Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Just an alert for you guys, Wisconsin is running a Black Friday deal from now until the end of Friday where all upper level tickets for Big Ten games are just $10.

LINK

I've said it before (as have others) and I'll say it again - those tickets should always be ten dollars. It's either a slightly limited view of the side boards or a blatantly obstructed view of the goals. Either way, the difference in price from the best seat in the house should be more than four bucks.

 

[Badger Booster]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I've said it before (as have others) and I'll say it again - those tickets should always be ten dollars. It's either a slightly limited view of the side boards or a blatantly obstructed view of the goals. Either way, the difference in price from the best seat in the house should be more than four bucks.

I guessing this 24-sale event may be an indicator (good or bad) of future pricing of upper deck seats. I am preparing to put together a Big Ten season package today. It's been a long time since I've been in the 3rd deck for hockey. Which sections or parts of sections should be avoided for sightline issues?

 

[icebadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Just an alert for you guys, Wisconsin is running a Black Friday deal from now until the end of Friday where all upper level tickets for Big Ten games are just $10.

LINK

I guess it is still a deal compared to regular prices, but 2 tickets @ $10 apiece still gets slapped with a $10 "order charge". That's beyond ticketmaster-level of egregious service fees. Sure it is a flat fee no matter how many tickets you get, but when the fee is 50% of the cost of your tickets, that's a bit much. What if I only wanted 1 ticket? Doubling the cost with an "order charge" is sad.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I guess it is still a deal compared to regular prices, but 2 tickets @ $10 apiece still gets slapped with a $10 "order charge". That's beyond ticketmaster-level of egregious service fees. Sure it is a flat fee no matter how many tickets you get, but when the fee is 50% of the cost of your tickets, that's a bit much. What if I only wanted 1 ticket? Doubling the cost with an "order charge" is sad.

All true... Of course if you'd just treat 99 of your closest friends to a game, it's only a 1% surcharge. That's some real savings!

 

[icebadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

All true... Of course if you'd just treat 99 of your closest friends to a game, it's only a 1% surcharge. That's some real savings!

Good point. Now I just need to find a few more friends. [Translated: I'm a married guy with a toddler; what are 'friends'?]

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I guessing this 24-sale event may be an indicator (good or bad) of future pricing of upper deck seats. I am preparing to put together a Big Ten season package today. It's been a long time since I've been in the 3rd deck for hockey. Which sections or parts of sections should be avoided for sightline issues?

It's been quite a long while since I've sat up there so the only advice I can give would be the obvious sort: I'd personally stick to the middle opposite the bench if possible. All in all, I'd think 10 bucks is a pretty fair deal, especially if you purchase a number of seats. Despite all our complaints, I've sat in worse seats in bigger arenas...especially for bouncy ball. For hockey it's really not that bad, IMO. I even say that as someone who had lower level seats for years.

 

[Badger Booster]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

It's been quite a long while since I've sat up there so the only advice I can give would be the obvious sort: I'd personally stick to the middle opposite the bench if possible. All in all, I'd think 10 bucks is a pretty fair deal, especially if you purchase a number of seats. Despite all our complaints, I've sat in worse seats in bigger arenas...especially for bouncy ball. For hockey it's really not that bad, IMO. I even say that as someone who had lower level seats for years.

So if I get any seats in the middle sections, I should be good to go? I don't mind being up high for hockey, but obstructed views drive me crazy.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

So if I get any seats in the middle sections, I should be good to go? I don't mind being up high for hockey, but obstructed views drive me crazy.

Here's a 3rd tier view in the KC.

As you can see, action right on the near boards is a little harder to see. On the ends, this sort of view extends out a little further. There aren't any posts or anything like that in the way (unless you are in the very top two rows against the wall, where I think wall beams might extend out a little into the seats.) The "obstruction" is primarily refering to the area directly below your seat along the boards... I never found it to be a big issue really, but opinions vary.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

So if I get any seats in the middle sections, I should be good to go? I don't mind being up high for hockey, but obstructed views drive me crazy.

I've never actually been up in the third level, so my knowledge is based on photos and from looking at the angle of the seats from ice-level. (I did once peek out of the 300 level end seating at a basketball game, just to see where the hockey corner boards disappeared from view.) I don't think those upper level end seats beyond the first three rows are even available until they sell the rest, because your view of the goal is obstructed. In the upper corners, the nearest corner is cut off, and from the sides, it's cut very closely, but you'll be able to see the game well. If only they had gone with a 200x85 ft surface...

