What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

>>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

MattS said:
My issue with this scheduling is that if RIT is going to have both a men’s and women’s DI hockey team then they should both be treated like it with equal status. Whether it was intentional or not, scheduling the men’s game at the BCA and the women’s at Ritter is unequal and smacks of sexism. In this specific case, money should not be the defining issue, nor should the timing of the game. As for the issue with attendance, yes most likely the women’s game will have much less, but the obligation is on RIT to promote that game and do everything they can to make is as positive an experience for those young women and their fans at the BCA. RIT for whatever reason has elected to not do that and I think it is wrong.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true Socialist. The current U.S. administration would be proud.

Since when is anyone entitled to everything being "equal"? And how does one define "equal", anyways?
How is a Women's showcase game being played in front of a much larger crowd than normal during homecoming at their home arena such a bad experience when compared with schlepping the entire team and a few hundred fans all the way across town to play in a cavernous (relatively speaking) arena that is not their Home (not to mention spending a bunch of money to the operators of BCA to do so)?
If the Men's team were still D-III and consequently had no shot in the world of drawing more than a couple thousand (at best) fans, they would also have a hard time having a game scheduled for the BCA. It just wouldn't be worth it.
The Men's team has vastly more appeal than the Women's team (like it or not, but it is and will be that way for the foreseeable future), and has earned the position that their spotlight game MUST be held in a much larger venue than Ritter. The Women's team just simply isn't in that position.
It's not a matter of not being treated "equally" or one team being slighted in favor of another as much as a response to what the market will bear. If there were a 10,000+ seat venue on campus, the Men would be playing there during HOMECOMING rather than in downtown Rochester. Since the Women's crowd for this weekend will more than likely fit well inside Ritter, that is the best venue for their showcase.
Trust me... Both teams will have the maximum "positive experience" on Brick City Homecoming Weekend that they can reasonably have.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

mar7967 said:
Two other links I stumbled upon today. Ticket Pricing has been posted. https://www.rithockey.com/ under tickets
On Sale August 12th.

I don't remember pricing from last year, but this seems slightly more expensive. As far as season tix go, there is a package for Ritter Only and Full Schedule (which includes Homecoming and Frontier Field).
Click to expand...

It's significantly more expensive, actually. My seats will be going up by $28 (20.7%) if I use the Ritter only package. And that doesn't include the BCA game, which the package did include last year. So it's actually more than that (25% or so?). Yikes.
Kind of a large price increase for a team that struggled and underachieved last season.
I would have thought they would save the big price increases until the 2014-15 season in the new arena. Then again, maybe they're trying to pre-emptively dampen the sticker shock when we see how expensive the tickets will be in there as compared to the relatively low prices we've paid in Ritter for so many years.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

Yep. Next year prices won't be "so bad" if you don't compare them to 2012. Sneaky sneaky.

TigerFan86-87 said:
Then again, maybe they're trying to pre-emptively dampen the sticker shock when we see how expensive the tickets will be in there as compared to the relatively low prices we've paid in Ritter for so many years.
Click to expand...
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

TigerFan86-87 said:
Spoken like a true Socialist. The current U.S. administration would be proud.

Since when is anyone entitled to everything being "equal"? And how does one define "equal", anyways?
How is a Women's showcase game being played in front of a much larger crowd than normal during homecoming at their home arena such a bad experience when compared with schlepping the entire team and a few hundred fans all the way across town to play in a cavernous (relatively speaking) arena that is not their Home (not to mention spending a bunch of money to the operators of BCA to do so)?
If the Men's team were still D-III and consequently had no shot in the world of drawing more than a couple thousand (at best) fans, they would also have a hard time having a game scheduled for the BCA. It just wouldn't be worth it.
The Men's team has vastly more appeal than the Women's team (like it or not, but it is and will be that way for the foreseeable future), and has earned the position that their spotlight game MUST be held in a much larger venue than Ritter. The Women's team just simply isn't in that position.
It's not a matter of not being treated "equally" or one team being slighted in favor of another as much as a response to what the market will bear. If there were a 10,000+ seat venue on campus, the Men would be playing there during HOMECOMING rather than in downtown Rochester. Since the Women's crowd for this weekend will more than likely fit well inside Ritter, that is the best venue for their showcase.
Trust me... Both teams will have the maximum "positive experience" on Brick City Homecoming Weekend that they can reasonably have.
Click to expand...

I would much rather be a socialist (by your definition) than a sexist like yourself. (Remember you started the name calling). This should not be a question of economics. All of you who keep arguing that would are still in the midset that women's sports do not deserve to be treated as equals because they don't generate as much money are so uneducated in this area that I am shocked. THIS IS NOT PROFESSIONAL SPORTS!!! If it was then I would most certainly agree with you. But it is not.

