PDA

View Full Version : NCHC commissioner



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

dggoddard
01-05-2012, 05:06 AM
New commissioner gets 4 1/2 contract @ $150,000 per year plus bonuses.

The NCHC had 82 candidates before Scherr was selected.

Scherr wrestled at the University of Nebraska & has an MBA from Northwestern.

16 game per season league TV contract with CBS Sports Network

24 game league schedule.

Xcel Center in St Paul is leading candidate for conference tourney

Road trips to Bemidji, Anchorage & Houghton will be replaced with trips to New Hampshire, Madison & Boston.

http://www.gazette.com/sports/scherr-131160-conference-former.html

manurespreader
01-05-2012, 09:22 AM
New commissioner gets 4 1/2 contract @ $150,000 per year plus bonuses.

The NCHC had 82 candidates before Scherr was selected.

Scherr wrestled at the University of Nebraska & has an MBA from Northwestern.

16 game per season league TV contract with CBS Sports Network

24 game league schedule.

Xcel Center in St Paul is leading candidate for conference tourney

Road trips to Bemidji, Anchorage & Houghton will be replaced with trips to New Hampshire, Madison & Boston.

http://www.gazette.com/sports/scherr-131160-conference-former.html
No doubt you will be better off financially at least at first, but Scheer was not the first choice or even the third, and that salary is pretty paltry if you ask me, I think xcel will be ok, but not as good as the final five, so your revenue from there will be only slightly elevated.I would bet that the Big ten has tourneys there as well and I wonder how many tickets the public will buy.
You will get better road trips of course but you only came to Houghton every 2 or three years anyway, and I doubt that there will be much in the way of incremental ticket sales at home. You already go to Boston, so are you making three trips now? Certainly the cbs deal is better than no deal, as dirty so lucidly pointed out. However having said all that, in the long term I don't see this being the big boon you're AD thinks it is. Could be, but I think after 4 or 5 years and with more losses than now days,and increased expenses, the net revenue stream will be about the same.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-05-2012, 09:38 AM
No doubt you will be better off financially at least at first, but Scheer was not the first choice or even the third, and that salary is pretty paltry if you ask me, I think xcel will be ok, but not as good as the final five, so your revenue from there will be only slightly elevated.I would bet that the Big ten has tourneys there as well and I wonder how many tickets the public will buy.
You will get better road trips of course but you only came to Houghton every 2 or three years anyway, and I doubt that there will be much in the way of incremental ticket sales at home. You already go to Boston, so are you making three trips now? Certainly the cbs deal is better than no deal, as dirty so lucidly pointed out. However having said all that, in the long term I don't see this being the big boon you're AD thinks it is. Could be, but I think after 4 or 5 years and with more losses than now days,and increased expenses, the net revenue stream will be about the same.

I basically agree with all of this, but the biggest point that I think those who were in favor of this conference (I was not) would make is your last line. The NCHC allows the schools that are in it to keep making about what they were making before. The new WCHA would have (they argue) resulted in a decline in revenue stream. I never felt that it was about keeping up with the Joneses (Big 10), but rather keeping up with where they already were. The NCHC should allow that...the new WCHA would have been a big question mark.

For fans that have followed the game for a long time, it sucks that all this change will alter a landscape that we all loved and cherished. However, there is not a **** thing that we can do about it at this point. I understand the bitter feelings, and I have some of my own. At the end of the day though, the schools that left had reasons for leaving, and some people (not you ms) look extremely butthurt over the situation by doing nothing more than trying to mock anything and everything that the NCHC does. We'll all find out if this was a good move by the schools that left eventually, but it would be in the best interest of college hockey if it was wildly successful (same with the Big 10, same with the new WCHA, same with any potential new conference).

Osorojo
01-05-2012, 10:26 AM
"Jim" is an Indian name, at least it was to Mark Twain. Shouldn't the NCAA be looking into this?

manurespreader
01-05-2012, 11:29 AM
I basically agree with all of this, but the biggest point that I think those who were in favor of this conference (I was not) would make is your last line. The NCHC allows the schools that are in it to keep making about what they were making before. The new WCHA would have (they argue) resulted in a decline in revenue stream. I never felt that it was about keeping up with the Joneses (Big 10), but rather keeping up with where they already were. The NCHC should allow that...the new WCHA would have been a big question mark.

it would be in the best interest of college hockey if it was wildly successful (same with the Big 10, same with the new WCHA, same with any potential new conference).

