Excuse my typos. I'm typing on a droid.

.When we say compliance with Title 10 for equality in sports, simply this. There are 2 factors monitary equality and scholarship equality.

Therefore to establish a men's hockey program, first the cost of the program would be lets say 15 million assuming that a college is 50 percent women and 50 percent men, therefor another 15 million has to be provided to women's program. therefore addtional dollars needed is 30 million.

then the scholarship issue. if men's hockey max scholarships is 15 scholarships therefore 15 needs to be provided to female student athletes. This would mean either fully funding all existing scholarship female progrmas or adding additional sports and tnen that goes back to the resource issue where if additional women's teams have to be developed then additional funding has to be obtained. for discussion another 1 million dollars therefore total increase in reveneue is 31 million.

In this economy, this is no chump change. Currently the non-scholarship hockey program is not affiliated with the schools athletic department but with the student recreation program.

(06-25-2013 01:56 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 06:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ...Why would they leave Hockey East to join an upstart ACC hockey league when it is right where it wants to be in hockey?...

However, to answer your question (and keep in mind I'm not a hockey fan, so this might be in left field):
1. because I think that Hockey East's days are numbered.
2. I think that the "upstart" conference would be better. Hockey East might have more good teams, but ACC Hockey would have fewer total teams, so each good team would count more. I think that it would end up being 1-2 elite teams, 2-3 very, very good teams, 1 good team, and 1 bottom dweller. I would imagine that a conference that is 83.333% good or better is hard to beat...

You should look into college hockey a little more. A good start is at collegehockeynews-dot-com. Hockey East doesn't have a weak team, and has been dominant recently. In addition to our current success, we're now adding a great program next year in Notre Dame. That website provides year by year history on each school page. BC, if they left New England to play southern schools, would see there recruiting pipeline dry up. Why would they willingly do this, giving up lifelong rivalries with nearby schools, for the privilege of destroying Clemson and NC State twiceca year each. Hockey East schools recruit heavily in all of New England, and also have relationships with Canadian youth programs that they've built over many years- decades. Ontario, Quebec, Western Canada. Also, it is a major undertaking to build a program. New hockey get beaten up for many years before showing signs of improvement.

(06-25-2013 03:23 PM)Fburghokie Wrote:  .When we say compliance with Title 10 for equality in sports, simply this. There are 2 factors monitary equality and scholarship equality.

Therefore to establish a men's hockey program, first the cost of the program would be lets say 15 million assuming that a college is 50 percent women and 50 percent men, therefor another 15 million has to be provided to women's program. therefore addtional dollars needed is 30 million.

then the scholarship issue. if men's hockey max scholarships is 15 scholarships therefore 15 needs to be provided to female student athletes. This would mean either fully funding all existing scholarship female progrmas or adding additional sports and tnen that goes back to the resource issue where if additional women's teams have to be developed then additional funding has to be obtained. for discussion another 1 million dollars therefore total increase in reveneue is 31 million.

In this economy, this is no chump change. Currently the non-scholarship hockey program is not affiliated with the schools athletic department but with the student recreation program.

(06-25-2013 01:56 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 06:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ...Why would they leave Hockey East to join an upstart ACC hockey league when it is right where it wants to be in hockey?...

However, to answer your question (and keep in mind I'm not a hockey fan, so this might be in left field):
1. because I think that Hockey East's days are numbered.
2. I think that the "upstart" conference would be better. Hockey East might have more good teams, but ACC Hockey would have fewer total teams, so each good team would count more. I think that it would end up being 1-2 elite teams, 2-3 very, very good teams, 1 good team, and 1 bottom dweller. I would imagine that a conference that is 83.333% good or better is hard to beat...

You should look into college hockey a little more. A good start is at collegehockeynews-dot-com. Hockey East doesn't have a weak team, and has been dominant recently. In addition to our current success, we're now adding a great program next year in Notre Dame. That website provides year by year history on each school page. BC, if they left New England to play southern schools, would see there recruiting pipeline dry up. Why would they willingly do this, giving up lifelong rivalries with nearby schools, for the privilege of destroying Clemson and NC State twiceca year each. Hockey East schools recruit heavily in all of New England, and also have relationships with Canadian youth programs that they've built over many years- decades. Ontario, Quebec, Western Canada. Also, it is a major undertaking to build a program. New hockey get beaten up for many years before showing signs of improvement.

