The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

[Jimjamesak]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

Yeah um, just post little girl cartoons. That's not nerdy or anything.

 

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

And just for you, I'm tempted to use this logo in my next map update:

I think we just found our jersey crest for next season's throwback jerseys. At 20+ years old, this logo is now fair game.

Look again, you'll see that much of the falcon head is hidden behind the interlocking BG. Down here, we refer to this present incarnation as 'peek-a-boo falcon'. Our marketing department is managed by interns, retards and the children of retarded interns with ADHD, so we get a new-look logo every couple of years.

It wouldn't matter to me who was running it if we got a new look every couple years - I would be all for it. As an example, I'm pretty sure UNO has had more jerseys designs in the last 5 years than MTU has had in their entire existance. I have seen much worse than this jersey, but I think it's fun to hear what fans think of their jerseys. Peek-a-boo Falcon... I just learned something new.

Ryan J

<img width=600 src="http://www.johnsonsjerseys.net/hockey/ncaa/ccha/bgu21_10h_f.jpg">

 

[davyd83]

Potential Additional Revenue from hosting 2 additional home games granted by the Alaska/Hawaii Exemption ...

(#of seats x price of ticket x 2 extra home games)
BGSU -- 5,000 x $20 x 2 = $200,000
Ferris Wheel -- 2457 x $20 x 2 = $98,280
Lake State -- 3373 x $20 x 2 = $134,920
Norm Ich U -- 3800 x $20 x 2 - $152,000
ButtSmelly -- 4350 x $20 x 2 = $174,000
MTU -- 4200 x $20 x 2 = $168,000
Kato -- 4382 x $20 x 2 = $193,280
UAH -- 6800 x $20 x 2 = $272,000

Yes you'll argue that these are not actual numbers. Actual attendance differs greatly. Ticket prices vary. Blah Blah Blah. Not my problem. This is a "potential revenue" number presented as an example.

Cut it in half if you want to ... average your team's actual attendance for the last three years and calculate the numbers yourself. WCHA teams used to dance around like it was raining gold from above when they got their fat $100,000 share from the Final Five each year and yet nearly every one of them made more money on the extra home games they played. The point is to be made again ...

Each of your schools is being more than fairly compensated for travel by the subsidies that make an Alaska trip equal to the next most expensive trip on your schedule that isn't Alaska. That's a perfectly fair geographic recompense ... the largess of the Alaska/Hawaii Exemption should be put to an end.

Am I ranting from a soapbox? Eff yes I am. Why? Because I'm already sick and tired of hearing the moaning and whining about your team's effing long arduous trip to Alaska. Quit that and you'll hear none of this from me. Don't quit and I'll bring it up from time to time to remind the whiners of the actual benefits of having UAA and UAF in your crappy conference. Don't like what I have to say? Avail yourself of the forum options.

Please! Petition the NCAA to forever banish the Alaska/Hawai'i exemption. Well, still allow the Hawai'i part if they ever have a school that adds hockey.

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

Your Michigan Tech logo does not comply with The Institution's Identity Standards.

I like how the little logo that will show up to the left of the URL (and on the browser tab) on that page does not compy with their own identity standards.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

Potential Additional Revenue from hosting 2 additional home games granted by the Alaska/Hawaii Exemption ...

(#of seats x price of ticket x 2 extra home games)
BGSU -- 5,000 x $20 x 2 = $200,000
Ferris Wheel -- 2457 x $20 x 2 = $98,280
Lake State -- 3373 x $20 x 2 = $134,920
Norm Ich U -- 3800 x $20 x 2 - $152,000
ButtSmelly -- 4350 x $20 x 2 = $174,000
MTU -- 4200 x $20 x 2 = $168,000
Kato -- 4382 x $20 x 2 = $193,280
UAH -- 6800 x $20 x 2 = $272,000

Yes you'll argue that these are not actual numbers. Actual attendance differs greatly. Ticket prices vary. Blah Blah Blah. Not my problem. This is a "potential revenue" number presented as an example.

Cut it in half if you want to ... average your team's actual attendance for the last three years and calculate the numbers yourself. WCHA teams used to dance around like it was raining gold from above when they got their fat $100,000 share from the Final Five each year and yet nearly every one of them made more money on the extra home games they played. The point is to be made again ...

Each of your schools is being more than fairly compensated for travel by the subsidies that make an Alaska trip equal to the next most expensive trip on your schedule that isn't Alaska. That's a perfectly fair geographic recompense ... the largess of the Alaska/Hawaii Exemption should be put to an end.

