Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

There are two possible solutions for DU regarding future attendance in a BTHC world. Drop your lowest ticket price and actually market the program. The revenue concerns you express are certainly NOT going to be addressed by starting a BHHC. Especially considering you'll go back to having to abide by the 34 game limit. How much is the gate from a well attended home series at DU? $300,000+ I'd estimate.

I have to agree with this particular point as well. The BHHC is partly based on bringing in "name" schools to offset the lost revenue from not having Minnesota and Wisconsin in the building, correct? So, why does the non die-hard hockey fan care about schools like North Dakota, Miami, UMD and SCSU (Notre Dame makes sense in this regard)? It might make sense from a strength of conference standpoint, but to get butts into seats? Um, no.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I have to agree with this particular point as well. The BHHC is partly based on bringing in "name" schools to offset the lost revenue from not having Minnesota and Wisconsin in the building, correct? So, why does the non die-hard hockey fan care about schools like North Dakota, Miami, UMD and SCSU (Notre Dame makes sense in this regard)? It might make sense from a strength of conference standpoint, but to get butts into seats? Um, no.

Because the sky is falling and if PSU adds hockey all of sudden all the good players are going to not want to come to WCHA schools any more.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I think the Canadian Universities joining the NCAA in ice hockey will offset the loss of teams heading to the BTHC.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Sorry I have to take exception with another of your estimates. I specifically looked at attendance numbers for DU over a 3 year span.

Its etremely amusing to watch you sitting at a computer in freakin' Alaska tell DU season ticket holders what is and isn't going on inside Magness Arena.

The best and only hope for a compromise is a 24 team conference. I think that is what everyone out west should be pushing for. Its not an ideal situation, but it offers the best chance to keep all 24 programs afloat.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Its etremely amusing to watch you sitting at a computer in freakin' Alaska tell DU season ticket holders what is and isn't going on inside Magness Arena.

On this topic, I went down to SCSU a few weeks ago for the BSU series and talked to a few locals about attendance. It's been bad, and has been for a while now. One guy I talked to said he wasn't going to renew his season tickets next year since he could walk-up and buy tickets to any game he wanted - even the Gophers. The BSU games were half full, at best. Then, you read the box scores, and they say it was sold-out both nights:

http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/2010/11/05/bemidji-state-vs-st-cloud-state/
http://www.uscho.com/box/mens-hockey/2010/11/06/bemidji-state-vs-st-cloud-state/

On top of that, SCSU claims they are averaging 103.5% of capacity for the year:

http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2010-2011/

Clearly, that's a farce, yet if you sit in front of a computer screen, you say SCSU is packed every night and making money hand over fist on ticket sales...

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

LOL DG. You amuse me as well.

It isn't often someone that's been on these boards as long as you attempts such a weak mischaracterization of what I said. And honestly my friend, if you really interpret the whole of what I said above as presumptuous then you probably ought to go back and reread it. Seriously, do some perception checking. In no way, shape or form did I try to tell anyone what is or isn't going on inside Magness other than to reference comparative attendance numbers and encourage your school to price their tickets affordably while establishing some actual marketing plan that isn't reliant on LetsGoDU blog and Mike Chambers.

Yep. None of that is about "what is and isn't going on inside Magness".

Want people to believe that Magness attendance drops 15-20% when schools other than UofM, UW and CC don't come to town? It's easy enough to prove my friend. I clearly asserted that those numbers are high. I provided a reference that you should recall since it was done in a direct interaction between you and me. I encourage you or Swami to run the numbers yourself if you believe my estimation to be incorrect.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Clearly, that's a farce, yet if you sit in front of a computer screen, you say SCSU is packed every night and making money hand over fist on ticket sales...

Exactly. Also when you have a couple of thousand "No Shows" from season ticket holders it represents another problem. "No Shows" don't pay for parking, don't buy concessions and are less likely to buy season tickets the following year.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Its etremely amusing to watch you sitting at a computer in freakin' Alaska tell DU season ticket holders what is and isn't going on inside Magness Arena.

