Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The New WCHA (2013-14)

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
    Agreed. Also, if you look at how the CCHA playoffs went, I'd bet they made no money on the playoffs and might have lost quite a bit, whereas the WCHA teams were making money. So if it can be structured now such that league games make a little more and if the playoffs can be cash flow positive rather than negative, then we should be ok. I just can't see how the league can commit to anything right now that is a big loser. So going to the JLA for the playoffs seems kind of nuts to me.
    It won't be too much of a change for BSU as they had to forfeit their share of the WCHA Playoff Revenues as part of their admit agreement. Convienent how that agreement runs out right at the time the other teams bolt........
    Millsy

    NCAA TOURNAMENT 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010!
    FROZEN FOUR 2009!


    "Like" The BeaverPond's Facebook Page

    BEMIDJI STATE BEAVERS!
    NAIA National Champs: 1968, '69, '70, '71, '73, '79, '80
    NCAA D-III National Champs: 1986
    NCAA D-II National Champs: 1984, '93, '94, '95, '97
    NCAA D-I National Champs: 20??
    Perfect 31-0 in 1983-84
    Holders of an NCAA Mens Record 43 straight wins (Nov. 8, 1983-Jan. 1, 1985)

    Comment


    • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

      Originally posted by beaverhockeyfan View Post
      It won't be too much of a change for BSU as they had to forfeit their share of the WCHA Playoff Revenues as part of their admit agreement. Convienent how that agreement runs out right at the time the other teams bolt........
      It's almost if you are insinuating backhanded d-baggery by them... Odd.
      MTU Hockey fan since I was carried to a game in 1986 - for those counting... that's a lot of depressing hockey. Still love it.

      Surrounded by Badger Red in Wisconsin. Such an ugly color, but the beer and cheese are delicious...

      2014-15 WCHA (*Regular season portion) Pick-em Champion (**Forgeting a Week Methodology)

      Comment


      • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

        Originally posted by Almington View Post
        I still think that the "value" of the exemption to the schools that remain in the WCHA is significantly overestimated.
        Originally posted by davyd83 View Post
        Actually that value is even greater now, with a few schools making two trips. That will allow more non conference games, meaning you can generate more revenue by playing at home, or take "money" games. With the loss of Final Five revenue by the old WCHA school, any opportunity to generate more revenue is critical.
        Well, let's look at BSU - an "average" WCHA team. They will have had 3 seasons in the WCHA by the time of all this upheaval. Compare OOC games year to year:

        '10-'11 - 2 home (vs. NMU), 4 road (@ Mariucci Classic, @ UAH)
        '11-'12 - 4 home (vs. UAH, vs. BGSU), 4 road (@ Miami, @ LSSU) - Alaska exemption year
        '12-'13 - 4 home (vs. LSSU, vs. WMU), 2 road (Dartmouth Tourney)

        Compare to, say, UMinn:

        '09-'10 - 6 home (vs. BSU, Mariucci Classic, vs. Harvard), 2 road (College Hockey Showcase) - Alaska exemption year
        '10-'11 - 6 home (vs. UMass, College Hockey Showcase, Mariucci Classic), 0 road
        '11-'12 - 6 home (vs. Sacred Heart, vs. Vermont, Mariucci Classic), 2 road (@ Mich State) - Alaska exemption year
        '12-'13 * - 6 home (Mich State, Mariucci Classic, Notre Dame), 2 road (@ Vermont) - Alaska exemption year **

        So, to the "average" team, it's not that big a deal. For the Minnesota's of the world (with their huge $$$ made at home games), it's a BIG deal, allowing them to maintain their 6 home OOC games, while hitting the road for their "required" CHS games in the past.


        * rumored schedule
        ** funny how UMinn gets the Alaska exemption almost every year, no?
        Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

        AHA:
        B1G: UMinn, UWisc
        ECAC:
        HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
        NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
        WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

        Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

        Comment


        • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

          Originally posted by moose97 View Post
          Well, let's look at BSU - an "average" WCHA team. They will have had 3 seasons in the WCHA by the time of all this upheaval. Compare OOC games year to year:

          '10-'11 - 2 home (vs. NMU), 4 road (@ Mariucci Classic, @ UAH)
          '11-'12 - 4 home (vs. UAH, vs. BGSU), 4 road (@ Miami, @ LSSU) - Alaska exemption year
          '12-'13 - 4 home (vs. LSSU, vs. WMU), 2 road (Dartmouth Tourney)

          Compare to, say, UMinn:

          '09-'10 - 6 home (vs. BSU, Mariucci Classic, vs. Harvard), 2 road (College Hockey Showcase) - Alaska exemption year
          '10-'11 - 6 home (vs. UMass, College Hockey Showcase, Mariucci Classic), 0 road
          '11-'12 - 6 home (vs. Sacred Heart, vs. Vermont, Mariucci Classic), 2 road (@ Mich State) - Alaska exemption year
          '12-'13 * - 6 home (Mich State, Mariucci Classic, Notre Dame), 2 road (@ Vermont) - Alaska exemption year **

          So, to the "average" team, it's not that big a deal. For the Minnesota's of the world (with their huge $$$ made at home games), it's a BIG deal, allowing them to maintain their 6 home OOC games, while hitting the road for their "required" CHS games in the past.


