Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I'm guessing one way that a BTHC makes the schools more money is that while many games may air on BTN, during hoops season they can't all air there. The Big Ten already has a cozy relationship with Fox (co-owners of BTN, the new football title game deal, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if the FSN deals with Minnesota and Michigan morphs into a conference deal for additional coverage and revenue.

And, let's not forget the driving factor behind overall league expansion is the money of the football title game. I would suspect that they've run the numbers on what they can make on a Big Ten post season hockey tourney - sponsorships, tickets, rights fees, etc. - and believe that splitting it just 6 ways (as opposed to the 1/12th split in WCHA and 1/11th in CCHA) comes out in favor of a BTHC. They may even have venues willing to cut deals on rental, etc. to reduce costs.

And I could be wrong...

 

[GB Puck Fan]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

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

.

Because, at some point, too many haves and too many have nots are not good for the sport. Although it has flaws, the NFL's revenue sharing allows Green Bay to compete with New York. And it allows for every team to have the opportunity to compete, if run smartly (sorry, Oakland, and for years, Detroit.)

Baseball doesn't have this. When was the last time the Kansas City Royals were relevent? But the Yankees and Red Sox have to have someone to play.

If the tenuous D1 hockey programs decide to go the way of St. Louis, Wayne State, Illinois-Chicago and others, at some point, just who will the Big Ten teams play? And how often? And what kind of draw will the others be? Sorry to the UAH's of the world - who have my sympathy and I think the CCHA should have taken them - but right now they are no draw for other teams. Sure, your team might sweep a series, but so what?

While colleges won't have the same fiscal setup as the NFL, where it can assist those programs is through alignment. In that regard, I don't see how a BTHC aids the other CCHA and WCHA teams. I do see how they will hurt by five teams departing.

 

[The Rube]

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.

I'll just go visit more arenas/F4s.

And the UNO bus thing a few pages back was in reference to the fans, not the teams.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Because, at some point, too many haves and too many have nots are not good for the sport. Although it has flaws, the NFL's revenue sharing allows Green Bay to compete with New York. And it allows for every team to have the opportunity to compete, if run smartly (sorry, Oakland, and for years, Detroit.)

Baseball doesn't have this. When was the last time the Kansas City Royals were relevent? But the Yankees and Red Sox have to have someone to play.

Baseball does have revenue sharing actually. $404 million in 2010. Every team pays 31% of local revenue in, and then thats divided evenly among all teams. Plus there is the luxury tax on top of that for the big spenders.

Its when the low revenue teams decide to hoard that money instead of spend it that causes problems.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

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.

One of the mistakes that PSU made in building the Bryce Jordan Center is that they never added ice. They made it big enough to hold a rink (because the NHL rink dimensions of 200 x 85 are pretty much the standard for large trade shows, concerts, etc, and are thus the arena standard for floor size) but never included provisions for making ice, or for adding ice making capability at a later date.

Indiana and Illinois should not make that same mistake.

I'd also note that Nebraska has a suitable rink near campus where the USHL Lincoln Stars now play. I have no idea what their basketball arena looks like.

 

[Khryx]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

dxmnkd316, I'm not sure how you came up with your numbers for which teams made money and which were in the red based upon your source (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/). I see the expenses for various schools but not the breakdown of revenues for hockey. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't see a way to come up with any numbers let alone your numbers.

 

[bigmrg74]

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.

And it's even more of a hassle if you have the ladies basketball or hockey teams in the same venue as well. IMO, a school like Illinois or Indiana would be better off in converting an older building into a hockey arena like what Michigan did with Yost. Gives you the ice sheet that's always available for practicing on. Along with not having to deal with all of the schedule hassles one would have with a multi use facility that could see multiple uses on a weekend.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

dxmnkd316, I'm not sure how you came up with your numbers for which teams made money and which were in the red based upon your source (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/). I see the expenses for various schools but not the breakdown of revenues for hockey. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't see a way to come up with any numbers let alone your numbers.

