AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

[dxmnkd316]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

I second this sentiment.

From a financial perspective, I don't see any way that realignment has not been a major negative for all the teams impacted. Revenue is down AND expenses are up. That's never a good combination, particularly when it's clear that isn't a temporary situation that should improve in the short term.

I really believe that had the non-BIG teams had remained in a 10 team WCHA and 9 team CCHA they would be in much better financial outlook.

Completely agree. I know it's still young, but I consider the big ten to be a massive failure so far. It's less fun.

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Isn't attendance down in both the NCHC, WCHA & B1G compared to the old WCHA & CCHA days?

Ancient rivalries were destroyed in favor of cash.

And playing what the heck, if raiding AHA is on style..

Far West conference: ASU, USAFA, CC, DU, AK, UAA
WCHA3: UNO, UND, BSU, SCSU, UMM, UMD, MTU
CCHA2: UAH, BGSU, FSU, WMU, NMU, LSSU, MIA

It's ugly, but ancient rivalries restored, travel reduced, money can be made, though the FWC does make me wince and filling OOC for some of the FWC schools may be an issue.

I'll concede this one with one addendum - UAH goes to WCHA3 instead of Tech. If you're really concerned with keeping rivalries, I have no idea why you'd split up MTU-NMU. There's no reason to have all the Michigan schools in one conference except the Huskies.

[4four4]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Completely agree. I know it's still young, but I consider the big ten to be a massive failure so far. It's less fun.

It's going to take at least five more years before the BiG isn't a massive failure.

[4four4]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

I second this sentiment.

From a financial perspective, I don't see any way that realignment has not been a major negative for all the teams impacted. Revenue is down AND expenses are up. That's never a good combination, particularly when it's clear that isn't a temporary situation that should improve in the short term.

I really believe that had the non-BIG teams had remained in a 10 team WCHA and 9 team CCHA they would be in much better financial outlook.

I agree.

It's going to take years before we figure out what exactly happened here. At the time it made sense but when almost all the Big Ten teams stink it makes things a little harder to follow with the same passion. IMO, Penn State is the only school who went up in play over the last three years it makes sense when they were at the bottom.

[UML Puck Hawk]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

...and GA Tech ... would go Div I

I support this proposal. The B1G should give all their TV moneys to GT so I can watch D1 hockey. Please and Thank you

[Almington]

I agree.

It's going to take years before we figure out what exactly happened here. At the time it made sense but when almost all the Big Ten teams stink it makes things a little harder to follow with the same passion. IMO, Penn State is the only school who went up in play over the last three years it makes sense when they were at the bottom.

My belief is that fear drove the break-up of the WCHA and CCHA after the BIG schools left. Fear that the BIG schools were going to dominate the collage hockey landscape and that other schools had to band together bases on nebulous idea of "like mindedness" as opposed to geography. The fact that The BIG has struggled out of the gate makes that fear seem foolish. Those fears may come to fruition, but it appears that is well off in the future. I think that MANY smart people over-estimated the size and impact of the BIG schools current hockey fanbases, particularly the interest of the more casual fan. Specifically, the casual fans were not watching because of who the opponents were, but because they just didn't care enough about the sport in general. Of course, losing does not help as casual fans are attracted to winners and the BIG teams have not helped there cause with lackluster non-conference results.

[purpleinnebraska]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

My belief is that fear drove the break-up of the WCHA and CCHA after the BIG schools left. Fear that the BIG schools were going to dominate the collage hockey landscape and that other schools had to band together bases on nebulous idea of "like mindedness" as opposed to geography. The fact that The BIG has struggled out of the gate makes that fear seem foolish. Those fears may come to fruition, but it appears that is well off in the future. I think that MANY smart people over-estimated the size and impact of the BIG schools current hockey fanbases, particularly the interest of the more casual fan. Specifically, the casual fans were not watching because of who the opponents were, but because they just didn't care enough about the sport in general. Of course, losing does not help as casual fans are attracted to winners and the BIG teams have not helped there cause with lackluster non-conference results.

This might be the best take I've read on this in the 5 or so years of the "Big Mistake" debate. If you had told NoDak, Denver, and Notre Dame back in 2011 that in the spring of 2016, Wisconsin will be in its second straight year of being in the 40s in the Pairwise, the Gophers will need to win the Big tourney to make the NCAA field and will have lost 11 of their last 12 against other MN schools, and OSU and MSU will still be mediocre, I don't think there would have been any panic to bust up the WCHA and CCHA. There was a huge concern that we were headed down the road of college football, where most teams enter the year knowing they have zero chance of even getting to the playoffs, let alone winning anything. That hasn't happened, and doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon, but no one knew that at the time, so those schools made a move that they thought was necessary to keep them relevant.

