Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

But you gave up 2 games in year X that could have been home games (since the games in Alaska were not required by the conference). So in the end you don't gain home games, you just gain the two games in Alaska.

Edit: too little, too late, I see you already got it!

Um no ... you give up playing 2 non-conference games somewhere else to play in Alaska and gain the exemptions. You don't give up two home games to go play in Alaska. LOL. OMG ....

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Wisconsin and Minnesota, mostly. Pretty lame.

Yeah .. um ... good luck with that.

I'm not saying Almington has ever called Gopher fans arrogant. But if he has ... he should be sent to the sin bin.

[state of hockey]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I know Minnesota hardly travels for NC games. They were forced to play two on the road every other year with the now extinct college hockey showcase, but that's it. There may have been others, but the last real NC road series I remember is when the Gophers went to BU when they opened their new arena.

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

LOL. Oh ... I didn't know you were talking about a team that plays ALL it's NC games at home. Gee. I wonder how many teams do that?

And is that what you're claiming Wisconsin plans to do? Play ALL of it's non-conference games at home? Are they so mighty? Lovely.

That was just an example to make it clear that the AK exemption will not increase the number of home games that a team could theoretically play if the AK team is are not in the conference. I was not saying that any team in the BTHC will play only home games.

[RITProf]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Um no ... you give up playing 2 non-conference games somewhere else to play in Alaska and gain the exemptions. You don't give up two home games to go play in Alaska. LOL. OMG ....

Never mind, you didn't get it. Those two AK games "could" have been at home (it's your choice in scheduling if they aren't required by the conference). You can gain the home games by just scheduling them that way, you don't have to go to Alaska to get them. You are right if you are traveling anyway, then traveling to AK will gain you the home games (potentially ... one could actually chose to play those extra games on the road if they wanted).

[Bakunin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I know Minnesota hardly travels for NC games. They were forced to play two on the road every other year with the now extinct college hockey showcase, but that's it. There may have been others, but the last real NC road series I remember is when the Gophers went to BU when they opened their new arena.

Correct. They've played at Maine and UNH, but those games were a number of years ago. It's abundantly clear that the MN athletic department wants to maximize the number of home games for $$$, even if the opponents are a joke and the attendance isn't exactly a sellout. In their eyes, it's better to host a team like Canisius and draw 8000 fans and have a dead building than to give up those home dates and have a reasonable schedule that involves an agreement with the likes of BC or whoever to play in their rink in exchange for them coming here.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Minnesota should play all of its NC games at home. Why the hell would they want to go to 95% of the other arenas anyways?

They might be willing to go to BC, BU, UNH, or UND for a NC series. But that's about it.

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I know Minnesota hardly travels for NC games. They were forced to play two on the road every other year with the now extinct college hockey showcase, but that's it. There may have been others, but the last real NC road series I remember is when the Gophers went to BU when they opened their new arena.

In 2004 they traveled to Anchorage for non-conference game ... they only got to play UAA once and hence only received one exemption. They were scheduled to go to UAF in 2008 or 2009 but that fell through for some unrelated reason. UAA and UAF began co-scheduling their tournaments in 2008 to guarantee that invitees would get to play both Alaska teams in Alaska and receive two exemptions. The following schools have made 2 trips each to Alaska in the last dozen years ... BU, Michigan, Northeastern, CC, RPI, RMU, AFA and Merrimack but UAA and UAF try to spread it out and invite as many schools as they can .. UMass, UMass-Lowell, Union, Mercyhurst, RIT, Denver, UND, Minnesota, Maine, Miami, Vermont, MTU, UNO and UConn have all also made trips in that time frame.

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Never mind, you didn't get it. Those two AK games "could" have been at home (it's your choice in scheduling if they aren't required by the conference). You can gain the home games by just scheduling them that way, you don't have to go to Alaska to get them. You are right if you are traveling anyway, then traveling to AK will gain you the home games (potentially ... one could actually chose to play those extra games on the road if they wanted).

No "Prof" ... you don't get it. How stupid would someone be to suggest that a team would give up home games to go play road games so they could get home games? That's how stupid Almington thinks I am and apparently how stupid you think I am. Which in reality; just shows how stupid you and Almington are. Thanks for playing.

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Minnesota should play all of its NC games at home. Why the hell would they want to go to 95% of the other arenas anyways?

They might be willing to go to BC, BU, UNH, or UND for a NC series. But that's about it.

Correct. They should take their hegemonic selves and do everything that they can to urinate in the faces of every other program that isn't them.

