What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Brenthoven said:
ND was the belle of the ball when this all started. Everyone courted them. The NaCHo was the lead contender, as was mentioned, and when spurned, made SCSU go back on their previous statements, and had them join the conference.

As for WI, they might actually continue their downward spiral, as the school doesn't give 2 craps about them, and that's sad. Yes, as a MN fan, and a true hater, it's still sad. The Alaska schools? If they last another 3-4 years, I'll be surprised. As for a dark horse/WAG, I'd say CC isn't TOO far behind.

All in all, it's gonna get messier before things settle into a place that is like the pre-PSU days. A lot messier.
Click to expand...

I remember when CC almost folded their team.

Of course I am not speaking for anybody else but college hockey isn't as fun anymore.
 
4four4 said:
Of course I am not speaking for anybody else but college hockey isn't as fun anymore.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Has the WCHA considered playing a truly unbalanced schedule, playing fewer games against the Alaska schools with those two playing each other much more often? The NAHL does that with Fairbanks and Kenai River playing each other 16 times during the season. Each of the other 8 schools could play one of the Alaska schools in a 3-game series each year. That would mean they go to Alaska once every other year. Each Alaska school would only play four 3-game series in the lower 48 each year.

Edit: That should read "two 3-game series in the lower 48 each year".
 
Last edited:
Ralph Baer said:
Has the WCHA considered playing a truly unbalanced schedule, playing fewer games against the Alaska schools with those two playing each other much more often? The NAHL does that with Fairbanks and Kenai River playing each other 16 times during the season. Each of the other 8 schools could play one of the Alaska schools in a 3-game series each year. That would mean they go to Alaska once every other year. Each Alaska school would only play four 3-game series in the lower 48 each year.
Click to expand...

Listen, if it's that or somebody drops there's no question which is better,
 
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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Almington said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

joecct said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's going to take at least five more years before the BiG isn't a massive failure.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Almington said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
4four4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Almington said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Stratus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

purpleinnebraska said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, but if you also told them Tech and Mankato held the #1 ranking, they'd call you a liar and have you committed :D
 
Last edited:
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Good news! Once the B1G increases the scholarship limit all these travel issues go away.
 
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.
 
Re: AP: New WCHA "bleeding money"

Almington said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/wikipedia/en/archive/3/37/20130921164830!Hockey_d1.png

After:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Hockey_d1.png

Terrible decisions made top to bottom.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many teams may not be losing money, but clearly have lower revenue AND higher expenses since the teams are more spread out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top