Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[AdamBC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Two problems with multipurpose arenas. It usually costs $5,000 to $10,000 each time you convert them and you can't play or practice if its set in the other format.

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

Can you imagine telling Bobby Knight back in the day.... "The crew had a problem today and is running behind getting the arena converted for your practice."

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

Than you build it like the Kohl Center with basketball sightlines and leave room for a sheet of ice

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

I'm not saying that it would be an ideal situation (and it would more likely be the other way around with hockey being shoehorned into a basketball-centric facility) or that either school is actually going to add hockey, but rather this is how these schools could theoretically add programs without needing a massive donation a la Penn State. With multipurpose arenas, they need events beyond just basketball to be financially viable, so if hockey brings in enough ticket sales (and just as importantly, concessions, parking fees, etc.) to justify the rink conversion costs, then there's an economic argument for it.

Anyway, it's interesting to see so many perspectives arguing that college hockey doesn't generate much money, but then in almost the same breath state that the Big Ten is going to "ruin the sport" because... it's going after more money. If the Big Ten hockey league isn't going to make much money, then why the heck is everyone worried? They obviously aren't taking much money away from the CCHA and WCHA schools because hockey doesn't make much money in the first place, right?

Let's put it this way: the Big Ten university presidents (forget about the ADs and coaches, who are irrelevant to these discussions) are smart people and don't do things that they believe are going to end up having them lose revenue compared to today. Clearly, there's a fairly strong projection that the Big Ten forming its own hockey league is going to yield more revenue than what they would've made in the CCHA and WCHA separately. We might argue how large that revenue boost might be, but I think we can agree that these guys aren't entering into this deal just for the heck of it and thinking that they're going to be *losing* money on it.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

If the Big Ten hockey league isn't going to make much money, then why the heck is everyone worried? They obviously aren't taking much money away from the CCHA and WCHA schools because hockey doesn't make much money in the first place, right?

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

...don't do things that they believe are going to end up having them lose revenue compared to today.

Three words: Tim Brewster Extension.

[SOTA]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

Not to sound like Monty Burns here, but why should the Big Ten be concerned about the welfare of Michigan Tech's athletic department?

I think Frank hit the nail on the head.....the people making the decisions regarding the Big Ten have a history of knowing what they're doing. I don't see them making such a decision unless it will have a positive benefit for their institutions in the long term.

[AdamBC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Can you imagine telling Bobby Knight back in the day.... "The crew had a problem today and is running behind getting the arena converted for your practice."

The ACC does require BC to have the floor down a certain number of hours before tip-off. But you're right - that would have ended poorly for the assistant.

[NMU8405]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

To the smaller schools that depend on hockey making them money, through boosters, revenue etc... it is a lot money. NMU is operating on a budget that was put forth in 2002...which 9 years later is in the bottom 10 of NCAA hockey.

[solovsfett]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I don't like a BTHC. To me, Wisconsin's hockey rivals are NoDak, Denver, CC and UMD, not tOSU, MSU and Michigan.

The only silver lining I see is if the open spaces in the CCHA and WCHA encourage other schools to add hockey. And that's a big if.

And, I worry Wisconsin hockey will schedule like football. We'll play you - but only if you come to our place so we get the home revenue. That's not good in the larger picture for the sports, more specifically teams like Tech, Mankato, Alaska, etc.

And, UW's ban on playing non-conference opponents with 'hostile' nicknames is still in place, right? So, unless it does change, no Sioux-Badgers games...

this! so much this.

You can bank Alvarez cares only about one thing here, $. I mean seriously as I've said before he didn't realize UW had a hockey team for about 12-14 years. this guy couldn't be bothered to help w/the new hockey practice facility until he ****ed off all the NHL ($) alumni with his dumbass comments about needing more of their money, and then realized uh oh, this DOES need to get done. but yeah, trust me if the babies on the football team needed tutors, more shoulder pads or another practice facility he'd be lobbying effing scott walker and herb kohl for that money you can count on it. he'd sell anything for football or roundball.