I agree FS that this is how it is, however I disagree on some points. An argument can be made that the WCHA would have been better off and with bigger income streams, if it had been left intact and picked up Miami and ND. I also think that with these new teams, the league would have gotten more aggressive on the tv stuff as the balance of power within the voting blocks would have shifted to the big money teams.I also think that college hockey might have been better off without these changes as then Huntsville might have had a better chance of getting into the ccha.
I also think a significant reason this happened is fear and personalities. Some teams feared a loss of revenue enough to blow up everything to try and preserve it, and they didn't like some of the other things that they were forced to do. I don't think that fear was warranted, but either way this is what we have now, And allowing personalities to influence your decision making is asking for trouble.

For us that are left behind, there are very hard feelings that are going to last a while. Will we get over it, sure, but it's going to cost us a ton of money, especially in the short term and it didn't need to happen. Down the line, we like our new league partners, they play good hockey, and are committed to continuing, we don't think recruiting will be hurt one bit, and we will eventually build up a solid playoffs, but like I said imho it was unnecessary and on balance the minuses outweigh the plusses.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-05-2012, 12:28 PM
I agree FS that this is how it is, however I disagree on some points. An argument can be made that the WCHA would have been better off and with bigger income streams, if it had been left intact and picked up Miami and ND. I also think that with these new teams, the league would have gotten more aggressive on the tv stuff as the balance of power within the voting blocks would have shifted to the big money teams.I also think that college hockey might have been better off without these changes as then Huntsville might have had a better chance of getting into the ccha.
I also think a significant reason this happened is fear and personalities. Some teams feared a loss of revenue enough to blow up everything to try and preserve it, and they didn't like some of the other things that they were forced to do. I don't think that fear was warranted, but either way this is what we have now, And allowing personalities to influence your decision making is asking for trouble.

For us that are left behind, there are very hard feelings that are going to last a while. Will we get over it, sure, but it's going to cost us a ton of money, especially in the short term and it didn't need to happen. Down the line, we like our new league partners, they play good hockey, and are committed to continuing, we don't think recruiting will be hurt one bit, and we will eventually build up a solid playoffs, but like I said imho it was unnecessary and on balance the minuses outweigh the plusses.

Again, that was my perception of the argument for moving to the NCHC, not necessarily how I think.

Would the WCHA w/Miami and ND been better for the schools that ultimately formed the NCHC? That's a question we can never really answer. It may have, it may not have. Plus, this may not have even been a possibility, and there are perhaps only a few people who might truly know the answer. Ultimately, the NCHC schools selfishly acted in what they perceived to be their best interest.

As for the money argument, I believe that the NCHC schools that were a part of the WCHA will do better financially in the NCHC than had they stayed in the WCHA. My reasoning for that thought has to do with North Dakota's ability to pack people into the tournament venue, and the fact that there will be fewer hands in the money jar at the end of the day. The revenue generated from the tournament would have been roughly equal with a new WCHA or the NCHC. With 8 teams (instead of 10 or 12) dividing the roughly equivalent pie, the schools will get more money. Other than that, I believe that the TV deal probably won't even be noticeable (in terms of immediate revenue) by the schools, and the extra non-conference games will allow for schools to make up for losing out on the Alaska exemption.

I'm not sold that Huntsville would have been picked up (or had a better chance to get into) by the CCHA. I'm not sure how the voting went before when they were denied membership, but I want to say that it was the smaller schools that voted against it (again, this is only a loose recollection of what happened. I'm sure people more closely involved could shed more light on the situation).

Again, I understand the hard feelings, but those people that attack anything and everything the NCHC does are ridiculous.

huskyfan
01-05-2012, 12:50 PM
For fans that have followed the game for a long time, it sucks that all this change will alter a landscape that we all loved and cherished. However, there is not a **** thing that we can do about it at this point. I understand the bitter feelings, and I have some of my own. At the end of the day though, the schools that left had reasons for leaving, and some people (not you ms) look extremely butthurt over the situation by doing nothing more than trying to mock anything and everything that the NCHC does. We'll all find out if this was a good move by the schools that left eventually, but it would be in the best interest of college hockey if it was wildly successful (same with the Big 10, same with the new WCHA, same with any potential new conference).

guilty as charged.

