bearrassler
Well-known member
While we may not be a huge draw in Football or Basketball we are the #1 draw in college hockey in the nation, more people whatched North Dakota play last year than any other team.
How would you vote
- Thread starter bearrassler
- Start date
While we may not be a huge draw in Football or Basketball we are the #1 draw in college hockey in the nation, more people whatched North Dakota play last year than any other team.
Unfortunatley hocky just not a big college revenue generator for UW or UM maybe #1 sport in Canada not so much in USA. Kids that I know that went into prohockey were recruited from highschool right into the prosystem. Don't know why since I'm not a big hockey fan.
bearrassler
Well-known member
I have heard from more than one source that hockey is the #1 revenue producer for the University of MN, I don't know about Wisconsin but I do know they average almost 12,000 fans per game,tops in the nation so I bet they generate a lot of money from hockey, in fact they had over 235,000 fans last year, only 40,000 less than mens basketball.
Actually, here is some data:
| School | Football Revenue | Hockey Revenue |
| U of WI | $38,662,971 | $5,297,711 (#2) |
| U of MN | $32,322,688 | $ 6,681,561 (#1) |
| U of ND | NA | $3,915,971 (#4) |
<tbody>
</tbody>
With that said, keep in mind that the football stadiums of the schools hold 5-7 times that of hockey and we are also talking revenues, not profits. I had a hard time coming up with profits for hockey, but for football, some schools actually lost money on their football program when you compare expenses to revenue.
Anyway you look at it, college hockey is huge in these three schools (and most other Div 1 schools) and the revenue generated is not peanuts.
Oh, and whitedust, you know some VERY, VERY, VERY unique kids to go straight from HS to the pros in hockey. It is almost NEVER done. Most go to a junior program and then semi-pro and then pro. About 30% go to college and then to pro, which is a big increase from where things were about 20 years ago.
-John
bearrassler
Well-known member
Thanks for the info John, the quotes that I heard about Minnesota hockey was that it was the most profitable, not the biggest revenue generator, sorry about that
I guess I used the wrong term pro system instead of semi pro system. If team name & other colleges really will not play ND due to the name you change name to play the competition. Just saying solve the problem if it is important to other schools. To me I don't care but I'm not offended by the current name either.
Sports Team Names & Mascots
Here ya go, the Scottsdale Community College's "Fighting Artichokes"!
How does that work for ya?
Here ya go, the Scottsdale Community College's "Fighting Artichokes"!
How does that work for ya?
Last edited:
guess ND people are not as in tune as I hoped.
not looking good for the rest of the country if ND voting that way
Mmmmmmm, no, that's a stretch, I think. North Dakota, for all its qualities, has never really been a bellwether state for forecasting the opinion of the nation. It is kind of a demographic anomaly.
I'm not surprised. I belong to an organization that is funded by a local tax levey. The organization has a huge surplus & the membership was all too willing to keep taxing themselves. Their concern was it would be too painfull to restart the tax process in years to come & the membership would complain. I was like what are you thinking??.... If the organization does not need tax money you don't tax people for no reason. Finally they agreed & voted the tax levey down. For the most part the USA public are sheep to slaughter regarding tax issues even when given a choice.lol
F
fusion
Guest
Can't disagree with this at all. Matter of fact I've said for years, 85% of the public is ignorant/oblivious to what gets thrust upon them by their elected government officials. It's very sobering, but I've even said 85% of the public is not very smart in all things concerning their personal lives. (forgive me, I'm an extreme cynic)
The North Dakota voting on the property taxes just proves my point. Most people with any amount of education would say they are "dumb", but by my estimation, this is just reflective of my general 85/15 rule concerning the public masses. Good lord, they could have at least voted 52 - 48 or something like that, but an overwhelming majority? These are prime subjects for the "nanny statists" currently in charge at the federal level. These are the same people that didn't produce a sufficient grass roots ground swell to get the keystone pipeline approved. Think about where we'll be in about 25 more years of this dumbing down of America. Hold tight to your guns and hunker down in your bunker, another Boston tea party is forthcoming.
