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.

B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Clifton said:
That's why I'm skeptical of this "news." In a conference that is well known for dividing up its bowl revenue equally (outside of a stipend for each attending schools), I just have a hard time believing that they are going to take what is potentially the biggest media cash cow in the history of collegiate sports conferences and not divide the revenue equally.

That being said, I guess that the precedent has already been broken, as I understand the new schools to the conference aren't being treated the same as the rest (at least as first).
Click to expand...
See I think that if the true desire of the Big 10 was to provide some financial support to entice non-hockey schools in the conference to start a hockey program, it would have been easy to do that. Just say any school that starts a new hockey program gets $2 million extra that other schools don't get. If their plan was to try to grow Big 10 hockey, this just seems an odd way of doing it.

I suspect there was a different reason. Just looking at the financial numbers posted below, there are clearly "haves" and "have nots" in the conference. As someone noted, throwing $2 mil at each school should get all of them in the black. The second reason is to provide a short term buffer for any lost conference tournament revenue their teams might suffer as this thing gets off the ground, and increased expenses as a result of a bigger geographic territory. No matter how successful the Big 10 hockey conference may ultimately be, there will certainly be some financial growing pains.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Clifton said:
That's why I'm skeptical of this "news." In a conference that is well known for dividing up its bowl revenue equally (outside of a stipend for each attending schools), I just have a hard time believing that they are going to take what is potentially the biggest media cash cow in the history of collegiate sports conferences and not divide the revenue equally.

That being said, I guess that the precedent has already been broken, as I understand the new schools to the conference aren't being treated the same as the rest (at least as first).
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the correct assessment. The $2M is likely not a distribution of BTN revenue (the conference owns about half of the network and thus gets half the profits). It's far more likely to be what the network is paying the schools for the TV rights. Obviously, only the hockey schools are contributing inventory to the hockey deal, so it would only make sense that only the hockey schools would get paid for those TV rights.

If having ice hockey on the BTN makes the network more profitable, then all the schools in the conference would share that money.

In terms of the new schools joining the league, they don't get as much revenue to start because they have to "buy in" to their share of the BTN. Each of the existing schools already owns a portion of the network and those shares are being diluted by new members, so the new members are paying in to the system to earn their share.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

4four4 said:
Correct. I don't believe non hockey schools like Purdue, Indiana or Iowa should receive money for not having a hockey program. I bet if you asked them they would be fine with it.
Click to expand...

And yet Wisconsin benefits from those schools' baseball games (just as an example).

That's why I'll also join the skeptics over this news. The B1G is known for divvying up things equally -- hell, the schools that don't even go to bowl games or the NCAA tournament still get their share. $2 million per hockey school is not chump change and I can't imagine the other schools would be okay with it.
 
badger79 said:
And yet Wisconsin benefits from those schools' baseball games (just as an example).

That's why I'll also join the skeptics over this news. The B1G is known for divvying up things equally -- hell, the schools that don't even go to bowl games or the NCAA tournament still get their share. $2 million per hockey school is not chump change and I can't imagine the other schools would be okay with it.
Click to expand...

Except that the conference already was sponsoring baseball when the BTN was formed, the conference already had the broadcast rights to those games, that isn't the case with hockey.

The thing with football is that the lower tier bowl games are a notorious money losing for the teams involved.

In addition, all the teams sponsor basketball and football programs.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Under a $2m a hockey school scenario, there is an equal payout. $2m a school whether your team wins an NC or is a perenial cellar dweller. All schools participate in football, in basketball, etc. Schools a get an equal share for those sports. Once MD and Rutgers join, about 40% of schools will have a hockey program. I don't see that the other 60% would get an equal share for doing nothing including offering no broadcast rights.

The incentive for schools join B1G hockey is another reason to think it will be a limited share model. And if you're thinking that there will be a revolt among non hockey schools...just who are the 40% having schools? OSU, MI, PSU, WI, MSU...and MN. With the exception of MN, these are the power schools in the B1G. So after having read a bit about the issue...I'll be surprised if they do compensate non hockey schools for not participating.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Except that the conference already was sponsoring baseball when the BTN was formed, the conference already had the broadcast rights to those games, that isn't the case with hockey.
Click to expand...

But...at some point all those programs had to sign over their rights to the conference, and everyone split the money from that. So why wouldn't the same apply to hockey? I dunno, if I was Iowa or Nebraska or Purdue I'd be pretty ****ed that I'm sharing my baseball money with Wisconsin but Wisconsin is swanning off with $2 million in hockey money that I don't get.

Now that I think about it, though -- maybe the baseball schools ARE getting money that Wisconsin's not (like maybe from the College World Series), and we just don't know about it. I think we need more information than just an unsourced tweet that says we're getting $2 million.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

Another way to look at it. Based on the numbers shared here earlier, OSU has hockey revenue of $1.2m and expenses of $2.7m. That's a lot of school effort and resources for some painful numbers.

