The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

[UpNorthHockey]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I doubt any team that is currently in the NCHC would willingly jump to the WCHA, cellar dweller or not. The league simply has better tourney revenue and a network contract. On the other hand, NCHC could pick up two new members easily. I could see them poaching BGSU and Mankato at some point, particularly if those teams continue to perform well and invest in their hockey programs. I think any other talk of realignment is far fetched. The WCHA is essentially a league of smaller, hard-travel schools that have less cash to invest in their facilities. Programs like Tech, Northern, Lake State, Bemidji, the Alaskas, UAH and Ferris all fit that bill. BGSU and Kato are programs on the rise that have started to spend more on hockey and are less geographically isolated. Of the remaining programs, Tech probably spends the most and is the strongest overall, but their location keeps them in the same boat with the other WCHA programs.

 

[Alaska Hockey]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Shouldn't you be out catching reds right now, anyway?

Later in the month I will travel down to the river to get my pickup load, but thanks for asking...

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

The way I understand the NCAA Rules committee, any conference that has no Division I members is not included in the committee. Since BG is the only D-1 school in the WCHA, the league loses its seat if they exit and are not replaced with another D-1. That would be a bad situation.

dear rest of the WCHA,

You're welcome!
respectfully, the BGSU Falcons

 

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

St. Cloud flat out said "No"... SCSU changed their tune
There would be no second auto-bid for each East and West winner of a divided WCHA.

SCSU never turned down the NCHC - they just were not invited at first. Thus their "we fit best in the WCHA" position with fans... right up until they got the invite as a last ditch effort to fill out the NCHC. Then they couldn't distance themselves from the WCHA fast enough and began to sing the praises of the NCHC and how it would build their brand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the Alaskas just went a fairly long time in different conferences, I don't think there's a massive desire from the Alaskas to be in the same division. Couldn't you also separate the Alaskas, but guarantee they get 2 series with each other, with the rest of the WCHA getting 2 cross-over series to balance it out?

I'm sure both AK schools would much rather be in the same conference than seperated. The only reason they stayed apart for so long was becuase no conference wanted both of them. The WCHA ended up with both teams out of necessity and lack of other options. I think it is good for the programs to stay together much like any other pair of teams located close together. However I'm sure if Georgia suddenly had a D-I hockey team, a Western conference would likely not want UAH and another Southern team for the same reason that UAF and UAA were kept apart for so many years.
MTU and NMU are a good example that even if you are not in the same conference, you can still use your non-confernece games to keep up the rivals as was done when the two programs were split between the WCHA and CCHA.
Ryan J

 

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Southern college hockey, outside of Huntsville, won't happen for another generation.

GFM

 

[Alaska Hockey]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

SCSU never turned down the NCHC - they just were not invited at first. Thus their "we fit best in the WCHA" position with fans... right up until they got the invite as a last ditch effort to fill out the NCHC. Then they couldn't distance themselves from the WCHA fast enough and began to sing the praises of the NCHC and how it would build their brand.

Ryan J

How soon they forget........ Like about a week after they accepted.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

St. Cloud flat out said "No" because they were convinced (rightly) that the NCHC was just built upon the fantasy profits those schools felt that UAA and MTU were leeching off of the WCHA. It wasn't until the NCHC wanted to upgrade to the Super 8 Hotel League by bringing Notre Dame and their NBC television contract to the league that SCSU changed their tune (the alumni fanbase was in full Jan Brady "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!" mode wanting to "improve" their league standing

And it left St. Cloud State with a choice — stay with the WCHA and salvage the 50-year-old hockey conference or try to get the NCHC to ask it to the dance.

St. Cloud State officials publicly did the former, saying it was taking a leadership role in securing the long-term future of the WCHA. At one point, President Earl H. Potter III even said that St. Cloud State wouldn’t accept an invitation to the NCHC.

But emails to and from Potter and other key Husky hockey people show a different strategy was unfolding behind the scenes. The university was using back channels to sell itself to the NCHC, with the hope of one day getting an invitation to what NCHC organizers had dubbed the “Super Conference.”

http://archive.sctimes.com/article/20111204/NEWS01/112040001/Emails-detail-SCSU-hockey-shake-up

 

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

The 2014-15 WCHA season will look a lot like the 2013-14 season: http://mankatofreepresshockey.blogspot.com

I don't expect that WCHA season pass on AmericaONE to change any price-wise. Maybe they'll bring it down with the idea of picking up more subscribers, but I think that they're just going to push it more since the market is there. I just hope that UAH's coverage improves this season. What we gave y'all last year wasn't good.

GFM

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I didn't have a problem with America One's stream last year, I just hope I can patch it through to my new TV this fall.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

The WCHA is essentially a league of smaller, hard-travel schools that have less cash to invest in their facilities. Programs like Tech, Northern, Lake State, Bemidji, the Alaskas, UAH and Ferris all fit that bill. BGSU and Kato are programs on the rise that have started to spend more on hockey and are less geographically isolated. Of the remaining programs, Tech probably spends the most and is the strongest overall, but their location keeps them in the same boat with the other WCHA programs.

