Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

By saying to Charter in Madison, hey we added hockey and your fans can only see these games on our network and we need .15 per month per household more.

No way is Charter gonna eliminate the BTN.

Even in Milwaukee where Badger Hockey is less popular, they're going to pay more to keep football and hoops.

I think what he's getting at is BTN revenue is split 12 ways so how do the 5 existing B1G schools do better financially than they currently are in the new B1GHC?

 

[bronconick]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

By saying to Charter in Madison, hey we added hockey and your fans can only see these games on our network and we need .15 per month per household more.

No way is Charter gonna eliminate the BTN.

Even in Milwaukee where Badger Hockey is less popular, they're going to pay more to keep football and hoops.

They could go to Charter and say that the Big Ten offices need softer toilet paper, so you need to pay .15 more per subscriber and Charter would still do it.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You know what's more profitable than hockey? Literally building an incinerator and dumping bags of money in it.

When you look at those numbers they are not financial reports that compare apples to apples. They don't factor in donations & revenue indirectly tied to the programs, but they do factor in the tuition expenses and other "soft costs" for the University. For instance, throwing an extra student or two into a classroom or a dorm doesn't cost the university much if anything.

Most of the budgets you are looking at are designed to break even and prove that the school is Title IX compliant.

How many extra prospective students come to a school because of a specific sport? Depending on tuition & board ($46,000 @ DU) it adds up in a hurry.

And the publicity that sports brings to a school is hard to value as well.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I think what he's getting at is BTN revenue is split 12 ways so how do the 5 existing B1G schools do better financially than they currently are in the new B1GHC?

I don't think this is driven by the 5 schools as much as it is from the conference.

I gotta think that these ADs have been shown something by the conference that compels them that this is in their own best interest.

If they didn't think it would pad their bottom line, they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

They could go to Charter and say that the Big Ten offices need softer toilet paper, so you need to pay .15 more per subscriber and Charter would still do it.

Actually, Charter was a bit slow in adopting the BTN but now that subscribers have it, it would be awfully hard to eliminate.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

When you look at those numbers they are not financial reports that compare apples to apples. They don't factor in donations & revenue indirectly tied to the programs, but they do factor in the tuition expenses and other "soft costs" for the University. For instance, throwing an extra student or two into a classroom or a dorm doesn't cost the university much if anything.

Most of the budgets you are looking at are designed to break even.

How many extra prospective students come to a school because of a specific sport? Depending on tuition & board ($46,000 @ DU) it adds up in a hurry.

And the publicity that sports brings to a school is hard to value as well.

Possibly, I have no idea whether this includes donations. I'll do some checking.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

now that subscribers have it, it would be awfully hard to eliminate.

The BTN = herpes?

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

The BTN = herpes?

Imagine having BOTH!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You know what's more profitable than hockey? Literally building an incinerator and dumping bags of money in it.

This.

You know what's more profitable than hockey TV revenue? Literally building 5 incinerators and dumping bags of money into them.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

This.

You know what's more profitable than hockey TV revenue? Literally building 5 incinerators and dumping bags of money into them.

Instead of incinerators I would like to volunteer my checking account.

 

[AdamBC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Two problems with multipurpose arenas. It usually costs $5,000 to $10,000 each time you convert them and you can't play or practice if its set in the other format.

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

Can you imagine telling Bobby Knight back in the day.... "The crew had a problem today and is running behind getting the arena converted for your practice."

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NvRO2GE4x4M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

Than you build it like the Kohl Center with basketball sightlines and leave room for a sheet of ice

 

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Also, since both are big basketball schools, not sure how well the fans will receive a new stadium with hockey sightlines.

I'm not saying that it would be an ideal situation (and it would more likely be the other way around with hockey being shoehorned into a basketball-centric facility) or that either school is actually going to add hockey, but rather this is how these schools could theoretically add programs without needing a massive donation a la Penn State. With multipurpose arenas, they need events beyond just basketball to be financially viable, so if hockey brings in enough ticket sales (and just as importantly, concessions, parking fees, etc.) to justify the rink conversion costs, then there's an economic argument for it.

