One step closer to Big Ten Hockey Conference

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

PuckU126
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by PuckU126 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:51 pm

WayOutWest wrote:He has come great points, actually.
And if you are going to use bias and lack of intelligence as a barometer for what is offerred up on this board, why do you not object to JSR's posts? :wink:
He doesn't have sound points though. The article lacks in backup information.

However, only one point was decent: the B1G scheduling their way into the NCAA. **He forgets to remember that this won't happen though because the NCAA will regulate and the PWR would regulate as well.

The article is rubbish and should not be taken seriously at all. Does the writer even know NCAA hockey besides BC, BU, Northeastern and the rest of the Hockey East? (doubt it)

And yes I am going to research who wrote what because of their biases; many people fail to do this.

As for my bias and lack of intelligence "barometer," we all have you for that distinct purpose on this forum, WOW.
The Puck
LGW

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:49 pm

PuckU126 wrote: The article is rubbish and should not be taken seriously at all. Does the writer even know NCAA hockey besides BC, BU, Northeastern and the rest of the Hockey East? (doubt it)

And yes I am going to research who wrote what because of their biases; many people fail to do this.

As for my bias and lack of intelligence "barometer," we all have you for that distinct purpose on this forum, WOW.
If you didn't read my post well enough to know I wasn't speaking about you, with the "bias and lack of intelligence" comment, I would be remiss in believing you read the article well enough to assess it, in any way.
What bias would you possibly think would be there, from the author, anyway? Bias is far more likely to come from CCHA, WCHA or Big10 faithful.

PuckU126
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by PuckU126 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:28 pm

](*,)

It's not worth my time to go on with this discussion. Thanks for the PM warning... (you know who you are) :wink:

8)
The Puck
LGW

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:21 am

PuckU126 wrote:](*,)

It's not worth my time to go on with this discussion. Thanks for the PM warning... (you know who you are) :wink:

8)
Agreed.
Keep your fishing to shallower waters, where it is safe. =;

old goalie85
Posts: 3696
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:37 pm

Post by old goalie85 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:15 pm

One Big Ten team & One WCHA team left. Two great games. Go Bulldogs.....

PuckU126
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by PuckU126 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:35 pm

WayOutWest wrote:Agreed.
Keep your fishing to shallower waters, where it is safe. =;
And free of meatheads. :mrgreen:

8)
The Puck
LGW

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 7260
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:59 am

old goalie85 wrote:One Big Ten team & One WCHA team left. Two great games. Go Bulldogs.....
I'm sure WayOutWest will be pulling for the Big Ten team...

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:12 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
old goalie85 wrote:One Big Ten team & One WCHA team left. Two great games. Go Bulldogs.....
I'm sure WayOutWest will be pulling for the Big Ten team...
It was a nice run by the cinderella Michigan squad. Beating a WCHA stalwart do move into the final, and then nearly surviving a run-in with a run of the mill WCHA squad, from a far smaller school, with far less national appeal, and far fewer collective resources.
Who'd have thunk? :-k

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:10 pm

Cinderella Michigan? Ha...werent they ranked like 5th. You are a joke! Get a clue and move out west! Please.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:19 am

Tigers33 wrote:Cinderella Michigan? Ha...werent they ranked like 5th. You are a joke! Get a clue and move out west! Please.
Sure, and Yale ended the season ranked # 1. :roll:

The facts are that Michigan was a heavy underdog to UND. Thus the "Cinderella" classification............which was part tongue in cheek. But you wouldn't recognize sarcasm any more than you would brilliance. :shock:

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:28 am

Michigan would be no more of a cinderella team then UMD. The only reason UMD wasnt considered that was cause of their draw. I would say Michigan was the underdog from their half of the bracket, definitel, but not a cinderella team. That would ve been Colorado College or UNH if they would ve made since they were 4 seeds.

I have found that in the ncaa hockey tourney anyone can win any given year. There is so much pairity in college hockey. I am really surprised they havent expanded the tourney yet.

no97
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:35 pm

Post by no97 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:11 am

Tigers33 wrote:I have found that in the ncaa hockey tourney anyone can win any given year. There is so much pairity in college hockey.
Absolutely. Agree 1000%. If you haven't read the stat, #1 seeds (not the #1 overall, just the 1 seeds) are 11-9 in the first round the last 5 years.
Tigers33 wrote:I am really surprised they havent expanded the tourney yet.
Absolutely not. Disagree 1000%.