Download the latest complete dataset for all schools. Filter by sport.

 

[Khryx]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I'll give this a shot. Thanks much.

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

dxmnkd316, I'm not sure how you came up with your numbers for which teams made money and which were in the red based upon your source (http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/). I see the expenses for various schools but not the breakdown of revenues for hockey. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just don't see a way to come up with any numbers let alone your numbers.

Download the latest complete dataset for all schools. Filter by sport.

He used REV_MEN_IceHcky - EXP_MEN_IceHcky to get his numbers. That will save you some searching through their data file.

 

[Khryx]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

He used REV_MEN_IceHcky - EXP_MEN_IceHcky to get his numbers. That will save you some searching through their data file.

Actually he didn't. He used total revenue minus total expense which give very different information. This includes women's hockey which isn't fair to do since women's hockey is not joining the big ten as far I know.

Also seeing these numbers now, I think (and could be wrong) that it is all a matter of how the school/team keeps their financials. Just a guess but it looks like Minnesota has a LOT of money that is directly tied to hockey whereas many of the other schools probably don't. Also I don't think the revenues include all of the revenues that are applied to hockey. For example, Notre Dame's $15 million anonymous donation for new facilities does not show up in these numbers.

This being said, the numbers are still interesting if nothing else. Here are the mens programs that had a revenue minus expense of over $100k for the 2009-2010 season (according to the data from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/):

4295417 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
1475302 University of North Dakota
1100126 University of Vermont
1030740 University of Wisconsin-Madison
803149 Cornell University
788546 Boston University
670998 Saint Cloud State University
668390 University of Maine
388341 Northeastern University
358946 Clarkson University
339984 Michigan Technological University
251682 University of New Hampshire-Main Campus
153695 University of Minnesota-Duluth
148659 Union College
132447 University of Alabama in Huntsville
104174 University of Nebraska at Omaha
101322 University of Alaska Fairbanks

However there are some teams that 'appear' to be seriously in the red based upon this data:

-429436 Michigan State University
-1591176 Ohio State University-Main Campus
-1902735 University of Notre Dame

I think Notre Dame is operating so far in the red due to all of the recent expenditures on ice hockey. As mentioned before, this is probably due to the donation that doesn't appear in any of the recent data available from this website (or at least I didn't see it allocated to hockey anyway).

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You have to understand how the BTN makes its money. It's not about ratings. Instead, the lion's share of BTN revenue comes from subscriber fees. That is, a portion of every single cable bill of every single household that has the BTN goes to that channel, whether they watch it or not. That could range from $.10 per subscriber per month in non-Big Ten regions, and around $.70 - $.80 per subscriber per month in the Big Ten states. When you're talking about 50 million or more households paying that much per month (once again, regardless of whether those households actually watch the channel), you're looking over a couple of hundred million dollars per year of revenue for the Big Ten... and that's before the channel sells a SINGLE commercial. It's pretty easy to see why the BTN is so important to the Big Ten schools.

Nice work Frank, I couldn't have written it better myself. Actually the success of the BTN is one of the major reasons the Big Ten expanded to include Nebraska, a huge football fan magnet scheduled to join this July. Moreover, the lofty annual payouts by the Big Ten are the ultimate attraction to forming the BTHC. The average amount of monthly income per subscriber is currently at $.88.

For example, UMN has 25 teams and 750 athletes. The major revenue generating sports: football, basketball and hockey, have all seen a drastic increase in expenses due to loan agreements, buyouts, new hires and operating costs. Expenditures for UMN college hockey alone have more than doubled in the last ten years from approximately 1.2 to 2.4 million. The ever increasing tide of money has stretched athletics finances and forced the department to search for new ways to generate revenue and balance its budget.