Anyway, it's interesting to see so many perspectives arguing that college hockey doesn't generate much money, but then in almost the same breath state that the Big Ten is going to "ruin the sport" because... it's going after more money. If the Big Ten hockey league isn't going to make much money, then why the heck is everyone worried? They obviously aren't taking much money away from the CCHA and WCHA schools because hockey doesn't make much money in the first place, right?

Let's put it this way: the Big Ten university presidents (forget about the ADs and coaches, who are irrelevant to these discussions) are smart people and don't do things that they believe are going to end up having them lose revenue compared to today. Clearly, there's a fairly strong projection that the Big Ten forming its own hockey league is going to yield more revenue than what they would've made in the CCHA and WCHA separately. We might argue how large that revenue boost might be, but I think we can agree that these guys aren't entering into this deal just for the heck of it and thinking that they're going to be *losing* money on it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

If the Big Ten hockey league isn't going to make much money, then why the heck is everyone worried? They obviously aren't taking much money away from the CCHA and WCHA schools because hockey doesn't make much money in the first place, right?

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

...don't do things that they believe are going to end up having them lose revenue compared to today.

Three words: Tim Brewster Extension.

 

[SOTA]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

Not to sound like Monty Burns here, but why should the Big Ten be concerned about the welfare of Michigan Tech's athletic department?

I think Frank hit the nail on the head.....the people making the decisions regarding the Big Ten have a history of knowing what they're doing. I don't see them making such a decision unless it will have a positive benefit for their institutions in the long term.

 

[AdamBC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Can you imagine telling Bobby Knight back in the day.... "The crew had a problem today and is running behind getting the arena converted for your practice."

The ACC does require BC to have the floor down a certain number of hours before tip-off. But you're right - that would have ended poorly for the assistant.

 

[NMU8405]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You're drunk right? A loss of say $200,000 to a Big Ten school isn't much but it will get quite a bit of scrutiny. A loss of $200,000 to Michigan Tech? Devastating to a hockey program at a school that small.

To the smaller schools that depend on hockey making them money, through boosters, revenue etc... it is a lot money. NMU is operating on a budget that was put forth in 2002...which 9 years later is in the bottom 10 of NCAA hockey.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I don't like a BTHC. To me, Wisconsin's hockey rivals are NoDak, Denver, CC and UMD, not tOSU, MSU and Michigan.

The only silver lining I see is if the open spaces in the CCHA and WCHA encourage other schools to add hockey. And that's a big if.

And, I worry Wisconsin hockey will schedule like football. We'll play you - but only if you come to our place so we get the home revenue. That's not good in the larger picture for the sports, more specifically teams like Tech, Mankato, Alaska, etc.

And, UW's ban on playing non-conference opponents with 'hostile' nicknames is still in place, right? So, unless it does change, no Sioux-Badgers games...

this! so much this.

You can bank Alvarez cares only about one thing here, $. I mean seriously as I've said before he didn't realize UW had a hockey team for about 12-14 years. this guy couldn't be bothered to help w/the new hockey practice facility until he ****ed off all the NHL ($) alumni with his dumbass comments about needing more of their money, and then realized uh oh, this DOES need to get done. but yeah, trust me if the babies on the football team needed tutors, more shoulder pads or another practice facility he'd be lobbying effing scott walker and herb kohl for that money you can count on it. he'd sell anything for football or roundball.

I agree w/you on Wisconsin's rivals whod I'd put in order MN, Nodak, DU, UMD, CC, and traditionally MTU (I know their 3 titles are 30 years old but so what?).

so I'm not looking forward to the BTHC, and I'm especially going to be ****ed if UW doesn't have trips to Grand Forks, Denver, Houghton, Colorado Springs and Duluth at least on a rotating schedule home and home.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I might continue attending the F5 even with the stupid BTHC forming. It's a lot cheaper than traveling to ****ing Chicago.