The New WCHA (2013-14)

[Almington]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Not if the Alaska games are exempt.

I still think that the "value" of the exemption to the schools that remain in the WCHA is significantly overestimated.

 

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Not if the Alaska games are exempt.

We talk about this a lot, and it's an important point of course, but it's not as if there are a lot of teams out there with openings on their schedule. Back in 2010-11 when UAH was (relatively) hurting for games, I sat down and looked to see who could play UAH in a series given the weekends that were open. I found two schools, and one of them was a school that was already playing us. It's not as if I was looking for a game in February, either. Just because you get two games with an Alaska trip doesn't mean that the hockey gods open up the skies and rain down a game upon your fertile ground.

GFM

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

We talk about this a lot, and it's an important point of course, but it's not as if there are a lot of teams out there with openings on their schedule. Back in 2010-11 when UAH was (relatively) hurting for games, I sat down and looked to see who could play UAH in a series given the weekends that were open. I found two schools, and one of them was a school that was already playing us. It's not as if I was looking for a game in February, either. Just because you get two games with an Alaska trip doesn't mean that the hockey gods open up the skies and rain down a game upon your fertile ground.

GFM

Your anecdote doesn't apply. Looking at open dates today on a calendar that is made up yesterday means nothing. I'm sure you just offered it as an example. Q and A follows:

Every team has ooc games to get to 34? Yes?
Do lots of schools HAVE to play some percentage of those ooc games on the road? Yes.
Will having exemptions help those schools play more ooc games at home? Yes.
Is there anything stopping conference members from playing ooc games against other conference members? No.

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

I still think that the "value" of the exemption to the schools that remain in the WCHA is significantly overestimated.

Actually that value is even greater now, with a few schools making two trips. That will allow more non conference games, meaning you can generate more revenue by playing at home, or take "money" games. With the loss of Final Five revenue by the old WCHA school, any opportunity to generate more revenue is critical.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Actually that value is even greater now, with a few schools making two trips. That will allow more non conference games, meaning you can generate more revenue by playing at home, or take "money" games. With the loss of Final Five revenue by the old WCHA school, any opportunity to generate more revenue is critical.

Agreed. Also, if you look at how the CCHA playoffs went, I'd bet they made no money on the playoffs and might have lost quite a bit, whereas the WCHA teams were making money. So if it can be structured now such that league games make a little more and if the playoffs can be cash flow positive rather than negative, then we should be ok. I just can't see how the league can commit to anything right now that is a big loser. So going to the JLA for the playoffs seems kind of nuts to me.

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

Agreed. Also, if you look at how the CCHA playoffs went, I'd bet they made no money on the playoffs and might have lost quite a bit, whereas the WCHA teams were making money. So if it can be structured now such that league games make a little more and if the playoffs can be cash flow positive rather than negative, then we should be ok. I just can't see how the league can commit to anything right now that is a big loser. So going to the JLA for the playoffs seems kind of nuts to me.

It won't be too much of a change for BSU as they had to forfeit their share of the WCHA Playoff Revenues as part of their admit agreement. Convienent how that agreement runs out right at the time the other teams bolt........

 

[stuckinwi]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

It won't be too much of a change for BSU as they had to forfeit their share of the WCHA Playoff Revenues as part of their admit agreement. Convienent how that agreement runs out right at the time the other teams bolt........

It's almost if you are insinuating backhanded d-baggery by them... Odd.

 

[moose97]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

I still think that the "value" of the exemption to the schools that remain in the WCHA is significantly overestimated.

Actually that value is even greater now, with a few schools making two trips. That will allow more non conference games, meaning you can generate more revenue by playing at home, or take "money" games. With the loss of Final Five revenue by the old WCHA school, any opportunity to generate more revenue is critical.

Well, let's look at BSU - an "average" WCHA team. They will have had 3 seasons in the WCHA by the time of all this upheaval. Compare OOC games year to year:

'10-'11 - 2 home (vs. NMU), 4 road (@ Mariucci Classic, @ UAH)
'11-'12 - 4 home (vs. UAH, vs. BGSU), 4 road (@ Miami, @ LSSU) - Alaska exemption year
'12-'13 - 4 home (vs. LSSU, vs. WMU), 2 road (Dartmouth Tourney)

Compare to, say, UMinn:

'09-'10 - 6 home (vs. BSU, Mariucci Classic, vs. Harvard), 2 road (College Hockey Showcase) - Alaska exemption year
'10-'11 - 6 home (vs. UMass, College Hockey Showcase, Mariucci Classic), 0 road
'11-'12 - 6 home (vs. Sacred Heart, vs. Vermont, Mariucci Classic), 2 road (@ Mich State) - Alaska exemption year
'12-'13 * - 6 home (Mich State, Mariucci Classic, Notre Dame), 2 road (@ Vermont) - Alaska exemption year **

So, to the "average" team, it's not that big a deal. For the Minnesota's of the world (with their huge $$$ made at home games), it's a BIG deal, allowing them to maintain their 6 home OOC games, while hitting the road for their "required" CHS games in the past.


* rumored schedule
** funny how UMinn gets the Alaska exemption almost every year, no?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Well, let's look at BSU - an "average" WCHA team. They will have had 3 seasons in the WCHA by the time of all this upheaval. Compare OOC games year to year:

'10-'11 - 2 home (vs. NMU), 4 road (@ Mariucci Classic, @ UAH)
'11-'12 - 4 home (vs. UAH, vs. BGSU), 4 road (@ Miami, @ LSSU) - Alaska exemption year
'12-'13 - 4 home (vs. LSSU, vs. WMU), 2 road (Dartmouth Tourney)

Compare to, say, UMinn:

'09-'10 - 6 home (vs. BSU, Mariucci Classic, vs. Harvard), 2 road (College Hockey Showcase) - Alaska exemption year
'10-'11 - 6 home (vs. UMass, College Hockey Showcase, Mariucci Classic), 0 road
'11-'12 - 6 home (vs. Sacred Heart, vs. Vermont, Mariucci Classic), 2 road (@ Mich State) - Alaska exemption year
'12-'13 * - 6 home (Mich State, Mariucci Classic, Notre Dame), 2 road (@ Vermont) - Alaska exemption year **

So, to the "average" team, it's not that big a deal. For the Minnesota's of the world (with their huge $$$ made at home games), it's a BIG deal, allowing them to maintain their 6 home OOC games, while hitting the road for their "required" CHS games in the past.


