HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:Your other retort doesn't actually even make any sense. I am starting to think I have been bamboozled into arguing with a 12 year old kid. Yikes. Sorry about that kid.

Highbrow.
Imagine my surprise.

good one I see you're relaly bringing the substance to support your claims. Oh wait, you have yet to do that. I have substance and fact throughout, you have, well, nothing except your baseless opinion that's been proven wrong by everyone else on this thread. Oh well, that was fun.....

JSR wrote:. I have substance and fact throughout,.....

You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:. I have substance and fact throughout,.....

You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Let's set up a time to meet. I'd be glad to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about to your face. Maybe it will get through that way.

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:. I have substance and fact throughout,.....

You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Ugh...... facts and proof from myself as well as others are littered throughout this thread. I suggest you reread it.

That said, if you argued like this with me face to face you bet I'd say these things to your face. Would be happy to. Keep digging that hoel deeper though you oughta see China soon

JSR wrote:

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:. I have substance and fact throughout,.....

You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Ugh...... facts and proof from myself as well as others are littered throughout this thread. I suggest you reread it.

That said, if you argued like this with me face to face you bet I'd say these things to your face. Would be happy to. Keep digging that hoel deeper though you oughta see China soon

Hoel?

Your spelling skills are as vacant as your proof. But at least you recognized that you had an issue there. ("litter" is a fitting term.)
One point for you!
Be well, big chesty man!!!

Goldy Gopher wrote:

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:. I have substance and fact throughout,.....

You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Let's set up a time to meet. I'd be glad to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about to your face. Maybe it will get through that way.

Excuse me?
Was I addressing you?
I suppose you had proof of the financial windfall that a Big Ten hockey conference would bring?
Please provide such.
I'll wait....

WayOutWest wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

WayOutWest wrote: You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Let's set up a time to meet. I'd be glad to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about to your face. Maybe it will get through that way.

Excuse me?
Was I addressing you?
I suppose you had proof of the financial windfall that a Big Ten hockey conference would bring?
Please provide such.
I'll wait....

Define "windfall" and please show where someone posted that.....

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:

WayOutWest wrote: You have shown absolutely NO proof that a Big Ten hockey conference would be a financially beneficial move for anyone, or that it would increase viewership.
You are as delusional as you are self-aggrandizing.
And you are pretty darned chesty sitting behind your laptop, as well. There is no way you would be talking like you have been, to anyone, face to face. Anonymity is pretty comfy for you, isn't it?

Ugh...... facts and proof from myself as well as others are littered throughout this thread. I suggest you reread it.

That said, if you argued like this with me face to face you bet I'd say these things to your face. Would be happy to. Keep digging that hoel deeper though you oughta see China soon

Hoel?

Your spelling skills are as vacant as your proof. But at least you recognized that you had an issue there. ("litter" is a fitting term.)
One point for you!
Be well, big chesty man!!!

Ahhh yes, the typo/spelling police. Truly the last grasp of a desperate poster who's arguments have been so soundly beaten down that he has no where else to look except for simple typos in the other person's posts. LOL......

WayOutWest wrote:I suppose you had proof of the financial windfall that a Big Ten hockey conference would bring?

How do you prove something that hasn't happened yet

JSR wrote: Define "windfall" and please show where someone posted that.....

Seriously???
You could at least make an attempt at recollecting what you wrote.
Try this one on for size:

"#3, the BTN IS a cash cow AND college hockey would give the BTN a big boost in ratings int he time slots that college hockey occupies. It is anot huge nationally but it is within the Big Ten footprint states where these schools play. Once the BTHC exsists, you can count on several things happening. #1 virtually ALL BTHC games will be shown on BTN, you can say good bye to FSN coverage of Gopher and Badger hockey games etc.... The upside is that we will probably get virtually ALL the games broadcast, whereas now we only get abotu 2/3 of the Badger games broadcast and see almost none of the other schools games, this would no longer be the case. Also, the games would be broadcast in HD for your home team games if you live in the home team state. Also a big plus as the grainy FSN coverage boarders on terrrible some games. The revenue generated would be more than worth while. "

MNHockeyFan wrote: How do you prove something that hasn't happened yet

Good question, yet some folks seem to think no proof is needed, for success is a given. (See previous post.)

