. And, in theory, it evens out the competition, allowing for schools to have the same resources as one another to compete for championships.

However, there are still going to be economic and resource disparities. It is how each school handles these inequalities which will be the true test of sustainability and continuous success.

Kirby Smart’s Bold Recruiting Strategy

In the fiercely competitive landscape of college football, Kirby Smart has emerged as a formidable force on the recruiting trail. The head coach of the University of Georgia has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to building a powerhouse program, particularly evident in June when his team secured commitments from four highly sought-after recruits within just a week. This surge in talent acquisition appears to be a strategic counterbalance to the recent challenges faced by the program, including the departure of 18 players, a situation that could easily destabilize any team.

Navigating the Aftermath of Player Departures

The mass exodus of players from Georgia has left a significant mark on Smart’s coaching journey. Each departure represents not just a loss of talent but also a challenge in maintaining team cohesion and morale. The impact of these transitions can be profound, as Smart works to foster a culture of resilience and adaptability among the remaining players. The recent recruiting successes signal that Smart is not merely reacting to these losses but is proactively shaping the future of his program.

The NIL Landscape and Its Implications

A pivotal element in this recruiting narrative is the evolving landscape of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals. Smart’s recent stance on NIL compensation, particularly the $220,000 figure, has sparked significant discussions within the college football community. This figure represents not only a monetary value but also a philosophical approach to how athletes are compensated in the collegiate arena. Smart’s clear position on NIL could serve as a double-edged sword—while it may attract recruits who value integrity and a strong program culture, it could also deter others who are swayed by more lucrative offers elsewhere.

The Future of Georgia Football Under Smart’s Leadership

As Kirby Smart navigates these complex dynamics, the future of Georgia football hinges on his ability to blend traditional recruiting strategies with the new realities of NIL. The recent influx of talent suggests that he is adept at adapting to the changing landscape, yet the true test will come as he balances the financial aspects of recruitment with the foundational values of his program.

Conclusion: A New Era of College Football

Smart’s journey illustrates the shifting paradigms within college athletics, where the intersection of talent acquisition, player welfare, and financial considerations is more pronounced than ever. As he continues to build his roster amid the challenges of player retention and NIL negotiations, the implications of his strategies will resonate far beyond the field. Kirby Smart is not only shaping the future of Georgia football but also contributing to the broader conversation about the evolution of college sports in a new era.

The University of Wisconsin and its NIL collective VC Connect filed a joint lawsuit on Friday against the University of Miami alleging it knowingly induced one of the Badgers’ football players to abandon a lucrative name, image and likeness contract to play for the Florida school this upcoming season.

Allegations of tampering rarely get to this level and the 23-page lawsuit, which was filed in state court in Wisconsin and obtained by The Associated Press, is unusual. Depending on its resolution, it could have a a wider impact on future NIL deals across college athletics.

The player in question in the filing is referred to only as “Student-Athlete A.” But the case summary describes facts that line up with the situation involving cornerback Xavier Lucas, who last December announced his plans to enter the transfer portal.

Shortly afterward, Darren Heitner, who has been representing Lucas, indicated that Wisconsin was refusing to put Lucas’ name in the portal and that it was hindering his ability to talk with other schools. In January, Heitner announced that Lucas would be playing for Miami this fall.

The situation is fallout from the rapid changes engulfing college athletics, specifically a combination of two things: Athletes went to court and won the ability to transfer with much more freedom and the 2021 NCAA decision clearing the way for them to strike NIL endorsement deals now worth millions of dollars. That has changed the recruiting landscape and forced the issue of contracts and signed commitments to the fore.

“Indeed, student-athletes’ newfound NIL rights will be rendered meaningless if third parties are allowed to induce student-athletes to abandon their contractual commitments,” a portion of the lawsuit reads.

Wisconsin said in January that it had credible information that Miami and Lucas made impermissible contact with each other before the former Badgers cornerback decided to transfer.

Wisconsin and VC Connect allege that the inducement for Lucas to attend Miami happened within days of him entering his NIL agreement to play for the Badgers, and that they incurred substantial monetary and reputational harm. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and “a declaration that Miami’s conduct directed towards Student-Athlete A constituted tampering.”

A message left with the University of Miami seeking comment was not immediately returned. In a text message Friday, Heitner declined to comment on the lawsuit but he said that Lucas still plans to attend Miami and play football.

Wisconsin said it had the support of its leadership and the Big Ten Conference in filing the lawsuit, noting its commitment to “ensuring integrity and fundamental fairness in the evolving landscape of college athletics.”

“While we reluctantly bring this case, we stand by our position that respecting and enforcing contractual obligations is essential to maintaining a level playing field,” the statement said. “In addition to our legal action, we will continue to be proactive to protect the interests of our student-athletes, our program and the broader collegiate athletics community.

Lucas, who is from Pompano Beach, Florida, had 12 tackles, an interception and a sack as a freshman for Wisconsin last season.

Heitner said that Lucas hasn’t received any money from Wisconsin and therefore owes no money to the school.

Heitner also argued that Wisconsin had violated an NCAA bylaw by not entering Lucas into the transfer database within two business days of the player’s request.

Wisconsin issued a statement at the time saying it hadn’t put Lucas’ name in the portal because he had entered a two-year binding NIL agreement.

In April, the surprise transfers of brothers Nico and Madden Iamaleava from Tennessee to UCLA prompted fresh questions about contracts and buyouts.

Nico Iamaleava, who led Tennessee to the College Football Playoff last season, walked away from a reported $2.4 million NIL contract. Arkansas freshman quarterback Madden Iamaleava entered the portal after spring practices wrapped up.

Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek released a statement indicating he would support efforts by the Razorbacks’ NIL collective to enforce buyout clauses in athlete contracts. Iamaleava reportedly had a contract valued at $500,000 upon signing with Arkansas.

Brad Marchand is one of the top pending unrestricted free agents (UFAs) who can hit the market on July 1. Both the Florida Panthers and Marchand have expressed interest in getting a new contract done. However, with Panthers stars Sam Bennett and Aaron Ekblad also needing new deals, there is certainly a possibility that No. 63 could end up becoming a UFA at the start of next month.

After the playoff run Marchand just had, he would be a very popular target if he became available on the free-agent market. The 37-year-old winger has proven that he is still a star and that he can still step up big time in games that matter most.

Advertisement

Due to this, in his most recent 32 Thoughts column, NHL insider Elliotte Friedman mentioned several potential suitors for Marchand if the Panthers are unable to re-sign him by July 1. These teams include the Utah Mammoth, Toronto Maple Leafs, Los Angeles Kings, New Jersey Devils, and Washington Capitals.

The Mammoth making a push for Marchand would be understandable, as they could use a star winger like him as they look to take that next step and become a playoff team. Meanwhile, the Maple Leafs, Kings, Devils, and Capitals also make sense as possible suitors, as they each are playoff-caliber teams with high expectations for next year. Thus, bringing in a clutch playoff performer like Marchand would be huge for them.

Nevertheless, it is going to be intriguing to see what happens between Marchand and the Panthers this off-season. If Florida is unable to keep him around, it’s clear that the future Hall of Famer will have plenty of other options to consider.

Brad Marchand Has Big Message For Panthers GM Bill Zito Brad Marchand is one of the

Advertisement

Florida Panthers’ top pending unrestricted free agents (UFA) with the summer here. The star winger has undoubtedly increased his value after his marvelous playoff run, as he recorded 10 goals, 20 points, and a plus-17 rating in 23 games. With this, he was one of the major reasons why the Panthers were able to repeat as Stanley Cup champions.

Photo Credit: © Sergei Belski-Imagn Images

Rutgers University currently fields 24 teams in the Big Ten Conference, which range from the major revenue sports of football and basketball to swimming, diving, volleyball, and golf. But if Rutgers were to add more athletic programs, which ones would make the most sense? We came up with a short list here, with men’s volleyball, crew, swimming & diving, gymnastics, and ice hockey taking the top spots.

Men’s Volleyball

Rutgers has a Division 1 women’s volleyball program, which recently competed in an overseas tour against European pro teams, yet does not have a men’s squad. As well-known as women’s volleyball is in the college landscape, men’s volleyball is just as exciting. Rutgers-Newark has a volleyball team, and Rutgers has a successful men’s club volleyball team that competes against other colleges. Some of the top teams in women’s volleyball are members of the Big Ten conference, including Penn State and Nebraska, and the conference should add men’s volleyball to the mix. Matches can happen at basketball venues throughout the conference, just as women’s volleyball games do.

Men’s Gymnastics

Gymnasts amaze at the Olympics every four years, and the Big Ten has a robust men’s gymnastics competition involving several of the conference’s marquee schools, ending in the Big Ten and NCAA Championships. The Rutgers women’s gymnastics team recently hired a new coach, Anastasia Candia, and the program qualified for the NCAA Regionals for the first time since 2014 this past year. Although both men and women compete in vault and floor exercise, men’s gymnastics brings many other competitions to the table, many of which emphasize upper body strength. Pommel horse, still rings, and parallel and horizontal bars are events that men compete on that women do not, making men’s gymnastics an event that fans would enjoy seeing. As does women’s gymnastics, men’s gymnastics can compete at Jersey Mike’s Arena for their home meets.

Men’s Swim and Dive

Swimmers and divers are a main staple of the Olympics, and similar to gymnastics, the Big Ten has a comprehensive men’s swim and dive schedule, including many of its teams hosting invitationals throughout the year before conference and national championships. The Rutgers women’s swim and dive team hosts meets at the Sonny Werblin Recreation Center on campus, and even made waves recently, with synchronized divers Bailee Sturgill & Katerina Hoffman claiming the gold medal at the Canada Diving Cup. Similar to men’s gymnastics, Rutgers could produce athletes who go on to compete on the national stage in men’s swimming and diving, making it a top program to invest in.

Ice Hockey

This one is a very tall ask of the university, but it would still be fun to have at Rutgers. Nearby schools, such as Penn State, Boston College, and Boston University, have electric crowds for their Hockey games. New Jersey is a state full of Hockey fans, and since there is no major college hockey power in the state, there is enough of an audience to be sustainable. Rutgers does have an Ice Hockey team loosely linked to the University; however, they play in the American Collegiate Hockey Association, which is a very small D1 conference. They also play 30 minutes off campus in Monmouth Junction at Proskate Arena. The Big Ten has a hockey conference that Rutgers could move into if it elevated their program.

This one is more far-fetched because Rutgers would have to build the team their own rink. With that being said, a Big Ten level hockey team has serious potential to garner support at Rutgers.

Crew

This one should be less of a sport that Rutgers should add and more like a sport they should bring back. Rutgers has such a rich history with its Crew team, one that should have never been taken away. Several Olympic athletes spent their time on the RU crew team. New Jersey is a hotbed for high school crew teams when compared to other states. Rutgers does have a Crew team that is still well supported by its alumni. In their previous efforts to be restored to varsity status, Crew didn’t even ask the university to fund their scholarships. The money is there, the support is there. There isn’t much of an investment that needs to be made when it comes to equipment and facilities. Why not bring back one of the most storied programs at Rutgers?