Imagining League Realignment

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Chill...I might have misread the following...The network currently reaches approximately 40 million households nationwide and is available up to an estimated 73 million households in the United States and Canada.

Regardless, what about the primary premise of Canada being a HUGE untapped Big Ten Network market for viewers with the potential of big recruiting opportunities is wrong?

Yeah, "available in" probably mean 40 million households actually subscribe to it (expanded basic in the B1G Footprint plus sports pack subscribers nationwide) and 33 million have access to it on a sports tier but have not purchased it...which probably means its available on Shaw and Rogers in canada but not on expanded basic...

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

BU, BC, Maine, UNH and UVM can kick the rest of the Hockey East teams to the curb and invite RPI (not Rensselaer) to join them in a new super conference, the Super Eastern Hockey Association .

This action would lead to an interesting conversation between Toot Cahoon and old buddy Jack Parker.

 

[diddlypoo]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Regardless, what about the primary premise of Canada being a HUGE untapped Big Ten Network market for viewers with the potential of big recruiting opportunities is wrong?

The premise that there is a large untapped Canadian market is also flawed based on this data. I'll grant shirtless guys claim that 9M Canadian households have cable/satellite. 1) There is no requirement that it be included in virtually every household's subscription like in the big ten footprint. So interested Canadians would need to upgrade to a higher tier or buy a sports package. 2) Since all that the B10 cares about is marginal (additional) subscribers, you could rule out the current sports nuts who already have some upgraded package and focus on people actually interested in upgrading to get B10 hockey in their subscription. 3) Even if there were a large number of households willing to upgrade (*snicker*), the BTN only gets about .15 per subscriber per month outside of the big ten footprint. When you multiply marginal canadian suscribers by $1.80 per year, what do you get? You guessed it -- diddly. In an insanely optimistic scenario of 1M households adding the BTN to get 2 or 3 games a week for 2-3 months, that would add less than $2M to BTN's subscriber revenues. And of course, it wouldn't even be 10% of that number. This is a pimple on a gnat's ***.

 

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

This action would lead to an interesting conversation between Toot Cahoon and old buddy Jack Parker.

Jack: Toot! Poor me another drink!
Toot: Anything you say Jack. You're the best!

 

[jjmc85]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

It's been thrown around for fun a few times about BC and UConn being in the same conference. I guess they have to play in women's hockey and I was at a UConn-BC baseball game in '09. However, due to the aftermath of BC leaving the Big East, they don't play each other in basketball and football anymore. Are these the only sports this is true? Would the two schools be willing to work with each other in our imaginary just for fun world to form a super conference of the east?

Playing by the rules of the Original Poster for a second cause I'm bored, the West thing is a chain reaction from the Big 10 forming a conference. The only way I think we'd see something similar out East is if a BCS conference formed a Hockey League.

The Big East has Notre Dame, UConn and Providence. So I guess you'd have to have three Big East schools start programs. I like Hockey East as it is now and would be sad to see the Friars go, but I don't think Hockey East loses too much sleep over it, and this is no disrespect to Friar fans. I'd unfortunately be saying the same thing about UMass.

Either way, I don't see this having a huge radical change like the Big 10 did. Hockey East would add an ECAC school (Quinnipiac?), who in turn might add an AHA school (Holy Cross?). Hockey East is still at 10, ECAC still at 12, AHA down to 10, which is manageable.

The thing that would REALLY screw up the East is if the ACC formed a Hockey Conference. Then BC is gone without BU. In that situation, I could totally see BU going all North Dakota on the rest of Hockey East.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

The premise that there is a large untapped Canadian market is also flawed based on this data. I'll grant shirtless guys claim that 9M Canadian households have cable/satellite. 1) There is no requirement that it be included in virtually every household's subscription like in the big ten footprint. So interested Canadians would need to upgrade to a higher tier or buy a sports package. 2) Since all that the B10 cares about is marginal (additional) subscribers, you could rule out the current sports nuts who already have some upgraded package and focus on people actually interested in upgrading to get B10 hockey in their subscription. 3) Even if there were a large number of households willing to upgrade (*snicker*), the BTN only gets about .15 per subscriber per month outside of the big ten footprint. When you multiply marginal canadian suscribers by $1.80 per year, what do you get? You guessed it -- diddly. In an insanely optimistic scenario of 1M households adding the BTN to get 2 or 3 games a week for 2-3 months, that would add less than $2M to BTN's subscriber revenues. And of course, it wouldn't even be 10% of that number. This is a pimple on a gnat's ***.

