Gophers win- Big Ten loses!

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

urban iceman
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:40 am

Gophers win- Big Ten loses!

Post by urban iceman » Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:14 pm

How sad it is to watch our beloved hockey team win a tournament playoff game and you could hear a baby crying like it was in church? No crowd and horse bleep announcing. Bring back the old WCHA!!

jdh
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:10 am

Gophers win

Post by jdh » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:26 pm

And the Gopher Gals played to a sellout at Ridder, and no tv coverage.

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:06 am

Didn't even know they were playing. How did they do?

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

Re: Gophers win- Big Ten loses!

Post by Gopher Blog » Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:25 am

urban iceman wrote:How sad it is to watch our beloved hockey team win a tournament playoff game and you could hear a baby crying like it was in church? No crowd and horse bleep announcing. Bring back the old WCHA!!
You can keep hoping but the old WCHA is forever gone.

The one thing the B1G tourney in Michigan proved is that the event should be at XCel permanently when the next contract gets arranged.

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:21 am

I love the Gophers but I hate B10 hockey so much.

Gophers finished 23-12-3 for 10th in the Pairwise
Denver has a 23-13-2 record for 5th due to the stronger schedule.

There are so many teams I'd rather see than Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St. That's 12 stinky games right there. I'm not even that thrilled about Michigan St. Instead, give me Mankato, Duluth, St Cloud, ND, Denver, Bemidji. Even Omaha was turning into a nice rivalry.

This whole B10 hockey thing is a big FU to the fans. My anger is starting to fade and turn into indifference. Whatever, go ahead and add Arizona St, who cares...

the_juiceman
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:17 am

Post by the_juiceman » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:37 am

The big 10 is the worst thing to happen to college hockey. Gopher games at 4:00pm on a fri. or Sat. never know what TV channel they'll be on. Lousy announcers....it's a big joke.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:38 pm

Sorry guys but traditions don't happen over night and frankly the B1G is the best thing that ever happened to college hockey. Do you honestly believe that small market teams that lose revenue every year are going to be viable in the future of college hockey. Sorry but that just isn't realistic. B1G hockey has opened the door for big market, big school hockey which is going to be a lot more sustainable in the long run. It's going to take time to build traditions and rivalries and the other things though. The WCHA wasn't an instant sensation over night but given time we'll look back on this as a drop in the bucket in the big scheme. Does it suck for some fans that they are the ones that have to endure the growing pains, I suppose but in the long run it'll be for a greater good of the sport I think. Just think in 30 years if Iowa and Nebraska and Rutgers and Maryland all have teams in the B1G. And what if the PAC12actually has teams from Washington and Oregon jump in with ASU and they allow Denver and CC to partake and the proximity makes the Alaska teams more viable for travel. Etc.. etc... etc... just be patient, if it's all gone down hill in 15+ years you can say "I told you so" but I don't think you'll be able to ... JMHO

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:42 pm

JSR wrote:Sorry guys but traditions don't happen over night and frankly the B1G is the best thing that ever happened to college hockey. Do you honestly believe that small market teams that lose revenue every year are going to be viable in the future of college hockey. Sorry but that just isn't realistic. B1G hockey has opened the door for big market, big school hockey which is going to be a lot more sustainable in the long run. It's going to take time to build traditions and rivalries and the other things though. The WCHA wasn't an instant sensation over night but given time we'll look back on this as a drop in the bucket in the big scheme. Does it suck for some fans that they are the ones that have to endure the growing pains, I suppose but in the long run it'll be for a greater good of the sport I think. Just think in 30 years if Iowa and Nebraska and Rutgers and Maryland all have teams in the B1G. And what if the PAC12actually has teams from Washington and Oregon jump in with ASU and they allow Denver and CC to partake and the proximity makes the Alaska teams more viable for travel. Etc.. etc... etc... just be patient, if it's all gone down hill in 15+ years you can say "I told you so" but I don't think you'll be able to ... JMHO
We definitely agree here. Most people tend to have a difficult time with change and are resistant to it. They are more comfortable with the known and the "safe" route. We all deal with that to some extent in different aspects of life.

But a lot of the great things we enjoy in this world were due to risk taking by people that had a good long term vision of what can be. No doubt the short term we have isn't as great as what was left behind with the old WCHA. But these changes weren't intended to be short term improvements. It is a long term perspective and I'll bet that things are going to be much more positive for college hockey in 10 to 20 years because of what happened with these changes.