Here are some photos, including some from the upper level from various angles.

 

[Bonin21]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Here are some photos, including some from the upper level from various angles.

Picture number 21 - You can't see the net? If so, good lord...

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Picture number 21 - You can't see the net? If so, good lord...

Yup. I first discovered that by looking up from the front of the student section and seeing just the front and bottom of the third deck. On the couple of times I've skated on the Kohl Center ice, I had to skate beyond the goal in order to match the angle of the seats with my sightline.

When we get 13,000 in the arena, it really feels full despite the 2,000 empty seats, because at that point, pretty much all the empty seats are in the 300 level ends, and they're just out of the way. (It's as if the arena was built the same way, except the 300 level is only on the sides and a couple rows on the ends.) Somewhere on the UWBadgers.com facilities page, it has 2 official seating capacities for the hockey configuration, with just over 13K as the capacity, and 15K and change as the official capacity including obstructed views.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Picture number 21 - You can't see the net? If so, good lord...

Good Lord?

I disagree...

As DC's previous post pointed out, those seats are the last to be sold. In other words, after whole bunch more people get in as fit in the gopher hole, and it's essentially a SRO situation, people can still get in the building if they wish to. Why should that call for such epitaphs?
Goofs like to point out there are obstructed/ designed for bouncy ball seats in the KC, as though that somehow negates the existence of all the good seats. It's certainly not like there isn't a ton more decent hockey seats available as compared to Marriucci or most other facilities in the country.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Good Lord?

I disagree...

As DC's previous post pointed out, those seats are the last to be sold. In other words, after whole bunch more people get in as fit in the gopher hole, and it's essentially a SRO situation, people can still get in the building if they wish to. Why should that call for such epitaphs?
Goofs like to point out there are obstructed/ designed for bouncy ball seats in the KC, as though that somehow negates the existence of all the good seats. It's certainly not like there isn't a ton more decent hockey seats available as compared to Marriucci or most other facilities in the country.

I feel the same way you do, but I emphasize what I said earlier - those seats should be cheaper! What I find interesting about the Kohl Center is the 300 level is clearly at its height/angle with basketball in mind, but the first two levels look and feel like they were made primarily for hockey, when it comes to sightlines.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

those seats should be cheaper!

Agree 100%. Should be sold on SRO basis at SRO pricing.

the first two levels look and feel like they were made primarily for hockey, when it comes to sightlines.

There may be some, but I'm really not aware of any bad seats in the first two levels. It's a great place to watch hockey.

 

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

The sky is falling!

Okay, maybe not, but my back flight to Madison tomorrow will be less enjoyable.

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I love Shuey... He's always so cranked up after the game win or lose!

Let's see... he's not happy with the refs calling the bench minor. Thought overall Peterson played well. I'd gather he's not happy with Mersch as he was surprised Mersch even had a shot. (he had 2)... He'll light a fire under the boys, and we'll be back tomorrow night.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Would have hoped that a fire wouldn't need to be lit. Tired of the lip service of "We love these games against our rival, blah, blah, blah..."

No fire today. Very little compete.

If they can't get up for this game, will they ever?

Wondering about the "leadership" on this team.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

And Peterson didn't play well enough. Can't let those two in when playing a tight game.

Not sure what Eaves & Co. think they see there, but he sure doesn't look equal to Rumpel in my eyes.


And before Baghdad Bob stops by with the "They always platoon those two at this time of year, blah, blah, blah..." doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Today's Word: Blah

 

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I don't even know how to look at it... I'm not sure if it was the effort level. Shuey said they weren't disappointed in that so much... He also said they had guys on the bike between periods because they weren't getting in the game. I don't know what minutes played looked like but it can't have been very balanced at all, and I thought the top guys were looking a little gassed in the third. They put in a lot of ice time and pk'ing is a burnout.

We really need to stay out of the box and roll lines, that's where we are going to have an advantage, if we have one. Not saying we will, but if we're going to be playing in a CCHA, call every touch kind of league, we're going to have to be a lot more disciplined.

For all the abuse Rammer took about various things over his career, I thought that guy did a stellar job of leading last year. Does Frankie have it in him? I don't know. We'll find out pretty soon.