MNHockeyFan wrote:

WayOutWest wrote:I suppose you had proof of the financial windfall that a Big Ten hockey conference would bring?

How do you prove something that hasn't happened yet

You can't.

However, you can predict with a high degree of accuracy.

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote: Define "windfall" and please show where someone posted that.....

Seriously???
You could at least make an attempt at recollecting what you wrote.
Try this one on for size:

"#3, the BTN IS a cash cow AND college hockey would give the BTN a big boost in ratings int he time slots that college hockey occupies. It is anot huge nationally but it is within the Big Ten footprint states where these schools play. Once the BTHC exsists, you can count on several things happening. #1 virtually ALL BTHC games will be shown on BTN, you can say good bye to FSN coverage of Gopher and Badger hockey games etc.... The upside is that we will probably get virtually ALL the games broadcast, whereas now we only get abotu 2/3 of the Badger games broadcast and see almost none of the other schools games, this would no longer be the case. Also, the games would be broadcast in HD for your home team games if you live in the home team state. Also a big plus as the grainy FSN coverage boarders on terrrible some games. The revenue generated would be more than worth while. "

I'm sorry but do you have reading comprehension problems. This post says that the BTN (aka the Big Ten Network) is a cash cow and the BTN IS a cash cow pulling in over $440 million last year with 50% of that going directly to the conference and it's memebr schools (in other words about $20 million per school). No where in ANY of that paragraph does it say or even insinuate that the BTHC will cause a financial windfall for the BTN or the conference. What it DOES say is that FSN (you know the network that currently hosts most of the WCHA's and CCHA's games) knows exactly how much money they make on college hockey. That amount is a worthwhile amount to the network and the schools hence why it's renewed year after year after year. FSN is the 50% owner with the Big Ten in the BTN. So the Big Ten, which does not participate in that money currently because the schools are not members of the conference in HOCKEY, would gain financially from the newly formed BTHC (aka Big Ten Hockey Conference) in two ways, way #1 is that the member schools would now be part of the Big Ten and not WCHA or CCHA or whatever and hence revenue that previously went outside would now come inside. And #2 the TV contracts that were direct with FSN would now be part of BTN. Hence, the revenue being a worthwhile amount by any definition you choose.

Seriously wayout, you obviously don't even read the posts. I'm actually very embarrassed for you that you would post that post as your evidence. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you at this point. I look forward to your next embarrassing post where you copy and paste evidence that clearly advocates my side but you ignorantly think it is evidence for your side. Too funny. Love it.

Goldy Gopher wrote: However, you can predict with a high degree of accuracy.

Well you could, but you have nothing to indicate that you did.

JSR wrote: No where in ANY of that paragraph does it say or even insinuate that the BTHC will cause a financial windfall for the BTN or the conference.

Perhaps you got a little lost in your endless, self-aggrandizing diatribes?
Let's just bring it down to as simple a level as we can, for you, huh?

"The revenue generated would be more than worth while."

Let's see now. If the "more than worthwhile" revenue that is being generated does not create a benefit for the BTN or the conference, then who, pray tell, did you imagine you were referring to?

You do realize the irony in your commentary about embarassment, don't you, bright eyes?

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote: No where in ANY of that paragraph does it say or even insinuate that the BTHC will cause a financial windfall for the BTN or the conference.

Perhaps you got a little lost in your endless, self-aggrandizing diatribes?
Let's just bring it down to as simple a level as we can, for you, huh?

"The revenue generated would be more than worth while."

