(04-29-2022 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-29-2022 08:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 05:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s ironic that Miami was one of the biggest movers and shakers involved in the NCHC but it hasn’t been a good experience for them.

I think Ariz St and Minn St Mankato would be great adds.

This seems to be a completely emotional fan-based on-the-ice observation as opposed to an objective business-oriented conference realignment observation, though.

It's sort of lower rent version of that thread suggesting that Missouri should leave the SEC and go back to the Big 12. Sure, Mizzou would probably be more competitive in the Big 12 compared to the SEC, but that's not what drives realignment decisions. In this environment where being in the best conference possibly means more than ever, absolutely no one is downgrading (and that includes even sport-specific leagues). Everyone knows that they're better off long-term sacrificing wins if they're in the best conference possible.

I guess you have to weigh the cost of being a cellar dweller in a good league vs being a top 25% team in an ok league.

In my opinion, I think the NCHC was a bit too selective when they went with 8 teams. Sure they are strong programs, but 10 would help to more evenly distribute some of the losses.

The dangers of a breakaway Premier League - for every winner, there is a loser.

(04-29-2022 02:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-29-2022 08:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 05:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s ironic that Miami was one of the biggest movers and shakers involved in the NCHC but it hasn’t been a good experience for them.

I think Ariz St and Minn St Mankato would be great adds.

This seems to be a completely emotional fan-based on-the-ice observation as opposed to an objective business-oriented conference realignment observation, though.

It's sort of lower rent version of that thread suggesting that Missouri should leave the SEC and go back to the Big 12. Sure, Mizzou would probably be more competitive in the Big 12 compared to the SEC, but that's not what drives realignment decisions. In this environment where being in the best conference possibly means more than ever, absolutely no one is downgrading (and that includes even sport-specific leagues). Everyone knows that they're better off long-term sacrificing wins if they're in the best conference possible.

I guess you have to weigh the cost of being a cellar dweller in a good league vs being a top 25% team in an ok league.

In my opinion, I think the NCHC was a bit too selective when they went with 8 teams. Sure they are strong programs, but 10 would help to more evenly distribute some of the losses.

I don't see how there is an issue that needs to be fixed here. Pretty sure the NCHC has annually had the most at large bids since the formation of the conference, and this year they finished the season with 5 teams ranked in the top 10 of the country. The conference schedule is difficult, but the non-conference winning percentage, usually at or better than 60%, has more than made up for this. The NCHC has consistently shown that it has been the best conference in the country, so why change a formula that has been working?

If Miami decides they want to pay the 1.5 million exit fee because they are sick of losing, so be it, and I guess ASU would be a good replacement, but that is the only situation where I think adding ASU to the NCHC would be worth it. ASU has a lot of positives, but there are also a lot of issues. First of all, the NCHC was formed by like -minded institutions in regard to hockey, and the conf members have all shown a commitment to growing the conference together. This is the exact reason why Notre Dame isn't in the conference for example, as they wouldn't work with the NCHC in regard to their TV deal. When it comes to ASU, do they really care about the long term growth of the conference or would they look to bolt for a SW based conference as soon as possible? Would ASU fully participate and embrace the NCHC.TV streaming package? Would CBS Sports be allowed to air NCHC games played at ASU? How many issues will be caused by the PAC12 network, and probably ASU's allegiance to that network?

ASU would also contribute nothing towards the growth of the Frozen Faceoff, one of the last off campus conference tournaments, and a major source of revenue for the conference. How many ASU fans would we expect to pay for Forzen Faceoff tickets each year? Would ASU improve the viability of that event, or would there be attendance issues when they are participants? Would ASU push for the whole tournament to be held on campus? Would they push for a more centralized frozen four location or push for a location that rotates?

As a fan of North Dakota, it just seems to me that ASU joining the conference would introduce a lot of potential issues, and they could potentially cause instability within a smoothly operating conference, because I don't believe their goals and priorities aligned with the other NCHC schools. ASU = Notre Dame, imo. The conference already made this decision, essentially, and at a time when the outlook of the conference was much more precarious. In what ways would ASU actually improve the league or significantly increase revenue? From a North Dakota perspective, playing games annually in Arizona would probably help to water down demand for our destination games, as well.

(04-29-2022 04:50 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  If Miami decides they want to pay the 1.5 million exit fee because they are sick of losing, so be it,

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me schools routinely find ways around this.

Good analysis nodak. ASU has no interest in us.

Atlantic Hockey commissioner is retiring. Interesting timing. https://twitter.com/Atlantic_Hockey/stat...7027820544

I am not sure that ASU will ever need a conference...

