JSR wrote:I understand that for those who live in MN they equate the great youth and high school hockey tradition right along with the University but the rest of the world does not.
I'd say you'd be in the minority on that. Most people equate the entire state for its hockey and the University has always been a flagship of that. Even in the days when pro hockey was around.
The North Stars point is a tad ridiculous because that move was due to one man... and part of his motivation was avoiding the spotlight of sexual harassment.
As I said, I don't deny the Badgers have a rich history... but they really haven't been a consistent threat for most of the last 20 years. You can say it is an "enemy" thing but you'd be wrong on that... North Dakota is more hated by many Gopher fans than UW is... yet I don't say the same things about UND that I say about UW. If it was simply an "enemy" thing, I certainly wouldn't be giving UND any credit either. But the reality is they have been a pretty consistent contender over the past 15 to 20 years. UW has been very inconsistent in that time frame. I think that has had an impact on the prestige factor for UW. You don't... that's fine. Agree to disagree.
I really won't belabor the attendance point much more. We both know the stats you cite are represented by tickets sold... not actual attendance. Even the most rabid of UW fans have recognized how awful the ACTUAL attendance drop has been at games in recent years. Its just starting to show more now with actual tickets sold.
Also, remember that 2004-2011 stretch of astronomical attendance figures I mentioned. Yea during that stretch the amount WI made on hockey dwarfed Minn and UND in that category as well.
Since you brought up those big attendance years for UW (2004 to 2011)... we'll focus on those years and give you the benefit of that.
Men's hockey revenue numbers from the US Department of Education (in other words, these are officially reported by the schools to the government)
2004: Minnesota revenue at 6.7 million vs. UW at 4.5 million.
2005: Minnesota revenue at 6.8 million vs. UW at 4.6 million.
2006: Minnesota revenue at 6.6 million vs. UW at 5.3 million.
2007: Minnesota revenue at 6.7 million vs. UW at 4.8 million.
2008: Minnesota revenue at 6.0 million vs. UW at 5.3 million.
2009: Minnesota revenue at 6.5 million vs. UW at 5.0 million.
2010: Minnesota revenue at 6.7 million vs. UW at 5.3 million.
2011: Minnesota revenue at 7.0 million vs. UW at 6.7 million.
In addition to this, the lowest profit difference between MN and UW in any of these years was when MN made 2.5 million dollars more. One year MN profited almost 4 million dollars more than UW hockey. Outside of the one year I mentioned above, MN profited $3+ million more than UW every year.
I'd also point out that the worst hockey of Lucia's tenure (much of which when he was ill) was 2008 to 2010... and they still were bringing in more money during that time.
You didn't do your homework or you never would have made the claim that UW dwarfed MN in revenues in hockey. Clearly that was not the case.
But this is getting off point. This was about what was wrong with UW right now. Not a MN vs. UW thing.
Personally, I just have this feeling that Alvarez being an ex-coach that had faced adversity in his own right (albeit far earlier in his tenure as a UW coach) is going to give Eaves a chance to get himself out of it. Especially considering the guy did win a title at UW. I don't think it would be a smart move though... but I do think that is what will happen. I suspect the assistants won't be so lucky.
The problem with canning the current assistants is who would they bring in as replacements? If the perception out there is Eaves is on thin ice and might get canned if he has another down year, it is going to be pretty tough to convince any quality assistant to join the program. After all, nobody wants to take a job and then worry about job security a year later. Those might be tough spots to fill if they do fire the current guys.