82SiouxGuy

UND owns the Bronson property. It was donated to UND years ago. UND could do anything they wanted with it. A portion of the property was leased to Ralph Engelstad's Trust for the REA. Retail has always been discussed on the Bronson property. At one time they wanted to create a mixed use area with retail and apartments similar to Dinky Town in Minneapolis. That didn't happen. They wanted to keep some of it free for future academic buildings since much of the academic space is already built up. The space for the new medical school building will probably fulfill the academic portion of the property. So they ended up putting academics, housing, retail and sports usage into the space. As far as parking goes, my guess is that REA met the requirements of the city for parking. Parking lot sizes are not determined by peak usage. Have you gone to Columbia Mall during Christmas season? They make parking lots out of the grassy area north of Sears. It isn't as much of a problem now as it used to be, but when Target was located there parking was a huge problem at Columbia Mall. Parking is also a problem at the Alerus Center when they have major events where they have 12-20,000 people. Again they used to make parking lots in the fields across 42nd Street. Now they are building on those fields so I don't know where the overflow parking will come from. There is enough parking within 4 or 5 blocks for any event held in the REA. As I posted earlier, almost all of that parking is within the same walking distance as the end of the Alerus Center parking lot is to the Alerus Center doors. It seems to be some kind of perception problem. People rarely complain about walking the Alerus Center parking lot, but will complain if they have to walk the same distance at REA or downtown. You can usually find a parking spot within 2 or 3 blocks of anything downtown, but if people can't see the door of their destination from their car it is too far to walk. I think that if you compared REA to most hockey arenas you would find that walking distance from parking to the front door would be very similar.

It wasn't 1 bus, it was 3 or 4 buses. And if they weren't paying to rent the buses they wouldn't have buses to run. According to that email UND doesn't own the shuttle buses, NDDOT does.

The other thing to know is that the ND Department of Transportation owns and operates most of the vehicles for the state. Other departments pay to use those vehicles rather than own the vehicles. In some cases it's on a short term basis, in others it's for longer periods. The DOT also owns most of the planes for the state other than the ones owned by UND Aviation. When the Legislature was upset with NDSU about the airplane owned by the NDSU Foundation, they wanted NDSU to turn the plane over to DOT unless they could sell it quickly. I didn't realize that the UND shuttle buses were owned by DOT, but it isn't really a big surprise.

Sorry you don't like my answer. Obviously it's not a no-brainer since not everyone agrees with you. It's your opinion based on no data. You may end up being right, but it's only an opinion. It's too early to know if it's a failure for the league, only time will tell. The topic has been discussed on the forum for more then a year. It's old news. It's only a horrendous contract to UND fans that used to have access via Fox College Sports. It would be much better for UND and UND fans if they still put the hockey games on FCS. But the contract is better for much of the league than anything they have ever had before. And it's better for the league than anything that the WCHA ever had as a league. The only TV contract the WCHA had was broadcasting the Final 5 on Fox Sports North. Nothing on a national basis. There isn't going to be any change in the administration because of this contract. Both the contract with Midcontinent and the contract with CBS Sports are better financially then anything they have had before.. It sounds like the webcast is working better than most people expected. Some people are unhappy, but there are always people unhappy with change. Go ahead and "do your part". I've discussed this to death, so I'm going to try and move on rather than continue to participate in the same old discussion.

The whole flaw in this argument is the "high demand games" thing you're throwing around. There aren't high demand college hockey games. Especially in the regular season. There is a fairly small, pretty loyal audience. Plus, anyone that knows anything about television knows that viewership is lowest on Friday and Saturday nights. College hockey is their answer to fill the Friday night schedule. I haven't looked at CBS Sports full schedule, but I would guess that they are showing college football and college basketball on Saturday nights. College football is #1 for sports viewing on Saturdays in the fall and college football is #1 in sports viewing on Saturdays during the winter. Neither has a big history on Friday nights. Both are going to dwarf college hockey for viewership. That's why they want college hockey to show on Friday but they aren't showing games on Saturday. They're going to show what is going to make them the most money and that's football and basketball.