The Sun Devils already have 24 home games this coming year (22-23) (thank you, new arena!), and they can pretty much have their pick of any opponent they want going down to Tempe to play ASU in the winter. Many opponents like playing a warm weather game in winter, and many opposing schools have a decent size alumni base in Arizona.

ASU can play a majority of home games (to make plenty of money) AND can control their PWR/NCAA tourney exposure by choosing what level of program they want to play in AZ in a given year.

They also get game exposure on Pac 12 network.

Pretty sweet deal for the Sun Devils.

And as for Mankato, conferences are about much more than cozy geography...

MSUM brings very little to the NCHC,- very few new eyeballs - it is a very small market school with a small fanbase in an already-oversaturated and well-covered Minnesota NCHC market. If the Mavs came to the NCHC and had to play an NCHC schedule each year, they would soon be a mid-pack program quickly (as they were in the old WCHA), losing about 8-10 wins a year that they get now in the lower-rated CCHA. As a .500ish NCHC program, their fans would drift away within 5 years. MSUM is much better off generating 20+ wins per year in the CCHA. Moreover, MUSM is not as well-capitalized compared to other NCHC schools. MSUM has also hit a wall in terms of enrollment as many regional publics have recently. MSUM may not be losing students like some (looking at you, St. Cloud), but they have stopped gaining them amid a bad demographic trend...

(05-02-2022 04:21 PM)puck swami Wrote:  I am not sure that ASU will ever need a conference...

Illinois announced today it is no longer considering adding men's hockey.

https://fightingillini.com/news/2022/5/2...ockey.aspx

The Big Ten remains at seven (including Notre Dame). Will it now look to Arizona State to get to eight?

Why would they do that when Lindenwood is closer to Champaign-Urbana ?

(05-02-2022 05:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 04:21 PM)puck swami Wrote:  I am not sure that ASU will ever need a conference...

Illinois announced today it is no longer considering adding men's hockey.

https://fightingillini.com/news/2022/5/2...ockey.aspx

The Big Ten remains at seven (including Notre Dame). Will it now look to Arizona State to get to eight?

Well that sucks

(05-02-2022 05:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(05-02-2022 04:21 PM)puck swami Wrote:  I am not sure that ASU will ever need a conference...

Illinois announced today it is no longer considering adding men's hockey.

https://fightingillini.com/news/2022/5/2...ockey.aspx

The Big Ten remains at seven (including Notre Dame). Will it now look to Arizona State to get to eight?

Really disappointing. The pandemic really changed everything with the combination of some funding sources drying up and expenses rising dramatically (as is the case with the cost of construction everywhere).

Essentially, nothing short of an $80-100 million donation falling from the sky is going to start up hockey at Illinois (or likely any Big Ten school, for that matter).

(05-02-2022 05:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Illinois announced today it is no longer considering adding men's hockey.

"Some make it happen, some don't"

Really hoped Illinois could've found a way to field a hockey program as schools in the other Great Lakes states in the region have done over the years.

(05-03-2022 07:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Essentially, nothing short of an $80-100 million donation falling from the sky is going to start up hockey at Illinois (or likely any Big Ten school, for that matter).

Is it fair to suggest (considering the hockey talent and interest in the Chicagoland area, where I'm assuming a lot of UIUC students come from) that it actually "makes sense" for The University of Illinois to have a hockey program.

Maybe it's something a better or more dynamic AD could've gotten done?

Again, this sucks — and I say this as someone who cares next to nothing about the NHL but has really taken a liking to College Hockey the last few years.

That's sad. I like seeing the game grow. AD must want to focus on current sports. Fieliding a competitive football team for example.

(05-03-2022 08:14 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Really hoped Illinois could've found a way to field a hockey program as schools in the other Great Lakes states in the region have done over the years.

Unfortunately, I believe we're at the point where "find a way" means getting an $80 million-plus donation. Penn State just happened to have a hockey-focused NHL owner alum that was willing to underwrite their whole program, which is something that very few (if any) other schools have. Small schools like Lindenwood can use smaller arenas outside of their control and not fully fund scholarships. That wouldn't fly in the Big Ten.

(05-03-2022 08:22 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 07:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Essentially, nothing short of an $80-100 million donation falling from the sky is going to start up hockey at Illinois (or likely any Big Ten school, for that matter).

Is it fair to suggest (considering the hockey talent and interest in the Chicagoland area, where I'm assuming a lot of UIUC students come from) that it actually "makes sense" for The University of Illinois to have a hockey program.

