MNState0fHockey

Dude, it doesn't matter if they don't draw well in this discussion because we are comparing it to YOUR market and not the rest of the NHL. You draw 14,000 for hockey games and so do they. Key difference is that they have a HELL of a lot bigger market with the potential to draw a HELL of a lot more casual hockey fans. If you look at North Dakota versus Ohio on a per capita basis, then NO DOUBT North Dakota is a better hockey market. But market size is a considerable disadvantage to you guys.

And Thanks Goon. We now have a benchmark for how much national interest UND draws. That is, however, completely meaningless without a benchmark for how much national interest OSU draws.

You're missing the point. They average 14,000+ fans at games. UND averages 14,000+ fans at games. Ohio is a bigger market and likely to have far more casual fans. It's nothing personal, nor any type of shot at UND, but fact is OSU is a bigger national brand. And yes, that even matters for hockey (even if less than other sports).

Is this like Twitter where you start losing a debate and then resort to those types of accusations? And no, I'm not Mariucci. Would you care to address the points I made or am I wasting my time because you don't have a retort?

Players Registered with USA Hockey last year: Ohio: 14,430 North Dakota: 5,315 Columbus Blue Jackets average attendance last season: 14,565 So, there is quite a bit of interest in hockey in Ohio (at least relative to North Dakota), so let's put that whole part of the argument to rest. And yes, I realize that North Dakota has a much higher per capita interest, but that gets back to the point that North Dakota has a small population and is a small market. Both also facts. Sorry, but I have to agree with Mariucci here. Yes, OSU's attendance has been abysmal, but I have a strong feeling that the ratings for a game against OSU would be much higher nationally than a game against UND. To the average casual hockey fan around the country (not just college hockey, but NHL) the big brand names of Minnesota and Ohio State are going to draw in more viewers. Columbus averages 14,564 people at games, which means they have a pretty loyal following. I'm sure a majority of those people would be more likely to tune in to see them play OSU than UND. How about people in Michigan. Are they more likely to watch two fellow conference mates play (in a game the impacts the standings for the conference their teams compete in) or Minnesota play a non-conference game? Sure, some would watch either, but my guess is a majority of the casual fans would rather watch a conference game.

No disagreement there. PSU instantly became more relevant than OSU in hockey when they elevated their program to D1. OSU hasn't helped their image much either in letting Oz go because of disagreements over facilities upgrades. OSU hockey is just a hot mess and it's all self-inflicted.

Saying Penn State cares about hockey more than Ohio State (which is what you said), doesn't say much (as your above post further proves). Going to stop the back and forth on this because I really don't care all that much. I stand by my opinion that I'll be surprised if either OSU or PSU throw any more money into their hockey programs than the absolutely have to. Yes, PSU is opening a nice new arena, but that money was given to the school specifically for the arena. That money couldn't have been spent elsewhere. Given a choice of where to spend money not ear marked bya donor for hockey (such as this revenue from the BTN), I doubt any goes to hockey.

Unfortunately, that's not saying much.

I'm sure you'll agree they are for football. If Penn State really valued hockey, they wouldn't have waited for someone to come along and build them an arena and completely endow the program (considering the $$ you sourced that they are making off football) to move to D1. I'd be highly surprised if either OSU or PSU throw any money they don't absolutely have to into their hockey programs.

Not saying those schools need the money for football or basketball, but they both clearly value those sports much more than hockey (relative to schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin). Look at the disagreement and subsequent firing of Oz at OSU as evidence of this. I doubt either program uses the extra money for hockey.

I'm guessing you are right. Especially at schools like OSU and PSU.

I don't think anyone has suggested this will be a recruiting advantage. More than likely (as I said above), most of these schools will throw the extra money in their general sports fund and use it for football and basketball or to fund non-revenue sports. Where this money is significant is in possibly convincing other Big Ten programs to add hockey.

Not sure. Just saying, from what I've heard it is new revenue generated and will only go to the schools with hockey. And look at the numbers for football. Minnesota isn't that far behind Wisconsin. I don't think anyone is worried about that.

Yes. Lots of times they are re-runs, coaches shows, or sports that don't generate any added revenue though.

Not sure about that. Without the Big Ten Hockey conference, there probably wouldn't be as many games on the BTN because there wouldn't be conference matchups. And without the extra games, there wouldn't be the extra advertising revenue. From what I understand, the $2 million the hockey programs are getting is directly tied to new advertising revenue generated from the increased number of hockey games on the BTN. That $$$ doesn't exist without the BTHC. Yes, these schools would have gotten half the money anyways, but here is why this policy is significant: The non-hockey schools aren't getting any of this money. Why is that significant??? Biggest impact I think this will have is showing other Big Ten schools that there is $$ to be made in college hockey, and that the BTN revenue generated will at least offset the costs of running a program. We could see other Big Ten schools adding programs in the not-so-distant future, especially if the hockey related revenue generated by the BTN increases.

The $2 million is new revenue that wasn't received by programs before that will only be received by the six Big Ten hockey schools. But the general premise of your post is correct. Most of these Big Ten schools will just dump that extra $2 million into their general sports fund and it will go towards football and bouncy ball.

The only one I know of is the FSN Director's Cut on FSN website.

Yeah, I think Hammy heard the same things.

Just read Hammy said he heard he didn't want to go to SCSU, so maybe I was wrong. Either way, good get for you guys. Congrats.

Gophers offered him, but I think most people thought he'd choose SCSU. Good get for UND. Kid is a good player.

Sigh.... Loosen up man.

Not that I know of.

Thanks.

Could be wrong about that. Could have sworn he hadn't been a big fan. You guys would probably know better than I.

I am guessing they lose Bjugstad and at least two other forwards after this season. I'm guessing Budish and a surprise departure. And after next season, they are graduating three forwards and may lose more than that. I think there is plenty of room, especially considering Lettieri and Nanne likely aren't getting much scholly. They are only limited by the number of scholarships. Hurley 2015 and Gersich 2016.