MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: frozena pizza on February 16, 2017, 11:14:17 AM
-
I've always thought Marquette should have a hockey program. I actually discussed it with someone from the athletic department once and he said they had looked into it a few times and it didn't seem viable - high costs, expensive facilities, additional sports medicine oversight, niche fan base, etc. However, I don't see why it couldn't be successful after a few years given that MU is in a large city in the upper midwest and several similar universities have had success. I also think we could use another sport that is spectator friendly. Thoughts?
-
I've always thought Marquette should have a hockey program. I actually discussed it with someone from the athletic department once and he said they had looked into it a few times and it didn't seem viable - high costs, expensive facilities, additional sports medicine oversight, niche fan base, etc. However, I don't see why it couldn't be successful after a few years given that MU is in a large city in the upper midwest and several similar universities have had success. I also think we could use another sport that is spectator friendly. Thoughts?
I vote no.
1. No clear place to play. College hockey is usually a Friday and Saturday night gig. Where can they free up those times?
2. Too much of a threat to take interest and $$ off basketball.
3. Too expensive. Would have to add a women's program as well to stay consistent with Title IX.
-
Keep yo pants on Fro, hey?
-
I vote no.
1. No clear place to play. College hockey is usually a Friday and Saturday night gig. Where can they free up those times?
2. Too much of a threat to take interest and $$ off basketball.
3. Too expensive. Would have to add a women's program as well to stay consistent with Title IX.
1. BC and the Cell both have ice. Last I heard, there were no imminent plans to raze either when MU and the Bucks move north. This would be the least of the potential challenges.
2. This. If the Admirals were to move or shutter, then MU hockey could certainly find success filling this void; otherwise, you're going to be dependent upon the existing MU stakeholders, who are not likely to support both programs with equal vigor.
3. Meh. If you strip all the "on-paper" costs (anything that isn't out-of-pocket e.g. scholarship, allocated facility costs, etc.), operating costs for both a men's and women's program might be around $500,000. Rent is cheap and MU would find a donor (or donors) who would subsidize a large portion of the marginal costs... the question is what would it cost to hire a coaching staff... that's where you can take a program into the millions, but if you have a big name, big dollar coach, you would certainly stand a much better chance of selling more tickets.... but now we're back to #2.
-
1. BC and the Cell both have ice. Last I heard, there were no imminent plans to raze either when MU and the Bucks move north. This would be the least of the potential challenges.
2. This. If the Admirals were to move or shutter, then MU hockey could certainly find success filling this void; otherwise, you're going to be dependent upon the existing MU stakeholders, who are not likely to support both programs with equal vigor.
3. Meh. If you strip all the "on-paper" costs (anything that isn't out-of-pocket e.g. scholarship, allocated facility costs, etc.), operating costs for both a men's and women's program might be around $500,000. Rent is cheap and MU would find a donor (or donors) who would subsidize a large portion of the marginal costs... the question is what would it cost to hire a coaching staff... that's where you can take a program into the millions, but if you have a big name, big dollar coach, you would certainly stand a much better chance of selling more tickets.... but now we're back to #2.
The Bradley Center will be torn down. Regarding the Arena, they already have UWM and the Admirals. Would there be room every other weekend in the middle of winter for Friday and Saturday night hockey?
-
Great idea, the BOT should love it.
It keeps with the preppy vision of a university.
Crew, Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Squash, why not Equestrian while we're at it.
Love those schools where the kids bring their horses to school with them.
Oh, you don't know about how that works, sorry.
-
Y'all just need ta be good, little Warriors and say yo nightly prayers and maybe yo wishes will come true, hey?
-
I've always thought Marquette should have a hockey program. I actually discussed it with someone from the athletic department once and he said they had looked into it a few times and it didn't seem viable - high costs, expensive facilities, additional sports medicine oversight, niche fan base, etc. However, I don't see why it couldn't be successful after a few years given that MU is in a large city in the upper midwest and several similar universities have had success. I also think we could use another sport that is spectator friendly. Thoughts?