You make it sound like today's American TV audience for college hockey is huge. Its tiny.

Canada adds another half again the size of the population of the midwest. And if the BTNs history is any guide, there will be increases in Canadian access, subscribers and fees. Net message, Canada, which has the most hockey rabid fanbase in the world, doesn't need to bring in huge numbers to drive college hockey viewership significantly.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

You make it sound like today's American TV audience for college hockey is huge. Its tiny.

Canada adds another half again the size of the population of the midwest. And if the BTNs history is any guide, there will be increases in Canadian access, subscribers and fees. Net message, Canada, which has the most hockey rabid fanbase in the world, doesn't need to bring in huge numbers to drive college hockey viewership significantly.

The problem is that Canadian hockey fans already have tons of options for hockey on a friday/saturday night...If the Big Ten had done this during the lockout, we'd be talking about this differently...but even then Canada still has Major Juniors and Juniors to watch...

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

It's been thrown around for fun a few times about BC and UConn being in the same conference. I guess they have to play in women's hockey and I was at a UConn-BC baseball game in '09. However, due to the aftermath of BC leaving the Big East, they don't play each other in basketball and football anymore. Are these the only sports this is true? Would the two schools be willing to work with each other in our imaginary just for fun world to form a super conference of the east?

Pretty much just football and hoops. They played in the last two seasons in baseball, soccer, and field hockey, and that's what I checked in a matter of minutes.

 

[sideshowbob]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Pretty much just football and hoops. They played in the last two seasons in baseball, soccer, and field hockey, and that's what I checked in a matter of minutes.

And BC and UConn never used to play in football anyway since UConn was in 1-AA and BC was 1-A. They only overlapped in the Big East for football for 1 season IIRC.

 

[Pump It Up]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Long Story Short: I don't think BC/BU/UNH/Maine/anyone will decide to go all North Dakota on the rest of the league.

I'm going to start using the phrase "go all North Dakota" regularly.

"Where's Dave? He said he'd come out and watch the game this time. Don't tell me he's going to go all North Dakota on us again."

 

[Rover]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

The only thing I can see upsetting the apple cart in Hockey East is Notre Dame. Say they pitch a new conference to the stronger HE teams (BC, BU, UNH, Vermont, etc). Do those schools say "No" because they'd rather stick with Merrimac, Northeastern, UMass Lowell and Providence? I think that would be tough to turn down. Excepting that scenario though, I'd expect HE to remain untouched regardless of what else is happening.

 

[Eph72]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

This is a pimple on a gnat's ***.

I am not very knowledgeable about the specific economics of cable sports or of the BTN, but I kinda think its (alot) more than a pimple.

For one, I think you are ignoring the impact of advertising revenue, in addition to subscription revenue. I don't know how many hockey games will be broadcast on the BTN, but it will have to be at least as many as were broadcast on the various local and regional channels last year. Given the much larger subscriber base of the BTN, and the potential expansion of the BTN beyond 70M households, with or without Canada, I suspect you are looking at substantially greater viewership and thus substantially greater advertising revenue for the BTN and thus for the six teams. And that's just in year one. Imagine if the BTN actually puts some marketing muscle behind its Gopher - Badger and Spartan- Wolverine hockey matchups. It won't take much for that revenue to trickle down in the form of marginally enhanced facilities, more competitive recruiting, additional scholarship money, and higher coach's pay --that will eventually find its way into the team's W-L records.

I think all of this is pretty likely. What's perhaps not "likely" but "fun" to speculate about, is whether the two new western superconferences will be so successful both in increasing revenue and as a result on the ice, that the competitive balance is broken and the top eastern teams have to respond. That's the question, but I don't think anybody on this board has the answer. Putting your head in the sand and saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it" isn't the answer. Universities today are desperate for revenue and nothing "aint broke". If there is a way to make more money on college hockey, they will have to look at it.

And "humorous" comments suggesting that I am on acid because I am speculating out loud about what is undoubtedly being discussed behind closed doors are 1) actually not very funny (to me, anyway) and 2) not very thoughtful, since one thing is for absolutely sure: at the end of the day no college president, and no AD, and no head coach gives a flying fleep what you think about your favorite team or favorite conference if he can add meaningful revenue and win more games. Just ask the Bemidji, Minn State and St Cloud fans.

