Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

When I came here from Colorado Springs in 1998 I thought exactly the same thing. How could they build an arena and not include an ice plant?

In hindsight, the decision (a budgetary one IIRC) was a wise one. The 15000-seat BJC is simply too big (see: Value City Arena) for college hockey, especially in a smaller market like the State College area.

Having spent a couple of years watching games at the World Arena before coming back east, I 100% agree with the plans for the 6000-seat Pegula Ice Arena.

Compact, noisy and, hopefully intimidating for visiting teams (OK, that could take a year or two) Just what a college hockey venue should be.

A 15,000 seat arena is too big for PSU basketball, too.

Look, I'll bet this 6,000 seat rink will be really nice, but look how much capital was required to add hockey because of it. PSU won the lotto. Other teams that might be interested in adding hockey can't rely on that.

And it's even more of a hassle if you have the ladies basketball or hockey teams in the same venue as well. IMO, a school like Illinois or Indiana would be better off in converting an older building into a hockey arena like what Michigan did with Yost. Gives you the ice sheet that's always available for practicing on. Along with not having to deal with all of the schedule hassles one would have with a multi use facility that could see multiple uses on a weekend.

Sure, that's the ideal - but it's far more expensive to do that. It's much cheaper to have a multi-purpose arena for the actual playing of games and hosting of fans, and have separate practice facilities. Illinois has an ice rink on campus already.

You also would need an older building that could actually work as a hockey arena. Not many places do. You'd also need to accomodate the people you kick out of that old building with a new building of their own, and it's probably just cheaper to build a small hockey practice facility instead.

Yost is the exception, not the rule.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Then why do Fox Sports North and Fox Sports Detroit broadcast any games and actually pay schools like Minnesota and Michigan a material amount for them? There's local interest. That's really the entire value proposition of the BTN.

Not disagreeing with you...cause I don't know enough to.

But if local interest is the entire value proposition being the BTN...then why not add Mizzou, Rutgers or Syracuse (huge local markets) rather than Nebraska (tiny local market)?

[SOTA]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Not disagreeing with you...cause I don't know enough to.

But if local interest is the entire value proposition being the BTN...then why not add Mizzou, Rutgers or Syracuse (huge local markets) rather than Nebraska (tiny local market)?

Nebraska's brand name nationally is MUCH bigger than those other schools.

As for Rutgers & Syracuse, they're only of interest if the BTN can be on a basic level of service in the NYC area. I'm guessing this would be a long fight with the cable companies, one which the Big Ten doesn't feel is doable at this time.

Mizzou? I'm guessing that the money they'd bring in wouldn't be enough for the 11 current institutions to slice the pie with. Texas, Notre Dame & Nebraska are really the only ones that can justify it. I suppose if Notre Dame came in with somebody else, it would benefit everyone, but nobody else is joining the Big Ten without either Notre Dame or Texas being a part of that dance.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Nebraska's brand name nationally is MUCH bigger than those other schools.

As for Rutgers & Syracuse, they're only of interest if the BTN can be on a basic level of service in the NYC area. I'm guessing this would be a long fight with the cable companies, one which the Big Ten doesn't feel is doable at this time.

Mizzou? I'm guessing that the money they'd bring in wouldn't be enough for the 11 current institutions to slice the pie with. Texas, Notre Dame & Nebraska are really the only ones that can justify it. I suppose if Notre Dame came in with somebody else, it would benefit everyone, but nobody else is joining the Big Ten without either Notre Dame or Texas being a part of that dance.

Right. But Franks proposition was that 'There's local interest. That's really the entire value proposition of the BTN.'

If that were strictly true you would only add new service to local markets that were added where new teams were added. You'd expect to see Mizzou being added...as you're adding St Louis and KC markets...rather than a relatively tiny market in Omaha.

[bigmrg74]

Not disagreeing with you...cause I don't know enough to.

But if local interest is the entire value proposition being the BTN...then why not add Mizzou, Rutgers or Syracuse (huge local markets) rather than Nebraska (tiny local market)?

