(Yesterday 03:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:09 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:28 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Look - I know it’s frustrating. Believe me - it’s way more interesting to say “big name school could totally add hockey” than to pour cold water on it when the only way that realistically happens is a $100 million plus donation falling from the sky.

As an Illinois guy, I’m telling you firsthand that it’s effectively impossible without that angel donation because we had government transportation funding to help defray the arena infrastructure costs (as the proposed Champaign arena was connected to a rail and bus center), multiple existing teams that needed a new arena even without hockey (volleyball, gymnastics and wrestling) that could justify the athletic department spending, a large existing club fan base plus a whole generation of Illinois students that grew up during the 2010s Blackhawks dynasty, a ton of in-state hockey recruits for talent, and at least at the time of the proposal, didn’t even need to add any women’s sport for Title IX compliance.

Yet, even with all of that, it STILL couldn’t get done after the pandemic hit. So, yeah, when virtually every other school that’s mentioned around here has a LOT less than what Illinois had going for them in terms of starting up a hockey program, it truly does come to some massive outside donation for any of it to work. That’s the only reason why Penn State and Arizona State added teams.

I fundamentally disagree with a lot of your arguments about this. I do agree that schools will need a massive donation to add hockey. I don't agree that Illinois wasn't able to get it done - they didn't want to get it done. I disagree with your ROI assessments. Every school without hockey will always have an existing pool of boosters and other stakeholders that are against hockey. Therefore, adding hockey is a risky choice for any AD with a cushy job to make. The risk/reward for the decision makers is why hockey isn't getting added. That doesn't mean that funneling every penny into FB and BB is always the best decision for any given University. Diversifying revenue streams and donor pools, economic impact, attention from underserved regional hockey fans, and the ability to help with student recruitment from states in the North are all things that are mostly unaccounted for. The ROI spent on every additional dollar spent on FB just isn't there. A couple million dollars extra into the FB program isn't going to affect revenue at all when most of it is coming from TV contracts that Illinois is already locked into. The athletic director doesn't want people to skapegoat him for adding hockey if (when) Illinois FB continues to be bad to mediocre in the future.

With all due respect, I categorically reject EVERYTHING that you just stated about Illinois. Whatever you want to say about Josh Whitman, our AD, he did everything possible to get a hockey program started. We had been talking about Illinois D-I hockey since I went to school there… and that was the 1990s. I have it on extremely good authority that this was all in place prior to the pandemic (and that was subsequently reported publicly), but losing a massive amount of revenue during that pandemic period (as zero football and basketball attendance revenue came in that year and TV revenue was drastically reduced) straight up killed it. The funds to make it financially viable were gone and we (and every other athletic department in a similar position) could no longer go forward.

And look - it SUCKS. I badly wanted to see Illinois add a hockey program and, more broadly, I think the proposed arena would have transformed downtown Champaign (as it also would have brought volleyball and other sports to that area). Unfortunately, I don’t have $100 million laying around to make that happen.

However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

You don’t have to personally like that this is the paradigm in college sports. However, you shouldn’t be in denial that it exists. I’m not the one that needs to be convinced of anything here. You’re arguing against the fundamental business model of college sports today, so it’s the ADs that you need to convince as opposed to me. If I were wrong, then we’d be seeing someone other than Penn State and Arizona State with record breaking donations adding hockey at the P4 level… but that obviously hasn’t happened.

Not sure why you keep claiming that I'm in denial. You're the one talking out both sides of your mouth. I agree, athletic directors are expected to throw as much money possible at FB/BB. There's never enough. In Illinois case, after hockey was shut down, I'm sure it wasn't ever suggested to any of the potential donors that they should consider shifting their potential donations towards NIL, right?

How am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? I’ve been pretty consistent here.

I’m unsure of what you’re getting at in terms of the NIL question. Every school in college sports had a massive upending due to NIL compensation being authorized. That’s just a natural market force if a donor cares more about football than hockey (or basketball or volleyball or any other sport). Clearly, the top levels of football and basketball are essentially now a free agent market with the combo of NIL and transfer portal (and may further be the case if/when athletes are declared to be employees), so yeah, how donors approach athletics today is vastly different than it was pre-Alston.

With respect to hockey support, Terry Pegula had a combination of (a) massive funds and (b) specific interest in hockey at Penn State. I would love it if Illinois had a similar person, but so far, only one other school in the country has had a similar donor (Arizona State).

You claim the AD wanted to build the arena but inflation yada yada.... the reality is that he wanted to fund Alston and NIL. Whether or not the arena was still viable was irrelevant. Inflation was the excuse but not the actual reason the plan was scrapped. Yet you're the one who says I'm in denial.