The NFL has more power than the media during the negotiations. Is that really so hard for you to understand? The NFL is the 800 pound gorilla so they get what they want. The networks would each like as much exclusivity as they could get. Each network would love to have the entire NFL to itself. They settle for having as much exclusivity as the NFL allows them based on how much the networks are willing to spend. That's why there are 5 networks broadcasting games. It isn't because the NFL is trying to increase exposure.

I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, unlike a bunch of people. I'm not hear to complain about things. I didn't join the forum to constantly inject my opinion. I joined to trade information. Sorry if that bothers you so much. I've never seen anyone get so upset because I didn't throw in a meaningless opinion. And it would be hard for me to get fired since I don't work for UND in any way, although I highly doubt that anyone at UND would care about my answer either way. My opinion is that allowing UND and the other schools to make other TV deals would be in the best interests of the schools, would help give them more exposure, and may help build interest in the NCHC. That might help CBS Sports in the long term. But I don't know for sure whether exclusivity for the network actually helps or hurts viewership on CBS Sports for the NCHC. I don't work for the network either and I have never done any reading on market research done on the subject. So I have no clue about the long term results.

It doesn't matter what I think, I'm not a party to the contract. It matters what the parties to the contract think. For instance, some teams (both college and pros) don't believe in broadcasting games on television unless the games are sold out. They think that people will stay home and watch on TV rather than pay for a ticket. I think they're wrong, but no one cares what I think and it doesn't have any effect on the contracts. Networks want exclusivity. How about this example. ESPN is the exclusive national TV provider for all NCAA championships other than Division I basketball and BCS football (the NCAA doesn't have the TV rights for bowl games or the BCS). Sometimes they will farm out the rights for individual early round games to regional networks. That's how Midco and FS North end up broadcasting UND regional hockey games. Sometimes the games are only shown on ESPN3 if they are shown at all. ESPN will not allow another national broadcaster to have rights to show any of the games because they want to be the "Exclusive Home of NCAA Championships". And a lot of those early round games just don't get broadcast even if someone else wants to broadcast them. CBS Sports has the right to broadcast additional games over and above the announced schedule. They are willing to pay extra to have that exclusivity. It was announced that they will broadcast a minimum of 18 games per year. They believe that having an exclusive contract with the league is more important than allowing another network to have rights to some of those games to increase exposure. So it doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe on the subject. We aren't part of the negotiations or the contract.

They are considered the same as far as contracts are concerned. We have had this discussion before. Midco is a brand new regional sports network in a lower population area. Therefore they have less negotiating power with cable systems and with satellite companies. Fox Sports North and Fox Sports Detroit are well established regional networks. They have been around for a much longer time and have signed contracts with popular professional teams. They have built up demand that the cable providers and satellite systems recognize. But legally they are all in the regional network category. And as we have established many times, there are levels of coverage in TV contracts. There are national contracts and there are regional. It doesn't matter how large the regional network is or isn't, they all count the same. The Midco deal isn't going anywhere for another 4 years, get over it.

And if you can't recognize the difference in negotiating power between the NFL and ANYONE else, you really don't understand the media.

FS Detroit and FS North are regional networks, just like Midco (you do understand the difference between regional and national networks, don't you?). And obviously the Big 10 contract with Big 10 TV has a little more leeway. Who could have imagined that a TV contract with a network owned by the league might give league members a little more freedom? I'm shocked. And who could have imagined that they might have a little more negotiating power negotiating with themselves than a brand new college hockey league has negotiating with a new television partner? I'm shocked again.

I'm saying that other people disagree. Networks pay extra to be the exclusive home of something. CBS has paid extra for years to be the exclusive home of March Madness even though they could only show 1 game at a time. It is only in recent years that they have been forced to use partner networks to show more games because of demand from the public to watch more, or have more choices. If CBS could get away with it they would go back to being the only outlet for the games. The NFL started on 1 network. They have added more networks based on demand by the public to see more games. The NFL has used more networks because it makes them more money. The NFL didn't negotiate to go on multiple networks to increase demand, the demand for NFL football allowed them to overcome the networks desire for exclusivity. The networks still have some exclusivity in the TV contracts. CBS gets the home games for the AFC, Fox for the NFC, NBC has Sunday night, ESPN has Monday night and the NFL Network has Thursday. The other networks can't cross those lines. In other cases, a single network is willing to pay a premium to be the exclusive home of that product. Exclusivity is often an important part of their advertising. I mentioned the NHL because I believe they only have 1 national network. I'm sure there are others. In non-sports, examples would be awards shows like the Oscars or the Grammys. Networks have exclusive rights to those shows. They don't even want other networks broadcasting from outside their location during the show itself. So, I'm pretty sure that the networks disagree with your theory of exposure. They give up exclusivity when forced to during the negotiations, when the demand is high enough that others will pay a similar fee without forcing the exclusivity. But they prefer to be exclusive when possible. Leagues on the other hand are interested in more exposure. But they are willing to allow the exclusivity for a fee. It's a balancing act.