One cost you forgot was establishing an equivalent-sized women's program.
-
I vote no.
1. No clear place to play. College hockey is usually a Friday and Saturday night gig. Where can they free up those times?
2. Too much of a threat to take interest and $$ off basketball.
3. Too expensive. Would have to add a women's program as well to stay consistent with Title IX.
The mecca seems like an easy place.
-
The Bradley Center will be torn down. Regarding the Arena, they already have UWM and the Admirals. Would there be room every other weekend in the middle of winter for Friday and Saturday night hockey?
UWM could easily move to their rec center. The absent crowd would still be noticable there.
-
The Mecca is probably too big.
I can compare locally, top hockey universities Quinnipiac plays hockey in a 3,385 seat arena and Yale plays in the Yale Whale and that only holds 3,500. Both always sell out. UConn plays in the XL Center in Downtown Hartford because there is nothing on campus. The curtain is pulled on the upper deck and capacity is like 8,500 (but it's a state school) and they actually lead Hockey East in attendance.
Maybe, the Mecca would work because Sacred Heart University of Fairfield plays in the lesser conference of the four schools yet plays most of their home games in Webster Bank Arena in Downtown Bridgeport and that holds 8,500 for hockey.
-
UWM could easily move to their rec center. The absent crowd would still be noticable there.
People who got "next" could shoot on one half of the court while the UWM-Wright State game is going on on the other half.
-
I've always thought Marquette should have a hockey program. I actually discussed it with someone from the athletic department once and he said they had looked into it a few times and it didn't seem viable - high costs, expensive facilities, additional sports medicine oversight, niche fan base, etc. However, I don't see why it couldn't be successful after a few years given that MU is in a large city in the upper midwest and several similar universities have had success. I also think we could use another sport that is spectator friendly. Thoughts?
We would have a high probability of success. My sense is fan attendance would be very high and it would be well received by the community at large. With the right financial sponsor this could happen.
-
One cost you forgot was establishing an equivalent-sized women's program.
They would just need to fund similar numbers of scholarships for womens sports. For example, I went to Miami University, we have a great hockey program, but no womens hockey. Rather there is a large and successful synchronized skating team that has won a variety of titles. Partial scholarships are given as the roster is quite large, but I can assure the spend for that team comes nowhere close that of mens hockey.
We would have a high probability of success. My sense is fan attendance would be very high and it would be well received by the community at large. With the right financial sponsor this could happen.
Your sense? Based on? The Admirals, a professional team who have been here forever and feature future pros, barely fill half the Mecca. And you think the upstart college hockey team would eclipse them? Marquette struggles to fill the Bradley Center for basketball to a satisfying level when not a top 25 squad, and you can be sure Marquette would be getting smacked around in hockey for awhile. They wouldn't have the massive funding and shiny new arena of Penn St, along with the B10 hockey conference, on top of what was a very strong club program...which is why they've had early success.
If Marquette averaged 5000 fans...they would be in the top 10 of college hockey attendance. Which you think is easy peasy. Hell Wisconsin is a legendary college program, is top 5 in attendance every year, and never averages more than about 60-65% of the Kohl Center filled.
-
One cost you forgot was establishing an equivalent-sized women's program.
They would just need to fund similar numbers of scholarships for womens sports. For example, I went to Miami University, we have a great hockey program, but no womens hockey. Rather there is a large and successful synchronized skating team that has won a variety of titles. Partial scholarships are given as the roster is quite large, but I can assure the spend for that team comes nowhere close that of mens hockey.
sorta unrelated to hockey and Jaybee's favorite NCAA women's sport, but partials are given in most sports in D1, football and basketball excluded. truthfully, not sure on hockey. probably depends on the school
Your sense? Based on? The Admirals, a professional team who have been here forever and feature future pros, barely fill half the Mecca. And you think the upstart college hockey team would eclipse them? Marquette struggles to fill the Bradley Center for basketball to a satisfying level when not a top 25 squad, and you can be sure Marquette would be getting smacked around in hockey for awhile. They wouldn't have the massive funding and shiny new arena of Penn St, along with the B10 hockey conference, on top of what was a very strong club program...which is why they've had early success.