I think you guys might be misunderstanding the vote. As explained before, the measure was not a decrease in taxes, as it requires the state to raise other taxes to make up the difference. The measure was a change in the structure of taxes in ND.
What was that change? The change was to move the tax burden away from property owners (eliminate property tax), and increase other taxes, most likely sales and income tax. Think about that. Who owns property? Well, companies, investors, people that can afford to buy property, and older citizens. Who pays income tax? Obviously, people who work. Who pays sales tax? Well, people who consume.
Think for a minute about a timeline of your life. When you're younger and bustin' your hump, you own no property, just trying to buy a car and get an apartment. Then you reach middle age and get married, have a couple of rug rats. You are making more money, and buying a whole lot more stuff. As you get older, you buy less, make less, and enjoy your property.
So, the tax burden would shift more to younger families, and away from retirees and companies. As a guy who is 59 and 1/3 years old, I would love to get rid of property taxes, as my consumption is trailing off (generally, I have what I need), my income is plateaued, and my major investment is a 24 unit motel with a $12,000 property tax bill. But, if I was 35ish years old with a working wife and two kids needing everything I would not vote to increase my income and sales tax.
Another critical issue with tax structure. Remember, property taxes are set by the local municipality, county, and school district...all local government. Local government is very close to you. Their ability to tax is what makes one school district better than another, one community better than another. But these decisions are made at a local level, and unless you live in a big city they are most likely made by people you know that are your neighbors (like me, a Village Trustee). Taking away property taxes takes away the funding ability of the local government (whom you know) and transfers the funding decisions to the state legislature (whom you don't know) that has no idea what your local needs are. If you had to pay the same amount of taxes, would you rather have it controlled locally by people who live in your town, or by bureaucrats in Bismark?
I'm guessing you would vote for local control, and that's what this vote did. Interestingly, when Alaska started having major surpluses it abolished the income tax, thus defunding the state gov't, not the local ones.
All in all an interesting debate. I bet if the measure was to get rid of income tax (defund the state gov't) it would have passed with flying colors.
What was that change? The change was to move the tax burden away from property owners (eliminate property tax), and increase other taxes, most likely sales and income tax. Think about that. Who owns property? Well, companies, investors, people that can afford to buy property, and older citizens. Who pays income tax? Obviously, people who work. Who pays sales tax? Well, people who consume.
Think for a minute about a timeline of your life. When you're younger and bustin' your hump, you own no property, just trying to buy a car and get an apartment. Then you reach middle age and get married, have a couple of rug rats. You are making more money, and buying a whole lot more stuff. As you get older, you buy less, make less, and enjoy your property.
So, the tax burden would shift more to younger families, and away from retirees and companies. As a guy who is 59 and 1/3 years old, I would love to get rid of property taxes, as my consumption is trailing off (generally, I have what I need), my income is plateaued, and my major investment is a 24 unit motel with a $12,000 property tax bill. But, if I was 35ish years old with a working wife and two kids needing everything I would not vote to increase my income and sales tax.
Another critical issue with tax structure. Remember, property taxes are set by the local municipality, county, and school district...all local government. Local government is very close to you. Their ability to tax is what makes one school district better than another, one community better than another. But these decisions are made at a local level, and unless you live in a big city they are most likely made by people you know that are your neighbors (like me, a Village Trustee). Taking away property taxes takes away the funding ability of the local government (whom you know) and transfers the funding decisions to the state legislature (whom you don't know) that has no idea what your local needs are. If you had to pay the same amount of taxes, would you rather have it controlled locally by people who live in your town, or by bureaucrats in Bismark?
I'm guessing you would vote for local control, and that's what this vote did. Interestingly, when Alaska started having major surpluses it abolished the income tax, thus defunding the state gov't, not the local ones.
All in all an interesting debate. I bet if the measure was to get rid of income tax (defund the state gov't) it would have passed with flying colors.