I realize most fans don't look back historically but its not like the WCHA teams that we became rivals with (i.e. UND) occurred in a year or two of games. Those situations took many years to build up and become what they were in the end. Back in the day, Denver and Michigan were the Gophers two most hated rivals... those things changed with time/circumstances. New rivalries are born.

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:26 am

So basically fans need to suck it up for 10-20 years and things will get better? We're supposed to look forward to the day when Nebraska, Iowa, Rutgers and Maryland are on the schedule? To heck with that!

I've been a gopher hockey fan since I was a little kid. It's one of the reasons that motivated me to attend the U. But now, like someone said, it's time to start a new tradition. It's time to find a new team to cheer on. I'm done with B1G-$$$ hockey.

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:52 am

barry_mcconnell wrote:I've been a gopher hockey fan since I was a little kid. It's one of the reasons that motivated me to attend the U. But now, like someone said, it's time to start a new tradition. It's time to find a new team to cheer on. I'm done with B1G-$$$ hockey.
I love watching them play in general (though it can be maddening when they don't perform as they should). So I don't connect with your thinking. My interest as a fan is in the program. Not the opponent. Yeah, some teams are more fun to play than others but ultimately, it comes down to watching the guys who play for my school.

The reality is they still play the in-state opponents (roughly 25% of their schedule this year). They've had games against BC and Notre Dame in recent years. They've played some other good eastern programs (New Hampshire, etc). They will have UND on the schedule in a few years. They will still play the Badgers 4 times a year (and UW had a historically bad year and that's not going to stay that way in the long haul). Michigan has been a rival over the history of Gopher hockey and they will be an opponent 4 times a year. Michigan State won a national title as recent as 2007 which is better than many of our old conference foes. Penn State is definitely heading in the right direction with their facilities, etc. If OSU could get its focus together, they'd be rather tough. Hopefully they will get on track.

This year wasn't a good year for the B1G. No doubt about it. Some young teams that took their lumps (especially early). But conference strength ebbs and flows over time. If all you do is take a snapshot in time, you could find down times for pretty much every conference that ever existed.

A number of the WCHA foes we had weren't really big rivals anyway. The ones that we might consider a rival still tend to be on the schedule (albeit in non-conference games). Enjoy whoever your new team is. I'm sticking with my club.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:27 am

barry_mcconnell wrote:So basically fans need to suck it up for 10-20 years and things will get better? We're supposed to look forward to the day when Nebraska, Iowa, Rutgers and Maryland are on the schedule? To heck with that!

I've been a gopher hockey fan since I was a little kid. It's one of the reasons that motivated me to attend the U. But now, like someone said, it's time to start a new tradition. It's time to find a new team to cheer on. I'm done with B1G-$$$ hockey.
In my opinion if this change had not happened, in 10 or 20 years we'd probably be down to 30 D1 hockey teams (if that). This move poses the best option to actually grow the sport. So yea suck it up if you actually care about the long term future of college hockey and having actual opponents for the Gophers to play. Do I miss having a home at home with UND every single year, yep I do. Do I miss any of the other WCHA opponents though, honestly no. None of them are an more attractive than PSU or MSU or UM or tOSU. The only two series I genuinely looked forward to in the old WCHA was Minnesota and North Dakota. We still get Minnesota every year and we'll still get North Dakota but just not as frequently. So I guess I'm all good with the change from that perspective as well, you guys ar ein MN so I guess it's different for you but I really never cared one way or another about St Cloud or Bjemidji or Mankato or Duluth etc... etc.., if we play them great, if not it's not like it was a big rivalry for us. Much more excited for Michigan to come every year than Bjemidji.... :/

Like Gopher said I don't get why you are so unnerved at your teams opponents, what does that have to do with supporting your team and watching your team grow. Not sure I understand that either. Good luck with your new team, but I'd make sure I chose one with a financially viable future or you'll be looking for another team to root for before you even have roots planted on this one....

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Everyone gets to have an opinion. In the long term B1G hockey will hurt college hockey overall. B1G hockey schools will always be just fine because they are the big schools that can afford to lose money for many years if they choose.

Obviously not every school can be in the B1G. This is going to hurt the smaller schools and the smaller conferences. In 10-20 years the number of D1 programs will drop due directly to the B1G have/have-not dichotomy.

Whether we like it or not, college hockey is a niche sport. And that's OK. It can still be a growing, healthy, awesome sport for the fans of the game. The fan-bases in MN, WI, CO, MI, MA, ME, ND are loyal and supportive of their teams. We'll never see that level of support at Maryland or ASU. And again, that's OK.