I agree w/you on Wisconsin's rivals whod I'd put in order MN, Nodak, DU, UMD, CC, and traditionally MTU (I know their 3 titles are 30 years old but so what?).

so I'm not looking forward to the BTHC, and I'm especially going to be ****ed if UW doesn't have trips to Grand Forks, Denver, Houghton, Colorado Springs and Duluth at least on a rotating schedule home and home.

[Bakunin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I might continue attending the F5 even with the stupid BTHC forming. It's a lot cheaper than traveling to ****ing Chicago.

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I'm guessing one way that a BTHC makes the schools more money is that while many games may air on BTN, during hoops season they can't all air there. The Big Ten already has a cozy relationship with Fox (co-owners of BTN, the new football title game deal, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if the FSN deals with Minnesota and Michigan morphs into a conference deal for additional coverage and revenue.

And, let's not forget the driving factor behind overall league expansion is the money of the football title game. I would suspect that they've run the numbers on what they can make on a Big Ten post season hockey tourney - sponsorships, tickets, rights fees, etc. - and believe that splitting it just 6 ways (as opposed to the 1/12th split in WCHA and 1/11th in CCHA) comes out in favor of a BTHC. They may even have venues willing to cut deals on rental, etc. to reduce costs.

And I could be wrong...

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Not to sound like Monty Burns here, but why should the Big Ten be concerned about the welfare of Michigan Tech's athletic department?

.

Because, at some point, too many haves and too many have nots are not good for the sport. Although it has flaws, the NFL's revenue sharing allows Green Bay to compete with New York. And it allows for every team to have the opportunity to compete, if run smartly (sorry, Oakland, and for years, Detroit.)

Baseball doesn't have this. When was the last time the Kansas City Royals were relevent? But the Yankees and Red Sox have to have someone to play.

If the tenuous D1 hockey programs decide to go the way of St. Louis, Wayne State, Illinois-Chicago and others, at some point, just who will the Big Ten teams play? And how often? And what kind of draw will the others be? Sorry to the UAH's of the world - who have my sympathy and I think the CCHA should have taken them - but right now they are no draw for other teams. Sure, your team might sweep a series, but so what?

While colleges won't have the same fiscal setup as the NFL, where it can assist those programs is through alignment. In that regard, I don't see how a BTHC aids the other CCHA and WCHA teams. I do see how they will hurt by five teams departing.

[The Rube]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I might continue attending the F5 even with the stupid BTHC forming. It's a lot cheaper than traveling to ****ing Chicago.

I'll just go visit more arenas/F4s.

And the UNO bus thing a few pages back was in reference to the fans, not the teams.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Because, at some point, too many haves and too many have nots are not good for the sport. Although it has flaws, the NFL's revenue sharing allows Green Bay to compete with New York. And it allows for every team to have the opportunity to compete, if run smartly (sorry, Oakland, and for years, Detroit.)

Baseball doesn't have this. When was the last time the Kansas City Royals were relevent? But the Yankees and Red Sox have to have someone to play.

Baseball does have revenue sharing actually. $404 million in 2010. Every team pays 31% of local revenue in, and then thats divided evenly among all teams. Plus there is the luxury tax on top of that for the big spenders.

Its when the low revenue teams decide to hoard that money instead of spend it that causes problems.

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I'm not saying that it would be an ideal situation (and it would more likely be the other way around with hockey being shoehorned into a basketball-centric facility) or that either school is actually going to add hockey, but rather this is how these schools could theoretically add programs without needing a massive donation a la Penn State. With multipurpose arenas, they need events beyond just basketball to be financially viable, so if hockey brings in enough ticket sales (and just as importantly, concessions, parking fees, etc.) to justify the rink conversion costs, then there's an economic argument for it.

One of the mistakes that PSU made in building the Bryce Jordan Center is that they never added ice. They made it big enough to hold a rink (because the NHL rink dimensions of 200 x 85 are pretty much the standard for large trade shows, concerts, etc, and are thus the arena standard for floor size) but never included provisions for making ice, or for adding ice making capability at a later date.

Indiana and Illinois should not make that same mistake.

I'd also note that Nebraska has a suitable rink near campus where the USHL Lincoln Stars now play. I have no idea what their basketball arena looks like.