This thread again..its not like we dont have one every month. Hockey isnt happening anytime in this next decade so why do people think its possibility because there is a small group tweeting about
Rutgers Hockey
- Thread starter wcicci
- Start date
delusional [dih-loo-zhuh-nl]
adjective
1.having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2.Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:
So you want to half ass it like we've done with the rest of our sports for over a century? No thanks. You need $100M or more to cover scholarships & facilities. Over 36% of Penn St's revenue came from endowment income. Women’s hockey will be a huge $ loser, like it is in WBB & other women's sports at most schools. UCONN lost $2.73M & isn't the model to follow. At tOSU, the men's & women's hockey teams lost a combined $3.09M. Women's hockey lost $1.62M & men's hockey lost $1.47M. tOSU men's hockey generated $844,141 in revenue & women $49,877. Wisconsin lost over $1M. Michigan lost ~$200k but only has a men's team. BC lost ~$893k.
At Rutgers, in-state scholarship costs for 36 schollies (18 men's hockey & 18 women's hockey) with the cost of attendance stipend would cost us ~$1.1M alone (assuming all schollies & stipends are funded up to in state levels only & all students are in SAS). It's even higher for OOS funded schollies & stipends & other schools within Rutgers.
Playing at off campus facilities like UCONN & ASU generates little $ & attendance & is not the model to follow.
Up tp 18. Doesn't have to be 18 at the start.
Same for the facility, just for starters. Even after, it not like the one on campus has to be the size of the ROC or Brendan Byrne.
And it's a message board conversation on a dreary June day, I'll get off your lawn now. lol
Last edited:
Maybe, but far from certain to be revenue positive. Yes, some teams make money but you will note these are all in the Hockey zone. Hockey might be a growing sport in NJ but I don't think we can compare to the Upper Midwest & New England. Other teams in the same geography lose money like Michigan State.
I know minor league is not the same as collegiate but more locally the Trenton Titans did not exactly demonstrate an insatiable desire for local hockey.
What is the revenue plan? Is there some TV outlet that wants to add more money to the table to get hockey? We are bracketed by 3-4 NHL teams. And things are not exactly busting out there either.
A Third Straight Drop in Attendance for the New Jersey Devils
Not an NCAA or B1G sanctioned sport, so no, it should not be part of the athletic department. All those crew alums can either get their sport sanctioned or fund raise for the club.
How about for temporary purposes? With parking on Livingston? Is seating that minimal?
Its not delusional, its just unlikely. Everyone knows what has to happen to get Rutgers D1 men's hockey. If the donor or donors willing to put up the necessary cash are out there, so be it. I would go to the games. If they aren't out there, it won't happen. Its not really even worth arguing about.
Well, NJ has a pro team despite the fact that there are two other pro teams within an hour's train ride from the arena.
As far as I know- and someone correct me here if I'm wrong- but RU has two sports that generate revenue, football and bball. If hockey could be a revenue generator. Aside from maybe wrestling, soccer, maybe maybe lax, are we going to turning profit in other sports? Might as well reallocate where we can make money. Looking at the list of teams below, I see a lot of teams that match our demographic and/or geographic profile.
Already listed some temporary places that are about as far as Hartford is from Storrs.
Last edited:
Exactly.
It's a fun topic IMO. If it bothers some posters so much maybe they should just pass it by.
That is true for most schools. There are a few exceptions and outliers. Like Nebraska where the only other program to make money is not baseball, or wresting, but volleyball.
Certainly relatively inexpensive. We got the pool. Hire a coach and what can speedos cost?
Haven't you grown tired of half assing it with respect to Rutgers athletics? We can't start up a program that's grossly underfunded & doesn't even provide the full allotment of in-state schollies. Now take your pucks & get off my lawn :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
This. And while those top 10 schools generated some revenue, most lost $ overall, especially when you factor in the women's program. Minor league hockey failure is a good indicator that NJ fans don't care enough about hockey generally, as is the fact that Princeton doesn't sellout every game in its 2,100 seat arena (they avg about 92% of capacity or a little over 1900). Instead, NJ fans support their favorite pro teams (Devils, Rangers & Flyers). We'd probably draw 2k-4k & 4k is likely pushing it. We'd lose millions.
Who cares if hockey generates revenue when it's an overall $ loser? Profit is the key & we have virtually no shot at profitability, especially when you include the women's team. Look at all the info I've posted here. Most of those teams that generate revenue lose $. There isn't enough hockey interest to be profitable.
It might help to understand why rowing chose not to subject itself to the oversight of the NCAA* -- and my apologies if you already know, but if you did, it would seem unlikely that you would lobby for rowing to abandon its independence to the NCAA's general bungling of sports administration.
