The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

[Iwearpurple]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

Putting a quality program on the ice will help attendance immensely. In Mankato, our attendance dropped this year from 3,655 per game to 3,447 per game. But that is not bad considering we did not have 2 games against Minnesota, 2 games against North Dakota and 2 games against Wisconsin. A new coach (successful) has been embraced by the community and it has shown at the ticket window. Our biggest draw was Ferris State, and that was before we knew they were becoming our "rivals".

If Lake State hires a new coach who gets involved with the community, improves the program, the fans should come back, but it may take time. We were lucky in Mankato, but it doesn't hurt to get to the NCAA, which we have now done twice in a row.

Now it wouldn't hurt if the whole league keeps improving also.

[Seawolf Fan]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

You do pay to go to Alaska. In the old CCHA, Fairbanks picked up most of the plane tickets (25 I believe), hotel and ground transportation. Anchorage had a lower number of plane tickets for the WCHA. Now teams get a set amount for the trip to Fairbanks, an amount to Anchorage and an amount to Huntsville. It is nowhere near the "reimburse the excess of your most expensive trip among the other 7" that was bandied about. In the old WCHA, it wasn't the big guys like North Dakota pushing the little guys around. There was a fairly equal balance between the bigger budgets and the smaller ones. North Dakota left, because without Minnesota & Wisconsin, it was afraid the little guys would be pushing their will on them.

And one additional home game against Michigan Tech hardly makes up the revenue lost with Michigan, MSU and the additional flights to Huntsville and Anchorage and the $20,000 increase in the cost of the Fairbanks trip.

The only figure I see in your post is "$20,000 increase" and nothing to back that figure up.
Where are the figures to back up what you purport in your post?
If you want to argue then put some facts behind your post.
The way you state things it's only your opinion not facts.

Edit: I forgot your "opinion" of 25 tickets. But that figure is wrong anyway.

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

The only figure I see in your post is "$20,000 increase" and nothing to back that figure up.
Where are the figures to back up what you purport in your post?
If you want to argue then put some facts behind your post.
The way you state things it's only your opinion not facts.

Edit: I forgot your "opinion" of 25 tickets. But that figure is wrong anyway.

Then what was the number of tickets that Fairbanks picked up prior to its move to the WCHA?

[aparch]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

Pretty sure Dave is right on UA_'s arrangement with the CCHA. 25 tickets is the number I routinely heard bandied about. UAA and the WCHA's deal was structured differently. The CCHA didn't offer UA_ lube.

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

Pretty sure Dave is right on UA_'s arrangement with the CCHA. 25 tickets is the number I routinely heard bandied about. UAA and the WCHA's deal was structured differently. The CCHA didn't offer UA_ lube.

UAA subsidized travel for the same amount over their history in the oWCHA. There was a point where they and the league pretended that UAA has lessened the subsidy but fungibility of money was at the heart of it. Let's say that UAA spent 100,000 dollars a year subsidizing travel and got 100,000 in revenue sharing from the final five (these numbers are made up for an example). When they made it known they were paying less in travel; what they actually did was just spread it around more evenly to the new teams in the league and apparently got that smaller piece of the Final Five pie. Overall, it was pretty much a wash.

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

UAA subsidized travel for the same amount over their history in the oWCHA. There was a point where they and the league pretended that UAA has lessened the subsidy but fungibility of money was at the heart of it. Let's say that UAA spent 100,000 dollars a year subsidizing travel and got 100,000 in revenue sharing from the final five (these numbers are made up for an example). When they made it known they were paying less in travel; what they actually did was just spread it around more evenly to the new teams in the league and apparently got that smaller piece of the Final Five pie. Overall, it was pretty much a wash.

But the UAA deal with the WCHA was not structured the same as the UAF deal with the CCHA.

[Seawolf Fan]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

My age has lot to do with it being old doesn't help.

Empathy Buddy, empathy!

[Freddie]

Re: The New WCHA IV (2013-14): Unlocked and Cocked

Freddie is confused by dual threads, begs consolidation

I've got no problem with there being 2 WHCA threads,

but WHY are they both consumed with the same realignment topic?

It makes it real tough to keep track of who said what on which thread.

I'm old, and my cognitive processes have deteriorated nearly to the level of Pink Pony.

Please help me.