Let's see now. If the "more than worthwhile" revenue that is being generated does not create a benefit for the BTN or the conference, then who, pray tell, did you imagine you were referring to?

You do realize the irony in your commentary about embarassment, don't you, bright eyes?

Seriiously, can you even tie your own shoes. A "financial windfall" and something being "worthwhile" are two completely different things with two completely different meanings/definitions. Wow, just wow.....

JSR wrote: A "financial windfall" and something being "worthwhile" are two completely different things with two completely different meanings/definitions.

First, the phrase YOU used was "more than worthwhile." Remember? (see quotation or your own previous post for reference.)
And since you are so interested in making differentiations.......... that, again, would be different than "worthwhile", now wouldn't it?
Again, where is your proof of this "more than worthwhile" contention?
Oh, and you railed on me for pointing out that a spelling error is a an act of desperation? Yet you continue to make futile attempts at hurling insults. No desperation there, counselor.

BTW - You also asked for a definition of "windfall." Here you are:
Definition of WINDFALL
1: something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind
2: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage

Pick it apart if you wish, and I am sure you could have found this for yourself. But I do think you truly understood what the word meant when you read it, didn't you?

I see a whole bunch of guys saying the Big 10 Hockey league is a done deal. I see everyone agreeing that the driving force is money. I see one guy who is very skeptical about it being profitable. Now everyone just says he's an idiot instead of producing any type of statistics to support any financial gains. I too would really like to see some anticipated revenue predictions.
I think you guys should look into the numbers being thrown around by the NHL as they begin negotiating a new TV deal.
Minnesota would get a lot more money allowing their fans to have a beer at the football games than they will ever get from TV hockey revenues.

I am also very confused as to why anyone actually wants this. With only six of 12 schools having hockey you open the possibilty of schools like Nebraska and Iowa having a huge say in league affairs. Only time will tell but I think you will be watching the Gophers versus Wisconsin on tape delay after the Purdue - Northwestern Women's basketball game is over.

ACTUALFORMERPLAYER wrote:I see a whole bunch of guys saying the Big 10 Hockey league is a done deal. I see everyone agreeing that the driving force is money. I see one guy who is very skeptical about it being profitable. Now everyone just says he's an idiot instead of producing any type of statistics to support any financial gains. I too would really like to see some anticipated revenue predictions.
I think you guys should look into the numbers being thrown around by the NHL as they begin negotiating a new TV deal.
Minnesota would get a lot more money allowing their fans to have a beer at the football games than they will ever get from TV hockey revenues.

I am also very confused as to why anyone actually wants this. With only six of 12 schools having hockey you open the possibilty of schools like Nebraska and Iowa having a huge say in league affairs. Only time will tell but I think you will be watching the Gophers versus Wisconsin on tape delay after the Purdue - Northwestern Women's basketball game is over.

Can you produce any statistics to support this?

Goldy Gopher wrote:

ACTUALFORMERPLAYER wrote:I see a whole bunch of guys saying the Big 10 Hockey league is a done deal. I see everyone agreeing that the driving force is money. I see one guy who is very skeptical about it being profitable. Now everyone just says he's an idiot instead of producing any type of statistics to support any financial gains. I too would really like to see some anticipated revenue predictions.
I think you guys should look into the numbers being thrown around by the NHL as they begin negotiating a new TV deal.
Minnesota would get a lot more money allowing their fans to have a beer at the football games than they will ever get from TV hockey revenues.

I am also very confused as to why anyone actually wants this. With only six of 12 schools having hockey you open the possibilty of schools like Nebraska and Iowa having a huge say in league affairs. Only time will tell but I think you will be watching the Gophers versus Wisconsin on tape delay after the Purdue - Northwestern Women's basketball game is over.

Can you produce any statistics to support this?

