Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aparch
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by SCSU Euro View Post
    I could be wrong, but I think most schools do. However at SCSU students never pull out a dime unless they host the first round of the playoffs to pay the NC$$ WCHA. Even the Gopher games where you need tickets in advance, you just go down with your student ID. And the interesting thing about that was you didn't need a student to show up for every ID, so I went down there once with I wanna say 26 IDs and was given 52 tickets, one per ID per night.
    Fixed your post.

    Hosting of first/second rounds of league championships is run by the individual leagues. Any ticket prices are set by the individual leagues.

    Leave a comment:


  • TimU
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    With regard to the weirdly similar numbers and multiple break-even programs, I figured that just meant that some schools submitted prior years' results (although you still can't tell what they may have included or left out) while others submitted next year's budgets (which would always show a net of zero). Is that not right? I'm certainly no accountant.

    Leave a comment:


  • SCSU Euro
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by Ralph Baer View Post
    RPI students still have to pay for tickets although at a cheaper rate than the general public.
    I could be wrong, but I think most schools do. However at SCSU students never pull out a dime unless they host the first round of the playoffs to pay the NC$$. Even the Gopher games where you need tickets in advance, you just go down with your student ID. And the interesting thing about that was you didn't need a student to show up for every ID, so I went down there once with I wanna say 26 IDs and was given 52 tickets, one per ID per night.

    Leave a comment:


  • ithacat
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by MichFan View Post
    9. I was surprised to see Cornell behind RPI, Clarkson, and Colgate in revenues. With that program's success and its rich and loyal alumni, not to mention the demand on campus for tickets to Lynah, I expected Cornell to be first in the ECAC easily.
    Cornell needs to hire the person running Colgate's concessions, parking, and ancillary fund raising.

    Our season tix were $300.00 each (Colgate's highest is $200.00).
    Student tickets at Cornell are $13.00 per game (Colgate's are free).
    Cornell's average attendance was 4,238 (Colgate's was 1,294), though Colgate did have three more games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ralph Baer
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by SCSU Euro View Post
    SCSU does the same. For a small fee every student is a season ticket holder whether they like it (or know it) or not
    RPI students still have to pay for tickets although at a cheaper rate than the general public.

    Leave a comment:


  • mnstate0fhockey
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Revenues look accurate to me. The expenditures not so much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Osorojo
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    This discussion of information found at ope.ed.gov/athletics is much more enlightening than a thread from a while ago about the same source of information. That thread was hijacked by cheese-dip experts - heavy on the "dip." Sale fromage from the provinces.

    Leave a comment:


  • scsutommyboy
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by aparch View Post
    I'm not a fan of re-alignment either, but it is what it is.

    Even with the B1G declaring such a disproportionate revenue, they still have to play by the same rules as NMU, MTU or BGSU: only 20 players (21 if they let the third string backup dress for fun) can dress per night. 18 skaters only.

    If the Michigans and Minnesotas want to p!ss away 18 full scholarships, or up to 30 partial scholarships while having a stockpile of 30+ players, good for them. Because the blue-chips were always going to go to those schools. The second/third string guys who may have to red-shirt and sit out a few years can still attend the "lesser" Div. 1 schools and get immediate ice time, and thus immediately make an impact on NHL scouts.

    It's a little tough to impress scouts with how well you get nachos during the game while sitting out your freshman and sophomore years.
    This why the Ferris State's can do so well. There are less than 60 D1 schools and as long as the college game keeps bringing in more talent than the BIG's can take other schools are going to keep making an impact. Those schools can't do it every year, but as long as they can every once in a while things won't be much different than they are now.

    Leave a comment:


  • FreshFish
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by Alton View Post
    I don't trust those numbers.
    The footnotes might explain it; perhaps some schools allocate expenses across all uses of the rink (at my college we used to be able to skate on the team's rink during "free skate" hours) while others may not; some schools might have debt service to pay off the cost of rink construction while others have rinks that are paid for; others might be using depreciation as a bookkeeping expense even though it is not a cash outlay, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • aparch
    replied
    Originally posted by MichFan View Post
    4. If you look at future conference alignment, the B1G has the top 3 schools by revenue (Minn/Wisc/Mich), and almost in much in revenue with 5 schools as HE or the NCHC with 11 and 8, respectively. As someone who is NOT a fan of realignment, I think the B1G's money dominance will be bad for college hockey.
    I'm not a fan of re-alignment either, but it is what it is.

    Even with the B1G declaring such a disproportionate revenue, they still have to play by the same rules as NMU, MTU or BGSU: only 20 players (21 if they let the third string backup dress for fun) can dress per night. 18 skaters only.

    If the Michigans and Minnesotas want to p!ss away 18 full scholarships, or up to 30 partial scholarships while having a stockpile of 30+ players, good for them. Because the blue-chips were always going to go to those schools. The second/third string guys who may have to red-shirt and sit out a few years can still attend the "lesser" Div. 1 schools and get immediate ice time, and thus immediately make an impact on NHL scouts.

    It's a little tough to impress scouts with how well you get nachos during the game while sitting out your freshman and sophomore years.

    Leave a comment:


  • SCSU Euro
    replied
    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate. I wonder if they included their charity event (Goals for Good), and then matched it as an expenditure?

    One thing to also consider is that RPI gets revenue from the Student Union's activity fee for all of its sports programs.
    SCSU does the same. For a small fee every student is a season ticket holder whether they like it (or know it) or not

    Leave a comment:


  • Tiggsy
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by 4four4 View Post
    Minnesota's recruiting travel and everyday travel to other arena's is lower than anybody else in the conference. IMO, that is the difference between them and everybody else.
    That's a good point I never even thought of. A large percentage of recruiting trips for MN are less than 30 minutes from campus. Some trips may not even count because the coaches are already at the games watching their own kids play. Not too many other places can likely say that.


    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate....
    Me too, especially since 4 out of 5 dentists recoment Colgate. Wait, that's Trident. Nevermind.

    Leave a comment:


  • FlagDUDE08
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by MichFan View Post
    9. I was surprised to see Cornell behind RPI, Clarkson, and Colgate in revenues. With that program's success and its rich and loyal alumni, not to mention the demand on campus for tickets to Lynah, I expected Cornell to be first in the ECAC easily.
    I'm REALLY surprised about Colgate. I wonder if they included their charity event (Goals for Good), and then matched it as an expenditure?

    One thing to also consider is that RPI gets revenue from the Student Union's activity fee for all of its sports programs.

    Leave a comment:


  • dggoddard
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
    I was told that they reflected ticket revenue for games at the Joyce Center (3 of the 21 "home games" we had in that season were played either in Fort Wayne or at the Sears Centre in suburban Chicago).
    That's exactly what I suspected DU's revenue numbers suggested. To not count parking, alcohol sales, concessions & merchandise, which as we all know, would double the revenue easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4four4
    replied
    Re: NCAA Hockey - Who's Making $$$, Who's Not

    Originally posted by MichFan View Post

    3. Add me to the list of people wondering how Minnesota's expenditures could be so much less than, say, Wisconsin's or Michigan's.
    Minnesota's recruiting travel and everyday travel to other arena's is lower than anybody else in the conference. IMO, that is the difference between them and everybody else.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X