New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Why in the world is the WCHA losing that much money?

GFM

You have to wonder why they're spending so much. Is it all related to travel for the refs? It seems pretty silly that would be spending that much more than the NCHC, but then again...they have more teams, more games, more travel.

 

[Bale]

Why in the world is the WCHA losing that much money?

GFM

I guess I'm shocked that anyone really thought that wasnt the inevitable conclusion. Smallest schools, smallest fan bases, largest travel budgets, most proportionately affected programs in negative ways, and still has all of the largest infrastructure while losing big revenue while those that left got to wash their hands of it and add that to a a womend league that is going to lose money bease that's the nature of it.

Frankly, I would have been surprised if they got anywhere near breaking even.

 

[Bale]

I wonder if the WCHA should return to campus sites for all rounds (and make them best of 3!)?

Or go to a top seed hosts the frozen five format (yes, I understand that creates logistical issues).

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

I guess I'm shocked that anyone really thought that wasnt the inevitable conclusion. Smallest schools, smallest fan bases, largest travel budgets, most proportionately affected programs in negative ways, and still has all of the largest infrastructure while losing big revenue while those that left got to wash their hands of it and add that to a a womend league that is going to lose money bease that's the nature of it.

Frankly, I would have been surprised if they got anywhere near breaking even.

There is a huge difference between losing money and spending 180% of what the NCHC is...but when you factor in that the WCHA is including expenses/revenue from men and women, those numbers make more sense. I wish it was broken out to compare WCHA Men to NCHC but it isn't. I would have to assume most of the revenue is on the men's side and most of the losses are from the women's side. Yes the WCHA Men should have higher costs than the NCHC because of more travel, more games, etc, but you also have to realize that means they need to limit as much in other ways as possible. You can't blame $1 million of expenses on travel for refs. I'm sure they're also hurt by the higher cost/more difficult travel to their venues.

Also of note, I wonder how much of the first year includes expenses for getting all the rinks up to date on being able to broadcast games for WCHA.tv

 

[aparch]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Also of note, I wonder how much of the first year includes expenses for getting all the rinks up to date on being able to broadcast games for WCHA.tv

I thought those costs were borne by the Universities and not the WCHA? Wasn't WCHA.tv their "surprise windfall" thanks to the the demand and actual purchase/use by fans?


The women's side likely accounts for a good chunk of the red ink, but I would imagine that the playoff costs for that first season added up quickly also. And the rental cost of Van Andel and a fairly empty building didn't help the bottom line. Not sure how much in corporate assistance the WCHA had with the GRF5. Also as pointed out, this was the financials for the first season of the reshaped WCHA. Looking at the second year tax information would yield some better clues and trends to base off of. Not that the TCF5 produced better attendance, but returning to the WCHA's "home tourney rink" might have attracted some better corporate sponsorships/partnerships.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Looked back at the 2013-14 schedules for WCHA Men, WCHA Women and NCHC.

WCHA Men had 193 games they were responsible for whether at home or "home" tournaments (not including GLI since that always has refs from Michigan's conference).
WCHA Women had 161 games (not including the games played in Vail because I have no idea who paid for that stuff)
WCHA Total was 354 games vs $2.57 mil in expenses

NCHC hosted 165 games vs $1.43 mil in expenses

WCHA actually spent less per game than NCHC $7,260/gm vs $8,667/gm

 

[gfmorris]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

Looked back at the 2013-14 schedules for WCHA Men, WCHA Women and NCHC.

WCHA Men had 193 games they were responsible for whether at home or "home" tournaments (not including GLI since that always has refs from Michigan's conference).
WCHA Women had 161 games (not including the games played in Vail because I have no idea who paid for that stuff)
WCHA Total was 354 games vs $2.57 mil in expenses

NCHC hosted 165 games vs $1.43 mil in expenses

WCHA actually spent less per game than NCHC $7,260/gm vs $8,667/gm

Good job running the numbers as always, Shirtless.

GFM

 

[manurespreader]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

I'm pretty sure the first year at Van Andel lost a lot of money. I think last year was much closer to break even.
We'll see how this years' tournament goes. I've already got my tickets. I hope you do too.

 

[purpleinnebraska]

I'm pretty sure the first year at Van Andel lost a lot of money. I think last year was much closer to break even.
We'll see how this years' tournament goes. I've already got my tickets. I hope you do too.

It was a decent sized crowd last year, but my worry is that it was our best case scenario. MSU, the closest school to St. Paul, and ranked #1 in the country, taking on a top 5 Tech team that probably has the WCHA's best traveling fanbase. NoDak wasn't playing over at Target, and several of their fans wandered over to the X, perhaps instinctually, like swallows returning to Capistrano. I have a hard time seeing revenues increasing any time soon.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: New age restrictions for NCAA hockey

My attempted analysis of the data with respect to reasons the Big Ten and other coaches have given for the proposal.

http://techhockeyguide.com/news/2016/1/24/big-ten-proposal-reasoning-doesnt-hold-up