Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I fail to see why he can only improve football and basketball at the cost of ignoring the rest of the teams. I understand that spending is a zero sum game, but this isn't a question of finances, but of priorities. The athletic director as a duty to improve the entire athletic department, not just the few select sports that he cares about.

Hence the use of the phrase "given a choice...".

Sure, he'll make it his goal to improve the entire department, but that doesn't mean that anything outside of the "only" two revenue sports will be much of a priority. (I'm sure that most college hockey, lacrosse, soccer and baseball fans all sing this version of the blues on a regular basis, for what its worth)

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I suspect that MN is going to be the ONLY school with a secondary TV package since the BTN will retain rights to all of the B10 games, meaning that only the NC games will be availible, and if the past in any indication, those are going to be against less than marque teams, and thus not particularly valuable.

MN makes more than UW in revenue by charging nearly twice as much per ticket (IIRC, $39 vs $22 face), plus UW averages between 12 and 13k tickets as opposed to MN's ~10.5k. Add to that the fact that UW has a larger student section (~2,500 vs ~1,500) which decreases the difference in the number of full paying customers between the schools.

Some good points. I'm sure reality lies somewhere in between your points and mine. One thing we can probably both agree on is that the BTHC will certainly help programs like OSU that are currently hemmoraging money.

 

[davearm]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

Not disagreeing with you. My comments were not meant to slight UW, but to show that IMO Barry Alverez has done more for the UW hockey program than it appeared he was getting credit for in this thread.

Again, I'm not standing up for Alverez by any means because I don't know nearly as much about the history there as you guys do, but he did work awfully hard to get a B10 Hockey Conference deal done and that WILL server UW well (at least short term).

I don't get the Alvarez hate either. UW hockey gets his attention in proper proportion to its revenue generation, as it should. Of course it's going to be prioritized behind football and men's basketball.

Meanwhile under Alvarez they are getting the new practice facility, the BTHC, they've retained a top coach, maintained an elite program, kept price increases in line with other sports/schools, etc. Not sure what the issue is.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

Considering I don't believe their current TV deal gives them much money at all, I think a 1/12 cut of the increases in the B10 Conference TV deal will be more profitable.

With the addition of more hockey games on the BTN, they will be able to charge the cable providers more for carrying the channel, which will result in more revenue for the Big Ten.

So yes, the BTHC will benefit UW from a financial standpoint, and that was the entire reason why Alverez pushed so hard for the formation of the conference.

That only matters if the increase in BTN revenue increase more than the cost of leaving the WCHA (between disillusioned fans who are upset over the loss of the traditional hockey rivals, and the loss of the WCHA playoff dispersment check).

No way that adding more hockey is big enough to alter what cable providers are willing to pay for the BTN, football and basketball move that needle, hockey is so inconsequential to what the BTN is worth that it's laughable to think that it will increase revenue.

 

[davearm]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

That only matters if the increase in BTN revenue increase more than the cost of leaving the WCHA (between disillusioned fans who are upset over the loss of the traditional hockey rivals, and the loss of the WCHA playoff dispersment check).

No way that adding more hockey is big enough to alter what cable providers are willing to pay for the BTN, football and basketball move that needle, hockey is so inconsequential to what the BTN is worth that it's laughable to think that it will increase revenue.

We can agree that the primary incentive for creating the BTHC is more money for the participating schools, correct?

We may not fully understand where the money's coming from, but you can bet it's coming from someplace.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I fail to see why he can only improve football and basketball at the cost of ignoring the rest of the teams. I understand that spending is a zero sum game, but this isn't a question of finances, but of priorities. The athletic director as a duty to improve the entire athletic department, not just the few select sports that he cares about.

Not sure what Barry could do. I believe that interest in the hockey program amongst prospective fans is maxed out, or at least growing at the rate that one would expect.

Again, niche team in a niche sport.