 

[diddlypoo]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

You make it sound like today's American TV audience for college hockey is huge. Its tiny.

Yes, I know its tiny. That's why this whole notion of the BTN printing money with college hockey is a complete myth.

Back to the original point: The bottom line is that college hockey will need to create added subscriptions in Canada for it to be valuable to the BTN, and a Friday, Monday and maybe Wednesday game each week for two and a half months in a country with other hockey viewing options ain't going to do it. This kool-aid is so foul, I can't believe anyone is drinking it.

 

[Yuppie Scum]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

I don't see what BC/BU get from leaving HEA. Having some small fish in their pond is good for them (often better for the records), and having some big fish in their pond is good for Mack, PC, and Lowell. Not to mention the travel boondoggle. You westerner types probably just don't have a context as to how awesome it is to be within an hour's drive of three quarters of the conference.

The only thing that would really change this would be if the TV revenues/deals improve by a vast margin. We're not there yet, maybe after 5 years of Big10 play, which I do 100% think will grow the sport, but not yet.

 

[Carmine Scarpaglia]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Yes, I know its tiny. That's why this whole notion of the BTN printing money with college hockey is a complete myth.

Back to the original point: The bottom line is that college hockey will need to create added subscriptions in Canada for it to be valuable to the BTN, and a Friday, Monday and maybe Wednesday game each week for two and a half months in a country with other hockey viewing options ain't going to do it. This kool-aid is so foul, I can't believe anyone is drinking it.

100% true.

 

[jjmc85]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

I'm going to start using the phrase "go all North Dakota" regularly.

"Where's Dave? He said he'd come out and watch the game this time. Don't tell me he's going to go all North Dakota on us again."

Remember who coined that.

 

[Rover]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

I'm not sure why the concept of TV exposure/revenues drives such strong reactions out of people. I'm not sure anybody thinks college hockey is going to become like hoops, where the big schools no longer need fans because of their TV revenues. However, I don't get the people who think nobody is watching the sport. On my Verizon cable, which isn't the most expensive package, I can find college hockey on at least half a dozen channels over the weekend, be it NESN, local channels, Fox sports, Big 10 network, etc etc. Since the broadcast industry most likely isn't interested in doing charity work, somebody has to be making it worth their while. If it was only the local station in Caribou, Maine showing the Black Bears, that's one thing. But if you can see games from around the country without the top of the line premium channel selection or a satellite dish for your cable feed, that tells me there's some market out there.

 

[Rhett]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

I think you and Gentry need to chill out. Its an interesting and well thought out proposal by EPH

That's the thing: many of the changes suggested aren't well thought out. It's overly simplistic, with the schools that he found difficult to fit with the thrust of his vision hamhandedly shoved into places that everyone familiar with the affected programs know they would not likely end up in any scenario. It's also not very interesting... it's a repetitive "newbie" thread that almost always winds up being counterproductive to rational discourse, so a particularly amaturish version of the thread during a time of high tension seemed like a terrible idea. The fact that this thread hasn't fully disintegrated is more to the credit of the people who read the boards in mid-summer than it is to the original premise of the thread as posited by its creator.

 

[Eph72]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

That's the thing:
(1) many of the changes suggested aren't well thought out.
(2) It's overly simplistic, with the schools that he found difficult to fit with the thrust of his vision hamhandedly shoved into places that everyone familiar with the affected programs know they would not likely end up in any scenario.
(3) It's also not very interesting...
(4) it's a repetitive "newbie" thread
(5) that almost always winds up being counterproductive to rational discourse,
(6) so a particularly amaturish version of the thread during a time of high tension seemed like a terrible idea.
(7)The fact that this thread hasn't fully disintegrated is more to the credit of the people who read the boards in mid-summer than it is to the original premise of the thread as posited by its creator.

Hey Rhett, with all due respect:

(1) The changes suggested in my first post aren't predictions set in stone. They aren't even predictions. They are just a reflection of one random way the dominos could continue to fall that are about as predictable as what has already happened. I guess I would have to say-- relax and lighten up. Obviously nobody knew what would happen when Terry Pegula announced his gift and, frankly, NOBODY on this board knows what will happen as the consequences continue to unfold. The purpose of the "predictions" was simply to stimulate a discussion of all of the issues that may come into play and drive change, maybe for worse, but probably for the better, in college hockey.

