nodakfan17

I didn't think gold or silver bars carried much of a premium above spot price? I thought small denomination coins were the easiest to unload?

Yeah but that was mostly to build a new arena. If a team already has an arena that can add hockey the cost wouldn't be nearly as much. I think Nebraska just built a nice shiny new basketball arena that has the ability to make ice so there was some speculation they were thinking of adding hockey but I think that speculation has died down a bit. I think conference expansion is inevitable again with the soon to happen demise of the Big 12. If or when that happens I wouldn't be surprised to see the Big Ten add two more teams and I think UConn would be a serious contender. They would shore up the East Coast, probably more so than Rutgers did. They also add traditionally strong basketball programs and although their football team is weak, as Rutgers showed that's not an automatic disqualifier like it would be for the SEC. Plus obviously they have a men's hockey program so with Notre Dame that'd make 8, a much more stable number than 6 for a conference. I see what you're saying - you do not need an $80 million arena to begin playing college hockey. However, since college hockey is played on Friday and Saturday nights, you would almost have to be the primary tenant in the arena.

The formation of a Big Ten hockey conference was more or less a formality when Penn State added hockey. The Big Ten requires at least 6 member schools to play under the Big Ten name and the NCAA requires a minimum of 6 teams in a conference to award an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Despite the great rivalries in the WCHA and CCHA, I believe the potential revenue from Big Ten Network games and a conference tournament was too much to forgo. 6 would be the critical mass for any of the major conferences to play under their primary conference brand. Man, i so wish that North Dakota would join the Big Ten conference. Has there ever been any talk of them being potentially invited and if they were, would they strongly consider it? Obviously, a move to the Big Ten for all sports is extremely unlikely. A state of 750,000 people just doesn't have the resources to fund a major research university. North Dakota would make more sense as an affiliate member for hockey, but the only way I could see North Dakota making that move would be if they received an equal share of conference tournament revenue and an equal share of BTN revenue (prorated for men's hockey viewership). Plus, they'd need some assurance that they wouldn't be bumped for the next Big Ten team to add hockey. I think North Dakota is comfortable in a league with a bunch of hockey-first schools like Denver, St. Cloud State, Minnesota-Duluth, and Nebraska-Omaha. I predict the next big shakeup in college hockey will come out West, where hockey is growing and Pac 12 / Mountain West schools have highly competitive club teams. We've already seen Arizona State make the jump.

The formation of a Big Ten hockey conference was more or less a formality when Penn State added hockey. The Big Ten requires at least 6 member schools to play under the Big Ten name and the NCAA requires a minimum of 6 teams in a conference to award an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Despite the great rivalries in the WCHA and CCHA, I believe the potential revenue from Big Ten Network games and a conference tournament was too much to forgo. 6 would be the critical mass for any of the major conferences to play under their primary conference brand. As far as which other teams may be interested in starting hockey, Nebraska is unlikely to be an option. A few years back (10?), Nebraska-Omaha dropped football and allocated more resources to men's hockey. I believe there's some type of gentlemans' agreement in place whereby the Cornhuskers will not sponsor hockey, provided Nebraska-Omaha does not sponsor football. The biggest obstacle to sponsoring hockey is cost. Don't forget that it took an $80 million dollar donation by the owner of the Buffalo Sabres for Penn State to add hockey. And it's not just men's hockey, most schools would be forced to add women's hockey to satisfy Title IX requirements. With all due respect to women's hockey, it lacks the revenue potential that men's hockey brings.

It also helps that there are no pro sports in North Dakota. That hockey program probably has state wide love. Speaking of real North Dakota hockey, as a big Badgers hockey fan, i miss playing North Dakota home and away every year. They along with Minnesota used to be the Badgers biggest rivals. Plus, i thought they had the best looking uniforms in college hockey, especially when they still had the Fighting Sioux head on the front. You're right in that it probably helps that there are no professional sports teams in North Dakota, but the college basketball season runs concurrently with hockey and the UND men's team draws fewer than 4,000 per game. It they started making the NCAA tourney every year, I'm sure their following would grow, but there's just not much to be excited about there (even if it is Division I men's basketball). I miss the rivalries with Wisconsin and Minnesota, but those programs will be just fine (as will North Dakota). Growing up in Wisconsin, I have great memories of watching Badger hockey late at night on PBS with my dad. I'll always be a fan of the old WCHA teams. Notre Dame is in the Big Ten now for hockey - what the heck?