ND is a moot point because they're in my hypothetical ACC conference, and since when are Pitt and Syracuse "southern?"

Also, the beauty of a small conference is more OOC games, so BC could still play plenty of New England games. The difference is that when major state schools (i.e. the B1G collective) start annihilating smaller Hockey East schools (which will eventually happen), BC would have a place to land and wouldn't be stuck in a conference filled with the hockey equals of Cornell and Colgate football (who were BOTH not only dominant at one point in time, but actually also won football national championships - in fact, both schools have as many, or more CFB NC's than Clemson and UCLA (combined)).

Your economic analysis is wrong as well. I'm a Syracuse fan and know our situation better than schools like Pitt, UVA, or UNC, so I'll use us as an example. Syracuse already has an on-campus practice arena (where our women's team plays) and is located about 3 blocks from a city-owned ice rink that is about to be rebuilt/undergo major renovations (where the local minor league teams plays). The added upfront facilities costs of having adequate/state of the art facilities is zilch. Sure we would have to pay rent to use the new municipal rink, but I would be amazed if that wasn't pretty cheap, and it isn't an upfront on our end, anyway. Furthermore, scholarships are only a paper cost. It doesn't actually cost Syracuse University $33k/yr to give out that last football scholarship. It costs the athletic dept. $33k, but that money is paid to the university, which acts as an academic subsidy. If the university were to kick the money back to the athletic dept., both the university and the athletic dept. would essentially break even, despite the scholarship. The only real costs are facilities, which either already exist, or would involve rent, which could be covered by ticket sales, coaches, equipment, transportation, insurance, and non-scholarship-based student athlete support (books, insurance, extra tutors, and so on). If we're spending $15 million on that, then we better be beating pro teams. And yes, you're right about Title IX (idk what Title 10 is), but once again, you are grossly overstating costs. I'm pretty sure we could just put floor mats in the dome (like we do for basketball), hire a gymnastics coach, and add women's gymnastics. Or, if we really wanted to play the system, we could just resurrect women's swimming (which was canned in circa 2008) and use our existing out-of-date (but adequate) facilities, and our added facilities costs would literally be $0. Once again, if that costs another $15 million, we better be signing Michaela Phelps every other year (to put things in perspective, decently-competitive BCS football teams cost about $15 million/yr).

And, for the record, I'm pretty sure that Pitt is in a similar position, given they have a pro arena nearby, and, given the switch from the BIG EAST to the ACC, they will soon have a boat load more cash to fund new women's sports. Both schools will go from making about $8 million in conference payouts this year, to making about $20-25 million in conference payouts next year, PLUS we will both upgrade our schedules by replacing teams like USF with teams like Miami and FSU, and teams like Temple with teams like Clemson and Georgia Tech.

So, I'm sure you're asking "if that's so, why don't they add more sports, like men's hockey?" And the answer to that is that I think Syracuse will in the near future. Word on the street was that the women's team was supposed to lead to a men's team and we added women's hockey in 2008, so I think that jump to men's hockey is imminent and will likely happen shortly after the War Memorial (the municipal facility near SU) is upgraded. However, I don't have any inside info. That's just my gut feeling.

This is the augument the vt athletic director spouts to all the alumni when he is inquired about adding lacrosse. So for vt as long as mr weaver is athletic director at va tech there will be no discussion about adding any more sports other than women golf . This is va tech financial model which allows us to be one of only 10 achools in the bcs level that are on the black and also complies with title 10

(06-25-2013 04:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 03:23 PM)Fburghokie Wrote:  .When we say compliance with Title 10 for equality in sports, simply this. There are 2 factors monitary equality and scholarship equality.

Therefore to establish a men's hockey program, first the cost of the program would be lets say 15 million assuming that a college is 50 percent women and 50 percent men, therefor another 15 million has to be provided to women's program. therefore addtional dollars needed is 30 million.

then the scholarship issue. if men's hockey max scholarships is 15 scholarships therefore 15 needs to be provided to female student athletes. This would mean either fully funding all existing scholarship female progrmas or adding additional sports and tnen that goes back to the resource issue where if additional women's teams have to be developed then additional funding has to be obtained. for discussion another 1 million dollars therefore total increase in reveneue is 31 million.

In this economy, this is no chump change. Currently the non-scholarship hockey program is not affiliated with the schools athletic department but with the student recreation program.

