PDA

View Full Version : Im sick of the BTHC fearmongering



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

gophfan
05-27-2011, 12:56 AM
I cant believe adding 1 school can supposivly will hurt college hockey. I mean michigan just added lacrosse yet you dont have teams folding there lacrosse programs. College hockey has abig problem that nobody wants to say because they think youll hate college hockey. Many small schools in the CCHA have used playing 2-3 schools a year as theree sole source of revenue. Why are smalll schools in the WCHA doing well why the CCHA supposively cant?

kdiff77
05-27-2011, 01:12 AM
First, quit eviscerating the English language.

Second, these schools have reasonable points- if you can only make money off two or three games a year and you're about to lose those games, you're screwed. These are not Ivy League schools with multi-billion dollar endowments; they are not major sports' schools with basketball or football programs that can keep them afloat. These are mostly small colleges with little name recognition and, in most cases, pretty small endowments. If you take away their main sources of revenue each year, they will not only not make profit, but they will begin to hemorrhage money, and thus will not be able to afford keeping their teams.

This is simple economics. I don't know why the smaller WCHA teams are doing so well with a different approach than the CCHA teams; good for them. However, as a completely neutral (and uninformed) observer from the East, I have to take issue with your assumption that since the smaller WCHA teams can build sustainable success without a handful of major money-makers per season, then so can the CCHA teams. Each team's situation is unique, and it is possible that many of the CCHA teams simply have no other avenues for making the money necessary to keep their programs around. Who knows? But if as many people are saying that some of these teams will have to fold as you make it seem, there must be some truth behind it all.

MavsFan
05-27-2011, 01:37 AM
First, quit eviscerating the English language.

Second, these schools have reasonable points- if you can only make money off two or three games a year and you're about to lose those games, you're screwed. These are not Ivy League schools with multi-billion dollar endowments; they are not major sports' schools with basketball or football programs that can keep them afloat. These are mostly small colleges with little name recognition and, in most cases, pretty small endowments. If you take away their main sources of revenue each year, they will not only not make profit, but they will begin to hemorrhage money, and thus will not be able to afford keeping their teams.

This is simple economics. I don't know why the smaller WCHA teams are doing so well with a different approach than the CCHA teams; good for them. However, as a completely neutral (and uninformed) observer from the East, I have to take issue with your assumption that since the smaller WCHA teams can build sustainable success without a handful of major money-makers per season, then so can the CCHA teams. Each team's situation is unique, and it is possible that many of the CCHA teams simply have no other avenues for making the money necessary to keep their programs around. Who knows? But if as many people are saying that some of these teams will have to fold as you make it seem, there must be some truth behind it all.

As a Minnesota State fan, I'm not at all sure that the WCHA small programs will do okay once the Gophers and Badgers leave. We'll not only lose the revenue from those particular games, but I fear that a lot of folks in the Mankato area will no longer see MSU hockey as being in a "big-time" conference once the Gophers leave. Oh, I know they've said they'll still schedule the other Minnesota teams, but I don't believe for a minute that they'll come to Mankato, and even the games in Minneapolis will only be every few years.

We have a lot of other problems, so it is going to be difficult to separate the various effects in the next few years. For example, I expect a big drop in season-ticket sales this coming year after the 11th place finish this year. I know a lot of season-ticket holders who have told me that they've finally had enough, and won't be renewing. The attendance slide may already be well underway by the time the Gophers actually leave the conference.

gophfan
05-27-2011, 02:27 AM
First, quit eviscerating the English language.

Second, these schools have reasonable points- if you can only make money off two or three games a year and you're about to lose those games, you're screwed. These are not Ivy League schools with multi-billion dollar endowments; they are not major sports' schools with basketball or football programs that can keep them afloat. These are mostly small colleges with little name recognition and, in most cases, pretty small endowments. If you take away their main sources of revenue each year, they will not only not make profit, but they will begin to hemorrhage money, and thus will not be able to afford keeping their teams.

This is simple economics. I don't know why the smaller WCHA teams are doing so well with a different approach than the CCHA teams; good for them. However, as a completely neutral (and uninformed) observer from the East, I have to take issue with your assumption that since the smaller WCHA teams can build sustainable success without a handful of major money-makers per season, then so can the CCHA teams. Each team's situation is unique, and it is possible that many of the CCHA teams simply have no other avenues for making the money necessary to keep their programs around. Who knows? But if as many people are saying that some of these teams will have to fold as you make it seem, there must be some truth behind it all.