          * rumored schedule
          ** funny how UMinn gets the Alaska exemption almost every year, no?
          in the current system, you should get it every other year plus one more in 6 years for a total of 4 in 6...
          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

          Comment


          • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

            Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
            in the current system, you should get it every other year plus one more in 6 years for a total of 4 in 6...
            Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...
            Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

            AHA:
            B1G: UMinn, UWisc
            ECAC:
            HEA: UMass, Notre Dame
            NCHC: UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
            WCHA: UAH, BSU, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU

            Inactive: BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

            Comment


            • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

              Originally posted by moose97 View Post
              Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...
              So am I to take from this that the DQ cup is like an away game revenue wise, or will BSU get to share revenue?
              And second lets assume that 70% of the time you get either two home games, ( vs Mercyhurst for instance) or two games with a payoff vs a Big ten team. I assume you make more money at home but for the average team I'd guess they make more money at the big ten.
              MTU: Three time NCAA champions.

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

              Comment


              • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...
                If you assume in the future that having the AK exemption(s) will allow WCHA teams to schedule another home-and-home non-conference agreement. That means that teams will average one additional home game per season (worth about 20k-80k in revenue depending on the school) that needs to be balanced by the difference between the non-subsidized costs of the AK trip and a typical road series each year, plus the cost of having to make the return NC trip every other year. If you assume that with the subsidy a trip to AK is no more expensive than any typical road trip, and running the arena costs about $5k per series the real question is how much will the road trip cost? Maybe $10k between lodging, food, and transportation (so $5k/year). If a school gets 3,000 fans at $20 each, after expenses the AK exemption is worth about $50k per year. While important and valuable to the schools, it isn't the ~$500k to $750k that the exemption is worth to UW, UND, or UMN. So, a team making 2 trips to AK might clear an additional $100k or so to help cover other expenses, while that money will help balance the books it is far from a massive windfall that will make all the schools automatically profitable.

                Comment


                • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                  Originally posted by Almington View Post
                  So, a team making 2 trips to AK might clear an additional $100k or so to help cover other expenses, while that money will help balance the books it is far from a massive windfall that will make all the schools automatically profitable.
                  Which happens to be about the same amount (maybe more) as the Final Five check that every WCHA non-big 10 school's AD has embraced and promoted as very important to their program. So then yeah ... the Alaska exemptions are overvalued in exactly the same way as Final Five revenue. Right?

                  Comment


                  • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                    If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.
                    Du hockey comme dans le temps!

                    Comment


                    • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                      Originally posted by Freddie View Post
                      If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.
                      You are mistaken.
                      "The use of common sense and logic will not be tolerated and may result in fine and/or suspension."- Western Professional Hockey League By-laws. 1999-2000.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                        Originally posted by Freddie View Post
                        If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.
                        you missed one important part, it's per team. So you can make a trip to see Uaa and uaf.
                        Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                        Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                        Comment


                        • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                          Originally posted by uaafanblog View Post
                          Which happens to be about the same amount (maybe more) as the Final Five check that every WCHA non-big 10 school's AD has embraced and promoted as very important to their program. So then yeah ... the Alaska exemptions are overvalued in exactly the same way as Final Five revenue. Right?
                          $100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

                          The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.

                          The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                            Originally posted by Almington View Post
                            $100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

                            The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.

                            The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.
                            Who has $2-2.5 million in their budget? Only one new WCHA school spent over $2m in 2010 (UAF). Six of the nine schools had budgets of less than $1.5 million, with the average for the conference at around $1.4 million.
                            ?
                            "The use of common sense and logic will not be tolerated and may result in fine and/or suspension."- Western Professional Hockey League By-laws. 1999-2000.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                              Originally posted by Almington View Post
                              $100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

                              The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.
                              This is a ridiculous minimum. Suggesting numbers that low is disingenuous. First of all ... excluding UAA and UAF -- the average number of seats for the remaining 6 schools is 4668. Your method of suggesting revenue is flawed as well. The only reasonable thing to do is talk about the potential additional revenue. So on average with $20 tickets there is a potential for 150K+ additional revenue if the member school is able to find a way to maximize it. They have opportunities to be creative.

                              The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.
                              The issue here is you in your Big 10 bubble. I'm pretty sure there are times in the past when Wisconsin didn't even use it's exempt games. An athletic department that dwarfs nearly all other NCAA schools in terms of the revenue it generates can afford to think lightly of the exemptions. Just as you do.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

                                Originally posted by davyd83 View Post
                                Who has $2-2.5 million in their budget? Only one new WCHA school spent over $2m in 2010 (UAF). Six of the nine schools had budgets of less than $1.5 million, with the average for the conference at around $1.4 million.
                                ?
                                My mistake, I used the average for the current WCHA.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X