Am I ranting from a soapbox? Eff yes I am. Why? Because I'm already sick and tired of hearing the moaning and whining about your team's effing long arduous trip to Alaska. Quit that and you'll hear none of this from me. Don't quit and I'll bring it up from time to time to remind the whiners of the actual benefits of having UAA and UAF in your crappy conference. Don't like what I have to say? Avail yourself of the forum options.

20 bucks for a game?! Man, you westerners are overpriced...

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

20 bucks for a game?! Man, you westerners are overpriced...

No, uaatravelsubsidies over-estimates what some of these schools charge for a ticket.
I think my Ferris State ticket this year was close to $20
LSSU was $12

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

BRING BACK THE "ELECTRICFIED BEAVER" FOR THE MAP!!!!

BSU right now gets an average of around $25-$30 per ticket when averaging all the games (before the TicketBastard fees if you buy online). More for the Gophers, less for others. That will have to come down in the new WCHA if they want attendance to be up there, because in all honesty, they are not going to get $25-$30 for Bowling Green, Ferris State, Lake State, etc. The only games they will get that is for the Gophers and North Dakota, and that is just because all the "casual" fans in Northern Minnesota identify with those teams. Also, those two fan bases travel really well, so tickets will sell.

I believe the last year of the CHA in the John Glas, they were at $18, but they were winning on a consistent basis and tickets got a little harder to come by. I think that is going to have to be the price point for BSU in the new WCHA, but of course winning can help things out a lot, something we haven't seen much of this year......

 

[stuckinwi]

Which of them is Donald? I'm new here.

GFM

The fact that the next post was his and was a tl;dr contender was pretty humorous.

I look at the exemption more as an incentive to travel to Hawaii and Alaska rather than a way to just offset cost with home games. In that manner it makes perfect sense with the subsidy.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

The fact that the next post was his and was a tl;dr contender was pretty humorous.

I look at the exemption more as an incentive to travel to Hawaii and Alaska rather than a way to just offset cost with home games. In that manner it makes perfect sense with the subsidy.

The exemption, certainly. The over-the-top subsidies seem like not being able to stand the heat.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

I would like to say that not all UAA fans are against the travel subsidiary.


And does nmu want Dave shyiak back?

You could probably leave him in the UP after this weekend. I'm sure Finlandia could use a volunteer assistant coach.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

Am I ranting from a soapbox? Eff yes I am. Why?

If you show up to the Final 5 tailgate party this year, I will find you an actual soap box to rant from (or a 12 pack with "Tide" written on the side in sharpie), in the parking lot, while eating grilled animal and drinking an alcoholic beverage.

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

The fact that the next post was his and was a tl;dr contender was pretty humorous.

I look at the exemption more as an incentive to travel to Hawaii and Alaska rather than a way to just offset cost with home games. In that manner it makes perfect sense with the subsidy.

That's exactly what the exemption is designed to do and it does have a very positive scheduling effect for those schools. It gave conference members and incentive to vote them in and have them as a regular part of the schedule and guarantee them 14 home games and it entices non-conference foes to make the visit. The travel subsidy simply equalizes the cost to the other schools. Without both of those in place, I think that it would be very difficult for either school to attain and maintain conference membership, and to draw other schools to go there. Whether one likes the facts or not, the exemption and subsidies have had their desired effect of giving those schools a home conference and to get teams to make the trip. It has been a success for them.

 

[UncleRay]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

I think uaatravelsubsidies' argument is that schools are given two incentives to go to Alaska, when either one should be sufficient. I tend to agree, it seems like double-dipping.

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

I think uaatravelsubsidies' argument is that schools are given two incentives to go to Alaska, when either one should be sufficient. I tend to agree, it seems like double-dipping.

The travel subsidy alone isn't really any incentive. All that does is negate your expenses above your most expensive regular conference trip. What is the incentive for me to schedule a 13 or 16 hour trip to Fairbanks, when I could play at Bemidji instead, spend less money doing it and not have to bus to Green Bay to catch a flight and spend 13 hours on flights and in airports? As far as the additional revenue a team generates from the exemption, it really is nowhere near what uaa guy thinks, in reality it's about a quarter of his numbers when you add empty seats, free student tickets and $5 kids tickets, then subtract the cost of the building for the night. You only really get that extra home series once every three years. Two of three years you play in Alaska. One year is no exemtion, and you schedule a year home and a year away with a non conference foe. Some of the schools that left for the BigTen or NCHC are asking for 2 or even 3 for 1 trades for non conference series. So even if in 2014-15 NMU plays at both Alaskas, they still will likely only get 2 at home and 2 on the road with those exempt games. NMU, for instance, got an Alaska exemption this year. In non-conference play 2 at home, 2 neutral site, 4 on the road. Next year it's 4 home, 4 away for the non-conference schedule with a 2 game Alaska exemption.