How is that the BTHC fault? Isnt that the fault of the individual schools?

LynahFan
05-27-2011, 02:48 AM
How is that the BTHC fault? Isnt that the fault of the individual schools?
Why does it have to be somebody's fault? Some things are just facts. The fact is that without Minnesota/Wisconsin home games, the revenue of some of the smaller WCHA teams will suffer - from the direct effect of lost revenue at those games and from the indirect effect of less overall interest in the program.

As to the amount, impact, and implications of that lost revenue - that's where we start wandering into opinion territory...

alfablue
05-27-2011, 10:48 AM
....but I fear that a lot of folks in the Mankato area will no longer see MSU hockey as being in a "big-time" conference once the Gophers leave....

That's a very interesting opinion. One that I have to really think over.

I normally don't get into the BT arguments, but do have to post that you have a particularly interesting point that I'm not sure I belive. Still, a great point.

Big Papa
05-27-2011, 10:58 AM
That's a very interesting opinion. One that I have to really think over.

I normally don't get into the BT arguments, but do have to post that you have a particularly interesting point that I'm not sure I belive. Still, a great point.

BTHC hockey will be awesome! Every game will be tough! Great exposure for players! Great action for fans to watch! I can't wait!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

alfablue
05-27-2011, 11:03 AM
BTHC hockey will be awesome! Every game will be tough! Great exposure for players! Great action for fans to watch! I can't wait!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

that I don't disagree with.

But for an MSU fan, will they see the WCHA as some kind of inferior conference now? That's a very interesting thought. My first reaction was "no way", but then I considered it, and there's a point to that, whether correct or not- it's about fan preception.

4four4
05-27-2011, 11:17 AM
. We'll not only lose the revenue from those particular games, but I fear that a lot of folks in the Mankato area will no longer see MSU hockey as being in a "big-time" conference once the Gophers leave.

Wow, I wonder how that makes UND, DU, UMD, SCSU, CC feel. I guess the WCHA won't be big time anymore. Who knew.

bronconick
05-27-2011, 11:42 AM
Wow, I wonder how that makes UND, DU, UMD, SCSU, CC feel. I guess the WCHA won't be big time anymore. Who knew.

There is a chunk of fans that view their schools in the WCHA/CCHA in Minnesota and Michigan "big time" hockey because they play in a conference with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan State simply because of college football/basketball. I'm not going to lie and say it wasn't easier to draw in a casual fan to a game against Northern Michigan simply by mentioning that WMU swept Michigan State earlier in the season.

How big a chunk that is and how many of them totally bail on college hockey is the question and probably varies from school to school.

kdiff77
05-27-2011, 11:45 AM
Why does it have to be somebody's fault? Some things are just facts. The fact is that without Minnesota/Wisconsin home games, the revenue of some of the smaller WCHA teams will suffer - from the direct effect of lost revenue at those games and from the indirect effect of less overall interest in the program.

As to the amount, impact, and implications of that lost revenue - that's where we start wandering into opinion territory...

This. It's not anyone's FAULT, per se; but is it going to happen? Probably.

Osorojo
05-27-2011, 12:07 PM
Easy on the Ivy league. Most of their "multi-billion dollar endowment" is tied up in academic education rather than men's ice hockey, unlike North Dakota or Penn State. Could it be that smaller college hockey schools are disappearing due to the increased cost of recruiting (scholarships) and paying (salaries and benefits) college hockey players? Yup.


"I can see a whole mess of trees, but where's the forest?" - Captain Peter "Wrong Way" Peach Fuzz.

Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.
05-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Wow, I wonder how that makes UND, DU, UMD, SCSU, CC feel. I guess the WCHA won't be big time anymore. Who knew.

I think you can take DU, NoDak and CC out of that equation as I think the poster's point was an in-state rivalry with the flagship team.

alfablue
05-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Wow, I wonder how that makes UND, DU, UMD, SCSU, CC feel. I guess the WCHA won't be big time anymore. Who knew.

Obviously, they are not going down at all. But it's possible that some fans will precieve that they are. that's what I'm thinking is interesting- and am not so sure it's true or not....