There will always be an attendance hurdle for the NBA / NHL in Milwaukee. As a small market team, the Brewers have had respectable attendance because they have been able to draw fans from the rest of the state. Part of this has to do with the Wisconsin tailgate culture and Summer weather. Living in Green Bay, it's difficult for me to plan a trip to see the Bucks during the months of December - March. I just hate the prospect of 4 hours of "white knuckle driving." With the Brewers, I can generally count on better road conditions and will almost certainly be able to spend more time with friends and family tailgating beforehand. I think this hurdle can be cleared, but only through sustained success. My wife and I enjoy hockey. She's from North Dakota, where the University of North Dakota has won 8 NCAA Division I National Championships, including the most recent one. How does a town of 50,000 sell out a 12,000 seat arena every other weekend? They win games. Lots of games.

Thanks to all for the advice and kind words. No doubt, the goodwill that I've built up over the past few years factored into my decision to stay put. I have a great relationship with my manager and colleagues and they will likely be a little more understanding of my limited availability this Fall than any potential new team.

Thanks for weighing in on the case study and correcting my perception of this requirement. On the Subject of Millennial Entitlement ... This is not a "Why can't they see how special I am?" type of situation, but I understand how my initial post read without proper context. My wife is currently working on a one-year contract. She took a pay cut to leave her former employer of 5 years and accept her current position, which aligned better with her career interests. When we learned about the pregnancy (it was a surprise), there was a 50/50 shot that her contract would not be renewed. With fatherhood on the Horizon, my initial reaction was to find a higher-paying job so that I could replace part of her income, if necessary. When I say that I'm currently leaving money on the table, I'm not suggesting that my employer treats me unfairly (quite the contrary, actually). I value a lot of intangibles like a short commute, a great relationship with my manager, and a flexible work schedule. I know that I could earn more with a different employer, but that might come at the expense of these other benefits. However, when faced with a budget crunch, wouldn't most parents put their children ahead of their own comfort? I'm not even a true Millennial. I don't have student loans, I buy my morning coffee at the gas station, and I only have an iPhone 4 (gasp). On the Actual Case Study ... I'm not offended by the case study requirement (just surprised). They emailed me a proprietary dataset and asked me to provide some preliminary analysis. I'm sure the company just intended to use it as an evaluation tool, but had they retained it, it would have been a conflict of interest. In retrospect, I could have suggested they have me analyze data from a public source to help alleviate the conflict. Boasting 6 years of experience might seem laughable to some posters, but my skill set has come a long way in that short time. In addition to the acumen I've picked up at the office, I've also built up my software proficiencies during my non-working evenings and weekends. 2010 was a bad time to enter the job market. Without much relevant work experience, I could see why an employer would want to test out a prospective employee. I willingly jumped through a lot of hoops to land that first job. A year later, I was able to leverage that experience into a much better opportunity with my current employer (following a traditional interview, sans case study). On the Exciting Conclusion ... In between the phone screen and the first interview, I learned that my wife's contract was likely to be renewed (this time for 2 years). She encouraged me to stay with my current employer where she knows I'm content. I decided to proceed with the interview in case it turned out to be a great opportunity. I had already prepared for it and put in for PTO. As it turned out, it was just OK. I liked the hiring managers just fine, but with the extra pay no longer of great concern, I felt more comfortable with the status quo. I've been surrounded by good people for 5 years (which I'm told is rare). I had nearly made up my mind before the interview concluded, but the homework assignment sealed the deal. When the recruiter called to offer me a second interview, I politely declined and cited our family situation. She was very understanding and encouraged me to contact her directly if I was interested in another posting down the road. As for the case study, I guess I'll just assume that's a given next time.

Is it normal to complete some type of task / case study as part of an interview process? When I began interviewing for my first professional job in 2010, I willingly jumped through all sorts of hoops. Now, I'm fairly well established in my field. After spending my rookie year with a competitor, I've been with my current employer for 5 years. It has been (and still is) a reasonably good situation. Recently, after learning that my wife and I are expecting our first child, I applied for a job with another competitor out of concern that I may be currently leaving some money on the table. I completed a phone screen and an in-person interview; however, when the recruiter called to arrange a second interview, she asked me to complete a case study prior to the meeting. I was a little taken aback by this request. For one, I will not complete work for this company while still drawing a salary from my current employer. That's an integrity issue. And two, why should I have to try out? I'm just testing free agency. My resume is pretty competitive. They could have tested my chops during the first interview, but they stuck with all softball questions. If you've continued reading to this point and gotten past my sense of Millennial entitlement, kudos. Upon reflection, my wife and I decided that it would be best to stay with my current employer. With parenthood looming, we valued stability over a little extra cushion in our budget. I politely declined the second interview and cited this reason so that I could keep the door open for the future. Honestly, the biggest reason why I decided to stay put was because of my current supervisor. He's a great person / manager and I want to continue to develop under his guidance. A few other factors came in to play, but the "tryout" was definitely a con.