I still feel this was a bad move for college hockey. Minnesota and Wisconsin leaving for the Big Ten was a blow for the WCHA. duh. but a couple of panicked programs made some stupid decisions, based on greed, personal comfort (ie, flying to Anchorage or Houghton) and personal relationships. it was handled badly from the first and still today handled badly. there is alot to be said for an established league vs trying to start one from scratch. wouldn't it have made more sense to have open discussions about realigning the leagues? making a home for Huntsville? continuing to shepherd the smaller and more vulnerable programs (Bowling Green)? removing Bruce (if this was an issue) (personally I think the "unhappiness" with him is a smoke screen)? making geographical decisions to make travel easier for all? perhaps the founders of the WCHA and CCHA could have sat down and hashed this out? the vision (fostered so nicely by Minnesota) of growing college hockey? it's a little too rich that the arrogance of the NCHC - assuming Notre Dame would join, making the run at Joel Maturi, the Dakota AD being the de facto CEO (how's that Bud Selig working out for baseball?), etc etc. and in the end the "big" "national" "elite" schools will end up with a league of winners and perpetual losers, with no traditions, few old rivalries. Eastern Hockey and the Big Ten will rule the roost. coaches and players will come and go and no one will be able to fathom why Western was asked to join and why Florida has a hockey team. it will be a loss for all of Western hockey.

I'm proud of Michigan Tech and the high road we've taken. and I will continue to mock the NaCHos. the flailing of the "elites" is always good fun.

bronconick
01-05-2012, 12:50 PM
The only way Huntsville would have gotten an invite to a neutered CCHA (WMU, NMU, LSSU, FSU, UAF, BG) is if one of the six dropped hockey and they grabbed them to get back to six. In reality, that's CHA II, where programs are going to slowly fail and drop out.

huskyfan
01-05-2012, 12:53 PM
and how happy will a guy used to making 600K - 800K a year be with his 150? and what incentives? if he can arrange direct flights to Oxford and K-zoo?

Dirty
01-05-2012, 12:56 PM
I'm proud of Michigan Tech and the high road we've taken. and I will continue to mock the NaCHos. the flailing of the "elites" is always good fun.

Even after Tech has folded? That's mighty spiteful.

MUhawks628
01-05-2012, 01:12 PM
and how happy will a guy used to making 600K - 800K a year be with his 150? and what incentives? if he can arrange direct flights to Oxford and K-zoo?

I get bonus now?? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_University_Airport)

(Never said commercial :))

Runninwiththedogs
01-05-2012, 04:21 PM
guilty as charged.

I still feel this was a bad move for college hockey. Minnesota and Wisconsin leaving for the Big Ten was a blow for the WCHA. duh. but a couple of panicked programs made some stupid decisions, based on greed, personal comfort (ie, flying to Anchorage or Houghton) and personal relationships. it was handled badly from the first and still today handled badly. there is alot to be said for an established league vs trying to start one from scratch. wouldn't it have made more sense to have open discussions about realigning the leagues? making a home for Huntsville? continuing to shepherd the smaller and more vulnerable programs (Bowling Green)? removing Bruce (if this was an issue) (personally I think the "unhappiness" with him is a smoke screen)? making geographical decisions to make travel easier for all? perhaps the founders of the WCHA and CCHA could have sat down and hashed this out? the vision (fostered so nicely by Minnesota) of growing college hockey? it's a little too rich that the arrogance of the NCHC - assuming Notre Dame would join, making the run at Joel Maturi, the Dakota AD being the de facto CEO (how's that Bud Selig working out for baseball?), etc etc. and in the end the "big" "national" "elite" schools will end up with a league of winners and perpetual losers, with no traditions, few old rivalries. Eastern Hockey and the Big Ten will rule the roost. coaches and players will come and go and no one will be able to fathom why Western was asked to join and why Florida has a hockey team. it will be a loss for all of Western hockey.

I'm proud of Michigan Tech and the high road we've taken. and I will continue to mock the NaCHos. the flailing of the "elites" is always good fun.

I don't see how Michigan Tech has taken a high road at all. Michigan Tech has taken the only road they have.

The worst idea, as far as the growth of college hockey was concerned, would be for the WCHA to remain intact but add ND and Miami. That packs the WCHA at 12 teams again (which is TOO MANY TEAMS, we all know that) and leaves the remainder of the CCHA floundering. Any WCHA fan who suggests that is just advocating ****ing over CCHA teams, while simultaneously griping about being ****ed over. It also leaves absolutely no room for expansion. An 8-team league has room to add two more, so there's room for expansion now with the NCHC, the WCHA, and the Big 10 (for a few schools). Finally, there is absolutely no guarantee that ND wouldn't have pursued HE anyway, even if the NCHC had not been formed.

manurespreader
01-05-2012, 04:22 PM
Again, that was my perception of the argument for moving to the NCHC, not necessarily how I think.

Would the WCHA w/Miami and ND been better for the schools that ultimately formed the NCHC? That's a question we can never really answer. It may have, it may not have. Plus, this may not have even been a possibility, and there are perhaps only a few people who might truly know the answer. Ultimately, the NCHC schools selfishly acted in what they perceived to be their best interest.