Barry can't make a family in Watertown who aren't hockey people give a crap about Badger hockey. I would bet that it's hard to make many Admirals fans care about the Badgers.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

That only matters if the increase in BTN revenue increase more than the cost of leaving the WCHA (between disillusioned fans who are upset over the loss of the traditional hockey rivals, and the loss of the WCHA playoff dispersment check).

No way that adding more hockey is big enough to alter what cable providers are willing to pay for the BTN, football and basketball move that needle, hockey is so inconsequential to what the BTN is worth that it's laughable to think that it will increase revenue.

From what I have heard, the decision to form a BTHC was strictly a financial decision and that expectations are that revenues from the BTN will increase substantially.

Just one thought, but if all cable providers in MN and MI don't currently carry the BTN, I am sure there will be a lot of pressure for them to do so now that a substantial number of MN and MI games will be carried on the network.

I think the financial aspect is much larger than you think.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

Some good points. I'm sure reality lies somewhere in between your points and mine. One thing we can probably both agree on is that the BTHC will certainly help programs like OSU that are currently hemmoraging money.

The only team that the formation of the BTN might help is PSU as they build up a fan base because of the recognizability of the names of the other teams to non-hockey fans. It will certaintly help PSU recruit and build a team faster than it otherwise would have.

OSU already has UMI and MSU come to Columbus to visit along with the MAC teams (that are at least semi-recognizable names to casual fans) and their attendance sucked, I fail to see how having UMN and UW come to town for hockey is really going to really increase attendance significantly if OSU doesn't start to win more games.

UMI and MSU are a wash in my mind, neither school has significant room to grow ticket sales except with price increases and given the MI eonomy not sure that's a viable option although donations to the hockey program could increase, but this would be offset by the increased travel costs of going to MN and UW twice every year (flights) as opposed to bus trips around MI. The bigger question is how many of the NC games will these schools play on the road?

UW is a net loser becasue they won't get near the number of fans from the other B10 schools that the likes of UMD, UND, or SCSU often brought to Madison.

UMN is the big looser if for no other reason then they go from being THE big fish in the little WCHA, to being just another fish in the Big Ten pool.

I understand that this is a more with the long term in mind, but I worry about for the financial cost to each team, but the costs to college hockey in general and to the history and traditions of the game. I suspect that the B10 will win the war, but at what cost?

I still believe that Alvarez has handles the hockey program with all the care of tossing a hand granade in a china shop: with no regard for the collateral damage, a man to whom the ends always justify the means.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

Not sure what Barry could do. I believe that interest in the hockey program amongst prospective fans is maxed out, or at least growing at the rate that one would expect.

Again, niche team in a niche sport.

Barry can't make a family in Watertown who aren't hockey people give a crap about Badger hockey. I would bet that it's hard to make many Admirals fans care about the Badgers.

I expect Barry to not turn current loyal active fans in to disgruntled passive fans.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

The only team that the formation of the BTN might help is PSU as they build up a fan base because of the recognizability of the names of the other teams to non-hockey fans. It will certaintly help PSU recruit and build a team faster than it otherwise would have.

OSU already has UMI and MSU come to Columbus to visit along with the MAC teams (that are at least semi-recognizable names to casual fans) and their attendance sucked, I fail to see how having UMN and UW come to town for hockey is really going to really increase attendance significantly if OSU doesn't start to win more games.

UMI and MSU are a wash in my mind, neither school has significant room to grow ticket sales except with price increases and given the MI eonomy not sure that's a viable option although donations to the hockey program could increase, but this would be offset by the increased travel costs of going to MN and UW twice every year (flights) as opposed to bus trips around MI. The bigger question is how many of the NC games will these schools play on the road?

UW is a net loser becasue they won't get near the number of fans from the other B10 schools that the likes of UMD, UND, or SCSU often brought to Madison.

UMN is the big looser if for no other reason then they go from being THE big fish in the little WCHA, to being just another fish in the Big Ten pool.