The NCAA likes to use a ratio of as close to 25% as possible for teams making the national tourney. There are 58 (59 once you add Penn State so let's use that number). At 59 teams, 16 teams making the tourney is 27%.

The old format of 12 teams (20% of 59, FYI) was expanded because there appeared to be rapid expansion (the formation of both the CHA and the now Atlantic Hockey - then MAAC - conferences). Since the tourney expanded to 16 teams (2003), Findlay, Wayne State, Fairfield and Iona have dropped the sport while only three schools have added it (Robert Morris, RIT and now Penn State).

At best that is stagnation, and at worst it is a downward trend - especially with the doom and gloom of the B1G and the possibility of schools (Huntsville?) dropping hockey in the future. Truthfully, it is a really good thing that the hockey tourney makes a lot of money for the NCAA, because if several teams drop the sport because of the B1G, the ratio could get out of whack in a hurry...

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:19 pm

If Big Ten Hockey was the non-threat that a few on here are trying to paint it as, you wouldn't see athletic directors from some of the schools being "left behind" having preliminary discussions about forming a new conference. The reality is they are concerned about becoming a "have not" in the race. If they can see how formidable the Big Ten situation is likely to be, you'd be a fool to dismiss it as a fan. The leadership of these athletic departments have a better feel for the challenges than "Joe Fan" does.
Last edited by Gopher Blog on Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:30 pm

WayOutWest wrote:
PuckU126 wrote:No offense to you WayOutWest, but that Brian @ BCI is a biased Boston College, moron.

8)
:lol:
He has come great points, actually.
And if you are going to use bias and lack of intelligence as a barometer for what is offerred up on this board, why do you not object to JSR's posts? :wink:
I find it funny that you laud the guy's article when he makes a point in it that you were continuously disputing. That being the financial impact the BTHC would make for its members because of the revenues via their network.
The longer term implications are also clear. A Big Ten Hockey Conference adds more programming to the conference's cash-cow Big Ten Network, pumping more dollars into these programs and providing even more TV exposure.
Maybe you skipped over that part though. :lol:

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:45 am

Gopher Blog wrote:If Big Ten Hockey was the non-threat that a few on here are trying to paint it as, you wouldn't see athletic directors from some of the schools being "left behind" having preliminary discussions about forming a new conference. The reality is they are concerned about becoming a "have not" in the race. If they can see how formidable the Big Ten situation is likely to be, you'd be a fool to dismiss it as a fan. The leadership of these athletic departments have a better feel for the challenges than "Joe Fan" does.
You seem to believe that the BTHC being a "threat" is a GOOD thing.
Schools being "left behind" and becoming a "have not" may very well endanger their hockey programs altogether, which would NOT be a good thing for college hockey. Big Ten athletic heads may very well be thinking only of themselves, and the almighty dollar, and clearly not of optimal competition, and the health of the sport.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:50 am

Gopher Blog wrote: I find it funny that you laud the guy's article when he makes a point in it that you were continuously disputing. That being the financial impact the BTHC would make for its members because of the revenues via their network.
You undoubtedly find passing gas funny, :oops:.........which is not unlike your offerings.

But, I will humor you.

Nothing is guaranteed, long term.
Throwing BTHC games on the Big Ten Network does not guarantee a long-term financial windfall.
I don't see too many folks tuning in for the big Penn State vs. Ohio State tilt, on Friday night. :roll: Perhaps you do? #-o

no97
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:35 pm

Post by no97 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:05 am

WayOutWest wrote:Throwing BTHC games on the Big Ten Network does not guarantee a long-term financial windfall.
I don't see too many folks tuning in for the big Penn State vs. Ohio State tilt, on Friday night. :roll: Perhaps you do? #-o
The thing I find funny is that you apparently don't understand how the BTN makes its money (I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with how many people are watching a given game). Let me ask a question (which I know the answer to since we've talked about it before in this thread) - have you heard of "subscriber fees"?

Here's the point: The BTN tells (insert your local Cable/Satellite provider here) that their costs have gone up because they have to shell out to televise hockey, and that their subscriber fee will go from $.70 to $.75 or $.80 a month. Doesn't seem like a big deal until you consider that there are 73 million people who get the BTN. Suddenly, every increase of 5 cents equals $3.65 million. Every month. Let's say they go a 10 cent increase and call that their "hey, we started a hockey conference and need to hire another assistant BT guy to oversee this, pay for production costs and filter money back to schools," fund. Over 12 months, that 10 cent increase in subscriber fees nets an additional $87.6 million for the BTN (which they have to split with Fox, so they "only" get $44 million).