The athletic budget for the UMN is currently a $77 million operation. The UMN has loaned the athletics department in excess of $26 million over the last five years to help offset operating costs for the current 25 athletic sports. That's an average 14% annually. It's important to note that Joel Maturi has done a fine job in reducing that each year from 14% from the central admin. funds to where it now stands at 3%. Furthermore, since Joel Maturi was hired in 2002, there has been revenue growth of more than 60 percent. It's fair to say amidst the Maturi bashing lately, that he's done an admirable job of reducing costs and moving the athletic dept. to a self supporting status. But projections of multiple expenditures and athletic operating costs in the near future are still a major concern and the UMN needs answers now. Enter the Big Ten...stage right.

The Big Ten officially distributed $19.9 million to each of its members during the last fiscal year. That's a $5.9 million increase over the last 3 years. $15 million was generated through TV contracts, including $6.4 million from the Big Ten Network. According to the Associate Athletics Director in charge of Minnesota’s athletics finances, the Big Ten money distribution was vital in balancing the Gophers’ finances for 2009 when a $6.8M shortfall hit the bottom line to essentially support the 25 athletic teams on campus. The $6.8M shortfall was substantively offset by the distribution of BTN funds totaling $6.4M. That's a huge incentive to expanding the revenue base by forming the BTHC.

I think you may have mentioned this but it's important to understand that BTN revenue is an aggregate payout not a per sport payout. The network currently has agreements with more than 300 providers and is available on cable in 19 of the 20 largest U.S. media markets. It is carried nationally on DirecTV and Dish Network; and regionally on AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS, Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, Insight Communications, Mediacom Communications, Time Warner Cable, Cable One, Cablevision and several others. You are right, with addition of Nebraska and the BTHC, the BTN will increase subscriber rates by negligible amounts per household and the projected payouts to Big Ten member schools will increase by a significant amount.

The last people on Earth that should EVER complain about the Big Ten are Minnesota fans. They are rich beyond belief in a manner that about 100 other schools in Division I would kill for specifically because of the Big Ten and the BTN (not the WCHA). Don't bite the hand that feeds you (and feeds you unbelievably well).

True. Delany has in his hand a number of requests by universities wanting to join the Big Ten for two reasons of which I point out in an earlier post: 1) BTN $ and 2) Just as important, joining the Big Ten increases the academic profile of schools. Each of the Big Ten's current 11 schools is a member of the Association of American Universities, a highly regarded alliance of some of the top universities in the US. The Big Ten has made it clear that it wants prospective new members to be of similar academic blueprints.

 

[texashockeycoach]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

.....I think you may have mentioned this but it's important to understand that BTN revenue is an aggregate payout not a per sport payout......

After reading many posts about this topic I feel that the opponents to the BTHC has a little to do with the fracturing of current rivalries but a lot to do with what kind of financial pressures the remaining schools have by not having the the Big schools play them in their barns.

Up to this point, my view was that in this hard economic enviroment with dwindling financial resources, there will probably be teams that may have to pack it in. In fact, there have been teams out there struggling for many seasons (ie. Bowling Green), and have been in this situation well before the downturn in the economy as well as any realization that Penn State was going to have a team (thus providing a catalyst for the formation of the BTHC.)

My hope with the BTHC is that they would be able to break this college hockey stagnation and create a financial model that would make it attractive for the remaining Big ten schools to throw their lot into the hockey mix. However, I didn't realize that the BTN was an aggregate payout. So now it becomes a question of why any school would want to add hockey if it doesn't increase their share of the revenue. The remaining Big ten schools would probably opt to not create hockey as it would eat into revenue that could be used to increase their football stadium capacity (or other football/ basketball ventures.)

I'm starting to see the risks posed to non-BTHC schools, but I would like to hear Frank the Tanks slant (or anyone else for that matter) on how the formation of the BTHC increases the integrity of College Hockey as a whole rather than for the six schools involved in the BTHC.

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

After reading many posts about this topic I feel that the opponents to the BTHC has a little to do with the fracturing of current rivalries but a lot to do with what kind of financial pressures the remaining schools have by not having the the Big schools play them in their barns.