I understand that this is a more with the long term in mind, but I worry about for the financial cost to each team, but the costs to college hockey in general and to the history and traditions of the game. I suspect that the B10 will win the war, but at what cost?

I still believe that Alvarez has handles the hockey program with all the care of tossing a hand granade in a china shop: with no regard for the collateral damage, a man to whom the ends always justify the means.

OSU is hemmoraging money on their programs to the tune of $2.5 million losses right now, so I think the change will certainly help them out as well.

I think the major point of contention between us is whether or not the creation of a BTHC will increase revenues for the Big Ten Network. If it does, the formation of the BTHC will certainly help OSU. If it doesn't, then probably not so much.

In addition to the point I previously made regarding pressure on cable providers to carry the BTN in markets in MN and MI now that a significant portion of the Gophers, Michigan, and Michigan State games will be carried on that network, there are other reasons to believe the formation of the BTHC will increase revenues for the BTN.

The advertising revenue that FSN is getting for Gopher games right now isn't going to disappear. The BTN will get that revenue for Gopher games it carries, and FSN will keep the revenue for the non-conference Gopher games it will likely carry. Same in other markets, but to less extent.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

From what I have heard, the decision to form a BTHC was strictly a financial decision and that expectations are that revenues from the BTN will increase substantially.

Just one thought, but if all cable providers in MN and MI don't currently carry the BTN, I am sure there will be a lot of pressure for them to do so now that a substantial number of MN and MI games will be carried on the network.

I think the financial aspect is much larger than you think.

We can agree that the primary incentive for creating the BTHC is more money for the participating schools, correct?

We may not fully understand where the money's coming from, but you can bet it's coming from someplace.

My point is that this shouldn't have been a move that was made based only on the financial aspect and that non-financial costs needed to be considered.

The key word is expectation of future growth, and while I've never seen the internal BTN and B10 documents on the matter, to me this is a risky move, with both significant upside in the long term as well as significant downside in the short term.

Given the importance of football, I suspect that all of the cable providers in the B10 footprint, already carry the BTN on the basic cable package, at the very least the major providers: Mediacom, Charter, Time Warner, and Comcast along with ATT U-verse, Dish Nework and Direct TV already do.

Time will tell is this was the right decision.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I understand that this is a more with the long term in mind, but I worry about for the financial cost to each team, but the costs to college hockey in general and to the history and traditions of the game. I suspect that the B10 will win the war, but at what cost?

We're in complete agreement here. I think the long-term effects of the BTHC will be negative on college hockey. I don't think the increased exposure will be anywhere near as significant as people think, I don't think we'll see another Big Ten School add hockey anytime soon if ever, and I think in the long-run it will force some smaller schools that don't have football or basketball revenue to fall back on to fold their programs.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I think the major point of contention between us is whether or not the creation of a BTHC will increase revenues for the Big Ten Network. If it does, the formation of the BTHC will certainly help OSU. If it doesn't, then probably not so much.

This is absolutely where we disagree because I don't see the revenue increase as either obvious or inevitable. As others have pointed out, hockey is a niche sport and niche sports are not going to suddenly become non-niche sports and generate tons of money. If we lived in a world where hockey could magically become a money generating powerhouse, the NHL's move into southern American markets would be hailed as a brilliant strategic business move.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I expect Barry to not turn current loyal active fans in to disgruntled passive fans.

How many do you really think are just going to quit based on this?

I've been a fan since the mid eighties and I'm going to stop because we change conferences? Not a chance. I'm a Badger fan, not a WCHA fan.

Most who feel the need to have a hissy will get over it and be back.

Added Valuable Content: Maybe I'm just used to these things changing as I've seen the Packers' division altered (Tampa gone), The Brewers change leagues (grew up with the White Sox as a rival) and the Blackhawks division not only lose its super cool Norris name but also lose the North Stars, Winnipeg and Toronto as rivals. Over time, all things will change except for the teams I root for.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

This is absolutely where we disagree because I don't see the revenue increase as either obvious or inevitable. As others have pointed out, hockey is a niche sport and niche sports are not going to suddenly become non-niche sports and generate tons of money. If we lived in a world where hockey could magically become a money generating powerhouse, the NHL's move into southern American markets would be hailed as a brilliant strategic business move.