I have some experience working in financial services. I presently work as a statistician for a large regional bank, but my first job out of college was a sales role with a large insurer. I actually enjoyed the work quite a bit, but I found working on straight commission to be difficult for an aspiring family man. I followed my supervisor at the insurance company to the operations department of the bank where I presently work. The role of a "financial adviser" is typically sales-oriented. It's actually quite easy to break into the profession, but much more difficult to enjoy sustained success (that requires networking, prospecting, studying, and a bit of luck). You're resume doesn't have to be perfect, either. Most companies just want to know that they are hiring a decent man or woman with an excellent personality and work ethic. No doubt, it's a difficult path; however, I have a few former colleagues who absolutely enjoy their work (and are well compensated). I'd encourage you to pursue this route. Start out my submitting your resume to some of the larger insurance companies or broker-dealers like Northwestern Mutual, Thrivent Financial, or Edward Jones. As long as your resume is clean, I can all but guarantee that you'll get a hit. The industry experiences high turnover and recruiters are always looking for new advisers.

Have you thought about entering the Financial Services Industry? The JD would give you instant credibility in an industry that is sorely lacking. I worked as a "registered representative" for a major financial services firm my first year after out of college. The position was straight commission and I only earned about $18,000 after I paid my overhead business expenses (rent, utilities, marketing, etc). However, the training that I received was excellent and I was able to leverage the experience into a much better position with a competitor. It's relatively easy to become a "registered representative." In fact, I heard that the required training for a licensed massage therapist is far more extensive. Most firms will hire anyone who they feel can pass the FINRA Series 7 Exam, which is otherwise known as the General Securities Representative Exam or "stockbroker's license." While the firm often pays for your license and training, their risk is limited because the "registered representative" is paid based on their sales. If you are not effective, they do not have to pay you. However, if you are a self-motivated individual, your income potential is unlimited. Working in this capacity for a few years may enable you to obtain a position in the legal department of a financial services firm.You may even like the type of work that you are doing. I've been looking into the banking/financial industry a little the past couple of months. I've applied to a bunch of financial analyst jobs but have been mostly told that they are going with someone who better fits their needs. I'll look into the registered representative stuff a little more. Becoming a financial analyst is relatively difficult compared to other positions in the industry. Please don't be discouraged if you haven't had any luck there. In most cases, you would have to have the required pedigree (degree in finance + internship in a closely related field) to get in the door. Take a look at Thrivent Financial (Appleton) and Northwestern Mutual (Milwaukee). They are two respected financial services firms that have "registered representatives" all over Wisconsin and have their primary operations in the state. If you could tough out a "lean year" or two in sales, you may be able to leverage the experience into a much better opportunity with one of these two companies.

I've thought about that but I don't know what to say. I mean I obviously tried to get a job after my 2nd year of law school but didn't get any offers. And I've been trying since graduating. I don't wanna lie with an excuse but I also don't think it's a good idea to just come out and say nobody's wanted to hire me. If I had to do it all over again, I would probably rethink going to law school. A law degree isn't what it was 10 years ago. It's not even what it was 5 years ago. Have you thought about entering the Financial Services Industry? The JD would give you instant credibility in an industry that is sorely lacking. I worked as a "registered representative" for a major financial services firm my first year after out of college. The position was straight commission and I only earned about $18,000 after I paid my overhead business expenses (rent, utilities, marketing, etc). However, the training that I received was excellent and I was able to leverage the experience into a much better position with a competitor. It's relatively easy to become a "registered representative." In fact, I heard that the required training for a licensed massage therapist is far more extensive. Most firms will hire anyone who they feel can pass the FINRA Series 7 Exam, which is otherwise known as the General Securities Representative Exam or "stockbroker's license." While the firm often pays for your license and training, their risk is limited because the "registered representative" is paid based on their sales. If you are not effective, they do not have to pay you. However, if you are a self-motivated individual, your income potential is unlimited. Working in this capacity for a few years may enable you to obtain a position in the legal department of a financial services firm.You may even like the type of work that you are doing.