The decision by Mercyhurst Lakers men’s ice hockey to discontinue its Division I men’s hockey program has reignited concerns about the long-term sustainability of smaller NCAA hockey programs. While the move does not signal an immediate collapse of college hockey, it highlights mounting financial pressures that are becoming increasingly difficult for smaller institutions to absorb—pressures now intensified by the rapidly evolving economics of college sports.
Mercyhurst, a private university with a relatively small enrollment base, cited “long-term viability” and institutional priorities in its decision. Like most Division I hockey programs, it operated as a non-revenue sport, relying heavily on institutional funding, student fees, and donor support rather than ticket sales or media income.
However, a new and powerful force is reshaping the financial landscape: Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation.
NIL and the Redistribution of Resources
Since the NCAA began allowing athletes to profit from NIL rights, schools and donor bases have increasingly directed money toward high-profile sports—primarily football and men’s basketball. At major programs, NIL collectives now command millions of dollars annually, creating a competitive arms race for top recruits.
While NIL money is technically separate from athletic department budgets, in practice it draws from the same pool of donors and boosters. This has led to a reallocation of financial support, with many contributors prioritizing sports that generate national exposure and potential returns.
The result is a widening gap:
- Football and basketball programs continue to grow financially
- Non-revenue sports like hockey face increasing difficulty securing funding
For smaller schools without major football programs, this dynamic is even more challenging. They must compete for limited donor dollars while also justifying the rising cost of maintaining Division I athletics.
Football and Basketball Tighten the Squeeze
Even beyond NIL, traditional budget priorities are shifting. At many universities, football and basketball already consume a disproportionate share of athletic spending due to coaching salaries, facilities, scholarships, and travel.
As costs in those sports continue to escalate, schools are making tougher decisions about where to allocate resources. Non-revenue sports—especially those with high operating costs like hockey—are often the most vulnerable.
Programs in lower-revenue conferences such as Atlantic Hockey are particularly exposed. Schools like Niagara Purple Eagles men’s ice hockey and Canisius Golden Griffins men’s ice hockey operate with smaller budgets, limited media exposure, and modest attendance, making it harder to justify continued investment as financial pressures mount.
Geography and Structural Challenges Persist
For some programs, geography compounds the problem. The University of Alaska Anchorage Seawolves and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Nanooks face uniquely high travel costs, as nearly every road game requires air travel. Anchorage previously cut its program in 2020 before reinstating it through emergency fundraising, underscoring its fragile financial footing.
Independent programs such as the Long Island University Sharks men’s ice hockey must also contend with inefficient scheduling and travel, further increasing costs without the stability of conference affiliation.
A Pattern of Gradual Attrition, Not Collapse
Despite these pressures, experts do not expect a sudden wave of program eliminations. Instead, the more likely scenario is gradual attrition—one or two programs closing or scaling back every few years.
The experience of Robert Morris Colonials men’s ice hockey illustrates this pattern. The program was cut in 2021 due to financial constraints before being reinstated following a surge in donor support, highlighting both the vulnerability of these teams and their dependence on external funding.
At the same time, new Division I programs continue to emerge, with schools like Augustana and St. Thomas investing heavily in hockey as a tool for institutional visibility. Their long-term sustainability, however, will depend on maintaining financial support in an increasingly competitive environment.
An Increasingly Uneven Playing Field
The broader trend is clear: the economics of college athletics are becoming more polarized. Wealthy, high-profile programs continue to grow, fueled by media deals and NIL-driven investment, while smaller schools face difficult trade-offs.
For NCAA men’s hockey, a sport with just over 60 Division I programs and deep regional roots, this means stability at the top but growing uncertainty at the margins.
Mercyhurst’s decision may not mark the beginning of a widespread contraction, but it underscores a shifting reality. As NIL reshapes donor behavior and football and basketball demand ever-larger shares of athletic budgets, smaller hockey programs are increasingly forced to answer a difficult question: can they afford to compete at the highest level?
The answer, for some, may increasingly be no.