I agree with all of your arguments about if the new arena was already built and then no game would probably be played at the BCA. But that is not where we are today.

I'm not arguing about appeal of the programs, the Men's team has more public attention and a greater following. I am arguing about being treated equally, and with the same opportunity and how in this instance I believe RIT is failing.

So, since everything seems to come down to economics with some of you, let me ask you this. When the new arena is built do the women play there or in Ritter? Since, they women's team will most likely draw much less than the men, and not need the seating of the new arena, why not make them play in Ritter. It's smaller and would concievably cost less to run. Plus wouldn't the fans and players love being more cozy? See how ridiculous that sounds? Much like the crowd and BCA arguments sound to me.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

MattS said:
I agree with all of your arguments about if the new arena was already built and then no game would probably be played at the BCA. But that is not where we are today.
Click to expand...

There will still be a BCA homecoming game for the Mens team. RIT isn't going to turn away ~6k fans just because the Polloseum is ready.
MattS said:
I'm not arguing about appeal of the programs, the Men's team has more public attention and a greater following. I am arguing about being treated equally, and with the same opportunity and how in this instance I believe RIT is failing.
Click to expand...

This is about equal opportunity, not equal achievements. The men's program earned a 10k seat arena, the women's team has not yet. This is easily reflected in attendance, but both the men's and women's team started with the same opportunities.

MattS said:
So, since everything seems to come down to economics with some of you, let me ask you this. When the new arena is built do the women play there or in Ritter? Since, they women's team will most likely draw much less than the men, and not need the seating of the new arena, why not make them play in Ritter. It's smaller and would conceivably cost less to run. Plus wouldn't the fans and players love being more cozy? See how ridiculous that sounds? Much like the crowd and BCA arguments sound to me.
Click to expand...

Once The Polli is done, that cost is sunk. You'll still need to pay someone to cut the ice and have people on staff, regardless of which venue they choose. In fact, considering how old the equipment is in Ritter, you could probably argue it costs less to maintain the Polli's sheet. It sure would be a worse atmosphere though.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

MattS said:
Quote Originally Posted by blazer777 View Post

In a perfect world, both games would sell out, there'd be a massive block party downtown between games and everybody could take an elevated train back to Henrietta or parts south and sleep the day off but I think you have the following factors working against you....
Renting out the BCA vs Attendance. No idea of the cost for it and sure, the school should eat it but it is a business after all.
What do you do for the people hanging out downtown between games for 2.5 hours. Remember that for most, this is their first time in the downtown area.
Going to the first game vs the other on-campus events that are more closely matched to the student's \ parent's interest.
I hope they market the hell out of the women's game and see no reason why it shouldn't sell out.



These are all weak excuses in my mind. Does it really cost that much more to host a second game on the same day?
Click to expand...

Why yes, it does! Here are your cost:

Ice Time - I looked at Roger's Arena and if you wanted 2 hours of ice time for you and 29 of your closest hockey buddies, that will cost you 3,500 dollars. You can also have up
to 60 spectators but this doesn't include REF's or Officials. One would imagine the cost goes up for 1,000 + spectators which is what showed up last year as you'd have to fully staff the arena. Those ushers are all former cops for the most part and don't come cheap. Then you have maintenance and other staff.

The Police - Yep, you'll need them too! In my podunk little town, each officer cost 52 dollars per hour, add 5 more to that if you want a police car to go with them. Oh by the way, there's a minimum involved so if you think you're getting off by just paying each for two hours, you're sadly mistaken.

Couple of Paramedics - Yeah, they will cost you some money too!

Transportation Cost - Renting those yellow school buses cost money.

Incidental "other" cost.


MattS said:
So what if it does. RIT should be in the business of education students and since athletics exist, creating a positive student experience through those athletics.
Click to expand...

Not sure how not playing in a packed Ritter reduces this while playing in front of a sparse crowd in large facility would?


MattS said:
The athlete’s gender should not come into play, and even more so at this specific event.
Click to expand...

The only thing that comes into play here is that the men's team has more fans attending their games than the women's team. The school is doing nothing to prevent fans from attending either teams games so your statement that this is somehow a sexist move on their part makes no sense. During the year, both teams have access to the same training facilities and play games in the same arena's. The way the men's team played last year versus how the woman's team did may change that but for now, the attendance figures prove this out. If there is sexism, then one can only point their finger at the general populace for the root cause.