(06-25-2013 01:56 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 12:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 06:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ...Why would they leave Hockey East to join an upstart ACC hockey league when it is right where it wants to be in hockey?...

However, to answer your question (and keep in mind I'm not a hockey fan, so this might be in left field):
1. because I think that Hockey East's days are numbered.
2. I think that the "upstart" conference would be better. Hockey East might have more good teams, but ACC Hockey would have fewer total teams, so each good team would count more. I think that it would end up being 1-2 elite teams, 2-3 very, very good teams, 1 good team, and 1 bottom dweller. I would imagine that a conference that is 83.333% good or better is hard to beat...

You should look into college hockey a little more. A good start is at collegehockeynews-dot-com. Hockey East doesn't have a weak team, and has been dominant recently. In addition to our current success, we're now adding a great program next year in Notre Dame. That website provides year by year history on each school page. BC, if they left New England to play southern schools, would see there recruiting pipeline dry up. Why would they willingly do this, giving up lifelong rivalries with nearby schools, for the privilege of destroying Clemson and NC State twiceca year each. Hockey East schools recruit heavily in all of New England, and also have relationships with Canadian youth programs that they've built over many years- decades. Ontario, Quebec, Western Canada. Also, it is a major undertaking to build a program. New hockey get beaten up for many years before showing signs of improvement.

ND is a moot point because they're in my hypothetical ACC conference, and since when are Pitt and Syracuse "southern?"

Also, the beauty of a small conference is more OOC games, so BC could still play plenty of New England games. The difference is that when major state schools (i.e. the B1G collective) start annihilating smaller Hockey East schools (which will eventually happen), BC would have a place to land and wouldn't be stuck in a conference filled with the hockey equals of Cornell and Colgate football (who were BOTH not only dominant at one point in time, but actually also won football national championships - in fact, both schools have as many, or more CFB NC's than Clemson and UCLA (combined)).

Your economic analysis is wrong as well. I'm a Syracuse fan and know our situation better than schools like Pitt, UVA, or UNC, so I'll use us as an example. Syracuse already has an on-campus practice arena (where our women's team plays) and is located about 3 blocks from a city-owned ice rink that is about to be rebuilt/undergo major renovations (where the local minor league teams plays). The added upfront facilities costs of having adequate/state of the art facilities is zilch. Sure we would have to pay rent to use the new municipal rink, but I would be amazed if that wasn't pretty cheap, and it isn't an upfront on our end, anyway. Furthermore, scholarships are only a paper cost. It doesn't actually cost Syracuse University $33k/yr to give out that last football scholarship. It costs the athletic dept. $33k, but that money is paid to the university, which acts as an academic subsidy. If the university were to kick the money back to the athletic dept., both the university and the athletic dept. would essentially break even, despite the scholarship. The only real costs are facilities, which either already exist, or would involve rent, which could be covered by ticket sales, coaches, equipment, transportation, insurance, and non-scholarship-based student athlete support (books, insurance, extra tutors, and so on). If we're spending $15 million on that, then we better be beating pro teams. And yes, you're right about Title IX (idk what Title 10 is), but once again, you are grossly overstating costs. I'm pretty sure we could just put floor mats in the dome (like we do for basketball), hire a gymnastics coach, and add women's gymnastics. Or, if we really wanted to play the system, we could just resurrect women's swimming (which was canned in circa 2008) and use our existing out-of-date (but adequate) facilities, and our added facilities costs would literally be $0. Once again, if that costs another $15 million, we better be signing Michaela Phelps every other year (to put things in perspective, decently-competitive BCS football teams cost about $15 million/yr).

And, for the record, I'm pretty sure that Pitt is in a similar position, given they have a pro arena nearby, and, given the switch from the BIG EAST to the ACC, they will soon have a boat load more cash to fund new women's sports. Both schools will go from making about $8 million in conference payouts this year, to making about $20-25 million in conference payouts next year, PLUS we will both upgrade our schedules by replacing teams like USF with teams like Miami and FSU, and teams like Temple with teams like Clemson and Georgia Tech.

So, I'm sure you're asking "if that's so, why don't they add more sports, like men's hockey?" And the answer to that is that I think Syracuse will in the near future. Word on the street was that the women's team was supposed to lead to a men's team and we added women's hockey in 2008, so I think that jump to men's hockey is imminent and will likely happen shortly after the War Memorial (the municipal facility near SU) is upgraded. However, I don't have any inside info. That's just my gut feeling.