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... -expansion

Point remains the same: The BTN and hockey WILL make money for the conference. Stop being stupid. I don't know why you can't see what is painfully obvious to everyone but you (hmm, where did we see this before? Maybe your insistence that the BTHC would NEVER happen...) IN OTHER WORDS - the BTN could televise every single BTHC game, every year and not have a single advertiser, not have a single person tune in and THEY WOULD STILL MAKE MONEY BY STARTING A HOCKEY CONFERENCE if they do what everyone expects and raise subscriber fees. Get it now?

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:00 pm

no97 wrote: the BTN could televise every single BTHC game, every year and not have a single advertiser, not have a single person tune in and THEY WOULD STILL MAKE MONEY BY STARTING A HOCKEY CONFERENCE if they do what everyone expects and raise subscriber fees. Get it now?
Sure. Following your logic :oops: the BTN can raise subscriber fees at their discretion with no chance of repercussions. It would be a perfect plan, if it happened to be true. :shock:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the BTN, like any other cable network, DOES NOT write their own ticket. Viewership rates drive those subscriber rates, and if there is a substandard product being offerred, the BTN will not be justified in raising them. Sorry, Bright Eyes, but whoever told you that the BTN could virtually print money, got that story off the same shelf as Alice in Wonderland. You aren't Alice, herself, are you? That might explain some things...........

no97
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:35 pm

Post by no97 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:55 pm

WayOutWest wrote:
no97 wrote: the BTN could televise every single BTHC game, every year and not have a single advertiser, not have a single person tune in and THEY WOULD STILL MAKE MONEY BY STARTING A HOCKEY CONFERENCE if they do what everyone expects and raise subscriber fees. Get it now?
Sure. Following your logic :oops: the BTN can raise subscriber fees at their discretion with no chance of repercussions. It would be a perfect plan, if it happened to be true. :shock:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the BTN, like any other cable network, DOES NOT write their own ticket. Viewership rates drive those subscriber rates, and if there is a substandard product being offerred, the BTN will not be justified in raising them. Sorry, Bright Eyes, but whoever told you that the BTN could virtually print money, got that story off the same shelf as Alice in Wonderland. You aren't Alice, herself, are you? That might explain some things...........
Funny, I remember paying ~ $20 a month for cable TV back in the day, don't you? How much is your package now? I'm over $100 a month for my satellite package with over 100 HD channels, DVR, movie channels, 3 rooms, sports package, etc. Even still, they pulled FSN for about a month over a contract dispute back in the Fall. Sure, Dish Network had the upper hand, in that they withheld the channel from me (and the money from Fox), but I complained enough (and demanded a rebate - which they provided) that the dispute didn't last very long. And guess what? My bill went up the next month. Why do you think that is? Because Fox demanded less money?

And, to further clarify, it doesn't matter what people watch. If a channel has ONE show that people care about, that's all that matter. * How many people watched Northwestern @ Illinois softball on BTN today? If that was all the channel showed, no one would care. But take the BTN away (especially in the fall or winter) and how many people would call their provider and bitch up a storm that they are missing football or basketball. Half you Gopher rubes would plop a brick if all those football games weren't on TV anywhere, right? Then what choice does (insert your cable/satellite provider) have about paying a larger fee, even if it's due to hockey?


* Hell, Dish Network basically charges $6 a month for that NFL Red Zone channel, and that thing is literally on for only 7 hours every Sunday during football season. Seriously, if I turn it on any other day it tells me to check back when there is programming. The BTN could do the same and save itself the cost of running stuff that no one watches (they're running reports on spring football EVERY night for crying out loud - how many people are watching that?), but instead, they're putting on programming and making the customer pay - and the thing about sports is that people are vocal when they either don't get what they want, or get their team taken away.

Really, take away some channel that you watch one show on (maybe its the NASA channel, or the Military Network) and are you gonna call your provider and go ballistic? No, but take away the BTN and your Gopher football or basketball (let alone your Buckeye football if you're in Ohio), and the phone lines light up like a Christmas tree. And it's not like your provider is sitting there saying, "well, people watch that channel for football, so we'll pay your $.75 in Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec, but we'll only pay $.25 the rest of the year..." No, they pay year round for programming that's only on for 3-4 months of the year.