(2) How can you say "everyone familiar with the affected programs know they would not likely end up" where I "imagined" they might end up. Like you knew a year ago that there would be a Big 10 league, or that Minnesota and North Dakota would be in separate leagues or that Miami and Denver would be in the same league. Or that Northern Michigan would end up in the WCHA. Right, and you know where Notre Dame is going or how many times ADs in Hockey East schools have talked to NESN or CBS or Fox or Versus or even ESPN about a new tv package.

(3) Yeah, its not very interesting. That's why the thread has 2,000 views in two days. And why you keep coming back.

(4) I'm not exactly a newbie. I've been around here as long as you have. I just haven't posted a bazillion times. Not sure what's "repetitive" about this thread. I've been talking about realignment for two days. You've been talking about it for five months. Last March you considered whether UConn or Syracuse might join HE...Not ok to discuss today?

(5) Question: Is anything that questions the viability of Hockey East as we know it "counterproductive to rational discourse"?

(6) Spelling could be improved...High tension? Like Rover said, Chill.

(7) The fact that this thread hasn't disintegrated is probably a testament to the fact that this is a particularly interesting time in college hockey and there are a lot of ways things could unfold. Its "fun" to talk about. At least I think so.

 

[Rhett]

Re: Imagining League Realignment

Hey Rhett, with all due respect:

(1) The changes suggested in my first post aren't predictions set in stone. They aren't even predictions. They are just a reflection of one random way the dominos could continue to fall that are about as predictable as what has already happened. I guess I would have to say-- relax and lighten up. Obviously nobody knew what would happen when Terry Pegula announced his gift and, frankly, NOBODY on this board knows what will happen as the consequences continue to unfold. The purpose of the "predictions" was simply to stimulate a discussion of all of the issues that may come into play and drive change, maybe for worse, but probably for the better, in college hockey.

What you did in the East was a hodgepodge. The Yankee Conference was you just shoveling the teams you didn't know what to do with into a conference.

When people do the whole "I'll just realign the whole hockey universe" nonsense, it's usually about 2 good ideas that affect a couple dozen schools, then just putting the rest of the teams wherever haphazardly. That's great, except those names represent actual teams, fanbases, markets that haven't fully been considered. If you have an idea for a conference or a realignment choice that you've thought out and makes sense, present it. The weak shuffling at the periphery of your idea detracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

(2) How can you say "everyone familiar with the affected programs know they would not likely end up" where I "imagined" they might end up. Like you knew a year ago that there would be a Big 10 league, or that Minnesota and North Dakota would be in separate leagues or that Miami and Denver would be in the same league. Or that Northern Michigan would end up in the WCHA. Right, and you know where Notre Dame is going or how many times ADs in Hockey East schools have talked to NESN or CBS or Fox or Versus or even ESPN about a new tv package.

Nice strawman argument. Explain the Yankee Conference.

(3) Yeah, its not very interesting. That's why the thread has 2,000 views in two days. And why you keep coming back.

Your overall concept was not interesting, some of the responses are interesting. Some of the earlier interesting posts were the one's that attacked your first post and some of the more recent interesting posts are complete tangents from your original concept. Do not flatter yourself with the view count.

(4) I'm not exactly a newbie. I've been around here as long as you have. I just haven't posted a bazillion times. Not sure what's "repetitive" about this thread. I've been talking about realignment for two days. You've been talking about it for five months. Last March you considered whether UConn or Syracuse might join HE...Not ok to discuss today?.

I didn't call you a newbie. Read my post again.

Interesting that you didn't link to that March post of mine. That's weird... it looks like you've got me there... let's just pull that one up: http://board.uscho.com/showthread.p...e-Off-Season&p=5107574&highlight=#post5107574

Ouch. Now I know why you just mentioned it out of context... a post with me mentioning the potential unintended consequences of a conference television deal back in March. ****ing evidence.

(5) Question: Is anything that questions the viability of Hockey East as we know it "counterproductive to rational discourse"?

No.

(6) Spelling could be improved...High tension? Like Rover said, Chill.

Look it up. I can wait.

(7) The fact that this thread hasn't disintegrated is probably a testament to the fact that this is a particularly interesting time in college hockey and there are a lot of ways things could unfold. Its "fun" to talk about. At least I think so.

I placed credit exactly where it was deserved.