Happy
05-27-2011, 12:22 PM
I think you can take DU, NoDak and CC out of that equation as I think the poster's point was an in-state rivalry with the flagship team.

correct, there is a large difference when a Mankato fan can say "we not only play in the best conference in the State, it's the best conference in the Nation, and we are going to beat Minnesota when they come to town", and saying, "well, the WCHA isn't chopped liver, and we might get to play Minnesota in Mpls once in a while, maybe, and then we will beat them, if we get a game at all".

jcarter7669
05-27-2011, 12:29 PM
Easy on the Ivy league. Most of their "multi-billion dollar endowment" is tied up in academic education rather than men's ice hockey, unlike North Dakota or Penn State. Could it be that smaller college hockey schools are disappearing due to the increased cost of recruiting (scholarships) and paying (salaries and benefits) college hockey players? Yup.


"I can see a whole mess of trees, but where's the forest?" - Captain Peter "Wrong Way" Peach Fuzz.

How much does Yale spend on Men's Ice versus NoDak?

SCSU Euro
05-27-2011, 12:31 PM
I cant believe adding 1 school can supposivly will hurt college hockey. I mean michigan just added lacrosse yet you dont have teams folding there lacrosse programs. College hockey has abig problem that nobody wants to say because they think youll hate college hockey. Many small schools in the CCHA have used playing 2-3 schools a year as theree sole source of revenue. Why are smalll schools in the WCHA doing well why the CCHA supposively cant?

Comparing Michigan adding lacross and Penn State adding hockey (and the aftermath that it produced) is like comparing apples and hand jobs. Sure, I like receiving both, but other than that not a lot of similarities.


That's a very interesting opinion. One that I have to really think over.

I normally don't get into the BT arguments, but do have to post that you have a particularly interesting point that I'm not sure I belive. Still, a great point.

I hate to agree with Mavs fan, but he's right. And while I think all teams will miss UW and MN to some extent, specially losing MN will hurt the Minnesota schools. Not only do more people show up at SCSU, tUMD, MSUM and BSU games when the Gophers are in town, I swear some people just show up at other less-attended games now and then so they'll know the players' names they wanna cheer to kill the Gophers. The BTHC may weed out some of the less popular fans at the other Minnesota schools a bit, but the institution will miss their $.

manurespreader
05-27-2011, 12:41 PM
I agree that the WCHA will continue to be a premier conference, with or without the BT. However the financial revenue that is generated is certain to drop some.
Will this be so deleterious that it causes the smaller programs to fold? I don't think so, at least not at present.

However, at least in Michigan, the financial situation is worsening for state schools, as state funding continues to drop.(witness Wayne State's announcement today) and so without a number of alumni supporters to prop them up, these smaller programs are certainly in trouble.
All of this in a context of escalating costs for almost everything.

alfablue
05-27-2011, 12:49 PM
I hate to agree with Mavs fan, but he's right. And while I think all teams will miss UW and MN to some extent, specially losing MN will hurt the Minnesota schools. Not only do more people show up at SCSU, tUMD, MSUM and BSU games when the Gophers are in town, I swear some people just show up at other less-attended games now and then so they'll know the players' names they wanna cheer to kill the Gophers. The BTHC may weed out some of the less popular fans at the other Minnesota schools a bit, but the institution will miss their $.

Well, I'd be lying if I told you that a game with Minny or BU is the same as a Ferris game at Yost. You are right, though, when big hockey schools come to town, the crowd does change. Preception is crazy, sometimes.

So the new battle will be to make sure that preception of non-BT schools is still quite high... And apparently, not an easy task.

Again- I'm not saying any of the BT schools are better than anyone else, but I do agree that the fan preception CAN see it that way. hmmmm.

FlagDUDE08
05-27-2011, 01:02 PM
Well, I'd be lying if I told you that a game with Minny or BU is the same as a Ferris game at Yost. You are right, though, when big hockey schools come to town, the crowd does change. Preception is crazy, sometimes.

So the new battle will be to make sure that preception of non-BT schools is still quite high... And apparently, not an easy task.

Again- I'm not saying any of the BT schools are better than anyone else, but I do agree that the fan preception CAN see it that way. hmmmm.

The exact same thing with selective attendance happens in the east. At RPI, attendance skyrockets when we play Clarkson, Cornell, or have our annual "Freakout" game. With Union, theirs skyrockets when they play either Cornell or RPI. I don't follow any of the others all too well, but I'm sure they have very similar results. The same when BU is in town, not only within Hockey East, but non-conference in the east as well.

It's too bad that you can't have a WCHA or CCHA with all six B1G teams in that conference and then a few more, and have a separate championship determinant, similar to how the Ivy League works within the ECAC.