Nebraska might be a small market, but the Childern of the Corn are Rabid. Just adding Nebraska to the Big Ten will drive up the demand to have the BTN in markets that are well outside of the Big Ten footprint. No self respecting sports bar that has a decent amount of Nebraska fans in the area would want to be without it, and it would likely need to be included on most sports packages as well. That along with what they could collect from every cable and satellite company from Omaha to Denver makes Nebraska a plus add for the Big Ten.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

The Big Ten officially distributed $19.9 million to each of its members during the last fiscal year. That's a $5.9 million increase over the last 3 years. $15 million was generated through TV contracts, including $6.4 million from the Big Ten Network. According to the Associate Athletics Director in charge of Minnesota’s athletics finances, the Big Ten money distribution was vital in balancing the Gophers’ finances for 2009 when a $6.8M shortfall hit the bottom line to essentially support the 25 athletic teams on campus. The $6.8M shortfall was substantively offset by the distribution of BTN funds totaling $6.4M.

So you're position is that this move of hockey to the BTN is a good move for the Gophers from a financial standpoint.

But don't the Gophers get the $6.4M from the BTN anyways? Don't they just end up losing 10/11ths of the $4.3M which is the profit that they made from Gopher hockey (or whatever the math turns out to be)? It seems to me that this is a good deal for most of the league financially as they get new broadcasting of Gopher hockey...but very bad for the Gophers who lose that revenue.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Nebraska might be a small market, but the Childern of the Corn are Rabid. Just adding Nebraska to the Big Ten will drive up the demand to have the BTN in markets that are well outside of the Big Ten footprint. No self respecting sports bar that has a decent amount of Nebraska fans in the area would want to be without it, and it would likely need to be included on most sports packages as well. That along with what they could collect from every cable and satellite company from Omaha to Denver makes Nebraska a plus add for the Big Ten.

I get that...but Franks point is that finances are driven by # of subscribers. And if this is entirely true...Missouri has more TVs than Nebraska and would then be the logical choice. I'm guessing bowl games mean more than subscribers.

[texashockeycoach]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Permit me to chime in here a bit for clarification. The BTHC actually increases incentive for prospective BT members to form a hockey program by broadening exposure in media markets that other sports cannot sufficiently capture or saturate and therefore an increase in aggregate payout/member school.

In terms of financial pressures on remaining non-BTHC schools, commissioners and coaches from the CCHA, arguably the hardest hit conference by the departure of 3 teams, are in agreement that "change brings opportunity". In my view, there are a lot of fans, who essentially lack understanding of the internal dynamics, that are emotionally overreacting in this regard. There may possibly be some realignments, but I'm confident that those teams and conferences that are directly or indirectly affected will find solutions and move on. Overall, the BTHC has been widely embraced by commissioners and coaches directly affected.

There's no doubt that the BTHC will make money because they do that very well and there is also no doubt that the BTHC will increase exposure of the sport at the national level (which is what college hockey fans have been asking for.)

I just wonder how much it will actually increase incentive for the remaining Big ten members to join in hockey. I'm not truly convinced that adding hockey to the BTN will increase the value so much that the whatever rate the BTN raises it to will be enough to cover the operational budget for the men's and women's hockey program (which I heard a $2.6 million number for the Men's only, not sure adding hockey will increase the payout to the schools by even a million.) In addition, this doesn't even solve the problem of the large start-up cost of college hockey.

The 6 schools in the BTHC I know will be prosperous, but my support for the BTHC is tethered to their ability to drag the other Big ten members into hockey as well.

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I get that...but Franks point is that finances are driven by # of subscribers. And if this is entirely true...Missouri has more TVs than Nebraska and would then be the logical choice. I'm guessing bowl games mean more than subscribers.

I should clarify - there are 2 main TV revenue streams for the Big Ten: ABC/ESPN and the BTN. (There's also a CBS basketball contract, but the amounts aren't material compared to the other two.)

For the BTN, it's driven by subscribers. Schools like Missouri and Syracuse potentially bring in larger subscriber bases. The flip side is that subscriber rates are done on a state-by-state basis, and in that respect, you can basically charge anything that you want in the state of Nebraska and the BTN will get it. Any cable carrier that doesn't show Husker football games will go out of business in Nebraska. They are the most rabid fan base I've ever seen in any sport (college or pro). Basically, it was a wash between the larger population bases of schools like Mizzou (which really wouldn't have added as much as anticipated as the Illinois fan base already got the BTN basic carriage in the St. Louis market) and the complete pricing power that a school like Nebraska has in its home market. (Obviously, the most valuable type of school has both the rabid fan base and a huge market, which is why the University of Texas is truly the most powerful school in college sports, even more so than Notre Dame.)

On the national ABC/ESPN contract, it's not even close - football drives the bus, and outside of Texas and Notre Dame (neither of whom were going to join), there was no one that the Big Ten could've added that would be more valuable than Nebraska.