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

No "Prof" ... you don't get it. How stupid would someone be to suggest that a team would give up home games to go play road games so they could get home games? That's how stupid Almington thinks I am and apparently how stupid you think I am. Which in reality; just shows how stupid you and Almington are. Thanks for playing.

I don't think you are stupid. I just think that you don't understand, not that you are incapable of understanding. I am beginning to question if you want to understand (or would even admit if you did).

My point is just that going to play an AK school in NC games has zero to do with how many HOME games a team could schedule if they want, just that it increases the TOTAL games a team can schedule.

You did a remarkable job of twisting that into an attack on the scheduling practice of the B10 schools.

[RITProf]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

No "Prof" ... you don't get it. How stupid would someone be to suggest that a team would give up home games to go play road games so they could get home games? That's how stupid Almington thinks I am and apparently how stupid you think I am. Which in reality; just shows how stupid you and Almington are. Thanks for playing.

OK, I'll try one last time.

I start with a normal 34-game season, some of which are road games (N of which are home games). If I take two of those road games and go to Alaska, I can add two home games. The result is 36 games with N+2 home games.

Option 2 is I start with a normal 34-game season and decide I want two more home games. So instead of traveling somewhere (doesn't matter where), I schedule two more home games and two fewer road games. The result is 34 games with N+2 home games.

Either way I get the same number of home games (N+2). Going to Alaska gets me two more games ... in Alaska. That's why those games are considered exempt from the maximum allowed. For those wanting 36 games, the trip to Alaska can make that happen, but for those only wanting two more home games, they don't need to go to Alaska to do it.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Says who? Give me a break. I doubt any WCHA will vote to have the final five in Grand Forks. We are more likely to see the games held Pepsi Center before the Ralp.

It really is all about $$. North Dakota could sell out the Ralph at $200/package. That's $2.3 million. If the X is getting less than 11k (my random number that i said it would take to move the tournament from the X), that's about $1.75m at $160/package (current prices...basically). In a 10 team WCHA, that is an extra $50k/school by having it at the Ralph. On top of that, I'm sure REA would cut the conference a sweet deal on rental/concessions/parking. You could be looking at generating over $2.5 million at the Ralph. Given that, the schools would be looking at generating $50-75k more at the Ralph than at the X.

Pepsi Center is really not a very good alternative. Milwaukee would probably make more sense. IF Denver and CC made the Final Five, you could look at maybe 7-9k in attendance. If one or both miss, you're looking at 3-5k...maybe less.

While the X is a somewhat more central location, it really isn't all that different than the Ralph when you take out Minnesota and Wisconsin.

If it came down to it, I would be willing to bet that the WCHA teams would pick Grand Forks over the X if the X was failing to bring in the dough. $$ talks.

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I don't think you are stupid. I just think that you don't understand, not that you are incapable of understanding. I am beginning to question if you want to understand (or would even admit if you did).

Oh I fully understand your irrelevant point. No school is going to give up home games to play road games in order to get the same number of home games back. That's what YOU thought I was talking about. Why you interpreted the Exemption Rule with that spurious garbage is a complete mystery which I don't care to understand. So yeah ... there's that.

My point is just that going to play an AK school in NC games has zero to do with how many HOME games a team could schedule if they want, just that it increases the TOTAL games a team can schedule.

See above.

You did a remarkable job of twisting that into an attack on the scheduling practice of the B10 schools.

No twisting was necessary. Therefore it's unremarkable.

It is remarkable however to think that Wisconsin (which is arguably the richest Athletic Department amongst D1 hockey schools) would be so arrogant (yep ... the word is highly overused here but nonetheless entirely appropriate in this instance) to completely disregard the common interest and consider scheduling every single one of it's non-conference games in it's own barn just because it can. So yeah ... I remarked.

Even more remarkable would be the programs that might so easily bow to such hegemony and visit the Kohl Center. Should my program at any time in the future actually deign to show up at that arena the UAA AD will hear loudly from me all the moral reasons against doing so (though I doubt my railing will necessarily effect their choice). And no doubt plenty of others will be so happy to get the BADgers on their schedule that they'll gladly bend over to their Big 10 overlords and get buggered. The status quo refrain of "that's how it is" is unsatisfactory.

Eff Wisconsin and Minnesota if they won't travel to other schools. If other schools don't reciprocate by refusing to travel there in return ... they're fools.

Your second quote appears to be hypocrisy to me. Hockey isn't "something more" to you at least in this instance.

[Bakunin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

The lesser programs bow to us because they need money. It's as simple as that. Without the financial enticements offered to them by the likes of Minnesota, they would be even deeper in the red. Should they ever become self sufficient, you would see this sort of scheduling quickly come to an end.