If Marquette averaged 5000 fans...they would be in the top 10 of college hockey attendance. Which you think is easy peasy. Hell Wisconsin is a legendary college program, is top 5 in attendance every year, and never averages more than about 60-65% of the Kohl Center filled.
-
After giving this more thought, I don't think Marquette should add hockey, but I do believe the Big East should consider adding hockey (as they did lacrosse). Look at our lineup of locales... I think Indy may be the only city without an immediate answer to the arena/facilities question; otherwise, the basics of infrastructure and support are there plus hockey has a following in every Big East city, even Omaha. However, that may be a double-edged sword... can BE cities support both NCAA and minor league or junior hockey (or in DePaul's case, both plus NHL)?
That is why individually, I don't believe it's worth it for Marquette, but if the BE jumps into hockey as a conference, you'd have one major advantage: TV rights. No, you're not going to get a basketball-type deal, but if it costs $600k-700k/yr to run middle-tier men's and women's programs, could you get a TV deal that would subsidize a good portion of that?
So, here's the million $ hockey question:
Is the Big East brand prestigious enough that, this past Friday night (Feb 24th), the average sports viewer would have been more likely to watch a D-I hockey game between Creighton and Xavier instead of a men's basketball between Central Michigan & Toledo (CBSSN), Akron & Buffalo (CBSSN), Manhattan & Iona (ESPNU), or Oakland & UWGB (ESPNU)?
Even if the answer to that today is "no," continue to rebuild the BE brand, and in a few years it could become a "yes."
-
As a hockey parent I am 100% for it, provided it is a D1 program. I love ice hockey almost as much as I love basketball, and would become an instant fan of D1 program. A "little birdie" told me about this two years ago and sounded like a heavy hitter was willing to pony up some real money. All that said, I am not sure MU would have the fan support needed to justify the cost.
-
After giving this more thought, I don't think Marquette should add hockey, but I do believe the Big East should consider adding hockey (as they did lacrosse). Look at our lineup of locales... I think Indy may be the only city without an immediate answer to the arena/facilities question; otherwise, the basics of infrastructure and support are there plus hockey has a following in every Big East city, even Omaha. However, that may be a double-edged sword... can BE cities support both NCAA and minor league or junior hockey (or in DePaul's case, both plus NHL)?
That is why individually, I don't believe it's worth it for Marquette, but if the BE jumps into hockey as a conference, you'd have one major advantage: TV rights. No, you're not going to get a basketball-type deal, but if it costs $600k-700k/yr to run middle-tier men's and women's programs, could you get a TV deal that would subsidize a good portion of that?
So, here's the million $ hockey question:
Is the Big East brand prestigious enough that, this past Friday night (Feb 24th), the average sports viewer would have been more likely to watch a D-I hockey game between Creighton and Xavier instead of a men's basketball between Central Michigan & Toledo (CBSSN), Akron & Buffalo (CBSSN), Manhattan & Iona (ESPNU), or Oakland & UWGB (ESPNU)?
Even if the answer to that today is "no," continue to rebuild the BE brand, and in a few years it could become a "yes."
That is a very good approach. Here is an interesting chart.
http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2015=2016/
The Big East schools have a profile similar to Denver which has consistently drawn well.
-
Saw a presentation recently from a D3 AD. On a percentage basis of # of HS kids playing in college, hockey (especially womens) and lacrosse had the highest percentage. Mostly due to smaller # of hs kids playing those sports, but still a better chance of playing college than football or basketball.
-
That is a very good approach. Here is an interesting chart.
http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2015=2016/
The Big East schools have a profile similar to Denver which has consistently drawn well.