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

https://www.news-gazette.com/news/new-ic...67886.html

Give me a break! They had a developer in 2004 begging to build an arena and all Illinois was willing to commit to was land and the value of the revenue streams from it's existing arena that would have been replaced.. Illinois didn't want to spend a penny and the deal was scapped due to a projected annual deficit of only $500k. Yet Illinois was fine with going hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with other facilities.

And "nothing else works without FB and BB"? I agree they will always be prioritized, and FB especially, should be. But there have been plenty of programs cut and not started because of FB and BB. Hockey at the Big Ten schools was also doing pretty dang well up until the Big Ten came calling, no thanks to FB. My argument has always been that hockey can be supplemental to FB and BB.

(Yesterday 04:17 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:09 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:28 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  I fundamentally disagree with a lot of your arguments about this. I do agree that schools will need a massive donation to add hockey. I don't agree that Illinois wasn't able to get it done - they didn't want to get it done. I disagree with your ROI assessments. Every school without hockey will always have an existing pool of boosters and other stakeholders that are against hockey. Therefore, adding hockey is a risky choice for any AD with a cushy job to make. The risk/reward for the decision makers is why hockey isn't getting added. That doesn't mean that funneling every penny into FB and BB is always the best decision for any given University. Diversifying revenue streams and donor pools, economic impact, attention from underserved regional hockey fans, and the ability to help with student recruitment from states in the North are all things that are mostly unaccounted for. The ROI spent on every additional dollar spent on FB just isn't there. A couple million dollars extra into the FB program isn't going to affect revenue at all when most of it is coming from TV contracts that Illinois is already locked into. The athletic director doesn't want people to skapegoat him for adding hockey if (when) Illinois FB continues to be bad to mediocre in the future.

With all due respect, I categorically reject EVERYTHING that you just stated about Illinois. Whatever you want to say about Josh Whitman, our AD, he did everything possible to get a hockey program started. We had been talking about Illinois D-I hockey since I went to school there… and that was the 1990s. I have it on extremely good authority that this was all in place prior to the pandemic (and that was subsequently reported publicly), but losing a massive amount of revenue during that pandemic period (as zero football and basketball attendance revenue came in that year and TV revenue was drastically reduced) straight up killed it. The funds to make it financially viable were gone and we (and every other athletic department in a similar position) could no longer go forward.

And look - it SUCKS. I badly wanted to see Illinois add a hockey program and, more broadly, I think the proposed arena would have transformed downtown Champaign (as it also would have brought volleyball and other sports to that area). Unfortunately, I don’t have $100 million laying around to make that happen.

However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

You don’t have to personally like that this is the paradigm in college sports. However, you shouldn’t be in denial that it exists. I’m not the one that needs to be convinced of anything here. You’re arguing against the fundamental business model of college sports today, so it’s the ADs that you need to convince as opposed to me. If I were wrong, then we’d be seeing someone other than Penn State and Arizona State with record breaking donations adding hockey at the P4 level… but that obviously hasn’t happened.

Not sure why you keep claiming that I'm in denial. You're the one talking out both sides of your mouth. I agree, athletic directors are expected to throw as much money possible at FB/BB. There's never enough. In Illinois case, after hockey was shut down, I'm sure it wasn't ever suggested to any of the potential donors that they should consider shifting their potential donations towards NIL, right?

How am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? I’ve been pretty consistent here.

I’m unsure of what you’re getting at in terms of the NIL question. Every school in college sports had a massive upending due to NIL compensation being authorized. That’s just a natural market force if a donor cares more about football than hockey (or basketball or volleyball or any other sport). Clearly, the top levels of football and basketball are essentially now a free agent market with the combo of NIL and transfer portal (and may further be the case if/when athletes are declared to be employees), so yeah, how donors approach athletics today is vastly different than it was pre-Alston.

With respect to hockey support, Terry Pegula had a combination of (a) massive funds and (b) specific interest in hockey at Penn State. I would love it if Illinois had a similar person, but so far, only one other school in the country has had a similar donor (Arizona State).

You claim the AD wanted to build the arena but inflation yada yada.... the reality is that he wanted to fund Alston and NIL. Whether or not the arena was still viable was irrelevant. Inflation was the excuse but not the actual reason the plan was scrapped. Yet you're the one who says I'm in denial.

I’m not being binary here. It’s ALL relevant - a 50% increase in inflation costs, the fact that Illinois enrolled a larger number of female students where the initial belief that it wasn’t necessary to add a women’s team may not have been true anymore, possible need to pay players in existing sports down the road, NIL, etc. It’s *all* relevant. What I push back against is your focus that this is about donors that are bothered by spending money on hockey versus spending money on football or basketball. This isn’t North Dakota where it’s a one track mind of hockey or nothing or Alabama where it’s 100% football. We actually care a lot about multiple sports in Illinois and most of us are from the Chicago market where we have among the most passionate fan bases in football, baseball, basketball AND hockey at same time. What a concept!