MattS said:
My issue with this scheduling is that if RIT is going to have both a men’s and women’s DI hockey team then they should both be treated like it with equal status. Whether it was intentional or not, scheduling the men’s game at the BCA and the women’s at Ritter is unequal and smacks of sexism. In this specific case, money should not be the defining issue, nor should the timing of the game. As for the issue with attendance, yes most likely the women’s game will have much less, but the obligation is on RIT to promote that game and do everything they can to make is as positive an experience for those young women and their fans at the BCA. RIT for whatever reason has elected to not do that and I think it is wrong.
Click to expand...


The fact having the women will play at the Ritter makes financial sense (you're fooling yourself if you don't think there's a budget for Brick City and the financials of it don't come into play) but beyond that, it improves the playing environment by playing in front of a crowd that's size is better suited for the Ritter than it would be for the BCA.

The Brick City website doesn't have details for this year up but in past years, they have done a 'plain jane' job of listing the events that people can attend without giving much favoritism to one event over the other. Scheduling so many events over four days is always going to be a challenge and sure, they can do a better job of not scheduling two major events at the same time but this shows their trying to allow the crowds to attend as many events in the largest numbers possible.

If you think these are still just excuses for this move, feel free to 'lay some knowledge' on me but throw some facts in when you do.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

I for one am sick of you squabbling over the men vs women's teams. Make another thread for it, or take it somewhere else. Between the schedule, incoming class, and season ticket information being released there MUST be something else to talk about.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

How does the new recruit class look. Is this considered to be a strong group of incoming freshmen? Lots of players (8), are there any impact players? Any insights are appreciated.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

stanleycup said:
How does the new recruit class look. Is this considered to be a strong group of incoming freshmen? Lots of players (8), are there any impact players? Any insights are appreciated.
Click to expand...

I think the real standout from this class is Caleb Cameron. He scored 90 points in 48 games in the Juniors last year, was a first team all-star and also team Captain. In his three seasons there he had 189 points in 147 games, so he definitely looks like he might put up big numbers.

The rest of the forwards don't put up the same numbers, but there's a good combination of size, speed, and leadership experience so I think they will all be able to contribute.

Defensively we continue to get bigger, bringing in at east two guys at 6' or bigger. Fostvelt played with Kuqali who was one of our better D as a freshman last season, so the potential for them to have chemistry together and for Fostvelt to learn from his former teammate is really exciting. I could see that pairing putting up big numbers on the powerplay.

If last season is any indication, the new goalie won't get much ice time so we likely won't come to fully understand his abilities until next season. Last year, Maclean started one game and saw ice time in a handful of others. I've already documented my feelings on his junior league stats though..
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

Good to see everybody getting excited about the upcoming season, lots to talk about, I stopped by the new rink on Sunday morning (Fathers Day). While not much to see, (everything is fenced off) I did snap some crappy pictures. After RIT I stopped at RPI in Troy for lunch on my long ride home (no pictures of the HFH though ..lol)

https://plus.google.com/photos/1066...ms/5890617797825134097?authkey=CNeMpZGX0pnBCQ
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

RIT Winters said:
I for one am sick of you squabbling over the men vs women's teams. Make another thread for it, or take it somewhere else. Between the schedule, incoming class, and season ticket information being released there MUST be something else to talk about.
Click to expand...

Something that certain posters might not be considering is that perhaps the women's team actually prefers to play the game in question at Ritter as opposed to BCA. It is within the realm of possibility that the RIT athletic department offered playing the game at BCA and the team decided for any of a number of reasons to play it at Ritter.

So before folks go off calling RIT and each other names next time, perhaps it would be better to make a quick call to the powers that be at RIT and make some inquiries.
 
RIT Winters said:
I think the real standout from this class is Caleb Cameron. He scored 90 points in 48 games in the Juniors last year, was a first team all-star and also team Captain. In his three seasons there he had 189 points in 147 games, so he definitely looks like he might put up big numbers.

The rest of the forwards don't put up the same numbers, but there's a good combination of size, speed, and leadership experience so I think they will all be able to contribute.

Defensively we continue to get bigger, bringing in at east two guys at 6' or bigger. Fostvelt played with Kuqali who was one of our better D as a freshman last season, so the potential for them to have chemistry together and for Fostvelt to learn from his former teammate is really exciting. I could see that pairing putting up big numbers on the powerplay.

If last season is any indication, the new goalie won't get much ice time so we likely won't come to fully understand his abilities until next season. Last year, Maclean started one game and saw ice time in a handful of others. I've already documented my feelings on his junior league stats though..
Click to expand...