Here's what this comes down to: the B1G doesn't care about the overall health of college hockey and it doesn't care about fans. The only thing the B1G cares about is $$$. That's not OK to me.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:10 pm

barry_mcconnell wrote:Everyone gets to have an opinion. In the long term B1G hockey will hurt college hockey overall. B1G hockey schools will always be just fine because they are the big schools that can afford to lose money for many years if they choose.

Obviously not every school can be in the B1G. This is going to hurt the smaller schools and the smaller conferences. In 10-20 years the number of D1 programs will drop due directly to the B1G have/have-not dichotomy.

Whether we like it or not, college hockey is a niche sport. And that's OK. It can still be a growing, healthy, awesome sport for the fans of the game. The fan-bases in MN, WI, CO, MI, MA, ME, ND are loyal and supportive of their teams. We'll never see that level of support at Maryland or ASU. And again, that's OK.

Here's what this comes down to: the B1G doesn't care about the overall health of college hockey and it doesn't care about fans. The only thing the B1G cares about is $$$. That's not OK to me.
I don't disagree that the B1G cares about money. Of course they do. However, those small schools that that will drop hockey were going to have that happen whether B1G hockey happened or not. The writing was already on the wall for many of those programs before this happened. Those programs were already bleeding money and don't have the infrastructure to support them long term. Sorry they just don't. So I disagree completely that those schools will drop due to B1G hockey because that was going to happen anyway no matter if B1G hockey happened or not. The reality is the ONLY chance for growth in the sport was to have big time schools start adopting the sport because they are the only ones (save maybe UND and a couple others) that can support the sport long term financially. Honestly you actually said it yourself sort of, you just don't realize it. Overall I think we'll have the same number of teams in 10 to 20 years but they will be financially stronger programs supporting them compared to what we have now and there will be future growth potential, unlike before this happened. I also disagree that Maryland wouldn't support it or New Jersey, there are huge hockey fan bases in those places as well.... ASU maybe maybe not, we will see that is an odd place out there, never can figure out what they will and wont support

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:23 pm

barry_mcconnell wrote:Everyone gets to have an opinion. In the long term B1G hockey will hurt college hockey overall.
The reality is there have been a number of programs basically treading water even before the B1G occurred. You can't blame a new conference for that.
We'll never see that level of support at Maryland or ASU. And again, that's OK.
It is a tad premature for absolutes on fan support. Penn State had better fan attendance this year (at just over 6,000 fans) than 50+ other programs. Including programs in the middle of Minnesota such as SCSU (and wasn't far off from UMD's attendance). Would anybody have predicted that on the day that Penn State's jump to D1 was announced? It doesn't look like their fan support is going to disappear either given how their fan base seems to enjoy their games (good student support too).
Here's what this comes down to: the B1G doesn't care about the overall health of college hockey and it doesn't care about fans. The only thing the B1G cares about is $$$. That's not OK to me.
I'm confused at how any one conference is supposed to manage the overall health of the game in college. Isn't it a group effort? The B1G is a part of it and I don't see anything that they are doing that is damaging its D1 partners (unless you mean, "Hey B1G schools will actually invest in their facilities/product and many others won't... so that's the B1G's fault!" lol)

And what fans are being shortchanged by the B1G? Spoiled Gopher fans who are used to having everything handed to them on a silver platter? :roll:

In the end, each conference is supposed to do what is optimal for its members. Heck, the NCHC was formed essentially because schools like UND didn't feel like some of the other WCHA programs were looking to push the product to the next level with investments, etc. Growth and investment isn't a bad thing.

Adapt or fizzle out.

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:40 pm

JSR wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:Everyone gets to have an opinion. In the long term B1G hockey will hurt college hockey overall. B1G hockey schools will always be just fine because they are the big schools that can afford to lose money for many years if they choose.

Obviously not every school can be in the B1G. This is going to hurt the smaller schools and the smaller conferences. In 10-20 years the number of D1 programs will drop due directly to the B1G have/have-not dichotomy.

Whether we like it or not, college hockey is a niche sport. And that's OK. It can still be a growing, healthy, awesome sport for the fans of the game. The fan-bases in MN, WI, CO, MI, MA, ME, ND are loyal and supportive of their teams. We'll never see that level of support at Maryland or ASU. And again, that's OK.

