The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Quebec Nordiques
Seattle [probably horrible nickname]s
Islanders new arena.
New Coyotes owner in Phoenix/Hamilton/Other city
CBA in place.
Let's play some hockey.
To directly answer your question, though, the answer is I doubt it. First off, unless other Pac-12 schools decided they wanted to do something, they would have to seek membership in the WCHA, and then they'd have to add a companion women's program to comply with Title IX. I'm not too sure Woodward and Co. (UW AD Scott Woodward and his associate AD's) would be interested in adding another pair of "non-revenue" sports (which these would be at the UW unlike at places such as North Dakota or Minnesota for example) that would have to feed off of football and men's basketball in order to survive, especially with them having to pay off the Husky Stadium bill still.
It's a good question, though, that you asked, cutchemist42, and thanks for asking.
Thanks for the good answer, I always overlook the equal men and women's aspect. I just figured another tenant wouldn't be bad.
As a slight aside (might be more appropriate as a seperate post), I've kind of wondered why dont' more NHL cities team up with the local universities to support university/grassroots hockey. Many successful NHL markets seem to have decent Div1 college hockey in the area. I understand why Seattle would not work, but with B1G supporting hockey, there should be a Div1 program in Chicago.
Thanks for the good answer, I always overlook the equal men and women's aspect. I just figured another tenant wouldn't be bad.
As a slight aside (might be more appropriate as a seperate post), I've kind of wondered why dont' more NHL cities team up with the local universities to support university/grassroots hockey. Many successful NHL markets seem to have decent Div1 college hockey in the area. I understand why Seattle would not work, but with B1G supporting hockey, there should be a Div1 program in Chicago.
You're welcome. I'll let some of the other regulars here tackle the other question you raise here.
i believe we have had discussions in the past about the potential of a PAC-12 (currently represented by the ACHA DII Pac-8 conference) Division I hockey league, but it has always come back to the fact that it would cost too much (basically 50 athletes per university to subsidize with title 9).
would be sweet to see, and great for the game of hockey in the pacific region. If they could find some hockey-loving benefactor(s) to put in about half a billion in endowment across those 8 teams (UCB, UCLA, UO, USC, Stanford, UU, UW, WSU), i could see those programs catching on and becoming revenue neutral (mens hockey would pay for women's hockey) over the course of 15 years or so.
i believe we have had discussions in the past about the potential of a PAC-12 (currently represented by the ACHA DII Pac-8 conference) Division I hockey league, but it has always come back to the fact that it would cost too much (basically 50 athletes per university to subsidize with title 9).
would be sweet to see, and great for the game of hockey in the pacific region. If they could find some hockey-loving benefactor(s) to put in about half a billion in endowment across those 8 teams (UCB, UCLA, UO, USC, Stanford, UU, UW, WSU), i could see those programs catching on and becoming revenue neutral (mens hockey would pay for women's hockey) over the course of 15 years or so.
Does Simon Frasier have a Hockey team? Maybe the pac-12 could expand into canada as partial members for Hockey
but with B1G supporting hockey, there should be a Div1 program in Chicago.
What Division I team in Chicago do you suggest get hockey? The only ones in Chicago are Chicago State, DePaul, Loyola Chicago and UIC. Northwestern is in the suburb of Evanston but that's an academic school more than it is an athletic school.
What Division I team in Chicago do you suggest get hockey? The only ones in Chicago are Chicago State, DePaul, Loyola Chicago and UIC. Northwestern is in the suburb of Evanston but that's an academic school more than it is an athletic school.
I actually hadn't mapped it out, I actually thought the University of Illinois-Urbana was much closer to Chicago. I'm just saying theres going to be a B1G hockey conference and many academic schools support hockey well.
Maybe I should actually find an old thread or start a new one to discuss this. Sorry for the side-topic in here.
Tomorrow is King County council financial committee meeting for the Sodo arena on the revised proposal. I am hoping it gets voted out of committee tomorrow for a full vote either the 8th or the 15th.
I'm probably one of the few NYI diehards, who didn't hate the Fisherman
#1 - Aren't all remaining Islanders fans are "die-hards" ? We've finished third or worse in 22 of the last 23 seasons, last won a division in 1988 and a playoff series in 1993. I think it's "die hard" or "used to root for the Islanders."
#2 - I own a Ziggy Palffy jersey with the traditional logo on the Fishsticks uniform.
My college roommate was from Long Island and lived three miles from a team store. He was supposed to get me an authentic traditional jersey, but because he is an evil Rangers fan and wanted to see the look on my face when THAT came out of the bag, he wasted $20 of his own money (he found a deal on the traditional, and instead of handing me cash back, used the difference and his $20 to add the replica).
It was kind of nice to have a "I can play pickup games in this and not ruin my good one" jersey.
Does Simon Frasier have a Hockey team? Maybe the pac-12 could expand into canada as partial members for Hockey
SFU has a club team that has gotten better. It's not varsity yet, though.
Since they're a Div 2 school, I think they'd probably need permission to jump up for hockey (I know they're no Div 2 for hockey). Not sure if the NCAA wants that as it might take away a lot of hockey talent for the US schools.
I'm probably one of the few NYI diehards, who didn't hate the Fisherman
I realize this is an OT tirade, but still…
#3 - I didn't HATE the logo as much as I hated the color adjustment and the jersey that went with it. And I STILL LIKE the Lighthouse logo on those uniforms.