On the otherhand, if Iowa makes a clean $2m or whatever in profit for not participating and I'm OSU, I drop hockey.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

mnstate0fhockey said:
Sounds to me like they are trying to encourage other B10 schools to add programs. The BTN hockey $$ is a good incentive.
Click to expand...

as chris dilks points out...it'd be risky to start a major program based on the economic bubble of cable TV. if/when the cable monopoly gets broken, putting an end to the basic cable scam (forcing Bravo on all of us and making everybody in Delaware pay for BTN that they don't watch), the extra payoffs stop.

and then, there's his other point:

It's worth noting that this rumored extra money is for "hockey schools" not "hockey programs". That extra $2 million is being sent to the athletic director, not the director of hockey operations. Some of it likely will be funneled back into the hockey programs, but that money could just as easily end up going towards indoor rowing facilities, or 54" inch flat-screen TVs in every basketball players' locker...
Click to expand...

examining-the-big-ten-network-and-college-hockey
 
blackswampboy said:
as chris dilks points out...it'd be risky to start a major program based on the economic bubble of cable TV. if/when the cable monopoly gets broken, putting an end to the basic cable scam (forcing Bravo on all of us and making everybody in Delaware pay for BTN that they don't watch), the extra payoffs stop.

and then, there's his other point:



examining-the-big-ten-network-and-college-hockey
Click to expand...

Not going to argue about this, so I'll leave it at this. I think that article is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the monopoly on sports networking ESPN has had for years. Not to mention, a monopoly isn't really the right word for what the BTN is. As long as the BTN is on the basic tier for cable providers, and people keep paying subscriptions, the Big Ten will continue to collect revenue from it. And as much as Chris wants to complain about that, I don't see that changing anytime soon if ever.

You should really stop reading the crap Chris posts.
 
Last edited:
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

mnstate0fhockey said:
Not going to argue about this, so I'll leave it at this. I think that article is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the monopoly on sports networking ESPN has had for years.

You should really stop reading the crap Chris posts.
Click to expand...

nothing to argue about. regardless of your opinion of dilks, the BTN payoff is due to the comcast deal.

I don't like ESPN any more than you do. but if it were a monopoly...I wouldn't be able to watch the NHL on NBC Sports. or subscribe to a premium sports channel of my choosing.
we should be able to choose what we're paying for on basic cable, or choose from cable providers. I don't watch Lifetime and Oxygen (do you?), but we're paying for them. likewise with folks who don't watch ESPN or the BTN.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

mnstate0fhockey said:
Not going to argue about this, so I'll leave it at this. I think that article is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the monopoly on sports networking ESPN has had for years. Not to mention, a monopoly isn't really the right word for what the BTN is. As long as the BTN is on the basic tier for cable providers, and people keep paying subscriptions, the Big Ten will continue to collect revenue from it. And as much as Chris wants to complain about that, I don't see that changing anytime soon if ever.

You should really stop reading the crap Chris posts.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that this extra 2 Million dollars is going straight to the hockey progrums? Or is it a part of the overall athletic budget.
 
blackswampboy said:
nothing to argue about. regardless of your opinion of dilks, the BTN payoff is due to the comcast deal.

I don't like ESPN any more than you do. but if it were a monopoly...I wouldn't be able to watch the NHL on NBC Sports. or subscribe to a premium sports channel of my choosing.
we should be able to choose what we're paying for on basic cable, or choose from cable providers. I don't watch Lifetime and Oxygen (do you?), but we're paying for them. likewise with folks who don't watch ESPN or the BTN.
Click to expand...

I don't have anything against Dilks. Don't even know him. I just don't agree with a majority of what he says (to put it nicely).

And it really is irrelevant whether or not you want to watch the BTN (or any other network for that matter), I can't see the cable networks EVER changing to a model where you only have to pay for what you want to watch. And since the BTN is on the basic tier and now in a lot of the largest markets in the US, like ESPN, I can't see that changing either.
 
Re: B1G Hockey: The Countdown Begins

mnstate0fhockey said:
And it really is irrelevant whether or not you want to watch the BTN (or any other network for that matter), I can't see the cable networks EVER changing to a model where you only have to pay for what you want to watch. And since the BTN is on the basic tier and now in a lot of the largest markets in the US, like ESPN, I can't see that changing either.
Click to expand...

sure, it's possible that cable doesn't change for another xx years.
but the force of free markets is on the side of change. eventually. even if I can't tell my local provider that I don't want Bravo, some day I'll be able to switch to a provider who gives me more of what I really want. not the same ESPN, Lifetime, Oxygen filler that now goes coast-to-coast.
let's think big here.
although...when that happens, the BTN payoff will take a hit. the downside of economic freedom.
so it's a risk. if you're the AD, do you bank on that cable TV bubble every year?
 
blackswampboy said:
sure, it's possible that cable doesn't change for another xx years.
but the force of free markets is on the side of change. eventually. even if I can't tell my local provider that I don't want Bravo, some day I'll be able to switch to a provider who gives me more of what I really want. not the same ESPN, Lifetime, Oxygen filler that now goes coast-to-coast.
let's think big here.
although...when that happens, the BTN payoff will take a hit. the downside of economic freedom.
so it's a risk. if you're the AD, do you bank on that cable TV bubble every year?
Click to expand...

They'll never change it. You're dreaming if you think they will. And until they do, I'll keep living here in the real, tangible world instead of using hopes and dreams as basis of my arguments. Which is what any rational, competent AD is doing.

Hey, World War III could happen and none of us could be here in 15 years. Should we discuss that possibility too?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top