You are wildly underestimating costs.

Regardless, Pitt is not adding ice hockey. I guarantee you that. ACC isn't adding hockey. If SU wants to add men's hockey, then you better try to gain membership into Hockey East.

Pitt priorities with any new revenue are...
Build a track and field facility
add women's sport, likely rowing, for Title IX
full fund men's soccer
build a tennis facility
build a band practice facility
increase salaries of assistant coaches to more competitive levels
increase recruiting budgets
retain successful coaches
refurbish, enhance, and reinvest in existing facilities and equipment
reduce the university's ~$10 million per year subsidy to athletics
add needed additional support staff/marketing

Then, somewhere way down the list from there, probably well after creating reserve funds, would be evaluating adding additional men's sports, which almost assuredly would be tennis, golf, or lax first.

(06-25-2013 05:36 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You are wildly underestimating costs.

Enlighten me. Where are there $30 million dollars worth of costs in a women's swim team and a men's hockey team? ...and don't say facilities, because those are already in existence/will be in existence anyway. (PSU's numbers are high because they built a new building and are inflating the costs of the program by including the paper cost of the scholarships, not the real cost of the team)

keep in mind that, according to the DoE, Wake Forest's ENTIRE athletic budget is $33 million once student aid (which is mostly a purely paper cost in the form of scholarships) is taken out, Georgetown's ENTIRE athletic budget is $26 million plus student aid, Cincinnati's ENTIRE athletic budget is $31 million plus student aid, and Villanova's ENTIRE budget is $21 million plus student aid.

Btw, BC's ENTIRE athletic budget less football and student aid is $33 million, and so is Clemson's. Heck, while we're at it, VPI only spends $31 million after student aid and football. If BC is spending $15 million/yr on hockey and $15 million on a balancing women's sport, how are they funding everything else on the remaining $3 million/yr? I know BC bball is bad, but they're not THAT bad!

$15 million/yr is actually more than UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, WVU, Purdue, ISU, KSU, Oregon State, CU Boulder, Utah, WSU, Mississippi State, UK, 'Ole Miss, NCSU, and UMD spend on football. Why is it crazy to think that a college hockey budget that surpasses NCSU's BCS football budget shouldn't produce elite results? Similarly, why is it crazy to expect excellence from a women's swim program with a bigger budget than UMD's BCS football team?

(06-25-2013 05:34 PM)Fburghokie Wrote:  This is the augument the vt athletic director spouts to all the alumni when he is inquired about adding lacrosse. So for vt as long as mr weaver is athletic director at va tech there will be no discussion about adding any more sports other than women golf . This is va tech financial model which allows us to be one of only 10 achools in the bcs level that are on the black and also complies with title 10

It is "Title IX" which is a 9 for future reference.

(06-25-2013 05:34 PM)Fburghokie Wrote:  This is the augument the vt athletic director spouts to all the alumni when he is inquired about adding lacrosse. So for vt as long as mr weaver is athletic director at va tech there will be no discussion about adding any more sports other than women golf . This is va tech financial model which allows us to be one of only 10 achools in the bcs level that are on the black and also complies with title 10

Do you mean Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (AKA the infamous "Title 9")? And what argument?

This isn't my league board, so I'm going to bail, but "nzmorange" has already admitted to knowing little about hockey and even less about college hockey. So I'll leave it at that.

(06-25-2013 09:33 PM)billyjack Wrote:  This isn't my league board, so I'm going to bail, but "nzmorange" has already admitted to knowing little about hockey and even less about college hockey. So I'll leave it at that.

But I do know a heck of a lot about accounting

And when it comes to budgeting, knowledge of accounting > knowledge of hockey

Unless you were referring to my statement that Hockey East will eventually turn the way of Colgate (NC in football), Cornell (multiple NC's in football), Pratt (NC in basketball and in the most basketball talent-rich area on Earth), and so on once big state schools (i.e. the B1G) get involved. In which case, good luck. Cornell has unimaginably deep pockets, world class academics, an internationally known name, and a student population of 21k (14k undergrad) and they gave up trying to keep up with schools like Michigan and Penn State. Merrimack has 2k undergrads and the average person in Mass doesn't know that they exist. What chance do they have against PSU and a $100,000,000/yr athletic budget?