Last edited:
Very simple for me government bureaucrats are bureaucrats no matter the location & a tax surplus is a tax surplus. Never give any goverment a surplus unless you want your money blown on unnessary expenditures or someones pet project. Higher income people simply buy more stuff & services so sales tax or income tax shift from real-estate tax would be fine with me.
And on that, we differ. I think I am much more in tune with what my community's wants and issues are rather than someone in Madison. I am not a government bureaucrat, I am your neighbor that you drink beer with. I am also your 1/5 of your village board.
I don't know you or your politics but if you say you are not a bureaucrat then so be it. My point is bureaucrats can be at local, state or fed gov or even at your local hardware store. Location has nothing to do with being bureaucratic. Your local DMV or Post office can be a bureaucratic nightmare & local politicions ........WOW!!! I have seen some all world bureaucratic stone wall people in local positions. Just saying it as I have seen it but not directed at you since I don't know anything about you.
F
fusion
Guest
I can not emphasize how much I disagree with this statement. So let me make sure I understand - the more money a school district has, and the MORE they can tax, implies they will be the best school district in the state? Think about how truly naive that is. How much is too much, and what about one individuals motivation to be a better teacher or administrator than the next guy? Does throwing more and more money, pension and benefits at these people somehow make them better employee's? I'd say experience has taught us just the opposite, which is why the WI state reforms and ACT10 were so necessary.
Bottom line is, you never want to let some taxing authority keep more money than they need - period. This is just high incentive for bureaucratic abuse. If they have it, they will spend it. It's been going on forever. If they have a surplus, it should be given back to the state taxpayers in whatever way possible. When the oil boom is over, and you have to reinstate the prop taxes, you address it then. Meanwhile you have 10, 20, or 30 years of lower taxation - as it should be.
And also, I'm not buying the fact that elimination of property taxes was going to be completely offset by an increase in sales and income taxes. If you read they initial article, they said they were running a surplus about equal to the total property tax revenue stream, and that is why they brought it up for a referendum. Nice and clean for people to understand.
Last edited:
mjkaliszak
New member
No Brainer here... ( JIMO )
Anything our goverment touches turns to chit. They even ruin what they don't have.....
As far as the Fighting Souix , I guess I do not agree with the NCAA. Like someone said above " any name " is acceptable as long as it is not dispespectful. I never understood the Indian name stuff.
As far as changing the revenue structure " which is KEY.... a impact study from a Think Tank may be in order to see whom gets impacted the most.
They can always do ( to raise revenue ) what Osthemo Township down here is doing .... ( according to the judge as he lectured a fellow speeder LOL ) He said and I quote " They are so concerned about speeding over there , that they are adding another traffic enforcement patrol car " ! Oh Brother... another wolf in sheeps clothing .
Anything our goverment touches turns to chit. They even ruin what they don't have.....
As far as the Fighting Souix , I guess I do not agree with the NCAA. Like someone said above " any name " is acceptable as long as it is not dispespectful. I never understood the Indian name stuff.
As far as changing the revenue structure " which is KEY.... a impact study from a Think Tank may be in order to see whom gets impacted the most.
They can always do ( to raise revenue ) what Osthemo Township down here is doing .... ( according to the judge as he lectured a fellow speeder LOL ) He said and I quote " They are so concerned about speeding over there , that they are adding another traffic enforcement patrol car " ! Oh Brother... another wolf in sheeps clothing .
bearrassler
Well-known member
I have been busy at work the last few days so I have not been on here much but here are a couple of points. DC said that it shifted the tax burden to the state, while this is true, the property tax brings in just under 900 million a year, and the state is running a surplus at this time of about 1.5 billion per bienium (750 million per year) and the idea was that sales tax and income tax revenue would rise because we would all have a lot more money to spend. The lobbiests were out in full force with huge add campaign's and I think they scared most people into voting against it. Now the legislature is talking about many different ideas to use our surplus, things like reducing the income tax, maybe making the first 100,000 or 150,000 of your property exempt from taxes. We will see what happens in January.