Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

[Freddie]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

While this all makes for an interesting discussion, I still stand by my original point; B1G has no reason to add hockey-only affiliate members. A 6 team conference is perfectly viable, as long as all 6 are committed to hockey and on sound financial ground.

[mnstate0fhockey]

I agree with both these points. And because BT teams should have a relatively easy time booking games outside the conference, I believe your seven team plan is viable. (So go ahead, Illinois -- take the plunge!)

But I also think that Minnesota is the only team in D-1 that really needs 14 non-conference games to create a satisfactory schedule, and that even the Gophers may change their thinking after trying it out for a few years.

Gopher Hockey was built around supporting local hockey within the state. John Mariucci travelled around the state encouraging high schools to carry hockey as a varsity sport in the 50's and 60's, and helped increase the number of teams from a dozen to over 130. He also worked his tail off to get UMD to the D1 level. Herb Brooks did the same to get SCSU to the D1 level. The Gophers were also instrumental in supporting Mankato's elevation to the D1 level and BSU's entry into the WCHA.

The Gophers are going to ALWAYS prioritize scheduling and supporting the other local schools. It gives local kids more opportunities to play at the next level, and keeps Minnesota Hockey strong. That is what makes this arguably the best recruiting market in this country. Minnesota's "provincial" or "community-based" approach to hockey gets criticized from outsiders, but it works. More kids play here than anywhere else in the US, and they don't often defect to the CHL.

That benefits the Gophers. There is no way the Gophers could have only recruited in-state for nearly two decades without the commitment to local hockey for decades before hand. There is no way the Gophers have the recruiting advantages they have without the dedication to supporting local hockey.

I wouldn't expect that to ever change at Minnesota. Those 8 games should go to the local rivalries.

[MichFan]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

1. If the B1G takes affiliates at all, Notre Dame will never be one of them. Too much bad blood.

2. This was generated by the Hopkins LAX rumor. As someone else pointed out, they can get Hopkins LAX in without calling Hopkins an affiliate; they can say: we only have full members, and members must have all their D1 programs compete in the B1G. Well, Hopkins has only one D1 program. That's how they'll dance around it. Also, keep in mind that, not only would Hopkins bring LAX prestige, but it would bring academic prestige to the CIC.

3. The only 4 schools in hockey that would qualify for the excuse in #2 are CC, RPI, St. Lawrence, and Clarkson. Other than maybe CC (which brings a foothold in Denver and has been more successful than the others in recent years), do you really think the B1G would be interested in them? None of them are research schools (i.e. AAU members) that would bring to the CIC what Hopkins would bring.

4. I realize that schools aren't allowed to play up from D3 to D1 anymore, unless already grandfathered in, but wouldn't in be nice to see the excuse in #2 used to get Chicago back in to the conference in some sport?

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

So I guess the NCHC is just karma for MTU bolting the WCHA for the CCHA?

That couldn't be true because MTU only does things "for the good of college hockey" that other teams won't do.

Ryan J

[Ralph Baer]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

1. If the B1G takes affiliates at all, Notre Dame will never be one of them. Too much bad blood.

2. This was generated by the Hopkins LAX rumor. As someone else pointed out, they can get Hopkins LAX in without calling Hopkins an affiliate; they can say: we only have full members, and members must have all their D1 programs compete in the B1G. Well, Hopkins has only one D1 program. That's how they'll dance around it. Also, keep in mind that, not only would Hopkins bring LAX prestige, but it would bring academic prestige to the CIC.

3. The only 4 schools in hockey that would qualify for the excuse in #2 are CC, RPI, St. Lawrence, and Clarkson. Other than maybe CC (which brings a foothold in Denver and has been more successful than the others in recent years), do you really think the B1G would be interested in them? None of them are research schools (i.e. AAU members) that would bring to the CIC what Hopkins would bring.

4. I realize that schools aren't allowed to play up from D3 to D1 anymore, unless already grandfathered in, but wouldn't in be nice to see the excuse in #2 used to get Chicago back in to the conference in some sport?