Maybe it's something a better or more dynamic AD could've gotten done?

Again, this sucks — and I say this as someone who cares next to nothing about the NHL but has really taken a liking to College Hockey the last few years.

This isn't on Josh Whitman (our AD) at all. Without question, he's the most dynamic AD that we've had since I started following Illinois sports and has absolutely blown away expectations in terms of being able to raise revenue and make game changing decisions for the athletic department. If anything, the fact that he was able to get hockey this far along in the process to where they had tangible arena plans and fundraising to the point where this would have moved forward without the pandemic intervening was a monumental achievement. No other prior Illinois AD was even able to get past just reflexively answering "No" whenever the subject of Division I hockey was brought up to them.

What makes it all frustrating is that it makes a TON of sense for Illinois to have a hockey program in a vacuum for the reasons that you've stated with the pipeline from the Chicago area. The State of Illinois produces the fifth-most Division I hockey players in the country, yet we don't have any in-state program at all. That's the reason why we were discussing Division I hockey at Illinois during my freshman year at the school... which is now 25 years ago.

As I've stated, I'm disappointed, but it's understandable at this point. We weren't going cheap on this to create a hockey team so that we could have more tuition-paying students (like LIU or Lindenwood). This was going to be a fully-funded top-of-the-line $100 million investment. Unfortunately, just the construction costs alone would have ballooned 30% simply because of the inflation of the past 2 years.

Maybe a combination of increased Big Ten TV revenue (which is definitely coming) plus the revived basketball program (already here) plus a revived football program (which will hopefully come at some point) will allow hockey to be reconsidered within my lifetime. We'll see.

(05-03-2022 08:27 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  That's sad. I like seeing the game grow. AD must want to focus on current sports. Fieliding a competitive football team for example.

I don't think it's just a matter of the AD wanting to focus on current sports per se. That's a little too simple of an explanation.

It's just that for Illinois to add a hockey program (and I believe that this would be the case for everyone in the Big Ten), it was going to require completely net new fundraising and money. That was certainly the case for Penn State.

So, this isn't a matter of Illinois choosing to spend more money on football or basketball instead of hockey. The fact of the matter is that Illinois was NEVER going to shift ANY existing athletic department money to hockey. A new hockey program was going to have to pay for itself and Illinois thought that was in place in February 2020. Of course, the pandemic impacted everyone a month later and that caused a combination of reduced/lost funding plus increased construction costs over the next 2 years. That's why this dream unfortunately died.

(05-03-2022 08:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've stated, I'm disappointed, but it's understandable at this point. We weren't going cheap on this to create a hockey team so that we could have more tuition-paying students (like LIU or Lindenwood). This was going to be a fully-funded top-of-the-line $100 million investment. Unfortunately, just the construction costs alone would have ballooned 30% simply because of the inflation of the past 2 years.

This is it, this is the point I've been making all along when I have been saying that college hockey costs you $40-$50M to have a program, double that if you also want an arena.

You can do it cheaply, and check the box saying that you exist (LIU, jury is out on Augustana and Lindenwood). But absent that big investment, you are going to exist on the periphery like the Alaska schools, and (if they ever exist again) UAH.

To create a real, nationally competitive, fully funded program giving the maximum number of scholarships that realistically hopes to compete to go to the Frozen Four, you need to spend A LOT of money.

We talk about "growing" the sport a lot, but is that growth worth it if all the growth is at the bottom? This isn't creating competitiveness across the country, this isn't increasing fan interest, this isn't compelling more kids to chose the NCAA route over Major Junior.

(05-03-2022 08:55 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 08:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've stated, I'm disappointed, but it's understandable at this point. We weren't going cheap on this to create a hockey team so that we could have more tuition-paying students (like LIU or Lindenwood). This was going to be a fully-funded top-of-the-line $100 million investment. Unfortunately, just the construction costs alone would have ballooned 30% simply because of the inflation of the past 2 years.

This is it, this is the point I've been making all along when I have been saying that college hockey costs you $40-$50M to have a program, double that if you also want an arena.

You can do it cheaply, and check the box saying that you exist (LIU, jury is out on Augustana and Lindenwood). But absent that big investment, you are going to exist on the periphery like the Alaska schools, and (if they ever exist again) UAH.

To create a real, nationally competitive, fully funded program giving the maximum number of scholarships that realistically hopes to compete to go to the Frozen Four, you need to spend A LOT of money.

