Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

When all the Big Ten schools were in the same conference Minnesota usually was one or two.

When I was in college Minnesota was good. Things change.

Saying that, Minnesota will most likely be a top team in the BTHC.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Wow. Barry Alvarez is posting on the board! Welcome Barry!

If you seriously believe the Big Ten presidents do anything because "they think is best for everyone" then I want to tell you about a great deal on oceanfront property I have for sale in Montana.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

From informal chats with Gophers season ticket holders, the decrease in attendance is already happening, driven by price increases, fees, and the "donation" required to keep season tickets. Even TV revenue may very well go down for the four schools not named Ohio State and Penn State, since they all have individual contracts with Fox Sports at the moment. That'll all be shared with the rest of the Big Ten schools, plus the network overhead costs.

That's certainly evident on television. You can see lots of empty seats. I realize that the games are quite possibly sold out, but the butts aren't in the seats.

We've seen somewhat of a drop in butts in the seats here also. I'm not sure if we even had a sellout last season where we had multiple sellouts in 05-06.

I guarantee that simply bringing in Ohio State will not sell more tickets. We host Michigan and Michigan State every other season and those games don't create much more buzz than the typical series against Duluth.

A BTHC will not increase attendance. If anything, there's a good chance we'll have more series against lesser programs that we'll only go to because we were forced to buy them with our season ticket package.

No disrespect to Alabama-Huntsville, but that "series" was a waste of everyone's time and I'm not looking forward to 4-5 of those match-ups per year.

 

[UMDdangler]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Please show me stats backing up your claim that college hockey is getting more recognition year after year?

Also, it's niche, not nitch. Nitch is not a word.

Cumulative Attendance Records

1. 4,440,333 (2007-08, 1,118 games)

2. 4,399,170 (2003-04, 1,143 games)

3. 4,388,100 (2006-07, 1,098 games)

4. 4,323,398 (2002-03, 1,172 games)

5. 4,315,001 (2004-05, 1,144 games)

6. 4,223,468 (2005-06, 1,085 games)

looks like general attendance has been increasing...

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/04/12_mens.php

 

[Priceless]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Cumulative Attendance Records

1. 4,440,333 (2007-08, 1,118 games)

2. 4,399,170 (2003-04, 1,143 games)

3. 4,388,100 (2006-07, 1,098 games)

4. 4,323,398 (2002-03, 1,172 games)

5. 4,315,001 (2004-05, 1,144 games)

6. 4,223,468 (2005-06, 1,085 games)

looks like general attendance has been increasing...

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/04/12_mens.php

To put those in chronological order...

4,323,398 (2002-03, 1,172 games) (3689)
4,399,170 (2003-04, 1,143 games) (3849)
4,315,001 (2004-05, 1,144 games) (3772)
4,223,468 (2005-06, 1,085 games) (3893)
4,388,100 (2006-07, 1,098 games) (3996)
4,440,333 (2007-08, 1,118 games) (3972)

The on-campus numbers per USCHO

3,642,595 (2009-2010, 1018 games) (3578)
3,678,704 (2008-09 1011 games) (3639)
3,428,659 (2007-08, 1015 games) (3378)
3,502,713 (2006-07, 1006 games) (3482)
3,431,253 (2005-06, 1008 games) (3404)
3,353,830 (2004-05, 977 games) (3433)
3,327,022 (2003-04, 973 games) (3419)
3,636,727 (2002-03, 1032 games) (3524)

So on-campus attendance is the same as it was in 2002-03...


For a little more perspective on your numbers:

4,323,398 (2002-03, 1,172 games) (3689)
Iona stops playing
Fairfield stops playing
4,399,170 (2003-04, 1,143 games) (3849)
Findlay stops playing
Robert Morris starts playing
4,315,001 (2004-05, 1,144 games) (3772)
4,223,468 (2005-06, 1,085 games) (3893)
RIT starts playing
4,388,100 (2006-07, 1,098 games) (3996)
4,440,333 (2007-08, 1,118 games) (3972)
Wayne State stops playing.