Here's what this comes down to: the B1G doesn't care about the overall health of college hockey and it doesn't care about fans. The only thing the B1G cares about is $$$. That's not OK to me.
I don't disagree that the B1G cares about money. Of course they do. However, those small schools that that will drop hockey were going to have that happen whether B1G hockey happened or not. The writing was already on the wall for many of those programs before this happened. Those programs were already bleeding money and don't have the infrastructure to support them long term. Sorry they just don't. So I disagree completely that those schools will drop due to B1G hockey because that was going to happen anyway no matter if B1G hockey happened or not. The reality is the ONLY chance for growth in the sport was to have big time schools start adopting the sport because they are the only ones (save maybe UND and a couple others) that can support the sport long term financially. Honestly you actually said it yourself sort of, you just don't realize it. Overall I think we'll have the same number of teams in 10 to 20 years but they will be financially stronger programs supporting them compared to what we have now and there will be future growth potential, unlike before this happened. I also disagree that Maryland wouldn't support it or New Jersey, there are huge hockey fan bases in those places as well.... ASU maybe maybe not, we will see that is an odd place out there, never can figure out what they will and wont support
Let's dig in and figure out how many programs are bleeding money. I'll get more current numbers soon but let's start with what was published for 2010 (I know I know that's ancient history).

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=11205

Basically these numbers indicate that only 6 teams out of 58 were losing money. There are a bunch that are breaking even. This isn't bad. BTW, 2 of the money losers were MSU and OSU.

What numbers are you looking at that make you think college hockey was in such terrible shape before B1G? I'd really like to understand this better.

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:41 pm

I took a whack at the 2014 numbers. The school list should be close but maybe not exact.

Data from here: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetDownloadFile.aspx

Image

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:43 pm

barry_mcconnell wrote:What numbers are you looking at that make you think college hockey was in such terrible shape before B1G? I'd really like to understand this better.
As Jupiter points out in that GPL thread, it is highly questionable that all those schools actually broke even. Don't you find it rather convenient that 30+ programs just happened to break even? Not even a little profit or a little loss for all of those places? Likely there is more to the story with many schools.

For instance, compare Providence College vs Ohio State. Roughly the same expenses in hockey for that year (a tad less for OSU). Yet somehow OSU loses $1 million and Providence breaks even? This despite the fact that OSU sold 45000 more tickets than Providence that year?

Or how about Miami University and OSU? Both Ohio schools. Miami also is listed as breaking even and had very close to the same expenses as Ohio State. OSU sold roughly 48000 more tickets than Miami did. Yet Ohio State made LESS revenue and $1 million less profit?

The most laughable example is Anchorage. They are terrible. They sold 56000 less tickets than OSU, had higher expenses (likely due to travel costs from Alaska) and yet they made more revenue than OSU (and profit $150,000)?

Something is not adding up there. My suspicion is some schools account for things a little differently than others.

As the disclaimer on that site said: "Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution."

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:56 am

Gopher Blog wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:What numbers are you looking at that make you think college hockey was in such terrible shape before B1G? I'd really like to understand this better.
As Jupiter points out in that GPL thread, it is highly questionable that all those schools actually broke even. Don't you find it rather convenient that 30+ programs just happened to break even? Not even a little profit or a little loss for all of those places? Likely there is more to the story with many schools.

For instance, compare Providence College vs Ohio State. Roughly the same expenses in hockey for that year (a tad less for OSU). Yet somehow OSU loses $1 million and Providence breaks even? This despite the fact that OSU sold 45000 more tickets than Providence that year?

Or how about Miami University and OSU? Both Ohio schools. Miami also is listed as breaking even and had very close to the same expenses as Ohio State. OSU sold roughly 48000 more tickets than Miami did. Yet Ohio State made LESS revenue and $1 million less profit?

The most laughable example is Anchorage. They are terrible. They sold 56000 less tickets than OSU, had higher expenses (likely due to travel costs from Alaska) and yet they made more revenue than OSU (and profit $150,000)?

Something is not adding up there. My suspicion is some schools account for things a little differently than others.

As the disclaimer on that site said: "Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution."
I'm looking for some numbers that confirm the position that many program are bleeding money. Maybe those number exist but I can't find them.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:00 am

barry_mcconnell wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote:
barry_mcconnell wrote:What numbers are you looking at that make you think college hockey was in such terrible shape before B1G? I'd really like to understand this better.
As Jupiter points out in that GPL thread, it is highly questionable that all those schools actually broke even. Don't you find it rather convenient that 30+ programs just happened to break even? Not even a little profit or a little loss for all of those places? Likely there is more to the story with many schools.

For instance, compare Providence College vs Ohio State. Roughly the same expenses in hockey for that year (a tad less for OSU). Yet somehow OSU loses $1 million and Providence breaks even? This despite the fact that OSU sold 45000 more tickets than Providence that year?