Up to this point, my view was that in this hard economic enviroment with dwindling financial resources, there will probably be teams that may have to pack it in. In fact, there have been teams out there struggling for many seasons (ie. Bowling Green), and have been in this situation well before the downturn in the economy as well as any realization that Penn State was going to have a team (thus providing a catalyst for the formation of the BTHC.)

My hope with the BTHC is that they would be able to break this college hockey stagnation and create a financial model that would make it attractive for the remaining Big ten schools to throw their lot into the hockey mix. However, I didn't realize that the BTN was an aggregate payout. So now it becomes a question of why any school would want to add hockey if it doesn't increase their share of the revenue. The remaining Big ten schools would probably opt to not create hockey as it would eat into revenue that could be used to increase their football stadium capacity (or other football/ basketball ventures.)

I'm starting to see the risks posed to non-BTHC schools, but I would like to hear Frank the Tanks slant (or anyone else for that matter) on how the formation of the BTHC increases the integrity of College Hockey as a whole rather than for the six schools involved in the BTHC.

Permit me to chime in here a bit for clarification. The BTHC actually increases incentive for prospective BT members to form a hockey program by broadening exposure in media markets that other sports cannot sufficiently capture or saturate and therefore an increase in aggregate payout/member school.

In terms of financial pressures on remaining non-BTHC schools, commissioners and coaches from the CCHA, arguably the hardest hit conference by the departure of 3 teams, are in agreement that "change brings opportunity". In my view, there are a lot of fans, who essentially lack understanding of the internal dynamics, that are emotionally overreacting in this regard. There may possibly be some realignments, but I'm confident that those teams and conferences that are directly or indirectly affected will find solutions and move on. Overall, the BTHC has been widely embraced by commissioners and coaches directly affected.

"We need to provide the right kind of leadership," said Tom Anastos, commissioner of the CCHA. "Commissioners, athletic directors, school presidents and coaches all have a vested interest in this. It makes sense to me that we put all those minds to work and move forward.

"I don't have a specific time line, but I would like to think, over the next six to eight or 10 months, that plans will be put in motion. Three teams will be vacating. Do you want to replace those three? Add a fourth? Could there be more movement?"

WCHA commissioner Bruce McLeod also said nothing has been decided on how his conference will deal with the losses.

"This will obviously have an impact on the WCHA," he said in a statement. "But change creates opportunity, too. The time line of this association spans seven decades and has included expansion and contraction on numerous occasions, but the success of this organization has remained constant. The commitment to excellence by our member institutions will not waver, and working together, we will push forward to assure our future remains bright."

Lake Superior State coach Jim Roque viewed the announcement as positive for the sport.

"I think it's good for college hockey," Roque said. "I think the Big Ten moniker's going to, obviously, provide more exposure to college hockey. I look at it this way: I'm in the water with all these schools. As the water rises, my boat rises, too.

"We don't recruit against those schools. That's not going to affect us. We're not going to lose a kid to the Big Ten league. The negative for us is, obviously, not getting those schools in our building, and I understand that part of it."

But Roque said the home schedule won't be affected drastically.

"Ohio State's never been a big draw for us," he said. "We've never had Wisconsin or Minnesota here. So, really, we're talking about two schools -- and we usually get one of them a year. We never get Michigan and Michigan State (at home) the same year. ... So you're talking about two home games a year, basically."

Ferris State coach Bob Daniels said the CCHA has been a strong league and will continue to be so.

"I know we're committed to being a strong member, and we would look forward to continuing our rivalries with the (Big Ten) schools, just through nonconference play," Daniels said.

Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis released a statement in support of the new Big Ten hockey league Monday.

"I believe that sponsoring men's ice hockey will enhance the conference, its member institutions and college hockey," Hollis said. "Playing only 20 conference games will allow our programs to continue to play nonconference contests against in-state rivals, important tournaments like the Great Lakes Invitational and a competitive national schedule."

 

[Dude Love]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Wisconsin fans count DU and CC as rivals?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Actually he didn't. He used total revenue minus total expense which give very different information. This includes women's hockey which isn't fair to do since women's hockey is not joining the big ten as far I know.