As for the money argument, I believe that the NCHC schools that were a part of the WCHA will do better financially in the NCHC than had they stayed in the WCHA. My reasoning for that thought has to do with North Dakota's ability to pack people into the tournament venue, and the fact that there will be fewer hands in the money jar at the end of the day. The revenue generated from the tournament would have been roughly equal with a new WCHA or the NCHC. With 8 teams (instead of 10 or 12) dividing the roughly equivalent pie, the schools will get more money. Other than that, I believe that the TV deal probably won't even be noticeable (in terms of immediate revenue) by the schools, and the extra non-conference games will allow for schools to make up for losing out on the Alaska exemption.

I'm not sold that Huntsville would have been picked up (or had a better chance to get into) by the CCHA. I'm not sure how the voting went before when they were denied membership, but I want to say that it was the smaller schools that voted against it (again, this is only a loose recollection of what happened. I'm sure people more closely involved could shed more light on the situation).

I disagree that the nchc teams will make more money in the new league, I think as I said, it will be about the same though I'm sure the party line is that it will be more profitable.
Yes fewer hands in the till, but the total revenue will most likely be smaller. I understand that many fans came from UND, but I just don't see a big crowd for the UNO vs CC game for instance or WMU vs St Cloud. Add that to the competition from the Big Ten tourney most likely going on at the same time, fewer fans from the left out schools who could be traveling to Green Bay, fewer rivalry games, etc, and it doesn't make sense to me that revenues will hold up.

Huntsville by itself, I would agree with bronconick, things MAY have slowly have died anyway, but maybe not, especially if wmu had stayed. IMHO chances are that had Miami and ND bolted, the CCHA could have picked up a second team, not just Huntsville and possibly three more. But it wasn't happening without a proven infrastructure, which the CCHA would have provided. Once the CCHA was done, there was no way that any other teams were coming west.
Huskyfan is right, it could have been done much more intelligently and the fact that it wasn't is too bad, and not just for Tech. I hope you're right and that college hockey flourishes, however we will have to see. John MacInnes spent his life doing things that made college hockey better. He invited ND to come and play us right out of the box, he spent a lot of time trying to grow college hockey everywhere he could, even when it meant a sacrifice by MTU financially. I hope the interest in college hockey grows and I hope it is spread out, if only a few flourish it will be bad for everyone.

aparch
01-05-2012, 04:30 PM
All home games televised on Fox College Sports. ... Some games against Denver televised on Fox Sports Rocky Mountain.
For UND alone:
IF Fox College Sports renews the agreement with the Fighting [redacted] Sports Network.

So the NCHC still allows the Universities to negotiate their own TV package. Wonder how much Denver is going to want to pay Root Sports Rocky Mountain to carry their games in the future. As for individual schools: Duluth, Western Michigan, Miami, Omaha, and Colorado College aren't in a position to get RSN deals like NoDak and DU.

The only information is that the 16 game CBSCS package is a league wide deal. Hope that the "lesser" NCHC schools love not having the revenue sharing like the WCHA had; Miami and WMU are used to it though.

Dirty
01-05-2012, 04:46 PM
I still fail to see how the teams, whether UND or Western Michigan, are worse off TV-wise by being in the NCHC instead of the new WCHA.

MUhawks628
01-05-2012, 05:08 PM
So the NCHC still allows the Universities to negotiate their own TV package. Wonder how much Denver is going to want to pay Root Sports Rocky Mountain to carry their games in the future. As for individual schools: Duluth, Western Michigan, Miami, Omaha, and Colorado College aren't in a position to get RSN deals like NoDak and DU.


It is a little known fact that nearly all Miami's home games are televised in the state of Ohio for Time Warner, AT&T, WOW and Ingsight subscribers with slightly above average digital cable packages :)

Red Cows
01-05-2012, 05:21 PM
For us that are left behind, there are very hard feelings that are going to last a while. Will we get over it, sure, but it's going to cost us a ton of money, especially in the short term and it didn't need to happen. Down the line, we like our new league partners, they play good hockey, and are committed to continuing, we don't think recruiting will be hurt one bit, and we will eventually build up a solid playoffs, but like I said imho it was unnecessary and on balance the minuses outweigh the plusses.

I have empathy for the teams that got left out in all this.

As a UNO fan, frankly, I've scratched my head a little about why we ended up with a seat at the table. UNO easily has the least hockey legacy of any team in the NCHC. By quite a bit.