The ABC/ESPN contract is still where the Big Ten makes the most TV dollars, so national football drawing power is the #1 priority for any all-sports expansion decision. That being said, the BTN is much more relevant for the purposes of the hockey conference, as any revenue from that sport is really more from regional interest.

[Driftryder]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Alvarez said the BTN has committed to broadcasting at least 40 hockey games per season. That TV revenue is the engine behind the move.

"It's good for our fans," Alvarez said. "Our fans identify with the teams that we play in the Big Ten."

Yeah because the fans can only identify with teams when Bucky plays Minnesota Michigan and Michigan State right Barry. This guy is a clown.

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Yeah because the fans can only identify with teams when Bucky plays Minnesota Michigan and Michigan State right Barry. This guy is a clown.

To be fair to Alvarez, growth is NOT about the people that already watch college hockey today. I think that's the point that a lot of people are missing. The Big Ten is a complete athletic and academic conference. The only material outlier has been hockey, and that's only because there weren't enough schools to have a league for that sport up until now.

Is there a great hockey rivalry between Minnesota and UND? Absolutely. However, that's pretty much the sole connection between those two schools. In contrast, Minnesota competes with all of the Big Ten schools directly in all other sports AND academics. So, yes, the average fan off the street *does* identify Minnesota much more so with Michigan and Ohio State than North Dakota, and believe me when I tell you that everyone that matters that's associated with the University of Minnesota (whether we're talking about sports or academics) absolutely *wants* it that way. The Big Ten is made up solely of peer mega-research institutions with large athletic departments and that's completely intentional.

This is a college hockey message board, which understandably means that there's a hockey-centric point of view here. However, these decisions are made from the view of the entire institution along with the entire athletic department, not just hockey. Once you understand that, then the formation of the BTHC isn't even a question (even if you personally don't like it). Minnesota's overall relationship with Penn State (much less Michigan and Wisconsin) is exponentially more important to the university than what it has with UND.

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You are right, with addition of Nebraska and the BTHC, the BTN will increase subscriber rates by negligible amounts per household and the projected payouts to Big Ten member schools will increase by a significant amount.

The formation of the hockey conference is independent of the addition of NU.

It wasn't that the BTN didn't show hockey already either I suspect that any additional value for hockey was already priced into what the BTN could get originally. Assuming that it wasn't, what is the negligible amount that the formation of a hockey conference is worth? A fraction of a cent per month per subscriber? Half of a cent maybe? $0.005 per subscriber per month, times 100 million total subscribers is a total of 5 million per year, which works out to about 400k per school divided up 5 ways and that is BEFORE accounting for any production costs. While $400k isn't chump change, it isn't even CLOSE to the $1.6 to $2 million that it actually costs to run a men's hockey program, let alone the $3 million you would need to opperate both a men's and women's teams (cause one you build a hockey facility, you may as well use it for both).

Two sports matter when it comes down to how much the BTN can get from the cable and satellite networks and neither of them are hockey.

has in his hand a number of requests by universities wanting to join the Big Ten for two reasons of which I point out in an earlier post: 1) BTN $ and 2) Just as important, joining the Big Ten increases the academic profile of schools. Each of the Big Ten's current 11 schools is a member of the Association of American Universities, a highly regarded alliance of some of the top universities in the US. The Big Ten has made it clear that it wants prospective new members to be of similar academic blueprints.

No one is disagreeing that schools want into the B10 because they are a money making machine nor that they are considered top academic schools.

The issue is what is the actual added value to the conference's bottom line from the formation of the hockey conference. While I can understand the long term POTENTIAL from bringing hockey back under the B10 banner, I'm not sure that this is going to be the immediate financial home run. Hockey doesn't have anywhere the same number of casual fans as either basketball nor football and that isn't going to change over night. All the while they are angering their most loyal and devoted supporters, am I the only one who thinks this is a bad short term business plan?

This doesn't even add any incentive to the other schools to add hockey, any additional payout they get is independent of having a hockey program.

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

The formation of the hockey conference is independent of the addition of NU.

It wasn't that the BTN didn't show hockey already either I suspect that any additional value for hockey was already priced into what the BTN could get originally. Assuming that it wasn't, what is the negligible amount that the formation of a hockey conference is worth? A fraction of a cent per month per subscriber? Half of a cent maybe? $0.005 per subscriber per month, times 100 million total subscribers is a total of 5 million per year, which works out to about 400k per school divided up 5 ways and that is BEFORE accounting for any production costs. While $400k isn't chump change, it isn't even CLOSE to the $1.6 to $2 million that it actually costs to run a men's hockey program, let alone the $3 million you would need to opperate both a men's and women's teams (cause one you build a hockey facility, you may as well use it for both).