Iona, Fairfield and Findlay were in the 50's in attendance, so I would expect the average attendance to go up since you're lopping off bottom dwellers. Those three programs averaged 1650 combined. RIT and Robert Morris combine for 2200. So more fans and fewer programs = higher average.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Nothing much going on right now. The design firm could be chosen by next month. I interviewed current arena manager Chris Wittemore during our game last Friday. He says that groundbreaking should be sometime next summer.

As for the team itself, I'm told the varsity coach won't be selected until after the FF.

Wow - so they're only going to give the coach ~16 months to pull a team together? That seems tough, but I guess if I were a coach, I wouldn't want to spend more than a full season recruiting instead of coaching, either.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Big Ten Conference hockey? It's a strong possibility by Pioneer Press

Strong possibility? How about done deal.

Lucia, for instance, said Minnesota would like to keep all of its in-state rivals — Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud State and Minnesota State Mankato — on the schedule. Plus, he'd like to see games against traditional WCHA heavyweights such as North Dakota and Colorado College.

"These are longstanding rivals," Lucia said. "We've been playing schools like Colorado College and Michigan Tech an awfully long time. I would like to find a way for that to continue; if not every year, then maybe every other year, so we still have a tie-in there."

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Let me blunt about this. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State all could have carved out very lucrative individual television deals for themselves a'la Texas. They chose not to and went all-in on the Big Ten Network, signing over all those rights to the conference and committing themselves fully to the concept of equal revenue distribution among Big Ten teams.

Now, we're hearing frickin' Minnesota whine about their **** *** little regional hockey deal? At the very time that they are christening a new football stadium that is literally built upon a foundation of television and bowl money generated by the above schools? When the time comes for the BTHC, Minnesota will shut its mouth, say "yes sir" and do exactly as it's told! Let the negative rep fly, but that's exactly how this will go down behind closed doors. And if that incompetent clown of an AD wants to fight it because he mistakenly believes his job is to protect the interests of the WCHA or "college hockey" then he should be immediately whacked and sent scurrying back to the mid-major rock he crawled out from under.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Let me blunt about this. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State all could have carved out very lucrative individual television deals for themselves a'la Texas. They chose not to and went all-in on the Big Ten Network, signing over all those rights to the conference and committing themselves fully to the concept of equal revenue distribution among Big Ten teams.

Now, we're hearing frickin' Minnesota whine about their **** *** little regional hockey deal?

I don't hear that from anyone at all associated with the school. Fans, yes, the AD, President or coaches? Nope.

At the very time that they are christening a new football stadium that is literally built upon a foundation of television and bowl money generated by the above schools?

Um, any clue as to how that stadium was paid for? I'm paying for it just by living in the state. Plus, the University raised their share through fundraising (not Big 10 Network or bowl money):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium#Funding

When the time comes for the BTHC, Minnesota will shut its mouth, say "yes sir" and do exactly as it's told! Let the negative rep fly, but that's exactly how this will go down behind closed doors. And if that incompetent clown of an AD wants to fight it because he mistakenly believes his job is to protect the interests of the WCHA or "college hockey" then he should be immediately whacked and sent scurrying back to the mid-major rock he crawled out from under.

Now, those points made, I don't disagree with your main premise that the Gophs, while big dogs in hockey, are small potatoes in the Big 10 "big picture."

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Um, any clue as to how that stadium was paid for? I'm paying for it just by living in the state. Plus, the University raised their share through fundraising (not Big 10 Network or bowl money):

I do understand that the stadium was funded by donations and tax dollars. My foundation metaphor was a little misleading. That being said, do you think that stadium gets funded and built without that $22MM in Big Ten television flowing into the Minnesota athletic department? Money that, I might add, is a direct result of the Big Three going all-in on equal revenue distribution. I still firmly believe that, while television money may not have written the checks to the construction companies, the Big Ten Network and Big Ten television money are the foundation of that stadium. Without the financial stability that brings to the ad, the stadium doesn't get built.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I do understand that the stadium was funded by donations and tax dollars. My foundation metaphor was a little misleading. That being said, do you think that stadium gets funded and built without that $22MM in Big Ten television flowing into the Minnesota athletic department? Money that, I might add, is a direct result of the Big Three going all-in on equal revenue distribution. I still firmly believe that, while television money may not have written the checks to the construction companies, the Big Ten Network and Big Ten television money are the foundation of that stadium. Without the financial stability that brings to the ad, the stadium doesn't get built.