Hypothetically, if the Big East added hockey, after the initial novelty wears off after the first year or two, I honestly believe that Marquette could sustain - at least - an average of 3,000 fans per game, which would be good enough for the top half in D-I attendance today. Heck... hockey might even be a better draw with the students (who seem to prefer evening games on the weekends), so perhaps 4,000 isn't outside the realm of possibility.
In fact, I'm going to go on record and say that while hockey might cannibalize basketball attendance (or vice versa) with some people, it would not on an overall basis.
Look at Notre Dame... they actually make an effort to schedule hockey and men's basketball at home on the same weekend, and they average over 4,100/game. Many of those are alums, who wouldn't otherwise travel to South Bend for a single hockey or basketball game, that make a weekend out of two hockey games and a basketball game. I have in-laws who don't have season tickets for anything but do the "weekend getaway to South Bend" about a 5 or 6 times a year... apparently, this is actually a thing there, and on the rare weekend where ND hockey and basketball are both home plus a Thursday home basketball game (i.e. a four-day weekend with two basketball games and two hockey games Thur-Sun), the hotel rooms in South Bend approach football Saturday prices.
Now I don't think MU would emulate that phenomenon exactly, but two questions I have:
1) For those of you who love MU basketball that live too far away to have season tickets -or- justify making a 4-8 hour road trip for a single basketball game, would a triple-header of hockey & basketball entice you to spend a couple nights at the Ambassador once or twice a year?
2) For those of you basketball season ticket holders, would hockey cause you to not renew your season tickets?
Hockey might lead to fewer individual ticket sales and walk-ups, but since we all know that season tickets account for the vast majority of paid attendance, hockey probably wouldn't be a material drag on, and could potentially enhance, basketball attendance.
-
My guess, and it's really just that, is that a hockey program would probably cannibalize Admirals attendance more than MU basketball. The admirals are currently drawing around 5,000 which puts them in the middle third of the AHL ( http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=AHL1941&sid=2017 ). Judging from the current attendance in college hockey we would need to draw 2,000+ a game to maintain a self-sustaining and competitive program. Our club team was drawing between 300-400 per game when we had buses to the games ( https://marquettewire.org/3848249/tribune/tribune-news/club-hockey-attendance-drops-after-buses-canceled/ ). We wold also need to find a conference.
What I know is that Marquette's athletic endowment currently sits near but under $20 million (they are hoping to hit $20 million by the end of this school year http://www.gomarquette.com/bluegold-fund/about-bgf-goals.html ). As far as I can tell we currently have 96 of our potential 136 allowed scholarships endowed. Returning to guesswork for a moment, it would seem that MU probably fully funded its prior existing athletic programs and then expanded with lacrosse. If starting a hockey program were possible, I would guess they would follow a similar pattern.
I can't speak to whether we should but my guess would be we are a minimum of 5 years away from it even being a possibility.
-
My guess, and it's really just that, is that a hockey program would probably cannibalize Admirals attendance more than MU basketball. The admirals are currently drawing around 5,000 which puts them in the middle third of the AHL ( http://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph_season.php?lid=AHL1941&sid=2017 ). Judging from the current attendance in college hockey we would need to draw 2,000+ a game to maintain a self-sustaining and competitive program. Our club team was drawing between 300-400 per game when we had buses to the games ( https://marquettewire.org/3848249/tribune/tribune-news/club-hockey-attendance-drops-after-buses-canceled/ ). We wold also need to find a conference.
What I know is that Marquette's athletic endowment currently sits near but under $20 million (they are hoping to hit $20 million by the end of this school year http://www.gomarquette.com/bluegold-fund/about-bgf-goals.html ). As far as I can tell we currently have 96 of our potential 136 allowed scholarships endowed. Returning to guesswork for a moment, it would seem that MU probably fully funded its prior existing athletic programs and then expanded with lacrosse. If starting a hockey program were possible, I would guess they would follow a similar pattern.