Scroll all the way to the bottom of this page:

http://www.kbunam.com/College_Hockey_Tonight.html

I contacted Scott Chipman, the Big 10’s Associate Commissioner for Communications. Here’s what he told me:

CHT: If the decision is made to move forward with the formation of a conference, who votes? The 6 hockey playing schools or all 11 (12) Big 10 members? Who at each school votes - the Presidents, the AD's or the faculty reps? What is required - a simple majority or some sort of super-majority?

SC: HISTORICALLY, INSTITUTIONS NOT SPONSORING A SPECIFIC SPORT HAVE DEFERRED JUDGMENT REGARDING MANAGING THAT SPORT TO THE INSTITUTIONS THAT DO SPONSOR THE SPORT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING PROCEDURALLY THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY MEMBER INSTITUTION FROM VOTING ON THE ADDITION OF A BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP SPORT, EVEN IF AN INSTITUTION DOES NOT SPONSOR THAT SPORT.

ACTUALFORMERPLAYER wrote:I see a whole bunch of guys saying the Big 10 Hockey league is a done deal. I see everyone agreeing that the driving force is money. I see one guy who is very skeptical about it being profitable. Now everyone just says he's an idiot instead of producing any type of statistics to support any financial gains. I too would really like to see some anticipated revenue predictions.
I think you guys should look into the numbers being thrown around by the NHL as they begin negotiating a new TV deal.
Minnesota would get a lot more money allowing their fans to have a beer at the football games than they will ever get from TV hockey revenues.

I am also very confused as to why anyone actually wants this. With only six of 12 schools having hockey you open the possibilty of schools like Nebraska and Iowa having a huge say in league affairs. Only time will tell but I think you will be watching the Gophers versus Wisconsin on tape delay after the Purdue - Northwestern Women's basketball game is over.

I think you need to read the entire thread because that is very much NOT what is going on. The "one guy" does not believe a BTHC is even going to happen despite direct quotes from AD's and Conference commissioners saying that it will. Further some statistical data on the BTN, subscriber fees etc... has been given. I think what's being misunderstood here is that a no one has once said BTHC is going to bring in substantially more money than what's being generated now by the six men's hockey teams that would compromse the BTHC. What is being explained is the difference is that the money currently being geenrated by the schools for conferences outside the Big Ten will be brought in house to the Big Ten as opposed to the other conferences where it resides now. Further, it's well known that Wisconsin and Minnesota as examples are two fo the most profitable D1 hockey schools in the nation, you want the figures google them but I think we both have read enough over the years to know this and not need to debate it. Michigan, MSO and OSU also do pretty well and PSU has the setup and backing to probably do well as well. We cna have civil conversations about this but when someone is beligerant they get treated as such.

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote: A "financial windfall" and something being "worthwhile" are two completely different things with two completely different meanings/definitions.

First, the phrase YOU used was "more than worthwhile." Remember? (see quotation or your own previous post for reference.)
And since you are so interested in making differentiations.......... that, again, would be different than "worthwhile", now wouldn't it?
Again, where is your proof of this "more than worthwhile" contention?
Oh, and you railed on me for pointing out that a spelling error is a an act of desperation? Yet you continue to make futile attempts at hurling insults. No desperation there, counselor.

BTW - You also asked for a definition of "windfall." Here you are:
Definition of WINDFALL
1: something (as a tree or fruit) blown down by the wind
2: an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage

Pick it apart if you wish, and I am sure you could have found this for yourself. But I do think you truly understood what the word meant when you read it, didn't you?

Keep digging that hole

JSR wrote: We cna have civil conversations about this but when someone is beligerant they get treated as such.

Disagreement with your unsubstantiated speculation does not constitute "belligerence", sir.
If you want to see belligerence, look no further than the post just prior to this one.
Further, if your actions are so easily influenced by others, you may be demonstrating some weakness of character.

Let me know when some of you are done pissing on each others' corn flakes.

Lee

east hockey wrote:Let me know when some of you are done pissing on each others' corn flakes.

Lee

Hi, Lee.
Nice to see things have not changed.