So, I’m not understanding your constant harping here. Hockey needs to pay for itself for it to be added to a P4 school. Period. If you want to say that NIL has meant that even more money needs to go to football and basketball to maintain the status quo and that might make it harder for hockey to pay for itself because money isn’t unlimited, then sure! You’ll get no argument from me there. The House case, probable future revenue sharing, and probable employment status for athletes will make it harder, too. If that’s your point, then I think we agree here much more than we disagree. No one has a personal issue with hockey. Hockey is awesome! Lots of schools and fans would love it in a vacuum! We’re simply not in a vacuum, though.

(Yesterday 05:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 04:17 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 03:09 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  With all due respect, I categorically reject EVERYTHING that you just stated about Illinois. Whatever you want to say about Josh Whitman, our AD, he did everything possible to get a hockey program started. We had been talking about Illinois D-I hockey since I went to school there… and that was the 1990s. I have it on extremely good authority that this was all in place prior to the pandemic (and that was subsequently reported publicly), but losing a massive amount of revenue during that pandemic period (as zero football and basketball attendance revenue came in that year and TV revenue was drastically reduced) straight up killed it. The funds to make it financially viable were gone and we (and every other athletic department in a similar position) could no longer go forward.

And look - it SUCKS. I badly wanted to see Illinois add a hockey program and, more broadly, I think the proposed arena would have transformed downtown Champaign (as it also would have brought volleyball and other sports to that area). Unfortunately, I don’t have $100 million laying around to make that happen.

However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

You don’t have to personally like that this is the paradigm in college sports. However, you shouldn’t be in denial that it exists. I’m not the one that needs to be convinced of anything here. You’re arguing against the fundamental business model of college sports today, so it’s the ADs that you need to convince as opposed to me. If I were wrong, then we’d be seeing someone other than Penn State and Arizona State with record breaking donations adding hockey at the P4 level… but that obviously hasn’t happened.

Not sure why you keep claiming that I'm in denial. You're the one talking out both sides of your mouth. I agree, athletic directors are expected to throw as much money possible at FB/BB. There's never enough. In Illinois case, after hockey was shut down, I'm sure it wasn't ever suggested to any of the potential donors that they should consider shifting their potential donations towards NIL, right?

How am I talking out of both sides of my mouth? I’ve been pretty consistent here.

I’m unsure of what you’re getting at in terms of the NIL question. Every school in college sports had a massive upending due to NIL compensation being authorized. That’s just a natural market force if a donor cares more about football than hockey (or basketball or volleyball or any other sport). Clearly, the top levels of football and basketball are essentially now a free agent market with the combo of NIL and transfer portal (and may further be the case if/when athletes are declared to be employees), so yeah, how donors approach athletics today is vastly different than it was pre-Alston.

With respect to hockey support, Terry Pegula had a combination of (a) massive funds and (b) specific interest in hockey at Penn State. I would love it if Illinois had a similar person, but so far, only one other school in the country has had a similar donor (Arizona State).

You claim the AD wanted to build the arena but inflation yada yada.... the reality is that he wanted to fund Alston and NIL. Whether or not the arena was still viable was irrelevant. Inflation was the excuse but not the actual reason the plan was scrapped. Yet you're the one who says I'm in denial.

I’m not being binary here. It’s ALL relevant - a 50% increase in inflation costs, the fact that Illinois enrolled a larger number of female students where the initial belief that it wasn’t necessary to add a women’s team may not have been true anymore, possible need to pay players in existing sports down the road, NIL, etc. It’s *all* relevant. What I push back against is your focus that this is about donors that are bothered by spending money on hockey versus spending money on football or basketball. This isn’t North Dakota where it’s a one track mind of hockey or nothing or Alabama where it’s 100% football. We actually care a lot about multiple sports in Illinois and most of us are from the Chicago market where we have among the most passionate fan bases in football, baseball, basketball AND hockey at same time. What a concept!

So, I’m not understanding your constant harping here. Hockey needs to pay for itself for it to be added to a P4 school. Period. If you want to say that NIL has meant that even more money needs to go to football and basketball to maintain the status quo and that might make it harder for hockey to pay for itself because money isn’t unlimited, then sure! You’ll get no argument from me there. The House case, probable future revenue sharing, and probable employment status for athletes will make it harder, too. If that’s your point, then I think we agree here much more than we disagree. No one has a personal issue with hockey. Hockey is awesome! Lots of schools and fans would love it in a vacuum! We’re simply not in a vacuum, though.

I think we are in agreement with most of the factual stuff and we are in disagreement with most of the opinion stuff, if that makes sense. We disagree when it comes to 1) the decisions athletic directors are making, and 2) whether or not we think they are making those decisions for the right reasons. I think we both understand the why part.