* rumored schedule
** funny how UMinn gets the Alaska exemption almost every year, no?

in the current system, you should get it every other year plus one more in 6 years for a total of 4 in 6...

 

[moose97]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

in the current system, you should get it every other year plus one more in 6 years for a total of 4 in 6...

Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...

 

[manurespreader]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...

So am I to take from this that the DQ cup is like an away game revenue wise, or will BSU get to share revenue?
And second lets assume that 70% of the time you get either two home games, ( vs Mercyhurst for instance) or two games with a payoff vs a Big ten team. I assume you make more money at home but for the average team I'd guess they make more money at the big ten.

 

[Almington]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Well, sure, but as noted by my BSU example, it's all about getting those "extra" games at home. BSU had 4 home OOC games with the exemption, and has ... 4 without it. In the nWCHA, will they be able to get 6 OOC home games 4 out of 6 years? And if they do, will those 3 opponents be UMinn, UMD and UND (with the DQ Cup on the road)? Maybe, but doubtful (at least all of them at home is doubtful). A more realistic possibility is UND home & home, UMD home & home (which may be optimistic with the DQ cup), DQ cup and maybe get say, Mercyhurst (just to throw a random team out there). Compared to those two years with no exemption, when the schedule doesn't let them bring in (insert random no-name team), is the Alaska exemption a huge deal to BSU? Eh, maybe...

If you assume in the future that having the AK exemption(s) will allow WCHA teams to schedule another home-and-home non-conference agreement. That means that teams will average one additional home game per season (worth about 20k-80k in revenue depending on the school) that needs to be balanced by the difference between the non-subsidized costs of the AK trip and a typical road series each year, plus the cost of having to make the return NC trip every other year. If you assume that with the subsidy a trip to AK is no more expensive than any typical road trip, and running the arena costs about $5k per series the real question is how much will the road trip cost? Maybe $10k between lodging, food, and transportation (so $5k/year). If a school gets 3,000 fans at $20 each, after expenses the AK exemption is worth about $50k per year. While important and valuable to the schools, it isn't the ~$500k to $750k that the exemption is worth to UW, UND, or UMN. So, a team making 2 trips to AK might clear an additional $100k or so to help cover other expenses, while that money will help balance the books it is far from a massive windfall that will make all the schools automatically profitable.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

So, a team making 2 trips to AK might clear an additional $100k or so to help cover other expenses, while that money will help balance the books it is far from a massive windfall that will make all the schools automatically profitable.

Which happens to be about the same amount (maybe more) as the Final Five check that every WCHA non-big 10 school's AD has embraced and promoted as very important to their program. So then yeah ... the Alaska exemptions are overvalued in exactly the same way as Final Five revenue. Right?

 

[Freddie]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.

You are mistaken.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

If I'm not mistaken, the Alaska exemption only applies to ONE trip per season.

you missed one important part, it's per team. So you can make a trip to see Uaa and uaf.

 

[Almington]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Which happens to be about the same amount (maybe more) as the Final Five check that every WCHA non-big 10 school's AD has embraced and promoted as very important to their program. So then yeah ... the Alaska exemptions are overvalued in exactly the same way as Final Five revenue. Right?

$100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.

The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

$100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.

The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.

Who has $2-2.5 million in their budget? Only one new WCHA school spent over $2m in 2010 (UAF). Six of the nine schools had budgets of less than $1.5 million, with the average for the conference at around $1.4 million.
?

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

$100k in a $2.0 to 2.5 million dollar budget is 5% or less than the total budget. Important yes but it is also not as consistent as the WCHA playoff disbursement from year to year.

The value is also going to fluctuate on a school-by-school basis if the assumptions that would even hold: Ticket prices of $15 and attendance of 2500/game would yield $25k/game after expenses. If the trip to AK costs $5k more than a standard roadtrip (because of the duration) even after a travel subsidy, you are down to $20k per game.

This is a ridiculous minimum. Suggesting numbers that low is disingenuous. First of all ... excluding UAA and UAF -- the average number of seats for the remaining 6 schools is 4668. Your method of suggesting revenue is flawed as well. The only reasonable thing to do is talk about the potential additional revenue. So on average with $20 tickets there is a potential for 150K+ additional revenue if the member school is able to find a way to maximize it. They have opportunities to be creative.

The issue is that the teams that will remain in the WCHA will have lower attendance and ticket prices than the teams in the B10 or NCHC and that will limit the value of the exemption compared to what those schools could bring in with 2 or 3 times the attendance at up to 2x the ticket prices for home games.

The issue here is you in your Big 10 bubble. I'm pretty sure there are times in the past when Wisconsin didn't even use it's exempt games. An athletic department that dwarfs nearly all other NCAA schools in terms of the revenue it generates can afford to think lightly of the exemptions. Just as you do.

 

[Almington]

Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Who has $2-2.5 million in their budget? Only one new WCHA school spent over $2m in 2010 (UAF). Six of the nine schools had budgets of less than $1.5 million, with the average for the conference at around $1.4 million.
?

My mistake, I used the average for the current WCHA.