[blackswampboy]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

I didn't pay any attention to hockey for several years. So was shocked to come back and see the CCHA gone. We're 90 minutes from Goggin, but I can't get as excited about Denver or SCSU as I do about Ferris, Lake Superior, BG or to be candid, UAH. But not Oh State. Meh. Sorry.
Really wish there was an I65/75 conference and GA Tech or Vandy would go Div I, but even without them, if I was to daydream in bits and bytes...
LSSU, Ferris, Western, BG, ND, MU, UAH, maybe Northern and Tech. Maybe Robert Morris, Maybe Niagara, or maybe the Uncle Sugar twins (AFA/ Army) instead. My daydream stops short of a lot of detail.

You're sharing a mass daydream with BGSU Falcon fans everywhere.
Western and Miami, please come back from the dark side. We miss you (suppressing a small gag).

[Crocodile Tears]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

This might be the best take I've read on this in the 5 or so years of the "Big Mistake" debate. If you had told NoDak, Denver, and Notre Dame back in 2011 that in the spring of 2016, Wisconsin will be in its second straight year of being in the 40s in the Pairwise, the Gophers will need to win the Big tourney to make the NCAA field and will have lost 11 of their last 12 against other MN schools, and OSU and MSU will still be mediocre, I don't think there would have been any panic to bust up the WCHA and CCHA. There was a huge concern that we were headed down the road of college football, where most teams enter the year knowing they have zero chance of even getting to the playoffs, let alone winning anything. That hasn't happened, and doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon, but no one knew that at the time, so those schools made a move that they thought was necessary to keep them relevant.

True, but if you also told them Tech and Mankato held the #1 ranking, they'd call you a liar and have you committed

[ticapnews]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Good news! Once the B1G increases the scholarship limit all these travel issues go away.

[5thYearFreshman]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

It'd be Bemidji and Mankato if anything.

"Keep the Beavers out of the NCHC" signed Dean Blais

[beaverhockeyfan]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

"keep the beavers out of the nchc" signed dean blais

lol!

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

I'm still not sure how much of the losses are on the Men's side of the WCHA. I'm sure the teams that were in the old WCHA are making less than previously but are they really losing money? I would think the current situation is closer to what the CCHA teams were getting, especially if UAH, UAA, and UA_ are subsidizing travel. Obviously the equation is different for those 3 programs, with paying the subsidy.

As for all the talk from everyone about doing special treatment for travel to alaska. Remember when they talked about doing UAA vs UA_ in the first round and the backlash from that? I'm sure their rotating balanced schedule is all about the preventing the perception of not being AHA West. They want to play a "balanced" schedule, and they should if they want to be taken seriously.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

My belief is that fear drove the break-up of the WCHA and CCHA after the BIG schools left. Fear that the BIG schools were going to dominate the collage hockey landscape and that other schools had to band together bases on nebulous idea of "like mindedness" as opposed to geography. The fact that The BIG has struggled out of the gate makes that fear seem foolish. Those fears may come to fruition, but it appears that is well off in the future. I think that MANY smart people over-estimated the size and impact of the BIG schools current hockey fanbases, particularly the interest of the more casual fan. Specifically, the casual fans were not watching because of who the opponents were, but because they just didn't care enough about the sport in general. Of course, losing does not help as casual fans are attracted to winners and the BIG teams have not helped there cause with lackluster non-conference results.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. Look at the images of a pre-realignment to post-realignment map.

Before:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...!Hockey_d1.png

After:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../Hockey_d1.png

Terrible decisions made top to bottom.

[Almington]

I'm still not sure how much of the losses are on the Men's side of the WCHA. I'm sure the teams that were in the old WCHA are making less than previously but are they really losing money? I would think the current situation is closer to what the CCHA teams were getting, especially if UAH, UAA, and UA_ are subsidizing travel. Obviously the equation is different for those 3 programs, with paying the subsidy.

As for all the talk from everyone about doing special treatment for travel to alaska. Remember when they talked about doing UAA vs UA_ in the first round and the backlash from that? I'm sure their rotating balanced schedule is all about the preventing the perception of not being AHA West. They want to play a "balanced" schedule, and they should if they want to be taken seriously.

Many teams may not be losing money, but clearly have lower revenue AND higher expenses since the teams are more spread out.