You don't know what you are talking about

 

[davyd83]

You don't know what you are talking about

Actually he hit the nail square on the head with the exception of the BG part. They have increased spending, but a lot of that increase was eaten up by a massive jump in their travel expenses. Gone are those under 4 hour trips to MSU, Western and Ann Arbor replaced by trips to Huntsville, Bemidji & Mankato plus a trip to Anchoand and a nearly fully funded Fairbanks trip reduced to partial funding.Overall spending, the Alaskas are tops based upon travel subsidies and overall travel costs for games, recruiting, etc. Mankato is up there as is Tech. But none of the rest are doing huge things financially.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

And yet it was Ferris that won the MacNaughton, playing in what is aesthetically the league's second or third-worst rink. Just goes to show you that money's not everything.

Perhaps a fairer comparison of who spends how much, would be to strip all travel costs out of the program budgets and then re-rank. However, I doubt that each program's detailed annual budget is readily available.

 

[davyd83]

And yet it was Ferris that won the MacNaughton, playing in what is aesthetically the league's second or third-worst rink. Just goes to show you that money's not everything.

Perhaps a fairer comparison of who spends how much, would be to strip all travel costs out of the program budgets and then re-rank. However, I doubt that each program's detailed annual budget is readily available.

I would have to agree. There's a couple a bit above, a couple a bit below and a lot in varying degrees in the middle.

 

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

The @wchahockey tweet about the Shawhan hire was ... quite normal. Keep it up, y'all!

GFM

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Perhaps a fairer comparison of who spends how much, would be to strip all travel costs out of the program budgets and then re-rank. However, I doubt that each program's detailed annual budget is readily available.

Should be available for all schools, as mandated by EADA.
EADA data for the 2013-2014 season isn't available yet, since the reporting year ended 6/30. But the 2012-2013 pre-nWCHA baseline is.

BGSU Ice Hockey
Reporting Year: 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013

Total Expenses minus Operating Expenses
1,466,883 - 441,640 = 1,025,243

Total Expenses includes appearance guarantees and options, athletically related student aid, contract services, equipment, fundraising activities, operating expenses, promotional activities, recruiting expenses, salaries and benefits, supplies, travel, and any other expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.

Operating Expenses includes all expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests (commonly known as "game-day expenses"), for (A) Lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, and equipment for coaches, team members, support staff (including, but not limited to team managers and trainers), and others; and (B) Officials.

 

[Freddie]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

2-3 years down the road, the CCHA (in some form) will re-emerge.

I'm NOT saying that I HOPE or WISH it would happen...just that I believe it WILL happen.
The economic realities are undeniable and the present layout is unsustainable.

BG, Miami, WMU, FSU...(plus LSSU, if they want) and 2-3 AH schools.

 

[CKrouth]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

2-3 years down the road, the CCHA (in some form) will re-emerge.

I'm NOT saying that I HOPE or WISH it would happen...just that I believe it WILL happen.
The economic realities are undeniable and the present layout is unsustainable.

BG, Miami, WMU, FSU...(plus LSSU, if they want) and 2-3 AH schools.

No doubt it will. And if it does, LSSU will certainly be jumping on that train. With the road trips on our schedule this year, our travel budget just went way up.

 

[Squarebanks]

Should be available for all schools, as mandated by EADA.
EADA data for the 2013-2014 season isn't available yet, since the reporting year ended 6/30. But the 2012-2013 pre-nWCHA baseline is.

BGSU Ice Hockey
Reporting Year: 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013

Total Expenses minus Operating Expenses
1,466,883 - 441,640 = 1,025,243

Total Expenses includes appearance guarantees and options, athletically related student aid, contract services, equipment, fundraising activities, operating expenses, promotional activities, recruiting expenses, salaries and benefits, supplies, travel, and any other expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.

Operating Expenses includes all expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests (commonly known as "game-day expenses"), for (A) Lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, and equipment for coaches, team members, support staff (including, but not limited to team managers and trainers), and others; and (B) Officials.

How are you getting total expenses for hockey broken out? I see operating expenses for hockey, but total expenses is lumped in for all sports except basketball and football.

FWIW, UAF's operating expenses for hockey in the last reporting period was $1.3 million. To put that in perspective, BGSU's operating expenses for football was $1.1 million.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers change in the nWCHA. My hunch is operating expenses will go down a bit as the travel deal is better than what we had in the CCHA.

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

How are you getting total expenses for hockey broken out? I see operating expenses for hockey, but total expenses is lumped in for all sports except basketball and football.

FWIW, UAF's operating expenses for hockey in the last reporting period was $1.3 million. To put that in perspective, BGSU's operating expenses for football was $1.1 million.

It will be interesting to see how these numbers change in the nWCHA. My hunch is operating expenses will go down a bit as the travel deal is better than what we had in the CCHA.

yep, it will be fascinating to see the new numbers. looks like last year's public disclosure deadline was Oct. 15.

I'm looking at the data that BGSU submitted, which breaks it down better than the EADA site. The data is out there somewhere, whether or not individual schools choose to make finding easy.
http://www.bgsufalcons.com/documents/2012/12/20/EADA_Data_2012_.pdf?tab=eadareport(pdf)

ouch, UAF's operating expenses.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

ouch, UAF's operating expenses.

Just exactly how is that "ouch" worthy? Unless of course by "ouch" you mean ... "UAF is committed to D1 Hockey at the highest level".

Jeezus ... it really blows goats that UAA and UAF are stuck in a conference with so many programs who don't appear to be fully committed to D1 hockey.