Also seeing these numbers now, I think (and could be wrong) that it is all a matter of how the school/team keeps their financials. Just a guess but it looks like Minnesota has a LOT of money that is directly tied to hockey whereas many of the other schools probably don't. Also I don't think the revenues include all of the revenues that are applied to hockey. For example, Notre Dame's $15 million anonymous donation for new facilities does not show up in these numbers.

This being said, the numbers are still interesting if nothing else. Here are the mens programs that had a revenue minus expense of over $100k for the 2009-2010 season (according to the data from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/):

4295417 University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
1475302 University of North Dakota
1100126 University of Vermont
1030740 University of Wisconsin-Madison
803149 Cornell University
788546 Boston University
670998 Saint Cloud State University
668390 University of Maine
388341 Northeastern University
358946 Clarkson University
339984 Michigan Technological University
251682 University of New Hampshire-Main Campus
153695 University of Minnesota-Duluth
148659 Union College
132447 University of Alabama in Huntsville
104174 University of Nebraska at Omaha
101322 University of Alaska Fairbanks

However there are some teams that 'appear' to be seriously in the red based upon this data:

-429436 Michigan State University
-1591176 Ohio State University-Main Campus
-1902735 University of Notre Dame

I think Notre Dame is operating so far in the red due to all of the recent expenditures on ice hockey. As mentioned before, this is probably due to the donation that doesn't appear in any of the recent data available from this website (or at least I didn't see it allocated to hockey anyway).

Actually, it's perfectly fair to include women. Unless of course you can find some other way to balance the whole Title IX issue. Maybe you can. Maybe you can't. I did include it and made it known that I did.

I'm not entirely sure what costs and revenue streams are included. In fact, I explicitly said so in a post above. After that, you're repeating exactly what I said.

 

[drewski192]

Can someone explain when big ten network is going to show the hockey games? College hockey is played Friday and Saturday nights. It would be competing with college football and basketball. More people watch those two sports, so how are the hockey games going to generate this supposed windfall that will make it worthwhile for these programs to leave the wcha and ccha?

I don't remember ever having a Badger Hockey/Basketball scheduling confict on a friday or saturday night. Maybe a few times a year at most. So I'm sure ill get alot badger hockey on the BTN. Wrong again.

 

[Real Old #35]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

As I read through all of these posts I would like to throw out two questions that I haven't seen addressed:

For Minnesota fans, could this be a bad thing? FSN does a fantastic job of televising to games with a great pre and post show. Could that continue under this arrangement?

Second, I see a number of post speculating on new Big Ten schools adding hockey, which I think would be great if it could be done with the costs of starting a new program and navigating Title IX. But what about other possibilities for schools to add hockey to join WCHA or CCHA? Examples: UW-Green Bay, Marquette U, Drake, U of Colorado i.e., universities in large markets cities that could support a hockey program.

I am sure I am missing a number of possibilities with my geographical slant, but although most are unlikely I don't think it is unreasonable to consider the possibilities....

 

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

As I read through all of these posts I would like to throw out two questions that I haven't seen addressed:

For Minnesota fans, could this be a bad thing? FSN does a fantastic job of televising to games with a great pre and post show. Could that continue under this arrangement?

FOX owns the Big Ten Network so I don't think there will be much problem with TV deals for Minnesota.

 

[SteveP]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

One of the mistakes that PSU made in building the Bryce Jordan Center is that they never added ice.

When I came here from Colorado Springs in 1998 I thought exactly the same thing. How could they build an arena and not include an ice plant?

In hindsight, the decision (a budgetary one IIRC) was a wise one. The 15000-seat BJC is simply too big (see: Value City Arena) for college hockey, especially in a smaller market like the State College area.

Having spent a couple of years watching games at the World Arena before coming back east, I 100% agree with the plans for the 6000-seat Pegula Ice Arena.

Compact, noisy and, hopefully intimidating for visiting teams (OK, that could take a year or two) Just what a college hockey venue should be.