(06-25-2013 09:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:33 PM)billyjack Wrote:  This isn't my league board, so I'm going to bail, but "nzmorange" has already admitted to knowing little about hockey and even less about college hockey. So I'll leave it at that.

But I do know a heck of a lot about accounting

And when it comes to budgeting, knowledge of accounting > knowledge of hockey

Unless you were referring to my statement that Hockey East will eventually turn the way of Colgate (NC in football), Cornell (multiple NC's in football), Pratt (NC in basketball and in the most basketball talent-rich area on Earth), and so on once big state schools (i.e. the B1G) get involved. In which case, good luck. Cornell has unimaginably deep pockets, world class academics, an internationally known name, and a student population of 21k (14k undergrad) and they gave up trying to keep up with schools like Michigan and Penn State. Merrimack has 2k undergrads and the average person in Mass doesn't know that they exist. What chance do they have against PSU and a $100,000,000/yr athletic budget?

So all $100,000,000 goes into hockey? I doubt it.

Somebody better tell Wake they're a deadman walking since they have the smallest enrollment in the ACC(4,815).

Thanks for worrying about the smallest member of Hockey East which would probably crush Penn St. for the next decade or so.

I got to remember on sports boards no one thinks programmatic but literal . My numbers stated "lets say" that means these are the detailed facts but components of costs the host a sport team adequately and be competitive their are financial costs such as coaches salaries which range to 50 to 100 k and every assistant makes 40 to 60 k. Then travel for away games and for a large team and flying can easily over 100k then there are facility costs for wear and tear for practice and game facilities and if no facilities there is a capita expense . Then you have to have more admin support costs for atheletic dept support. Scholarships is can range from 10,000 in state or 50,000 per year depends if public or private . Then for each new male scholarship and female scholarship at minimum and for each male coach a female coach needs to be hired.

The point is not the number but rather to establish a new sport is a big undertaking for any athletic dept. it's just not hire a coach offer a coupe scholarships and here we go.

(06-25-2013 11:09 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:33 PM)billyjack Wrote:  This isn't my league board, so I'm going to bail, but "nzmorange" has already admitted to knowing little about hockey and even less about college hockey. So I'll leave it at that.

But I do know a heck of a lot about accounting

And when it comes to budgeting, knowledge of accounting > knowledge of hockey

Unless you were referring to my statement that Hockey East will eventually turn the way of Colgate (NC in football), Cornell (multiple NC's in football), Pratt (NC in basketball and in the most basketball talent-rich area on Earth), and so on once big state schools (i.e. the B1G) get involved. In which case, good luck. Cornell has unimaginably deep pockets, world class academics, an internationally known name, and a student population of 21k (14k undergrad) and they gave up trying to keep up with schools like Michigan and Penn State. Merrimack has 2k undergrads and the average person in Mass doesn't know that they exist. What chance do they have against PSU and a $100,000,000/yr athletic budget?

So all $100,000,000 goes into hockey? I doubt it.

Somebody better tell Wake they're a deadman walking since they have the smallest enrollment in the ACC(4,815).

Thanks for worrying about the smallest member of Hockey East which would probably crush Penn St. for the next decade or so.

1. Well, according to Crazypaco, they just dumped $102 million into their hockey program........

(06-22-2013 10:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Penn State only upgraded hockey because it got a $102 million donation...$102 million to start a sport. Can you fathom that? That's the type of donation that endows med schools. It's the way that particular donor is essentially buying himself a hockey team.

2. Wake isn't exactly killing it at sports, but I don't want to get into that with WFRanger again. (To clarify, this isn't meant to be a shot at either Wake or WakeForestRanger. I just don't want to argue with anyone about their school - I'm also not anti-Wake. Wake has great academics and I am glad to be in the same conference as them.)

See number 12:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11884...er/page/15
And, to keep from over-focusing on one sport, it's worth noting that every other original ACC member who is a current member has over 100 conference championships, whereas WF has 46.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atl..._champions

3. Ahhhh, the next decade or so, but that's kind of the problem. What happens after that? What happens when they can't keep up? Watch some college lax if you don't think that happens. Competition shifts balances of power.