That said, _all_ of our sports alums should be fundraising for their respective programs, club or varsity. Personally, I'd prefer to see crew get the nod because it's better spectacle, there's another Big Ten crew in the EARC, there's a natural rival in Princeton, and they were the first competitive sports team at Rutgers, but the argument about swimming and Big Ten has merit worth acknowledging.
*note: I am loath to include a link to The Daily Orange, but the last five paragraphs of the piece do a reasonably good job of explaining to distinction. The fact that you were aware of the distinction at all puts you leagues ahead of most casual fan's understanding of the sport's oversight.
What killed the Titans was the Devils taking control of them and rebranding the franchise as the Trenton Devils. Prior to that, you saw a bunch of Devils, Rangers, and Flyers jerseys at games. Once they became the Trenton Devils, the Flyers and Rangers fans stopped showing up, and the team wasn't doing well either. There was an attempt to bring back the Trenton Titans a few years later, but the damage had already been done. It was really sad, I had a partial season ticket plan with the Titans during high school and it was awesome to watch them win the Kelly Cup during the 2005 NHL lockout, but then the Devils came in and stripped the franchise of its history, tradition, and fanbase.
The place did get pretty crowded in the early 2000s as the Titans. I went to one game when they were the Trenton Devils, and it was when they retired the number of franchise player Scott Bertoli, so probably one of their best-attended games as the Trenton Devils, and there were still entire sections that had fewer than five people and a lot of concession stands didn't even open.
Even as a temporary home would be tough. It will be very hard to sell recruits on playing at a local rink unless you can show them finalized plans of the arena they will be playing in like Penn State did, and even then I think they were only playing in the local rink still as a club team. I think if they're going to do this, they need an actual arena to play in from day one that is designed to be the home of an NCAA team. We have two private locker rooms that we rent out to high schools that are pretty nice, but probably not good enough for what NCAA hockey players would expect, and we don't have a weight room.
There is actually a Rutgers office building nextdoor to us, so if they had an NCAA team playing here, they could probably arrange to use their parking lot, but they would still probably need more spaces. Maybe a deal could be worked out with the businesses across the street since most of them aren't open at night or on weekends. Still, I think this needs to be started when they can avoid these issues instead of rushing in and having to half-ass it until an arena is ready. The seating we have probably can't handle any more than 1000. We had big crowds for the club team, and an NCAA team would bring in much bigger crowds that we just don't have the space for. Like I said, this place is really meant for regular people playing hockey or skating, not for people to come watch an NCAA Division 1 game. It's a participant rink, not a spectator arena.
Absolutely - facility is right there & better than som others in the B1G - RU has a women's team and swimming is one of the rare sports where the competitive level of the women's team can genuinely benefit from the existence of a men's team.
This isn't entirely accurate as attendance declined almost every year after inception & was down to 3,515 in the 06-07 season when the Devils bought them a year after winning the Kelly Cup in 2005. The Devils made it worse with 2,578 in their last season but they just couldn't stop the decline that was progressing before they bought. Minor league baseball in NJ & many places is far stronger & has much more interest & fan support than minor league hockey. NJ supports the Lakewood BlueClaws, Somerset Patriots & Trenton Thunder pretty well with all 3 averaging about 5k/game, give or take a couple/few hundred, depending on the year, & the Patriots & BlueClaws are independent.
Last edited:
This video might give you a good idea of the kind of seating we have.
This is from a D2 club playoff game between TCNJ and Seton Hall. The seating is only on the side facing the camera. On the other side of the ice is just the players' benches and penalty boxes. You can't tell in this video, but there are bleachers upstairs behind the people standing against the railing, and there's a cafe behind the near net looking down on the ice that fits some more people. There is also a lot of people standing against the glass at ice level, but I'm sure that would have to be limited for an NCAA game since the players would be walking right past them to get to the locker room between periods. It's not really fit for an NCAA team. There's not enough seating, not enough parking, and I didn't think about it until now but the concessions and bathrooms would be a nightmare. We have a cafe with one grill and two fryers upstairs, and a coffee shop downstairs, and that's it for concessions. As far as bathrooms, we have one bathroom for each gender on each floor. Each men's room has one stall and two urinals.
Last edited:
After 2021 we will a few extra bucks left over to think about this a little more. LOL
Unless J&J or somebody else builds a downtown arena I think something that seats 4K is enough. I never envisioned it to be much bigger than that, I mean lets be real here. Look at South Mountain Arena that would be a nice size for us.
As long as the ice doesn't melt and we drown in debt...it would be fine.
Last edited:
The Devils thing did not help. If the the Titans were affiliated with the Flyers from the get go it might have been different. Same thing with the Staten Island Yankees. Why alienate possibly half of your buying public? They should have gone with local/different name like the Mets did with the Brooklyn Cyclones.