They could have pulled off "acceptance" of the logo/uniform. You have to go in stages. You can't institute massive change and have it be accepted instantly. There were so many new things to dislike it was easy to have a united front: "We Hate THIS."
You have to fracture opinion. Had they had introduced the Lighthouse logo as a shoulder patch in the traditional colors, most fans probably would have loved it. Some would hate it. Then you make ANOTHER change: Third jersey with the Fisherman logo IN THE traditional colors with ONE new color added. That fractures the opinion into so many different camps you can do whatever and get away with it. You have EIGHT camps:
1. "Hate all the new stuff"
2. "Like the lighthouse logo, but hate everything else that's new"
3. "Like the accent color, but hate everything else that's new"
4. "Like the fishsticks logo, but hate everything else that's new"
5. "Like the fishsticks and the lighthouse, hate the accent"
6. "Like the lighthouse and accent, hate the fish sticks"
7. "Like the fishsticks and accent, hate the lighthouse"
8. "like the new stuff, all of it"
Now half your fan base likes at least half the uniform.
5/8 of your fan base won't like SOMETHING in the new look, but they'll all like at least 3/8 of it.
Your feedback isn't going to be total hatred. It'll be different things they hate.
They introduced all new concepts and everyone hated SOMETHING. If we liked ONE element of the new design, we all agreed THIS ISN'T GOOD.
The new black third jersey sucks. But they've tinkered with stuff so many times, there's not a ton of outrage. I don't even know how many times we wore it. All they had to do was use this progression as THIRD JERSEYS and it would have been little burning in effigy:
“There is no provision for an NHL-only scenario,” the council member said. “I don’t think we would move forward, [an arena] is certainly not contemplated in any of our discussions with just an NHL team.”
^ I don't think that's surprising. I don't think anyone thought Seattle would build a $300 million rink for the NHL. They'll go after both to fill up dates.
The proposal requires the NBA. Hansen wants to be owner of NBA team not NHL though. It's more likely to see a NBA team back in seattle than a NHL team coming in seattle within the next two years. Its in hansen best interest to land a NHL but with someone else as owner. 80m dollars that he doesn't pay for out of his own pocket if we land a NHL team before transfer date. The county is on provides the bonds for that 80m.
The only way i could see it being built with NHL only if the owner to be makes an offer to city/county council to help pay for it essentially redoing the arena funding plan.
I am not worried about there not being a NHL only scenario. We have 5 years to land a NBA team. We will see NBA back in Seattle and get the arena built. Hansen wouldn't be doing all the things he has done to make sure this arena happens with out having an idea on availability of NBA teams that he could try to acquire.
Cuban owner of NBA dallas team was on KJR and pretty much said on air there are a # of teams out there that he could try to go after and acquire.
^ I don't think that's surprising. I don't think anyone thought Seattle would build a $300 million rink for the NHL. They'll go after both to fill up dates.
500m arena. Its more expensive to build a NHL arena than it is a NBA arena. When private investors are offering nearly 300m in private funds for the arena you need both to make it really viable.
The fact it took the sonics leaving before a properly built arena for NHL games was ever gonna happen. The oh Key arena is good enough we don't need a new one argument. And some people up here do believe that which is kinda pathetic.
SFU has a club team that has gotten better. It's not varsity yet, though.
Since they're a Div 2 school, I think they'd probably need permission to jump up for hockey (I know they're no Div 2 for hockey). Not sure if the NCAA wants that as it might take away a lot of hockey talent for the US schools.
There is a D2 for hockey, but it is only one conference of about 10 teams.
Teams who are normally lower in other sports are permitted to play d1 hockey. RPI is not D1 in any other sport as far as I know, neither is Union.
SFU has a club team that has gotten better. It's not varsity yet, though.
Since they're a Div 2 school, I think they'd probably need permission to jump up for hockey (I know they're no Div 2 for hockey). Not sure if the NCAA wants that as it might take away a lot of hockey talent for the US schools.
Alabama-Hunstville Chargers play Div 1 for hockey and Division 2 for all other sports. SHU could say there is already precedent for such a move.
I believe, the only sport which has restrictions is football. Teams are not permitted to play D2 or D3 in football if they are D1 in other sports. Years ago they could. SOmetime in the mid-90s, the NCAA told those schools they had to move up to D1AA (FCS) or D1 (FBS), if they wanted to continue playing football. Big part of that was because D3 does not give athletic scholarships (at least at the time they didn't). But, if a students was good at football and another sport, they would get the other sport to give him a scholarship and then turn around and have him play football, as well. A guy I played football with in HS had that situation at St Johns. He was a good lacrosse player, as well. Borderline d1, but wasn't getting any other scholarships. Well, St Johns football wanted him and magically the lacrosse team offered him a full ride. St Johns has since dropped football citing the costs.
There is a D2 for hockey, but it is only one conference of about 10 teams.
Teams who are normally lower in other sports are permitted to play d1 hockey. RPI is not D1 in any other sport as far as I know, neither is Union.
Two other good examples of this, since we are talking about Simon Fraser, are both the U. of Alaska (Fairbanks) and the U. of Alaska-Anchorage. UAF and UAA are D-II schools in other sports, and they are league rivals of Simon Fraser, as all three are members of the Great Northwest Athletic Conference. Both Alaska schools, though, are D-I hockey schools.