Except Cameron was in a lower tier league than everyone else and wasn't expected to come until next year originally and it's Holland not Fostvelt who played with Kuqali.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

Scott Biggar said:
Something that certain posters might not be considering is that perhaps the women's team actually prefers to play the game in question at Ritter as opposed to BCA. It is within the realm of possibility that the RIT athletic department offered playing the game at BCA and the team decided for any of a number of reasons to play it at Ritter.

So before folks go off calling RIT and each other names next time, perhaps it would be better to make a quick call to the powers that be at RIT and make some inquiries.
Click to expand...

Right, like anyone at RIT would give me the time of day on this subject.

If what you suggest is the case, then it would behoove the university to make that clear in their marketing so as not to appear sexist. (And note that I used the word "appear"; I did not say "RIT is sexist".)


Powers &8^]
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

Zyklon said:
Except Cameron was in a lower tier league than everyone else and wasn't expected to come until next year originally and it's Holland not Fostvelt who played with Kuqali.
Click to expand...

My bad on the names, must have tripped up paragraphs.

Granted it might be a lower league, but they are all still junior leagues, and I don't care where you play, putting up nearly 2 points per game is eye-popping. It's always possible his game doesn't transfer to college (looking at you Hamburg) but it's also possible he's a beast. That's part of what makes this so exciting.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers - 2013 Offseason: The Future Looks Bright <<<

MattS said:
I would much rather be a socialist (by your definition) than a sexist like yourself. (Remember you started the name calling).
Click to expand...
If you would like to consider a term implying an underlying socio-economic and political philosophy (one that is actually quite appropriate given your belief in "necessity of equal outcomes for all", btw) to be "name-calling", then so be it. If you consider the word socialist an insult of some kind, that's your choice. I disagree with socialism, but don't use it as an insult. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who take pride in considering themselves socialist that wouldn't find that insulting in any way. If you consider it so, then you must be a hard-line conservative capitalist that is a bit over-sensitive.
So your return volley of calling me a sexist is frankly offensive. Calling someone a sexist IS an insult and I would be personnally offended if it came from someone I actually know or give a **** about.
I'll just say that I have said nothing sexist in this discussion and do not intend to. You could theoretically remove the terms "Men's" and "Women's" from the conversation (let's call them Team R and Team T for all it matters) and my arguments would be identical.

MattS said:
This should not be a question of economics. All of you who keep arguing that would are still in the midset that women's sports do not deserve to be treated as equals because they don't generate as much money are so uneducated in this area that I am shocked. THIS IS NOT PROFESSIONAL SPORTS!!! If it was then I would most certainly agree with you. But it is not.
Click to expand...
You are correct that it is not completely a question of economics, but economics plays a role in such decisions whether we like it or not. It is more a question of support. The Men's team has enough to put a game in a 10,000+ seat arena. The Women's does not. If (and I don't know this) RIT athletics or Brick City has budget limitations for these events, and can only afford one game at BCA, who's going to get it?

MattS said:
I agree with all of your arguments about if the new arena was already built and then no game would probably be played at the BCA. But that is not where we are today.
Click to expand...
I never argued any such thing. The new arena will have nowhere near 10,000 seats in it.

MattS said:
I'm not arguing about appeal of the programs, the Men's team has more public attention and a greater following. I am arguing about being treated equally, and with the same opportunity and how in this instance I believe RIT is failing.
Click to expand...
You may not be arguing about appeal, but I am. It just isn't there for the Women's team. In an ideal world, if it were free to play there, the team/coaches wanted to, and access for the Women's team's fans was reasonable then there would be no reason not to play it there. But this isn't such an ideal world.


MattS said:
So, since everything seems to come down to economics with some of you, let me ask you this. When the new arena is built do the women play there or in Ritter? Since, they women's team will most likely draw much less than the men, and not need the seating of the new arena, why not make them play in Ritter. It's smaller and would concievably cost less to run. Plus wouldn't the fans and players love being more cozy? See how ridiculous that sounds? Much like the crowd and BCA arguments sound to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is ridiculous. What we're talking about is a one-time per season showcase game being played in a huge arena in a different town, not an entire season's worth of games being played in a reasonably larger arena that is being built to be "The Home" of both Men's and Women's hockey teams (how's that for your equality?).

So if you're all in favor of playing a Women's hockey game in BCA for equality's sake, then shouldn't the Soccer and Lacrosse teams play in Sahlen Stadium, the Baseball and Softball teams play in Frontier Field, the Basketball and Volleyball teams both also play in BCA, etc...? They are all also RIT athletic teams that have not been afforded the same opportunity to a "positive experience" as the Men's Hockey team. Why shouldn't they as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top