My theories/reasons for maybe we why did (in no particular order):

1. UNO is in a "major" metropolitan area which gives the league another potential league tournament option if they want to rotate it around.

2. They play in an arena that is only 8 years old that seats 16,680 for hockey. By far, the largest in the new conference.

3. Dean Blais is UNO's head coach.

4. Trev Alberts is UNO's Athletic Director.

5. UNO made it known, in no uncertain terms, prior to the NCHC announcement, that they were going to be, first and foremost, known as hockey school by nixing both the football program and the wrestling program on the same day. In the case of the wrestling program, the announcement was made the same day that UNO won the National Championship.

6. UNO "works" geographically, being centrally located among the other teams in the league, and, fills a big geographic void between the two western schools and the eastern/northern schools.

7. UNO has the largest booster club in all of college hockey.

We were a middling CCHA team before joining the WCHA and hiring Coach Blais. We didn't even start our program until the '97-'98 season. IMHO, besides maybe the '05-'06 team, the past two seasons are arguably the best in school history (with apologies to the '00-'01 and '01-'02 teams). I am a little surprised that we ended up being a part of the new conference and there hasn't been a lot of "what are they doing in there?" bluster, particular from teams that have "been around" a lot longer than UNO.

We're fortunate, and, grateful.

Tipsy McStagger
01-05-2012, 05:49 PM
The draw of college hockey for most of the fans of the smaller programs is that their school is competing against the best teams in the country. Mankato plays Minnesota and North Dakota, LSSU plays Michigan, Vermont plays Boston College, etc. Without the powerhouse teams in their conference, will the WCHA teams survive? No way to know. But you can't blame any of the parties involved for trying to enhance theirs and/or the sport's visibility by joining with "like-minded institutions." I want college hockey to get more attention and the old way wasn't working too well. You can't complain about lack of coverage and at the same time cry about big programs banding together in an effort to increase exposure. I liked things the way they were, but I have gotten over it. Holding a grudge against the U of M or North Dakota is stupid. Especially when I didn't like them in the first place.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-05-2012, 06:08 PM
I disagree that the nchc teams will make more money in the new league, I think as I said, it will be about the same though I'm sure the party line is that it will be more profitable.
Yes fewer hands in the till, but the total revenue will most likely be smaller. I understand that many fans came from UND, but I just don't see a big crowd for the UNO vs CC game for instance or WMU vs St Cloud. Add that to the competition from the Big Ten tourney most likely going on at the same time, fewer fans from the left out schools who could be traveling to Green Bay, fewer rivalry games, etc, and it doesn't make sense to me that revenues will hold up.

I think we can both agree that the vast majority of fans going to either the NCHC tourney or new WCHA tourney (assuming NCHC never formed) would be from North Dakota. After that, I agree that very few will care about a WMU-SCSU matchup or a Tech-SCSU matchup (or a Tech-UAA matchup)...I think you're going to get roughly the same amount of fans. Obviously, a UNO-CC matchup would theoretically get the same amount of fans regardless of which conference we're talking about. Because North Dakota is bringing probably 12k to the tournament (realistically anywhere from 10-15k), and SCSU and Duluth probably make up the majority of the other fans (again, regardless if we're talking NCHC or new WCHA) the tourney probably maxes out at about 14-15k/game, or about 60k overall (probably anywhere from 50-60k). Let's say that each fan generates $50 in revenue for the conference...

NCHC Tourney w/60k brings in $3 million. That means each team brings home $375,000 (again, just for argument sake).

In order for each team to bring home $375,000 in the new WCHA, they would have to sell 90k tickets (aka sell out the X for every game...something that doesn't even happen now). If they sell the same 60k, each school is bringing home $250,000.

Basically, in order for the new WCHA to break even with the NCHC tournament, they have to sell 1.5 tickets for every 1 ticket the NCHC sells (or 50% more). That just isn't going to happen. That's why the fewer hands approach brings more money to each school.

SCSU Euro
01-05-2012, 06:33 PM
This seems to have become the defacto NCHC thread for a while and since we've discussed tourney site and schedule I wanna hear people's thoughts on partners.

Assuming a 24 game schedule happens, every team gets 6 home, 6 road conference series so there's one opponent who you don't host, one you don't travel to each year. But are the Colorado teams going to deal with two out of seven years only getting two games against each other? No chance for a h/h those years, and so DU goes a whole season without hosting CC and vice versa. I don't see it, wondering if people are on the same page and that we get the old rivalry pairing where you play your rival four times every season. And obviously Eastern time zone teams and Mountain time zoners are together but how do you guys see the Centrals split up?