I can't speak to whether we should but my guess would be we are a minimum of 5 years away from it even being a possibility.
MU did a good job with their recent sports expansion. I think if they go through the process with hockey in a thoughtful way with a big donor good things would happen.
-
As far as I can tell we currently have 96 of our potential 136 allowed scholarships endowed. Returning to guesswork for a moment, it would seem that MU probably fully funded its prior existing athletic programs and then expanded with lacrosse.
I don't know the exact number of scholarships for lacrosse, but I can promise you it is far less than 40.
-
I don't know the exact number of scholarships for lacrosse, but I can promise you it is far less than 40.
Men's scholarship maximum is 12.6. Women's is 12.0.
-
I knew it was a partial scholarship sport but wow, that's pretty crazy considering how large the rosters are.
-
That's how it is for most sports outside of basketball and football.
-
Most of these equivalency sports are actually revenue generators for the school in the macro sense. When you take the total number of kids on the roster less the scholarships your getting a lot of net new tuition payers. One of the reason the D3 schools have so many sports is it brings in tuition paying students.
-
Most of these equivalency sports are actually revenue generators for the school in the macro sense. When you take the total number of kids on the roster less the scholarships your getting a lot of net new tuition payers. One of the reason the D3 schools have so many sports is it brings in tuition paying students.
Exactly. That's why people who say "BUT IT COSTS SO MUCH!!!" don't understand the foregone revenue that would result without football (and other athletics) at a lot of the smaller, liberal arts schools.
If you are running Ripon College for instance, and you have a football roster of 80 players with a total tuition and other direct costs of $50,000 each, that's $4 million in revenue. Even if you have to discount that tuition by 50%, and even if you further assume that 50% of those students would have attended Ripon anyway without football, that's still $1 million in revenue. And their football program doesn't cost $1 million annually.
And I'm not even including the $$ that ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. bring in that you would forgo without football too.
-
Exactly. That's why people who say "BUT IT COSTS SO MUCH!!!" don't understand the foregone revenue that would result without football (and other athletics) at a lot of the smaller, liberal arts schools.
If you are running Ripon College for instance, and you have a football roster of 80 players with a total tuition and other direct costs of $50,000 each, that's $4 million in revenue. Even if you have to discount that tuition by 50%, and even if you further assume that 50% of those students would have attended Ripon anyway without football, that's still $1 million in revenue. And their football program doesn't cost $1 million annually.
And I'm not even including the $$ that ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. bring in that you would forgo without football too.
Interesting angle... and here I always figured the "non-scholarship" rule at the D-II and D-III level was to level the playing field amongst the athletes, not to protect a potential revenue/funding source.
-
Interesting angle... and here I always figured the "non-scholarship" rule at the D-II and D-III level was to level the playing field amongst the athletes, not to protect a potential revenue/funding source.
D3 might be the least competitive of all levels in many sports. Look at football. Before this year, in the 11 Stagg Bowls (D3 football championship) between 2005 and 2015, there were only three participants.
Mount Union was in all 11 and went 5-6
UW-Whitewater was in 9 and went 6-3
St. Thomas was in 2 and went 0-2.
In basketball, there have been 5 D3 champions over the past ten years. (UW-Whitewater, UW-Stevens Point, St. Thomas, Amherst and Washington (St. Louis) have each won two.) Duke and UConn are the only ones two win multiple national championships at the D1 level over the same timeframe. D2 has had 10 different champions.
Scholarships even out the field because you can draw players from pooling at the top programs because of scholarship limits.
-
Our club team was drawing between 300-400 per game when we had buses to the games ( https://marquettewire.org/3848249/tribune/tribune-news/club-hockey-attendance-drops-after-buses-canceled/ ). We wold also need to find a conference.
They brought the buses back in 2015 and have kept them since. Selling beer at the Ponds of Brookfield really helps with student attendance.