The best and only hope for a compromise is a 24 team conference. I think that is what everyone out west should be pushing for. Its not an ideal situation, but it offers the best chance to keep all 24 programs afloat.

I hear what you're saying, but practically speaking what's the difference between that and the BTHC going out on their own, leaving the remaining CCHA and WCHA teams?

Say you have a set up with the 6 Big 10 teams in one division and the remaining 18 teams in 3 other divisions. You play 20 games against the 5 teams in your division. That leaves you with 8, maybe 10 other games to play against the rest of the "conference" (which is a bit amusing, since in comprises over 40% of all college hockey teams). At most you'll get 6, and more likely only 4 home games out of that a year. You're not going to get to play Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan St. every year. You'll have to take your turn with the LSSU's, Mankato's, etc..., of the world. If you're lucky, you'll see Minnesota once every 3 years or so. You could probably do just as well scheduling on your own.

Then we have the issue of the "conference" playoffs. We're going to play down to one team, out of 24? Granted, that would be a fun final 4 (maybe 8) each year, but how often will your team make it?

My take is that such a conference will be discussed, but ultimately rejected. I expect the WCHA to go back to 10 teams. The CCHA will also continue as is, without the three current Big 10 schools. That conference will likely take on an ECAC like feel, with one, or maybe two viable programs each year and the rest bottom feeders. The WCHA will look more like Hockey East with 3-5 stronger programs and 5-6 weak sisters.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I hear what you're saying, but practically speaking what's the difference between that and the BTHC going out on their own, leaving the remaining CCHA and WCHA teams?

A 24 team conference provides a couple advantages.

It allows the 18 other schools to say, "We're in the same conference as Penn State, ect."

It allows all 24 teams to share the playoff revenue which actually could be a pretty good chunk of money.

The Final 6 in St. Paul would certainly sell out every year.

The playoffs would be pretty simple. And it would only take one extra week. Use Pairwise or conference record to seed the 24 teams.

• 24 teams play the first weekend at the higher seeds venue. (best of three)

• 12 teams play the following weekend at the higher seeds venue. (best of three)

• 6 teams advance to the Final 6 in St. Paul.

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

As long as BTN or any other schools can maintain some degree of respect for their academic credentials why shouldn't they buy winning athletic programs? It's the American way. It was also the Soviet Russian way. They also funded "amateur" athletic programs and athletes with public funds. "Money talks, . . ."

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Say you have a set up with the 6 Big 10 teams in one division and the remaining 18 teams in 3 other divisions. You play 20 games against the 5 teams in your division. That leaves you with 8, maybe 10 other games to play against the rest of the "conference" (which is a bit amusing, since in comprises over 40% of all college hockey teams). At most you'll get 6, and more likely only 4 home games out of that a year. You're not going to get to play Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan St. every year. You'll have to take your turn with the LSSU's, Mankato's, etc..., of the world. If you're lucky, you'll see Minnesota once every 3 years or so. You could probably do just as well scheduling on your own.

Actually, if I were in charge of this set-up, I'd have teams play their division just twice for 10 games, then there are 18 teams in the rest of the divisions, right? Pick 9, and play those the first year, and the other 9 in year two. Sure, that's a 28 game conference schedule, but if you divide up the Alaska schools, a few schools would get those extra two OOC games anyway (actually, someone smarter than me could figure out a way to get it every other year at least for every school, I'd imagine). Plus, you'd have every team in the conference at home at least once every four years. The biggest loss in this scenerio would be an annual rival home games (example, CC would play at Denver twice, but not at home vs. the Pios). If you really wanted, you could tack on two extra divisional games by designating an "intra-divisional rival" for each school so that you can keep those home dates...

 

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

A 24 team conference provides a couple advantages.

It allows the 18 other schools to say, "We're in the same conference as Penn State, ect."

It allows all 24 teams to share the playoff revenue which actually could be a pretty good chunk of money.

The Final 6 in St. Paul would certainly sell out every year.

