Goon Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) Here's the deal, 12 million is a lot of money, but you can only get so many recruits. Yale proved this year, that you can win without a big cathedral of a building and without the big TV contract. I know I even touched on this after the NCAA's were over. And no, I wrote this at home. Since some nameless internet pool boy posting under the screen name of Watchmaker49 seems to think that it matters. Edited April 30, 2013 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Isn't the BTN already broadcasting something at those times with advertising revenue? If so, it isn't all incrementally new revenue. Some of it will just replace what they lose. Just asking, because I don't watch BTN (by choice). Yes. Lots of times they are re-runs, coaches shows, or sports that don't generate any added revenue though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Maybe. I have no idea what kind of revenue the hockey broadcasts generate, although $12 million seems high. But again, I have no basis for that opinion. And maybe getting that extra little spiff or share of the BTN revenue will cause schools to start a hockey program. Or, it might cause them to ask why they don't get a larger share of basketball or football BTN revenue, where they are generating large returns. And that was really my main point. To what extent is this a subtle, initial shift by the Big 10 towards rewarding individual schools based upon income generated by an individual program at that school. If the Big 10 should ever go in that direction, schools like Minnesota will be hurt more than helped. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Here's the deal, 12 million is a lot of money, but you can only get so many recruits. Yale proved this year, that you can win without a big cathedral of a building and without the big TV contract. I know I even touched on this after the NCAA's were over. And no, I wrote this at home. Since some nameless internet pool boy posting under the screen name of Watchmaker49 seems to think that it matters. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 (edited) 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. I am thinking that the Football and Basketball departments are going to gobble that money up faster than you can say Rumple Stilts skin. I would also like to see the source where Let's play Hockey came up with this figure. Edited April 30, 2013 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I am thinking that the Football and Basketball departments are going to gobble that money up faster than you can say Rumple Stilts skin. I would also like to see the source where Let's play Hockey came up with this figure. I'm guessing you are right. Especially at schools like OSU and PSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 What, were they going to spend the $12 million on hookers and blow for the commissioner's Christmas party without this allocation? Oh, I didn't realize Bruce McLeod was going to be the Big10 hockey commish... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 And how much is und getting per year for their tv deal?:/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDHockey Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm guessing you are right. Especially at schools like OSU and PSU. I looked it up and Penn State was amassing $50 million in profits from football alone before their scandal hit. OSU something like $30+ million in football alone. Add in the many millions from basketball and I don't think either of those places need the BTN hockey money to do more for their football or basketball teams. They are already overflowing in money for those things. My bet is those places use that money for their hockey program more than is being assumed here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 My bet is those places use that money for their hockey program more than is being assumed here. Yea, Ohio State must have spent thousands on new uniforms and hockey helmets this past season...Buckeye stickers too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I looked it up and Penn State was amassing $50 million in profits from football alone before their scandal hit. OSU something like $30+ million in football alone. Add in the many millions from basketball and I don't think either of those places need the BTN hockey money to do more for their football or basketball teams. They are already overflowing in money for those things. My bet is those places use that money for their hockey program more than is being assumed here. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. With all due respect, Penn State isn't exactly known for its men's basketball program either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 With all due respect, Penn State isn't exactly known for its men's basketball program either... 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 $$ you sourced that they are making off football) to move to D1. I'd be highly surprised if either OSU or PSU throw any money they don't absolutely have to into their hockey programs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm sure you'll agree they are for football. If Penn State really valued hockey, they wouldn't have waited for someone to come along and build them an arena and completely endow the program (considering the $$ 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. I think Penn State has made more of a commitment to a successful hockey program than Ohio State has. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think Penn State has made more of a commitment to a successful hockey program than Ohio State has. I think that they will be decent, they hired a good hockey coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 I think Penn State has made more of a commitment to a successful hockey program than Ohio State has. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Unfortunately, that's not saying much. Actually, it is. Penn State will (hopefully) open up in the Pegula Ice Arena this fall (seating 6,000) while THE Ohio State University Buckeyes try to make 3,500 fans in the 16,000+ seat Value City Arena seem like a nice venue for hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxman Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 MTU, SCSU, and MSU-Mankato make the list of top 25 schools with the worst professors. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37243771/25-colleges-with-the-worst-professors/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Actually, it is. Penn State will (hopefully) open up in the Pegula Ice Arena this fall (seating 6,000) while THE Ohio State University Buckeyes try to make 3,500 fans in the 16,000+ seat Value City Arena seem like a nice venue for hockey. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 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. I'm agreeing with you, to a point, and am not arguing the who is going to devote more money to hockey issue. It seems to me that PSU, by funding a new arena, has already out-classed Ohio State. As a recruit, what appeals to you more? Playing in front of 4,000 fans in a 6,000 seat arena or playing in front of that same 4,000 fans...but with 10,000 additional empty seats in the arena? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 MTU, SCSU, and MSU-Mankato make the list of top 25 schools with the worst professors. http://www.cbsnews.c...rst-professors/ Did you happen to see UND a little farther down the list...3rd from the bottom? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Maybe. I have no idea what kind of revenue the hockey broadcasts generate, although $12 million seems high. But again, I have no basis for that opinion. And maybe getting that extra little spiff or share of the BTN revenue will cause schools to start a hockey program. Or, it might cause them to ask why they don't get a larger share of basketball or football BTN revenue, where they are generating large returns. And that was really my main point. To what extent is this a subtle, initial shift by the Big 10 towards rewarding individual schools based upon income generated by an individual program at that school. If the Big 10 should ever go in that direction, schools like Minnesota will be hurt more than helped. How can they? All the Big Ten schools have football and basketball teams, which is why the money is split with all the schools. The reason only half the schools get extra money is because they're the only schools that have hockey teams. In reality it wouldn't be fair if the 6 schools that have hockey teams had to split the extra money they bring in to the BTN with the schools that don't have teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I looked it up and Penn State was amassing $50 million in profits from football alone before their scandal hit. OSU something like $30+ million in football alone. Add in the many millions from basketball and I don't think either of those places need the BTN hockey money to do more for their football or basketball teams. They are already overflowing in money for those things. My bet is those places use that money for their hockey program more than is being assumed here. I agree with this. At Minnesota it will probably go into the general athletic fund since their profit margin for hockey is so much higher than any other DI program, but the other schools will more than likely put a lot of it towards the hockey program because that money will make the program self-sustaining and actually give them a profit, allowing them to spend more money on recruiting, upgrades, etc. I know OSU and MSU hockey were money losers according to the numbers Jupiter has posted before, so this could be a game changer for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 MTU, SCSU, and MSU-Mankato make the list of top 25 schools with the worst professors. http://www.cbsnews.c...rst-professors/ Take those rankings with a grain of salt. I believe someone on GPL said these surveys are more than likely done by students, which means students will give bad ratings to the teachers if they don't get a good grade or just flat out don't like the teacher, even if they are good. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNState0fHockey Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I'm agreeing with you, to a point, and am not arguing the who is going to devote more money to hockey issue. It seems to me that PSU, by funding a new arena, has already out-classed Ohio State. As a recruit, what appeals to you more? Playing in front of 4,000 fans in a 6,000 seat arena or playing in front of that same 4,000 fans...but with 10,000 additional empty seats in the arena? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.