I suppose we'll never know. I still wish they would have built a Vikes/Gophers stadium like Pittsburgh did, but that's a discussion for a different thread/place...

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I suppose we'll never know. I still wish they would have built a Vikes/Gophers stadium like Pittsburgh did, but that's a discussion for a different thread/place...

Minnesota football needs an on-campus stadium if it's ever going to enjoy a renaissance. I think they did exactly the right thing. It's a great facility, and I believe it can be expanded up to around Camp Randall size. Minny just needs the right coach to pull it all together. Unfortunately, I have little faith in your current ad's ability to get that right.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Minnesota football needs an on-campus stadium if it's ever going to enjoy a renaissance. I think they did exactly the right thing. It's a great facility, and I believe it can be expanded up to around Camp Randall size. Minny just needs the right coach to pull it all together. Unfortunately, I have little faith in your current ad's ability to get that right.

Oh, he's not my AD... Bemidji State media here. I've been to TCF (when they almost lost to SDSU last year - I was rooting hard for the Jackrabbits - well, as hard as you can root in a press box), and it's nice.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Now, we're hearing frickin' Minnesota whine about their **** *** little regional hockey deal?

The fans yes but not the Minnesota admin. JFR, that little regional hockey deal is the best one in the country. The fact of the matter is the Gophers have the best hockey ratings in the country and they actually have people watching their games.

At the very time that they are christening a new football stadium that is literally built upon a foundation of television and bowl money generated by the above schools?

Wrong. The Minnesota taxpayer paid for that stadium.

When the time comes for the BTHC, Minnesota will shut its mouth, say "yes sir" and do exactly as it's told!

Huh? Bud do a little news paper research and you will find Lucia, Maturi and company being quoted something to the extent of your non-researched but correct quote.

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Is the BTHC = more TV revenue valid from the the programs being part of the Big Ten in general or does it actually come from more hockey coverage on the BTNet. If it’s the 2nd I’m skeptical of how much more hockey coverage the Big Ten Network will have. I remember seeing more hockey games about 3-4 years ago than the last few years and this year so far. I'm somewhat doubtful a BTHC will cause the BTNet to show more hockey- it's always going to be the "Big Ten Basketball & Football Network" unlike say Fox Sports North for the Gophers which is HOCKEY HOCKEY HOCKEY.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Is the BTHC = more TV revenue valid from the the programs being part of the Big Ten in general or does it actually come from more hockey coverage on the BTNet. If it’s the 2nd I’m skeptical of how much more hockey coverage the Big Ten Network will have. I remember seeing more hockey games about 3-4 years ago than the last few years and this year so far. I'm somewhat doubtful a BTHC will cause the BTNet to show more hockey- it's always going to be the "Big Ten Basketball & Football Network" unlike say Fox Sports North for the Gophers which is HOCKEY HOCKEY HOCKEY.

But there is no Big Ten Basketball or Football to show on Friday nights. That's at least one marquis game per week. No, it won't bring in the revenue the two big sports do, but it will fill what I assume is a big hole in their programming.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I wouldn't be suprised if the BTHC shows Friday and Sunday games instead of the traditional Friday and Saturday games.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I heard an interesting rumor from a source who has very good hockey connections regarding Minnesota and the BTHC.

The upshot is this: The Integer not only needs six votes to sponsor a BTHC, they need the commitment of six teams. So they don't just need six votes from anywhere, they need six votes from sponsoring institutions. Minnesota is a hold-out, so the conference is fishing for a further addition a la Penn State so that they can override the Gophers' veto. (Unknown in this is whether the Gophers could be bought off in return for concessions regarding TV or other Minnesota state schools.)

(Concurrent with this is a further rumor that the Integer is still strongly considering affiliate membership for hockey to fill out the conference.)

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I heard an interesting rumor from a source who has very good hockey connections regarding Minnesota and the BTHC.