The playoffs would be pretty simple. And it would only take one extra week. Use Pairwise or conference record to seed the 24 teams.

• 24 teams play the first weekend at the higher seeds venue. (best of three)

• 12 teams play the following weekend at the higher seeds venue. (best of three)

• 6 teams advance to the Final 6 in St. Paul.

You're going to try and convince 24 teams that they should compete for one auto bid? Good luck.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're going to try and convince 24 teams that they should compete for one auto bid? Good luck.

In addition, I would have to think that playoff shares for BTHC schools would be significantly less in this scenario than if they just had their six teams. Sure, there's more teams generating revenue, but there are also a lot of very small buildings and 24 shares to hand out.

I hope no one expects the Big Ten to do something like this out of the kindness of their heart or for the betterment of college hockey as a whole. It's a nice thought, but it will never happen. The Big Ten (and every other power conference) was born with a heart two sizes too small.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're going to try and convince 24 teams that they should compete for one auto bid? Good luck.

Yeah, 'cause the AQ's going to even matter. I'll admit that I don't know the math of the Pairwise, but maybe someone like Priceless could run the numbers. I'd bet that half the 16-team field comes from this set-up, if not more. Or do you think that 8+ teams would come from HEA, ECAC and AHA? I mean, historically, you're talking maybe what, 4 from HEA, 2 from ECAC and 1 from AHA? Even if one of those conferences have a good year, that still leaves half the field open...

The more I think about this, the biggest downside ends up that college hockey is right back where it started - no openings for all Paul Kelly's "start-ups." And not only that, but with one western conference you still have a "western" team (Alabama-Huntsville) that get left out...

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're going to try and convince 24 teams that they should compete for one auto bid? Good luck.

Since Pairwise was introduced, How many WCHA or CCHA playoff winners ever needed the Autobid to get into the NCAA field? I'm pretty sure for the WCHA the answer is zero.

There are many reasons for people to not like the 24 team concept, but I think the Autobid arguement is one of the weakest.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

In addition, I would have to think that playoff shares for BTHC schools would be significantly less in this scenario than if they just had their six teams. Sure, there's more teams generating revenue, but there are also a lot of very small buildings and 24 shares to hand out.

Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Small buildings are irrelevant, it's all about the number of games. Think this way (and let's just forget operating expenses for a moment):

BTHC Tourney - let's say that they have a 6 team tourney, and it draws 75,000 at the Xcel Energy Center (the WCHA FF draws 90,000, so the 75,000 may be ambitious). Ticket packages are ~ $20 a game for 6 games. That's $9 million in revenue. Split 6 ways is $1.5 mil per team.

Mega Conf. Tourney - 12 home best of 3 series (let's take a scenerio where teams with 3000 seat rinks all host and a worst case, all series are only 2 games). Again, at $20 a ticket, that's $1.4 million. Now throw in 6 more home series in the second round (again, let's play devil's advocate and use a number like 3000 seats per game at $20 per seat). That's another $720,000. Now tack on that Final 6 tourney at the Xcel Energy Center, which again, would likely draw 90,000 (and maybe more since there is a greater fan base to draw from), and you're at $10,8000,000. Add all that up, and you're at $12,920,000 to divide between the 24 teams, or $538,333 per school.

Now, yes, that's a third of the BTHC revenue, but who here thinks that only 3000 will be at each of those first two round series? Or that they all just go 2 games each? All you really need to signifantly improve the bottom line is for Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota, or UNO, etc. to host one (or even two) series and the numbers go up quite a bit (heck, 3 games at $20 a piece at UND over a 3000 seat barn adds another $600,000 to the pot)...

I hope no one expects the Big Ten to do something like this out of the kindness of their heart or for the betterment of college hockey as a whole. It's a nice thought, but it will never happen. The Big Ten (and every other power conference) was born with a heart two sizes too small.