http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/091613aac.html

Look how well things worked out for Wisconsin, they even lost most of their home games on TV, http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/wisconsin-badgers-mens-hockey/2013/9/16/4739186/big-ten-hockey-tv-schedule-not-as-sexy-as-previously-expected.

What about them? They have nothing to do with negotiations between the NCHC and CBS Sports.

Faison didn't negotiate the TV deal. The commissioner at the time, Jim Scherr, negotiated the deal. It has been stated that Faison voted against it. What else would you have him do? Pull UND out of the league? UND has 1 vote out of 8, they don't have veto power. But keep on hating, it seems to keep you going. As far as the exclusivity clause, that kind of thing happens all the time. This isn't the NFL. Networks like to have exclusivity. I'm sure I could find other examples if I cared enough to go look (how many national networks have the right to broadcast the NHL?). The NFL has a huge demand, they can make a lot more money by making all games available to networks by using multiple networks. You can't compare a college hockey conference to the NFL. Part of the draw for CBS, and probably part of the fee they are paying the conference, is based on them being the exclusive provider of national broadcasts for the NCHC.

Duluth has 13 games on My 9, I don't know if any other teams have anything.

I've never heard of a schedule being completed before the contract. The schedule was announced in July 2013, http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/22796258/cbs-sports-network-to-televise-18-nchc-games-in-201314, while the contract was announced in January 2012, http://www.uscho.com/2012/01/31/new-nchc-gets-tv-deal-with-cbs-sports-network/, so I'm pretty sure the contract was first. My guess is that the contract contains a provision requiring them to broadcast multiple games for all teams. Otherwise it would be a UND contract, not a NCHC contract. The contract is meant to provide visibility for the entire league, it isn't a marketing tool for UND alone.

My guess is that CBS Sports made the decision on the schedule, not the league. That's not the same as the league showing preferential treatment. I base that guess on the fact that the league probably wouldn't have chosen games with Big 10 teams, they would have chosen games with 2 league members.

And how many times do other people have to say that UND needed to leave the WCHA after Minnesota and Wisconsin left? Just because UND is a key piece of the NCHC doesn't give them any more rights or any more votes than any other member of the league. That's how good leagues operate. UND doesn't get preferential treatment in the new league, and they shouldn't.

I would rather have the tie if that is what the teams earned. I have seen too many games where a team manages to keep the score tied even if they are outplayed, and then win the shootout. I don't think there is anything wrong with ties, they are better than losses.

Baseball plays until they finish. Football and hockey can be played until they finish, also. They are in the playoffs and used to be in regular season games. The big difference is that it is more difficult to score in hockey so it usually takes longer to get that score. A decision was made at one point that the physical toll on the players playing long overtimes was a more serious problem than letting games end in a tie. Hockey is more physically demanding than baseball. This is especially true when the 2 teams play back to back games. So different criteria have been set up for overtimes and games ending in a tie depending on the league and the level of play. The only team sports I can think of that use individual skills competition to end a tie game are hockey and soccer. Do you really want hockey to follow the path of soccer?

It is in place through the end of the contract. I don't remember how long the contract is in place.

The difference I see is that in football they are still playing a team game. A shoot out is an individual skills competition. I don't believe in a team sport being decided by an individual skills competition. I would rather go with a 4 on 4 for 10 minutes, or even 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and 3 on 3 for another 5 minutes. Either one should eliminate a lot of ties while still playing a team game in a situation that is potentially possible in the regular game. Shoot outs are fun to watch, but I think they should be for exhibitions rather than used to decide games.

You are going to have better luck in the Tickets forum. It was set up for that purpose and people look there if they have tickets to sell or want to buy.