I think what I am trying to explain, but am probably doing a pretty poor job of it, is that there currently is hockey related TV revenue out there (particularly in the MN and MI markets) that won't be disappearing, but will shift from FSN and other networks to the BTN.

The BTN may not get to charge carriers in Ohio or Wisconsin more money because they are now carrying Buckeye or Badger hockey games, but I am pretty sure they would be able to charge carriers in Minnesota and Michigan more because they are now carrying a significant number of Gopher and Wolverine/Spartan hockey games (especially true in Minnesota). In addition, if there currently are any cable providers in MN or MI that don't carry the BTN, I think there will be much more pressure for them to do so now that the BTN will be carrying a significant number of BTHC games.

Like I said initially, I don't think this is a good thing for Minnesota (who currently has a great state-wide TV contract). They will essentially be sharing some of the revenue from their TV contract with other schools in the conference in the form of BTN revenue increases. It will be good for schools like PSU and OSU for sure, and will probably help UW a little too (which is why Alverez pushed so hard for the BTHC).

Just so we're clear, I HATE the idea of a BTHC. I think it is a disadvantage to Minnesota, breaks up some historical rivalries, and will be bad for college hockey long-term. However, I do think it will benefit some of the Big Ten schools financially in the short-term, and that is EXACTLY why we now have a BTHC.

 

[wjefwhite]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

What is the point of all this? It's summer time and you people don't have anyhting better to do then *****.

Some of you will never be happy no matter what happens. UW has one of the best programs for hockey men's and woman's in the county. Come to the games in person and support them. Leave the moaning out of it.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

What is the point of all this? It's summer time and you people don't have anyhting better to do then *****.

Some of you will never be happy no matter what happens. UW has one of the best programs for hockey men's and woman's in the county. Come to the games in person and support them. Leave the moaning out of it.

I'm sitting in my office. What do you expect me to do, work?

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

I think what I am trying to explain, but am probably doing a pretty poor job of it, is that there currently is hockey related TV revenue out there (particularly in the MN and MI markets) that won't be disappearing, but will shift from FSN and other networks to the BTN.

A shift in revenue isn't an increase and I doubt that any redistribution is going to be anything more than a blip on OSU's $100 million dollar athletic budget or it's going to be a cause of great rejoicing when the BTN check goes up $100,000 in 2012.

My point is this, even if you toss all of the deck chairs off the deck of the Titanic, it's still going to sink. Given the shear magnitude of the numbers of the BTN, you would need to have a revenue increase near $10 millions to really move the needle in any significant way. Shifting money from one location of the ledger to another isn't making every team better.

 

[Almington]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

It's summer time and you people don't have anyhting better to do then *****.

Summer has nothing to do with it.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Vol. XVIII - Belief in a Better Tomorrow

A shift in revenue isn't an increase and I doubt that any redistribution is going to be anything more than a blip on OSU's $100 million dollar athletic budget or it's going to be a cause of great rejoicing when the BTN check goes up $100,000 in 2012.

My point is this, even if you toss all of the deck chairs off the deck of the Titanic, it's still going to sink. Given the shear magnitude of the numbers of the BTN, you would need to have a revenue increase near $10 millions to really move the needle in any significant way. Shifting money from one location of the ledger to another isn't making every team better.

From what I have heard, it will be significant, and was exactly why some schools (including Wisconsin) were pushing so hard for the Big Ten Hockey Conference. I guess we'll see.

Enough advocating for the BTHC for me as it's making me sick. I don't doubt that you know more about Alverez and his commitment to the UW hockey programs than I do. I was just trying to interject another viewpoint.

Thanks for the discussion.