Or how about Miami University and OSU? Both Ohio schools. Miami also is listed as breaking even and had very close to the same expenses as Ohio State. OSU sold roughly 48000 more tickets than Miami did. Yet Ohio State made LESS revenue and $1 million less profit?

The most laughable example is Anchorage. They are terrible. They sold 56000 less tickets than OSU, had higher expenses (likely due to travel costs from Alaska) and yet they made more revenue than OSU (and profit $150,000)?

Something is not adding up there. My suspicion is some schools account for things a little differently than others.

As the disclaimer on that site said: "Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution."
I'm looking for some numbers that confirm the position that many program are bleeding money. Maybe those number exist but I can't find them.
I found 15 different articles on the subject just by googling it in one search. You didn't look very hard. These numbers reflect what the Athletic departments want them to reflect based on how it beenfits that school. Either for tax reasons or Title IX reasons. For instance in doing some more digging I found that in Wisconsin's case, for example, it looks like they allocate a certain amount of amortized capital costs of the Kohl Center to the men's and women's hockey team; however, that practice is not uniform, as amortized costs of Ridder aren't built into the Gopher's women's team numbers; nor are the costs of TCF Bank Stadium rolled into the football team's costs; at the same time, you don't find parking revenue as income to the athletic department at UMN; but you would at Ohio State.

Basically these numbers that you posted aren't even close to a reflection of reality. Less than 10 schools make money on college hockey, the rest lose money, some more than others but they do.

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:31 pm

Are we talking only men's? Or do these numbers include both men's and women's? I think most people realize that overall football and BB are the main revenue drivers, with regional sports showing some profit. I don't see college hockey going by the wayside or declining, my guess is we will see more schools adding.

DrGaf
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Post by DrGaf » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:42 pm

mulefarm wrote:Are we talking only men's? Or do these numbers include both men's and women's? I think most people realize that overall football and BB are the main revenue drivers, with regional sports showing some profit. I don't see college hockey going by the wayside or declining, my guess is we will see more schools adding.
I can see teams such as Michigan Tech, Alaska-Anchorage, etc ... would be the schools most affected by this change.

If a kid has the option of re-locating to the Yuper or Champaign IL, I'd guess the co-eds alone make Champaign more palatable.
Sorry, fresh out, Don't Really Give Any.

barry_mcconnell
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Post by barry_mcconnell » Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:19 pm

JSR wrote:I found 15 different articles on the subject just by googling it in one search. You didn't look very hard.
OMG! You found 15 articles on google with one search? Amazing! You must have some kind of super computer or something.

I said the numbers were suspect. The actual numbers are hard to come by (I did search and try to find better numbers). Yes, there are probably a dozen programs making money for their schools. Someone was arguing that B1G would help the overall health of college hockey. My point was that most of the schools don't need help and the ones that do won't be helped by B1G anyway (except maybe MSU and OSU).

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:59 pm

barry_mcconnell wrote:
JSR wrote:I found 15 different articles on the subject just by googling it in one search. You didn't look very hard.
OMG! You found 15 articles on google with one search? Amazing! You must have some kind of super computer or something.

I said the numbers were suspect. The actual numbers are hard to come by (I did search and try to find better numbers). Yes, there are probably a dozen programs making money for their schools. Someone was arguing that B1G would help the overall health of college hockey. My point was that most of the schools don't need help and the ones that do won't be helped by B1G anyway (except maybe MSU and OSU).
You said you couldn't find any information on schools losing money or programs contracting. Now you have a smart alec comeback because someone found the info you supposedly couldn't find, how original... And actually your point was that the schools that need help would be hurt by the formation of B1G Hockey. That is what we are disagreeing with. And we are disagreeing because those schools were in trouble with or without the B1G. The long term overall health of D1 college hockey in general will be helped by the formation of B1G Hockey and larger schools entering the sport. Will there be some small schools that contract, yes, but that was inevitable at most of those situations.

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:39 pm

mulefarm wrote:Are we talking only men's? Or do these numbers include both men's and women's? I think most people realize that overall football and BB are the main revenue drivers, with regional sports showing some profit. I don't see college hockey going by the wayside or declining, my guess is we will see more schools adding.
The site that he used allows you to separate out the men's and women's financials for sports such as hockey.

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

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:52 pm

One other thought to add... many programs/departments are heavily subsidized by student fees and the school.

For instance, North Dakota does this pretty heavily. See link: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/16327/

That might explain why a number of schools are showing break even numbers. It's simply that their revenue is including subsidies to show a break even situation even though they are losing money from an actual revenue/expenses standpoint.

Post Reply