(06-25-2013 11:15 PM)Fburghokie Wrote:  I got to remember on sports boards no one thinks programmatic but literal . My numbers stated "lets say" that means these are the detailed facts but components of costs the host a sport team adequately and be competitive their are financial costs such as coaches salaries which range to 50 to 100 k and every assistant makes 40 to 60 k. Then travel for away games and for a large team and flying can easily over 100k then there are facility costs for wear and tear for practice and game facilities and if no facilities there is a capita expense . Then you have to have more admin support costs for atheletic dept support. Scholarships is can range from 10,000 in state or 50,000 per year depends if public or private . Then for each new male scholarship and female scholarship at minimum and for each male coach a female coach needs to be hired.

The point is not the number but rather to establish a new sport is a big undertaking for any athletic dept. it's just not hire a coach offer a coupe scholarships and here we go.

Yes, but 1. the scholarship costs aren't real costs. That's like making your right hand write a note to your left hand promising $100 more than you own, and then saying that you are in debt. It simply isn't so. 2. I don't disagree that there are logistical problems, but solving those is why athletic departments exist. And 3. the facilities already exist for many of the schools and much of the wear and tear would happen anyway. Either way, the two BE transfers are seeing an increase in revenue of $20 million (ballpark) and the old ACC schools are jumping from a contract that pays something like $7 million to one that pays $20 million, and are getting bowl payouts that dwarf previous bowl payouts. Nobody is going broke because of a couple $100k of head coaches and assistant coaches.

(06-25-2013 11:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 11:09 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:55 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:33 PM)billyjack Wrote:  This isn't my league board, so I'm going to bail, but "nzmorange" has already admitted to knowing little about hockey and even less about college hockey. So I'll leave it at that.

But I do know a heck of a lot about accounting

And when it comes to budgeting, knowledge of accounting > knowledge of hockey

Unless you were referring to my statement that Hockey East will eventually turn the way of Colgate (NC in football), Cornell (multiple NC's in football), Pratt (NC in basketball and in the most basketball talent-rich area on Earth), and so on once big state schools (i.e. the B1G) get involved. In which case, good luck. Cornell has unimaginably deep pockets, world class academics, an internationally known name, and a student population of 21k (14k undergrad) and they gave up trying to keep up with schools like Michigan and Penn State. Merrimack has 2k undergrads and the average person in Mass doesn't know that they exist. What chance do they have against PSU and a $100,000,000/yr athletic budget?

So all $100,000,000 goes into hockey? I doubt it.

Somebody better tell Wake they're a deadman walking since they have the smallest enrollment in the ACC(4,815).

Thanks for worrying about the smallest member of Hockey East which would probably crush Penn St. for the next decade or so.

1. Well, according to Crazypaco, they just dumped $102 million into their hockey program........

(06-22-2013 10:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Penn State only upgraded hockey because it got a $102 million donation...$102 million to start a sport. Can you fathom that? That's the type of donation that endows med schools. It's the way that particular donor is essentially buying himself a hockey team.

2. Wake isn't exactly killing it at sports, but I don't want to get into that with WFRanger again. (To clarify, this isn't meant to be a shot at either Wake or WakeForestRanger. I just don't want to argue with anyone about their school - I'm also not anti-Wake. Wake has great academics and I am glad to be in the same conference as them.)

See number 12:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/11884...er/page/15
And, to keep from over-focusing on one sport, it's worth noting that every other original ACC member who is a current member has over 100 conference championships, whereas WF has 46.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atl..._champions

3. Ahhhh, the next decade or so, but that's kind of the problem. What happens after that? What happens when they can't keep up? Watch some college lax if you don't think that happens. Competition shifts balances of power.

1. $88 million of that is just for the building. Big whoop.
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-hock...10aaa.html

2. The weakest program doesn't define a conference. Merrimack is a division 2 school who had to play in division 1 since there's no such thing as division 2 hockey. They seem to be fine.

3. Who gives a ****, they'll never play each other outside the Frozen Four. College lax really? I forget who exactly lost power status? Are you making this statement because Duke won a couple of titles? Ebb and flow here as teams don't stay on top forever.

Wake has the fourth most conference championships in men's basketball and baseball in the ACC. We also have the same number of football titles as Virginia.

Who cares that we have not racked up 20+ titles in sports like swimming, wrestling, track and cross country like other schools in the ACC? When was the last time NC State won an ACC title in anything? 1993?

(06-26-2013 09:36 AM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Wake has the fourth most conference championships in men's basketball and baseball in the ACC. We also have the same number of football titles as Virginia.