We talk about "growing" the sport a lot, but is that growth worth it if all the growth is at the bottom? This isn't creating competitiveness across the country, this isn't increasing fan interest, this isn't compelling more kids to chose the NCAA route over Major Junior.

It does NOT. If there is an existing rink, the only reason that much money would be needed is if you're requiring a huge endowment to guarantee the program breaks even, and that's an unjustifiably high bar when nearly every sports program in the country loses hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on an annual basis. College athletic departments lose money and it isn't unreasonable to think that a school would be willing to cash flow annual losses through school funds like 99% of the other sports programs around the country.

You cite your initial post, but looking back, it seems that you have moved the goal posts to an entirely different planet. Multiple teams have now added programs without huge up-front donations. And they DO count, because programs can grow. Look at where Bently and Sacred Heart were only a few years ago - probably didn't even "count" as D1 - in a couple years they will both have brand new arenas, and Sacred Heart will have the best arena in Connecticut. Augi will be well funded and they are only getting started with about 30 million for their new arena. Hell, Union and Yale both have small budgets, no athletic scholarship, and they both won championships within the past ten years.

I agree, the new programs aren't that compelling, but they ARE important, as their additions will help to kickstart new conferences and they will help to stretch the geographic footprint of college hockey, which will increase the potential viability of new and potentially more interesting programs. These dinky new programs could also surprise us as well - see Sacred Heart's new arena for example. That doesn't get built without the presence of their dinky program that doesn't count.

IMO, THE biggest things that hurts hockey is that AD's at big schools know that it will be popular, which will in turn hurt basketball attendance. That's it... they don't want basketball boosters to be on their bad side. Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, all could easily draw 5-6K plus a game fairly easily. ASU already sold out all of their season tickets at their new 5K arena as well.

(05-03-2022 12:09 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 08:55 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 08:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've stated, I'm disappointed, but it's understandable at this point. We weren't going cheap on this to create a hockey team so that we could have more tuition-paying students (like LIU or Lindenwood). This was going to be a fully-funded top-of-the-line $100 million investment. Unfortunately, just the construction costs alone would have ballooned 30% simply because of the inflation of the past 2 years.

This is it, this is the point I've been making all along when I have been saying that college hockey costs you $40-$50M to have a program, double that if you also want an arena.

You can do it cheaply, and check the box saying that you exist (LIU, jury is out on Augustana and Lindenwood). But absent that big investment, you are going to exist on the periphery like the Alaska schools, and (if they ever exist again) UAH.

To create a real, nationally competitive, fully funded program giving the maximum number of scholarships that realistically hopes to compete to go to the Frozen Four, you need to spend A LOT of money.

We talk about "growing" the sport a lot, but is that growth worth it if all the growth is at the bottom? This isn't creating competitiveness across the country, this isn't increasing fan interest, this isn't compelling more kids to chose the NCAA route over Major Junior.

It does NOT. If there is an existing rink, the only reason that much money would be needed is if you're requiring a huge endowment to guarantee the program breaks even, and that's an unjustifiably high bar when nearly every sports program in the country loses hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, on an annual basis. College athletic departments lose money and it isn't unreasonable to think that a school would be willing to cash flow annual losses through school funds like 99% of the other sports programs around the country.

You cite your initial post, but looking back, it seems that you have moved the goal posts to an entirely different planet. Multiple teams have now added programs without huge up-front donations. And they DO count, because programs can grow. Look at where Bently and Sacred Heart were only a few years ago - probably didn't even "count" as D1 - in a couple years they will both have brand new arenas, and Sacred Heart will have the best arena in Connecticut. Augi will be well funded and they are only getting started with about 30 million for their new arena. Hell, Union and Yale both have small budgets, no athletic scholarship, and they both won championships within the past ten years.

I agree, the new programs aren't that compelling, but they ARE important, as their additions will help to kickstart new conferences and they will help to stretch the geographic footprint of college hockey, which will increase the potential viability of new and potentially more interesting programs. These dinky new programs could also surprise us as well - see Sacred Heart's new arena for example. That doesn't get built without the presence of their dinky program that doesn't count.

IMO, THE biggest things that hurts hockey is that AD's at big schools know that it will be popular, which will in turn hurt basketball attendance. That's it... they don't want basketball boosters to be on their bad side. Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, all could easily draw 5-6K plus a game fairly easily. ASU already sold out all of their season tickets at their new 5K arena as well.

B1G Hockey should add UNO, Iowa State (build an arena in Alkeny), UIC (play at United Center), St. Peter's (play at Prudential Center), and Howard (plays at Capitol One).