 

[stuckinwi]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

I think uaatravelsubsidies' argument is that schools are given two incentives to go to Alaska, when either one should be sufficient. I tend to agree, it seems like double-dipping.

Looking at the cost of the trip isn't just dollars, it's also a large time commitment as well. And I understand the Alaska schools have travel a lot, but that's not the other schools fault. Other schools have the option to schedule much closer trips, Alaska doesn't have that choice.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

What is the incentive for me to schedule a 13 or 16 hour trip to Fairbanks, when I could play at Bemidji instead, spend less money doing it and not have to bus to Green Bay to catch a flight and spend 13 hours on flights and in airports?

More whining. These are hockey players. They travelled long distances at the previous level. If they play at the next level they'll travel longer distances more times. Just because 6 hours on a plane is overwhelming to your provincial mind doesn't mean it is to them. Lots of players actually like going to Alaska.

As far as the additional revenue a team generates from the exemption, it really is nowhere near what uaa guy thinks, in reality it's about a quarter of his numbers when you add empty seats, free student tickets and $5 kids tickets, then subtract the cost of the building for the night. You only really get that extra home series once every three years. Two of three years you play in Alaska. One year is no exemtion, and you schedule a year home and a year away with a non conference foe. Some of the schools that left for the BigTen or NCHC are asking for 2 or even 3 for 1 trades for non conference series. So even if in 2014-15 NMU plays at both Alaskas, they still will likely only get 2 at home and 2 on the road with those exempt games. NMU, for instance, got an Alaska exemption this year. In non-conference play 2 at home, 2 neutral site, 4 on the road. Next year it's 4 home, 4 away for the non-conference schedule with a 2 game Alaska exemption.

I listed "potential revenue" using reasonable estimates of ticket prices. Everyone knows that expenses go on the other side of the balance sheet and are exclusive to each institution. And the exemptions are there to be used by the school. If your school fritters the extra's away by using them on road games so be it. Not my problem. It's your school's mistake. Revenue Potential is what it is. I made that very clear. Dispute it with actual numbers if you are asserting otherwise.

 

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

UAH -- 6800 x $20 x 2 = $272,000

Yes you'll argue that these are not actual numbers. Actual attendance differs greatly. Ticket prices vary. Blah Blah Blah. Not my problem. This is a "potential revenue" number presented as an example.

Well, how about you get actual numbers, then? UAH has reserved seating in the lower bowl — maybe 1800 fans —*for $10 a pop. General Admission seating runs $8 a pop, and okay, let's assume that we get the full 6600 fans, so 4800 at $8 a pop. A full weekend? $112,800. Yes, but that is an ideal situation: we've never packed in more than ~5200 fans, and that was an anywhere-in-the-building giveaway night the night the WCHA brass were in town back in October.

An optimistic setup:
5000 fans: 1200 lower, 3800 upper : $84,800

An average setup:
2000 fans : 700 lower, 1300 upper : $34,800

An "Alabama and Auburn are both at home, and Alabama is the 6:30 national game" setup (which happens, as LSU-Alabama has been against UAH recently):
1700 fans Friday : 500 lower, 1200 upper + 900 fans Saturday : 300 lower, 600 upper : $22,400

Those are more real numbers. Those will be non-conference games for us, but guess what: we'll either be doing 2-for-1s or 3-for-1s to get them (which means that our travel outlay is higher), or we're doing a game guarantee. I don't know all of our game guarantees, but I will say that our previous coach gave me numbers that would well eat into one of those pessimistic weekends. Also, with UAH, it's no guarantee that those extra games will be home games for us, and I expect that this will be true for the rest of the memberships, because none of us are name programs with routinely high RPIs.

Frankly, I fail to see your point. The "do you hear us complaining about the travel?" argument is one that we can give as well, but we fully recognize that we're lucky to be in a conference that means we'll get seven guaranteed home weekends every year. The CHA never, ever got us that: we peaked at five home weekends. Hell, I'm not sure the last time we played 14 home games, much less the 16 or 18 that would be reasonable gets. I know that we'll be at 16 this year, because we're signed up to host U-18 again, and we might even get to 18 if some unnamed "national power" comes into town. [I think that one could look at the pedigree of our coaching staff and make a good guess.] Also, I'm not sure what your point is because it's never explained very clearly.

GFM

 

[davyd83]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

More whining. These are hockey players. They travelled long distances at the previous level. If they play at the next level they'll travel longer distances more times. Just because 6 hours on a plane is overwhelming to your provincial mind doesn't mean it is to them. Lots of players actually like going to Alaska.



I listed "potential revenue" using reasonable estimates of ticket prices. Everyone knows that expenses go on the other side of the balance sheet and are exclusive to each institution. And the exemptions are there to be used by the school. If your school fritters the extra's away by using them on road games so be it. Not my problem. It's your school's mistake. Revenue Potential is what it is. I made that very clear. Dispute it with actual numbers if you are asserting otherwise.