Who cares that we have not racked up 20+ titles in sports like swimming, wrestling, track and cross country like other schools in the ACC? When was the last time NC State won an ACC title in anything? 1993?

BTW, Wake Forest has more national championships than Florida State, Clemson, Boston College, NC State, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech (more than BC, State, GT and VT combined).

(06-25-2013 06:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 05:36 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You are wildly underestimating costs.

Enlighten me. Where are there $30 million dollars worth of costs in a women's swim team and a men's hockey team? ...and don't say facilities, because those are already in existence/will be in existence anyway. (PSU's numbers are high because they built a new building and are inflating the costs of the program by including the paper cost of the scholarships, not the real cost of the team)

keep in mind that, according to the DoE, Wake Forest's ENTIRE athletic budget is $33 million once student aid (which is mostly a purely paper cost in the form of scholarships) is taken out, Georgetown's ENTIRE athletic budget is $26 million plus student aid, Cincinnati's ENTIRE athletic budget is $31 million plus student aid, and Villanova's ENTIRE budget is $21 million plus student aid.

Btw, BC's ENTIRE athletic budget less football and student aid is $33 million, and so is Clemson's. Heck, while we're at it, VPI only spends $31 million after student aid and football. If BC is spending $15 million/yr on hockey and $15 million on a balancing women's sport, how are they funding everything else on the remaining $3 million/yr? I know BC bball is bad, but they're not THAT bad!

$15 million/yr is actually more than UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, WVU, Purdue, ISU, KSU, Oregon State, CU Boulder, Utah, WSU, Mississippi State, UK, 'Ole Miss, NCSU, and UMD spend on football. Why is it crazy to think that a college hockey budget that surpasses NCSU's BCS football budget shouldn't produce elite results? Similarly, why is it crazy to expect excellence from a women's swim program with a bigger budget than UMD's BCS football team?

I've realize from your post, the part that I can follow, that you've never dealt with any of these sorts of things. You can't just take out scholarship costs like it is some sort of magical accounting trick. That is wildly naive.

Heck, great for SU if it adds men's ice hockey. Pitt isn't going to do it so you'll have to talk another ACC team into adding it and then convince BC and ND to leave the best conference in college hockey with its own NBC Sports contract and autobid access and for BC to abandon their long-time regional partners so that they can play two upstart nobodies. Good luck with that. If SU ever does add men's hockey, it will be applying to Hockey East for membership.

(06-26-2013 11:44 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 06:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 05:36 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You are wildly underestimating costs.

Enlighten me. Where are there $30 million dollars worth of costs in a women's swim team and a men's hockey team? ...and don't say facilities, because those are already in existence/will be in existence anyway. (PSU's numbers are high because they built a new building and are inflating the costs of the program by including the paper cost of the scholarships, not the real cost of the team)

keep in mind that, according to the DoE, Wake Forest's ENTIRE athletic budget is $33 million once student aid (which is mostly a purely paper cost in the form of scholarships) is taken out, Georgetown's ENTIRE athletic budget is $26 million plus student aid, Cincinnati's ENTIRE athletic budget is $31 million plus student aid, and Villanova's ENTIRE budget is $21 million plus student aid.

Btw, BC's ENTIRE athletic budget less football and student aid is $33 million, and so is Clemson's. Heck, while we're at it, VPI only spends $31 million after student aid and football. If BC is spending $15 million/yr on hockey and $15 million on a balancing women's sport, how are they funding everything else on the remaining $3 million/yr? I know BC bball is bad, but they're not THAT bad!

$15 million/yr is actually more than UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, WVU, Purdue, ISU, KSU, Oregon State, CU Boulder, Utah, WSU, Mississippi State, UK, 'Ole Miss, NCSU, and UMD spend on football. Why is it crazy to think that a college hockey budget that surpasses NCSU's BCS football budget shouldn't produce elite results? Similarly, why is it crazy to expect excellence from a women's swim program with a bigger budget than UMD's BCS football team?

I've realize from your post, the part that I can follow, that you've never dealt with any of these sorts of things. You can't just take out scholarship costs like it is some sort of magical accounting trick. That is wildly naive.