Two sports matter when it comes down to how much the BTN can get from the cable and satellite networks and neither of them are hockey.

I agree that $400,000 per year isn't going to support a hockey program, but that's not what we're talking about for the current Big Ten hockey schools. That $400,000 is on top of the revenue that they're generating now, and that doesn't include controlling its own conference tournament and other revenue streams. Hockey will never be a revenue sport anywhere close to the level of football or basketball, but to the extent that hockey can actually bring in any additional revenue or profit (when virtually all other sports are completely just expenses without generating revenue) is a fairly big deal and it makes sense that the Big Ten would maximize all of it.

No one is disagreeing that schools want into the B10 because they are a money making machine nor that they are considered top academic schools.

The issue is what is the actual added value to the conference's bottom line from the formation of the hockey conference. While I can understand the long term POTENTIAL from bringing hockey back under the B10 banner, I'm not sure that this is going to be the immediate financial home run. Hockey doesn't have anywhere the same number of casual fans as either basketball nor football and that isn't going to change over night. All the while they are angering their most loyal and devoted supporters, am I the only one who thinks this is a bad short term business plan?

I think the anger is mostly coming from a vocal set of Minnesota fans (at least from what I've seen). Most of the other schools have a segment of their fan bases that might be vehemently against it, but the majority either support the BTHC or at least aren't diametrically opposed to it.

This doesn't even add any incentive to the other schools to add hockey, any additional payout they get is independent of having a hockey program.

You're right that it's not a direct incentive. Big Ten schools aren't going to add hockey simply because of some extra BTN money. However, what the BTHC *does* do is remove a massive roadblock. Illinois and Indiana may never end up adding hockey programs, but at least it's a discussion point and reasonably worth investigating now. There was absolutely *no* chance of that discussion even happening without a BTHC. Those schools making that type of investment want to be playing their Big Ten conference mates. Penn State didn't get its largest donation in entire school's history because they thought they were going to the CCHA - there was an understanding that the BTHC was absolutely going to be formed if they moved up to Division 1 (and that's when the donation was finalized).

All in all, putting aside money, it just makes little sense from the standpoint of the Big Ten to treat hockey differently than every single other sport where it has enough members to sponsor a league. This isn't some type of gerrymandered amalgamation - Michigan, MSU, OSU, Wisconsin and Minnesota have been in the same conference for over a century. The only reason why there hasn't been a BTHC is because there weren't enough members. Are wrestling programs dying off because the Big Ten has its own league with a disproprotionate number of power programs? Absolutely not - those wrestling programs are victims of issues a whole lot deeper than just not having large schools involved (Title IX, attendance, etc.). It's the same thing with hockey programs. If the only way a school can support a hockey program is to have Michigan or Minnesota come in for a couple of home dates per year, its financial issues have *nothing* to do with whether the BTHC exists.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

The issue is what is the actual added value to the conference's bottom line from the formation of the hockey conference. While I can understand the long term POTENTIAL from bringing hockey back under the B10 banner, I'm not sure that this is going to be the immediate financial home run. Hockey doesn't have anywhere the same number of casual fans as either basketball nor football and that isn't going to change over night. All the while they are angering their most loyal and devoted supporters, am I the only one who thinks this is a bad short term business plan?

This doesn't even add any incentive to the other schools to add hockey, any additional payout they get is independent of having a hockey program.

The question though is what that anger will produce. I'm not saying this to be a smart-***, but will you stop going to games or lessen your commitment to the team because of this? I know that I won't.

I'm not happy either, but it's not like the Badgers are moving to Atlantic Hockey.

And again, obviously the powers that be believe that this is a good financial move or they wouldn't be doing it. I'm as perplexed as anybody as to what indicators that they see are, but there must be something. And a BIG something at that.

I remember a lot of people crying doom and gloom when the BTN was first announced. We (myself included) couldn't see the big picture and were wrong. Only time will tell whether a BTHC was a good or bad move.

I'm actually leaning optimistic...

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

To be fair to Alvarez, growth is NOT about the people that already watch college hockey today. I think that's the point that a lot of people are missing.

Barry is a complete tool, but you hit this one on the head.