Ummm...how do you assure yourself of only playing home non-conference games? It's not opportunity lost, it's the reality of scheduling. And it's not just "6 hours on a plane." NMU left Fairbanks at 1:50 am AT (5:50 am ET) and arrived home at around 11:00 pm that night. Looks more like 17 hours of travel, not "6 hours on a plane." So please explain why I would schedule a 17 hour each way trip that costs as much as my most expensive other trip that I can do going 8 hours each way. What is the benefit to my school? My team? My players. Sure some players like to go to Alaska. But I can bet you as many would rather go to Bowling Green. At the next level they'll travel longer distances more times? Really??? Seven years at the ECHL and CHL level and I never made a trip longer than 11 hours. Not one single 17 hour one way trip. Not one. Yes, teams do play at Anchorage in the ECHL, but they are all Western Team with flight times ranging from 6 1/2 to 8 1/2 hrs layover included.

So try to tell me why I would want to schedule that trip. And the ol' "If I've got to tell you..." bit doesn't work. How does my program benefit? Cost? No. Travel? 1 1/2 to 2 times as long as my next longest trip. And if you think that travel is no concern at the pro level, can you explain why The Columbus Blue Jackets, Nashville Predators and Detroit Red Wings are all clamoring to the the team that moves to the Eastern Conference when the Winnipeg Jets finally are moved to the west. And none of them has more than a 4 1/2 flight to get to LA or Vancouver.

Is it perfect for the Alaskas or Huntsville? No. Is it fair? No. But it is the economic and geographic reality. The nWCHA is the only conference which will take any of the three outlying schools. It's not ideal. but it beats the AACHC (All Alaska College Hockey Conference) where Fairbanks plays Anchorage 20 times and both teams play their 14 non-conference games on the road.

 

[Jwilly48]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

I will dispute the Ferris estimate with actual number since I think it is inaccurate.

Capacity is 2490. About 20% is reserved for the student section.
An adult ticket costs $12, student tickets are $6.

1992 x $12 = $23,904
498 x $6 = 2,988
Total = 26,892 (x2) = $53,784 potential revenue for the weekend. This doesn't count things like last minute sales are $2 more or senior/faculty/staff/kids tickets are all less, but I think it's a fairly optimistic estimate.

The subsidy that the Alaska schools pays are what makes them viable conference partners for the other schools. The fact that they can host an additional pair of games is the reason schools take the trip up to Alaska. It would be easier and cheaper for the schools in the lower 48 to schedule games against other quality opponents, so the Alaska schools need to offer some type of incentive. I understand why this could be upsetting, but the argument about fair play (which theoretically is a good one) isn't a reality. It tries to make all schools and situations equal, when the fact is that an Alaska trip is much further and much more costly. I think the better solution is not to end the exemptions, but rather the Alaska schools should also be eligible for those exemptions and be allowed to host extra games to help offset some of their costs. It might be a better/more realistic solution.

Petitioning the NCAA to do away with the exemptions for schools in the lower 48 would probably be more damaging long term than it would be advantageous.

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: The New WCHA 3, Revenge of the Sieve (2013-14)

More whining. These are hockey players. They travelled long distances at the previous level. If they play at the next level they'll travel longer distances more times. Just because 6 hours on a plane is overwhelming to your provincial mind doesn't mean it is to them. Lots of players actually like going to Alaska.

You don't seem to understand that no one is whining. Just pointing out that the exemption and travel subsidy are needed motivation for teams to travel to Alaska.
No one has said, "wahh, 15 hours of planes and layovers, I hate having to go to Alaska". What has been stated is, less travel time and less expense looks good to schedulers and athletic departments.

Now, if my team gets 2 extra games by going to Alaska, you've got my attention. Just ask my team that seems to refuse to schedule non-conference away games. I enjoyed a trip to Anchorage for the icebreaker one of the years where we weren't playing at UA_.

As for an arguement about once they are in a conference you're obligated to play there and shouldn't get the benefits of subsidies and exempt games....well, your acceptance in a conference might be difficult.

Yes, it is unfair to the Alaska schools that travel all the time, and are spending $$ for their travel as well as their opponents'. It's also unfair for a B1G school to say, "sure we'll schedule you for non-conference, but only if you come here, and don't expect us to visit your barn, ever". It's unfair for non-scholarship teams to compete against teams with almost all scholarship players. It's unfair to have an amazing goalie recruit commit to your team and then never set foot on campus.

In case you haven't noticed, the NCAA isn't about fair. Maybe it used to be, but today, it's about the $$$