The new WCHA is dead pt2

[Jimjamesak]

ASU refused to give NCHA the subsidy when they asked for it, killed the conference joining deal.

Did they really? Lol, what a bunch of dumbsh—s! A bunch of mid-majors (at best) asking a Power 5 school to subsidize travel is as dumb as... well, the NCHC telling Notre Dame to give up their NBC deal.

 

[Sol Diablo]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Did they really? Lol, what a bunch of dumbsh—s! A bunch of mid-majors (at best) asking a Power 5 school to subsidize travel is as dumb as... well, the NCHC telling Notre Dame to give up their NBC deal.

Bingo!
But its probably dumber to ask poor schools to subsidize richer schools. Although I think it was ok to ask, you never know, the deep pockets thing, so I don't blame them.

 

[Squarebanks]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Can we just fast forward a year or dump you now?

Be our guest. Your ****ant school brings nothing of value to us.

Last I checked, travel to Alaska isn't a requirement for having a DI hockey team

Last I checked, travel to butt-**** MN/MI/OH isn’t a requirement for having a D1 hockey team.

 

[moose97]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Be our guest. Your ****ant school brings nothing of value to us.

Which one?

Last I checked, travel to butt-**** MN/MI/OH isn’t a requirement for having a D1 hockey team.

I mean, a quarter of all DI teams are in those 3 states. Once you've independent in a few years it would be pretty stupid to deliberately avoid 25% of all your possible opponents

 

[Jimjamesak]

Bingo!
But its probably dumber to ask poor schools to subsidize richer schools. Although I think it was ok to ask, you never know, the deep pockets thing, so I don't blame them.

I don’t blame them for asking but to insist upon it as a condition for joining the conference is pretty d- foolish.

 

[Sol Diablo]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

I don’t blame them for asking but to insist upon it as a condition for joining the conference is pretty d- foolish.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see how college hockey adapts, or doesn't, to bringing in teams from the high hockey growth regions. I'm not seeing NCAA (hockey committee) getting their act together yet. To survive most organizations milk their cash cows but spend some of that money on new products/new markets, new products/old markets, old products/new markets. The only applicable strategy here is old products/new markets, they are spending minimal money there.......Frozen Four occasionally occurring in high growth regions. Otherwise it seems up the individual schools (Harvard vs. ASU in SoCal, UND vs. Minnesota in Las Vegas, etc.....)

 

[Suze]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Pay attention. I'm still saying travel costs

So when is Tech going to get booted because teams don't like taking a extra 2 hour bus ride from Marquette? I mean if they don't like it then they shouldn't have to do it.

 

[Suze]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

So why did they agree to have UAA, UA_ (and UAH) in the nWCHA? Or did they think that travel wouldn't be involved and they finally realized that travel is involved?

As for the UAA and UA_ subsidies I've read a lot here about they do or don't pay a lot, but no one has bothered to post any numbers. I have the NCAA financials for UAA and UA_ from 2010 through 2018 and I was planning to wait until I obtained the 2019 financials (in the next few months) but I've decided to post what I have because of all the back and forth. Here are the reported guarantees paid out by UAA and UA_ for 2009-10 through 2017-18:

<img src="https://www.buhockeyarchives.com/Charts/UAA-UAFguarantees.png">

The guarantees amount is the total amount paid by each school, the teams column is how many visiting teams they hosted (including an exhibition game each season, but not each other) and the average column is the average each team got if the payouts were equal across all teams. I also look at the reported guarantees received by each of the other nWCHA teams between 2010 and 2018:

<img src="https://www.buhockeyarchives.com/Charts/WCHAguarantees.png">

As can be seen, before the nWCHA was formed the other 7 schools reported no or less guarantees revenue than the average guarantees paid out by the 2 Alaska schools. Since the nWCHA was formed that has changed. Lake Superior and Northern Michigan have reported higher guarantees revenue than the average paid out by the Alaska schools all 5 seasons, while Michigan Tech has done so for 4 of the 5 seasons. Bemidji State has done so for 3 seasons, Bowling Green for and Ferris State for 2, with Minnesota State only 1 season, but I'm missing information for them for 2017 & 2018.

This limited information indicates that the schools are receiving more from the Alaska schools in the nWCHA than they did in CCHA/oWCHA. However, they only way to get the actual numbers is to request the actual documents through FOIA punblic records requests.

Sean

Thanks Sean. At the present time UAA pays $15,450 per team AND hotel rooms.

 

[Lost_Husky]

So when is Tech going to get booted because teams don't like taking a extra 2 hour bus ride from Marquette? I mean if they don't like it then they shouldn't have to do it.

It seems like the bigger issue here is given the geographic, demographic, and financial challenges a good number of DI college hockey schools face why doesn’t the NCAA appear to care? If the NCAA is trying so hard to grow college hockey, but it appears apathetic towards a potential 5% contraction, what kind of message does that send?

If rumblings/rumors are correct that the NCAA doesn’t have time to figure out rules to allow Canadian schools who want to play D1 sports, including hockey, what the? Especially when their addition could significantly help struggling smaller marker/geographical challenged schools. Not saying this is a silver bullet, but would appear to give schools some options

 

[UAHStatman]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

About Friday night (and Saturday, too), I haven't seen any UAH supporters say that MSU ran up the scores this weekend. What is happening is that the calls for Corbett's removal as coach continue to get louder and louder.

 

[moose97]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

It seems like the bigger issue here is given the geographic, demographic, and financial challenges a good number of DI college hockey schools face why doesn’t the NCAA appear to care? If the NCAA is trying so hard to grow college hockey, but it appears apathetic towards a potential 5% contraction, what kind of message does that send?

If rumblings/rumors are correct that the NCAA doesn’t have time to figure out rules to allow Canadian schools who want to play D1 sports, including hockey, what the? Especially when their addition could significantly help struggling smaller marker/geographical challenged schools. Not saying this is a silver bullet, but would appear to give schools some options

You realize that "the NCAA" is simply a collection of the member institutions, right? The same members who are forming the CCHA

 

[Sol Diablo]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

It seems like the bigger issue here is given the geographic, demographic, and financial challenges a good number of DI college hockey schools face why doesn’t the NCAA appear to care? If the NCAA is trying so hard to grow college hockey, but it appears apathetic towards a potential 5% contraction, what kind of message does that send?

If rumblings/rumors are correct that the NCAA doesn’t have time to figure out rules to allow Canadian schools who want to play D1 sports, including hockey, what the? Especially when their addition could significantly help struggling smaller marker/geographical challenged schools. Not saying this is a silver bullet, but would appear to give schools some options

Right On!