And the BlueClaws are affiliated with the Phillies. So you can get off MY lawn now. LOL
Last edited:
Actually, they were affiliated with the Flyers from the get go and continued to be affiliated with them until the Devils bought the team. The problem with the Devils taking over the team was that they rebranded them as the Trenton Devils. Devils and Rangers fans had no problem rooting for the Titans because of how rare it is for an ECHL player to make it to the NHL so you most likely were not supporting future Flyers, but also because they had an independent identity. The Titans weren't in your face about their Flyers affiliation, but the Trenton Devils obviously were, so it alienated a huge portion of the fanbase.
And the Islanders too for a little bit.
As I said earlier, never understood unless you're geographically close to the parent club in any minor league sport why not use a local name?
Last edited:
I really don't think you can compare minor league baseball to college hockey. Minor league baseball is generally a family night out type of thing that competes with activities like going to the movies or bowling, etc. College hockey teams have a more devoted following. Even comparing minor league hockey to college hockey is apples and oranges.
The Devils were trying to use it as a way to convert more people from the Trenton area to Devils fans, but as I'm sure many of us could have predicted, all it did was alienate the team's fanbase.
As everybody on here knows....a 609 area code might be close as a crow flies but in reality it is worlds away.
And there is great swimming talent in this state. It would make sense for this to be the first men's sport to be brought back.
We won't have any $ leftover. We don't fully fund a ton of sports & have subpar facilities. Hockey will lose millions each year so it needs a huge donation & endowment to be self-sustaining & not take a penny from other sports that need it. Fund the sports we have so that we can actually compete for championships instead of being mired in mediocrity or worse.
I'm fine if they want to be independent of the NCAA. It makes sense to me. If the crew team wants some funding from other University sources, student activities or whatever, I'm fine with that. My suggested standard for funding by the Athletic department however would be the sport must be both NCAA sanctioned and recognized by the B1G. There are plenty of teams that meet that standard that are not fielded by Athletics. And I'm ok with that also. We are about where we should be, more than Texas (15) and less than Ohio State (30+) programs supported.
That's a defensible position, but one with which I disagree in this case. It's inconsistent, for one. The cheerleading/dance program is under the aegis of the athletic department, and it's neither an NCAA nor Big Ten sanctioned athletic activity; yet you earn a varsity letter at Rutgers for cheerleading/dance.
Again, I think -- from your own perspective -- it's a rational and honest basis for establishing the parameters of the athletic department's administration of sports teams, but rowing had always been a part of the department of intercollegiate athletics until 2006, and the idea that men's rowing isn't eligible now because it isn't an NCAA sport is more of a manufactured rationale for excluding them, rather than part of the department's charter or operating principles.
I dont disagree that -- based on our resources -- we aren't in a position to be adding more sports teams to the portfolio. I was taking issue with your rationale for excluding crew from the department. If we're not adding swimming ahead of the rowers anyway, then the point is moot.
Call me a kill joy eunuch but I also wouldn't have a problem with cutting Cheer/Dance to club status. I believe they don't count toward our Title IX obligations anyway(?). I'm not anti- cheer/dance,but geez if they could figure out not to lead cheers while we're on offense.
Wilkes-Barre Penguins AHL team is in "Flyers" territory and they draw reasonably well.
Put a good hockey product on the ice and the name of the team won't mean much.
Put a good hockey product on the ice and the name of the team won't mean much.
Fair point, but "Varsity Status" is how the AD holds sway over the cheerleaders for performances beyond game day -- fundraisers, etc.
For those concerned about hockey taking way from current sports, this is straight from the mouth of the guy behind the push for an NCAA hockey team, GM of the club team Adriaan Klaassen:
"We have no intentions of dipping into the pockets of any current programs. However, if we bring him the necessary private funding to endow the program, it would certainly change the discussion and possible timeline to add hockey."
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/6/16/11859110/rutgers-hockey-fundraising-big-ten-ncaa-hockey
"Klaassen has just signed on to be a "Captain" for the R B1G Build, and has just delivered an email to approximately 3700 hockey supporters (RU Hockey Alumni plus petition signers), urging them to join his team and donate, many for the first time."
He and Hobbs have both also acknowledged that any athletic department money must be used to meet the needs of the current teams before any of it can go towards a new team.
"We have no intentions of dipping into the pockets of any current programs. However, if we bring him the necessary private funding to endow the program, it would certainly change the discussion and possible timeline to add hockey."
http://www.onthebanks.com/2016/6/16/11859110/rutgers-hockey-fundraising-big-ten-ncaa-hockey
"Klaassen has just signed on to be a "Captain" for the R B1G Build, and has just delivered an email to approximately 3700 hockey supporters (RU Hockey Alumni plus petition signers), urging them to join his team and donate, many for the first time."
He and Hobbs have both also acknowledged that any athletic department money must be used to meet the needs of the current teams before any of it can go towards a new team.
Not some. ALL! We should be going the opposite way of adding sports.