The upshot is this: The Integer not only needs six votes to sponsor a BTHC, they need the commitment of six teams. So they don't just need six votes from anywhere, they need six votes from sponsoring institutions. Minnesota is a hold-out, so the conference is fishing for a further addition a la Penn State so that they can override the Gophers' veto. (Unknown in this is whether the Gophers could be bought off in return for concessions regarding TV or other Minnesota state schools.)

(Concurrent with this is a further rumor that the Integer is still strongly considering affiliate membership for hockey to fill out the conference.)

At the bottom of this page:

http://www.kbunam.com/College_Hockey_Tonight.html

The college hockey world was rocked by Penn State’s announcement last week that they would start a varsity men’s and women’s hockey program. Speculation centered on the possible formation of the long rumored “Big 10 Hockey Conference,” and its possible ramification of the rest of college hockey. While there is a lot still to be decided the easiest thing to figure out are the actual Big 10 bylaws regarding starting the conference. To answer some of those questions, I contacted Scott Chipman, the Big 10’s Associate Commissioner for Communications. Here’s what he told me:

College Hockey Tonight: Let's say a current Big 10 school wanted to get a hockey conference started. What is the procedure for this? Does that school's President of AD bring it to the conference office? Bring it to the other hockey AD's?

Scott Chipman: IN ORDER TO ADD A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP SPORT, THE BIG TEN ADMINISTRATORS COUNCIL (ATHLETIC DIRECTORS AND SENIOR WOMAN ADMINISTRATORS) WOULD NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD THEN BE REVIEWED BY THE BIG TEN COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS/CHANCELLORS.

CHT: If the decision is made to move forward with the formation of a conference, who votes? The 6 hockey playing schools or all 11 (12) Big 10 members? Who at each school votes - the Presidents, the AD's or the faculty reps? What is required - a simple majority or some sort of super-majority?

SC: HISTORICALLY, INSTITUTIONS NOT SPONSORING A SPECIFIC SPORT HAVE DEFERRED JUDGMENT REGARDING MANAGING THAT SPORT TO THE INSTITUTIONS THAT DO SPONSOR THE SPORT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING PROCEDURALLY THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY MEMBER INSTITUTION FROM VOTING ON THE ADDITION OF A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP SPORT, EVEN IF AN INSTITUTION DOES NOT SPONSOR THAT SPORT.

CHT: What do the Big 10 bylaws say about "associate" members? I.E., a non-Big-10 member wanted to be part of the Big 10 for hockey only. Does the Big 10 have a mechanism for adding a school like that? What would be the procedure for creating a mechanism if a Big 10 hockey conference wanted to explore the possibility of "associate" members? If there is language, would that school have to be Division-I in all sports?

SC: THERE ARE NO STANDING PROVISIONS REGARDING “ASSOCIATE” MEMBERS. JUST LIKE IN THE FIRST QUESTION, IN ORDER TO ADD AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER IN A SPORT, THE ADMINISTRATORS COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD THEN BE REVIEWED BY THE BIG TEN COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS/CHANCELLORS.


Hopefully that answers some questions. Mr. Chipman made it clear to me that the Big 10 had no further comment on the possibility of starting a hockey conference, but he was more than happy to discuss the process of how it would or could happen.

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I heard an interesting rumor from a source who has very good hockey connections regarding Minnesota and the BTHC.

The upshot is this: The Integer not only needs six votes to sponsor a BTHC, they need the commitment of six teams. So they don't just need six votes from anywhere, they need six votes from sponsoring institutions. Minnesota is a hold-out, so the conference is fishing for a further addition a la Penn State so that they can override the Gophers' veto. (Unknown in this is whether the Gophers could be bought off in return for concessions regarding TV or other Minnesota state schools.)

(Concurrent with this is a further rumor that the Integer is still strongly considering affiliate membership for hockey to fill out the conference.)

The Minnesota AD himself has said that he'll be outvoted on this issue. If, however, Minnesota refuses to join the BTHC under whatever pretext, then the next order of business should be to immediately adopt a Big 12 model of distributing television revenue and stop subsidizing his athletic department.. Let's see how this clown AD likes his tv money getting cut in half. Don't spend all that Fox North hockey money in one place, Maturi.