And again, I think you've got it backwards. From the beginning, I've felt this way (that the Big 10 was going to barrel in and force a BTHC come hell or high water), but the more I hear, the more I think that the "hockey people" are being heard, an some sort of inclusion in the current set-up is more likely.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Geography was, is and always will be the most egalitarian method for setting up leagues and conferences in sports.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

In addition, I would have to think that playoff shares for BTHC schools would be significantly less in this scenario than if they just had their six teams. Sure, there's more teams generating revenue, but there are also a lot of very small buildings and 24 shares to hand out.

Agreed on all counts, but just for fun, here's the playoff matchups using up to date RPI and average attendance. Factor in that Notre Dame & Duluth will have new bigger barns by 2014.

#1 UNO vs. #24 Penn State (7,000 per game)
#2 UMD vs. #23 Ohio State (5,000 per game)
#3 ND vs. #22 BG (3,000 per game)
#4 UND vs. #21 BSU (12,000 per game)
#5 DU vs. #20 UAA (5,000 per game)
#6 MI vs. #19 MTU (6,500 per game)
#7 MN vs. #18 MSU-M (10,000 per game)
#8 Mia vs. #17 LSSU (3,000 per game)
#9 AK vs. #16 MSU-M (3,000 per game)
#10 WI vs. #15 SCSU (12,500 per game)
#11 WMU vs. #14 NMU (3,000 per game)
#12 FSU vs. #13 CC (1,500 per game)

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Want people to believe that Magness attendance drops 15-20% when schools other than UofM, UW and CC don't come to town? It's easy enough to prove my friend. I clearly asserted that those numbers are high. I provided a reference that you should recall since it was done in a direct interaction between you and me. I encourage you or Swami to run the numbers yourself if you believe my estimation to be incorrect.

I didn't see your study, but I am watching the downward trends in attendance. Right now, depsite a DU team that was ranked #1 for much of last year and is ranked #10 right now, our average attendance is down from the sellouts (6,000+) of 5 years ago, to around 5500 paid, and with around 4,000 actually in the building on average (1,500 no shows). It seems to me that the only sellouts we generally get now are CC (rivalry game), UND (helped by 1,000 UND fans living in Denver, and Minnesota (helped by many Gopher fans living here). Homecoming games (this year it was BC) are usually sellouts or near it. Wisconsin is usually a near sellout or near it. Then you have the other WCHA teams which are usally draw around 500-1000 less fans than the aforementioned schools. There's a 10% gap attendance now, before the Big Ten even forms.

After the Big 10 forms, dropping another 10-20% is not out of the question. This is a transient, pro sports town, and all college programs in Colorado struggle if you aren't playing name brand teams.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Agreed on all counts, but just for fun, here's the playoff matchups using up to date RPI and average attendance. Factor in that Notre Dame & Duluth will have new bigger barns by 2014.

#1 UNO vs. #24 Penn State (7,000 per game)
#2 UMD vs. #23 Ohio State (5,000 per game)
#3 ND vs. #22 BG (3,000 per game)
#4 UND vs. #21 BSU (12,000 per game)
#5 DU vs. #20 UAA (5,000 per game)
#6 MI vs. #19 MTU (6,500 per game)
#7 MN vs. #18 MSU-M (10,000 per game)
#8 Mia vs. #17 LSSU (3,000 per game)
#9 AK vs. #16 MSU-M (3,000 per game)
#10 WI vs. #15 SCSU (12,500 per game)
#11 WMU vs. #14 NMU (3,000 per game)
#12 FSU vs. #13 CC (1,500 per game)

And, as I noted, at minimum, double all those numbers, plus tack on $20 per ticket ($9,300,000) - all going to the league office after operating expenses are paid. Then do the same for second round games (all top 6 advance, and you're at ($1,540,000), plus the conf. tourney, which would be, at minimum, as successful as the BTHC tourney itself (see my note about maybe another $10,800,000). Suddenly, you're splitting $21 + million (and, again, that's assuming no series go to three games, or that there are no upsets which put Minnesota or Wisconsin at home in the second round instead of say Notre Dame - let alone that new rink they're opening)...