Seriously, how is it you don't understand how this works? Oh, that's right, you're an ignorant, dense moron. I forgot. :roll:

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:26 pm

Wayoutwest - He is 100 percent correct on this one. Not quite sure you are arguing it still.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Sun May 01, 2011 11:23 am

no97 wrote:Funny, I remember paying ~ $20 a month for cable TV back in the day, don't you? How much is your package now? I'm over $100 a month for my satellite package with over 100 HD channels, DVR, movie channels, 3 rooms, sports package, etc. ......blather.......snort........whistle........choke.......drool...........etc. :oops:
Let's see if we can take an extreme example to attempt to get YOU to understand where your own logic goes awry. According to you, the BTN can charge anything they wish. So, why not bump up the subscription rate by 5 bucks every month? I mean, if there are no possible repercussions from the populace, then why not maximize your profit, right? Why is the subscription rate as low as it is today? :shock: :roll:

That will work, right? Of course it will, according to YOU.
But then again, you still think the BTN can virtually print money.

Do you spend ANY time not glued to your sports channels? Try applying some business logic......uh......after you learn something about it. (There's probably a finance channel that you can find, while you are busy making love to your remote control.) :D

no97
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:35 pm

Post by no97 » Sun May 01, 2011 2:09 pm

WayOutWest wrote:
no97 wrote:Funny, I remember paying ~ $20 a month for cable TV back in the day, don't you? How much is your package now? I'm over $100 a month for my satellite package with over 100 HD channels, DVR, movie channels, 3 rooms, sports package, etc. ......blather.......snort........whistle........choke.......drool...........etc. :oops:
Who's the 9 year old?
WayOutWest wrote:Let's see if we can take an extreme example to attempt to get YOU to understand where your own logic goes awry. According to you, the BTN can charge anything they wish.
I never said that. Read my post again.
WayOutWest wrote:So, why not bump up the subscription rate by 5 bucks every month? I mean, if there are no possible repercussions from the populace, then why not maximize your profit, right? Why is the subscription rate as low as it is today? :shock: :roll:
I never said they could or should raise the rate to $5. I suggested that a small increase (which is done ALL THE TIME in subscription TV) would net the BT a bunch of money.
WayOutWest wrote:That will work, right? Of course it will, according to YOU.
But then again, you still think the BTN can virtually print money.
Yes, they can and do. What are you gonna do, cancel your TV? How many people do that these days? Sure, some do, but most shake their heads at the raising cost of cable/satellite and still pay the bill.
WayOutWest wrote:Do you spend ANY time not glued to your sports channels? Try applying some business logic......uh......after you learn something about it. (There's probably a finance channel that you can find, while you are busy making love to your remote control.) :D
What was that about 9 year olds again?

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sun May 01, 2011 10:25 pm

Wayoutwest - You are by far the most immature person on here, and there are lots of little kids making posts on here. Be proud of you are though!

Everything you have just said makes everyone else more dumb by reading your comments.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Mon May 02, 2011 1:44 pm

Tigers33 wrote:Wayoutwest - You are by far the most immature person on here, and there are lots of little kids making posts on here. Be proud of you are though!

Everything you have just said makes everyone else more dumb by reading your comments.
LOL. Your brilliant reparte, on the other hand, is always enlightening. :shock: :oops: :shock:

And nice use of the most overused cliche in all of journalism. :-s

By the way, how do you decide to use this alias vs. "no97?" Is it just based on which side of the bed you got out of on that particular day?
Nice attempt at trying to bolster your "opinions." :^o Unfortunately, it is a tactic that is as overused as your choice of cliche's.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Mon May 02, 2011 1:50 pm

no97 wrote: What are you gonna do, cancel your TV? How many people do that these days? Sure, some do, but most shake their heads at the raising cost of cable/satellite and still pay the bill.

What was that about 9 year olds again?
First, how do you "cancel a TV?" #-o

Don't fret. That was a rhetorical question. I understand your rudimentary language in spite of your inability to express yourself well. :-#

So tell me, if "most" still pay the bill, what happened to the others? :-s
You mean, perhaps they may have exercised their free will and opted out of paying higher bills? Oh, this is NOT looking good for your plan. [-X

Don't worry. :D You can tell your Dad to keep paying it, though.

Locked