(Yesterday 04:52 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

https://www.news-gazette.com/news/new-ic...67886.html

Give me a break! They had a developer in 2004 begging to build an arena and all Illinois was willing to commit to was land and the value of the revenue streams from it's existing arena that would have been replaced.. Illinois didn't want to spend a penny and the deal was scapped due to a projected annual deficit of only $500k. Yet Illinois was fine with going hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with other facilities.

And "nothing else works without FB and BB"? I agree they will always be prioritized. But there have been plenty of programs cut and not started because of FB and BB. Hockey at the Big Ten schools was also doing pretty dang well up until the Big Ten came calling, no thanks to FB.

That 2004 proposal was a completely different item for a possible minor league hockey team that had nothing to do with the Division I hockey proposal of the past few years.

(Yesterday 05:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 04:52 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

https://www.news-gazette.com/news/new-ic...67886.html

Give me a break! They had a developer in 2004 begging to build an arena and all Illinois was willing to commit to was land and the value of the revenue streams from it's existing arena that would have been replaced.. Illinois didn't want to spend a penny and the deal was scapped due to a projected annual deficit of only $500k. Yet Illinois was fine with going hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with other facilities.

And "nothing else works without FB and BB"? I agree they will always be prioritized. But there have been plenty of programs cut and not started because of FB and BB. Hockey at the Big Ten schools was also doing pretty dang well up until the Big Ten came calling, no thanks to FB.

That 2004 proposal was a completely different item for a possible minor league hockey team that had nothing to do with the Division I hockey proposal of the past few years.

All I know about that one is what was written in the article. That it was another, separate, opportunity was kind of the point. It could have been a great opportunity for Illinois to add hockey, but the university clearly wasn't interested even though the developer didn't need very much more money, and that was at a time other Big Ten universities were drawing really well. Even without a new Illinois Hockey Team, it was a great opportunity for the university replace it's aging on campus arena. There was just a referendum to increase student fees by $13 to fund the renovation of that arena and it just passed with 88% support. Arena's are expensive, but the D1 hockey teams aren't the only people who benefit from the facilities (normal students do too).

https://dailyillini.com/life_and_culture...eferendum/

(Yesterday 05:49 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 05:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(Yesterday 04:52 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  However, you seem to be making it into some choice between and football/basketball and hockey when the fact of the matter is that there is NO choice to be made here. Every school in the P4, even the ones with historic hockey programs like Michigan, Minnesota and BC, are going to prioritize football/basketball every time because nothing else works without football/basketball (and particularly the football part). So, if you want to see hockey added to any P4 school, you have to go into it with that assumption or else you’re not getting anywhere.

In any event, the Illinois decision to not move forward with hockey had absolutely nothing to do with the AD being concerned that hockey would somehow be blamed for mediocre football. He has been the only person in the last 50 years to actually get a real hockey proposal on the table instead of just talking about it. Ultimately, a lost year of revenue from the pandemic killed the project. As noted above, Iowa even cut sports as a result of it, which is something that we didn’t do… and they make a lot more football attendance revenue than Illinois.

https://www.news-gazette.com/news/new-ic...67886.html

Give me a break! They had a developer in 2004 begging to build an arena and all Illinois was willing to commit to was land and the value of the revenue streams from it's existing arena that would have been replaced.. Illinois didn't want to spend a penny and the deal was scapped due to a projected annual deficit of only $500k. Yet Illinois was fine with going hundreds of millions of dollars in debt with other facilities.

And "nothing else works without FB and BB"? I agree they will always be prioritized. But there have been plenty of programs cut and not started because of FB and BB. Hockey at the Big Ten schools was also doing pretty dang well up until the Big Ten came calling, no thanks to FB.

That 2004 proposal was a completely different item for a possible minor league hockey team that had nothing to do with the Division I hockey proposal of the past few years.

All I know about that one is what was written in the article. That it was another, separate, opportunity was kind of the point. It could have been a great opportunity for Illinois to add hockey, but the university clearly wasn't interested even though the developer didn't need very much more money, and that was at a time other Big Ten universities were drawing really well. Even without a new Illinois Hockey Team, it was a great opportunity for the university replace it's aging on campus arena. There was just a referendum to increase student fees by $13 to fund the renovation of that arena and it just passed with 88% support. Arena's are expensive, but the D1 hockey teams aren't the only people who benefit from the facilities (normal students do too).

https://dailyillini.com/life_and_culture...eferendum/

You’ll get no argument from me that Illinois needs a new ice rink whether they have a hockey team or not. The current rink was already ancient when I went there over 25 years ago. That was a large reason why I was optimistic about the hockey team and arena proposal in the first place.