This is an astonishingly stupid comment. If you create a liability against yourself that benefits yourself, you don't change in position. That's a fact. The debt owed from the athletic department to the academic department(s) of the university is a liability to the athletic department (accounts payable) and an asset to the academic department (accounts receivable) in exactly the same amount. The net gain is $0 for the university as a whole (-$X + $X = $0). That's basic accounting. Literally that's covered within the first 5-10 minutes of the first day of Accounting 101. It isn't a magical accounting trick. It is an economic reality and it is an accounting reality.

The fact that you are forced to result to unsubstantiated insults and baseless statements illustrates the relative strength (or lack thereof) of your argument. However, feel free to try to show me where the university is actually materially worse off because the athletic department transfers money to an academic department. Also, while you're at it, please elaborate on how I am in left field when I say that universities don't spend $30 million/yr on hockey ($15 million directly and $15 million indirectly). BC's non-football-related athletic expenses are $33 million/yr after scholarships are taken out. How does the rest of their athletic dept. float by on $33 million a year if $30 is allocated to hockey in your world ($15 mil directly and $15 mil to a balancing women's sport? I would love to hear you explain that away.

(06-26-2013 03:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:44 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 06:24 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 05:36 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You are wildly underestimating costs.

Enlighten me. Where are there $30 million dollars worth of costs in a women's swim team and a men's hockey team? ...and don't say facilities, because those are already in existence/will be in existence anyway. (PSU's numbers are high because they built a new building and are inflating the costs of the program by including the paper cost of the scholarships, not the real cost of the team)

keep in mind that, according to the DoE, Wake Forest's ENTIRE athletic budget is $33 million once student aid (which is mostly a purely paper cost in the form of scholarships) is taken out, Georgetown's ENTIRE athletic budget is $26 million plus student aid, Cincinnati's ENTIRE athletic budget is $31 million plus student aid, and Villanova's ENTIRE budget is $21 million plus student aid.

Btw, BC's ENTIRE athletic budget less football and student aid is $33 million, and so is Clemson's. Heck, while we're at it, VPI only spends $31 million after student aid and football. If BC is spending $15 million/yr on hockey and $15 million on a balancing women's sport, how are they funding everything else on the remaining $3 million/yr? I know BC bball is bad, but they're not THAT bad!

$15 million/yr is actually more than UCONN, Cincinnati, USF, WVU, Purdue, ISU, KSU, Oregon State, CU Boulder, Utah, WSU, Mississippi State, UK, 'Ole Miss, NCSU, and UMD spend on football. Why is it crazy to think that a college hockey budget that surpasses NCSU's BCS football budget shouldn't produce elite results? Similarly, why is it crazy to expect excellence from a women's swim program with a bigger budget than UMD's BCS football team?

I've realize from your post, the part that I can follow, that you've never dealt with any of these sorts of things. You can't just take out scholarship costs like it is some sort of magical accounting trick. That is wildly naive.

This is an astonishingly stupid comment. If you create a liability against yourself that benefits yourself, you don't change in position. That's a fact. The debt owed from the athletic department to the academic department(s) of the university is a liability to the athletic department (accounts payable) and an asset to the academic department (accounts receivable) in exactly the same amount. The net gain is $0 for the university as a whole (-$X + $X = $0). That's basic accounting. Literally that's covered within the first 5-10 minutes of the first day of Accounting 101. It isn't a magical accounting trick. It is an economic reality and it is an accounting reality.

The fact that you are forced to result to unsubstantiated insults and baseless statements illustrates the relative strength (or lack thereof) of your argument. However, feel free to try to show me where the university is actually materially worse off because the athletic department transfers money to an academic department. Also, while you're at it, please elaborate on how I am in left field when I say that universities don't spend $30 million/yr on hockey ($15 million directly and $15 million indirectly). BC's non-football-related athletic expenses are $33 million/yr after scholarships are taken out. How does the rest of their athletic dept. float by on $33 million a year if $30 is allocated to hockey in your world ($15 mil directly and $15 mil to a balancing women's sport? I would love to hear you explain that away.

So in your world, the actual cost for adding 18 equivalency scholarships, up to 30 students to the university, let alone 30 student athletes, is $0 because the university's general office will just blank the AD's expense out of generosity. I guess you can ignore the room, board, book and fee costs too, let alone you obviously don't realize that at most schools tuition doesn't even cover the full cost per student of the actual education. But just take care of it with accounting because money materializes out of nowhere. Gotchya. Thank god for Syracuse you don't have anything to do with running their university. Astonishingly stupid is right. Believe what you want, it isn't getting you an ACC hockey league.