FWIW, RIT and Union also fit in as D-III schools that play D-I hockey, although neither of them awards scholarships since they upgraded too late. I would also think that many if not all of the D-II schools only play up in hockey. Lastly CC, which doesn't have a women's hockey team, plays D-I in women's soccer IIRC.

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Gopher Hockey was built around supporting local hockey within the state. John Mariucci travelled around the state encouraging high schools to carry hockey as a varsity sport in the 50's and 60's, and helped increase the number of teams from a dozen to over 130...
...That benefits the Gophers. There is no way the Gophers could have only recruited in-state for nearly two decades without the commitment to local hockey for decades before hand. There is no way the Gophers have the recruiting advantages they have without the dedication to supporting local hockey.

Interesting. I would have assumed Minnesota's high school hockey history was more like Indiana's with basketball. Obviously hockey requires a much larger effort in terms of cost and infrastructure, but that there were only a dozen as recently as the 1950s is surprising. In fact before a decades long wave of consolidation, there were actually MORE schools playing basketball in Indiana years ago than there are now, and now the IHSAA numbers around 400 basketball playing high schools. And very true that to have a roster of virtually only Minnesota natives would need a huge commitment to local hockey programs, not only at the high school level but the youth levels as well.

[mnstate0fhockey]

Interesting. I would have assumed Minnesota's high school hockey history was more like Indiana's with basketball. Obviously hockey requires a much larger effort in terms of cost and infrastructure, but that there were only a dozen as recently as the 1950s is surprising. In fact before a decades long wave of consolidation, there were actually MORE schools playing basketball in Indiana years ago than there are now, and now the IHSAA numbers around 400 basketball playing high schools. And very true that to have a roster of virtually only Minnesota natives would need a huge commitment to local hockey programs, not only at the high school level but the youth levels as well.

Yeah, it is interesting how each developed differently. This is from John Mariucci's Hall of Fame plaque:

As admirable a player as he was, Mariucci's true calling was as a coach and nurturer of talent. He took over as coach of the University of Minnesota hockey team and immediately declined to recruit players from Canada. An important part of this emphasis on home grown talent was a challenge sent out by Mariucci to high schools throughout the state to start their own programs and develop interest in their respective communities. Between 1952 and 1980 the number of high school teams grew from a handful to more than 150.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

1. If the B1G takes affiliates at all, Notre Dame will never be one of them. Too much bad blood.

2. This was generated by the Hopkins LAX rumor. As someone else pointed out, they can get Hopkins LAX in without calling Hopkins an affiliate; they can say: we only have full members, and members must have all their D1 programs compete in the B1G. Well, Hopkins has only one D1 program. That's how they'll dance around it. Also, keep in mind that, not only would Hopkins bring LAX prestige, but it would bring academic prestige to the CIC.

3. The only 4 schools in hockey that would qualify for the excuse in #2 are CC, RPI, St. Lawrence, and Clarkson. Other than maybe CC (which brings a foothold in Denver and has been more successful than the others in recent years), do you really think the B1G would be interested in them? None of them are research schools (i.e. AAU members) that would bring to the CIC what Hopkins would bring.

4. I realize that schools aren't allowed to play up from D3 to D1 anymore, unless already grandfathered in, but wouldn't in be nice to see the excuse in #2 used to get Chicago back in to the conference in some sport?

True...cept I would amend to say that BC is probably the one school that might qualify as an affiliate. No schools will become affiliates.

[gopheritall]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I remember when people said that they would "NEVER" create a Big Ten hockey conference. I remember when there would never be shootouts in college hockey.

I think it is only a matter of time before they try to add teams. That might be encouraging current B1G members to add hockey or pull in other programs. I don't think you create a conference in order to stay at the NCAA minimum size. Growth is always desired even when it isn't necessarily a good thing. And Alvarez is a self-serving a** that wants to make a name for himself no matter who or what gets in the way.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I remember when people said that they would "NEVER" create a Big Ten hockey conference. I remember when there would never be shootouts in college hockey.

I think it is only a matter of time before they try to add teams. That might be encouraging current B1G members to add hockey or pull in other programs. I don't think you create a conference in order to stay at the NCAA minimum size. Growth is always desired even when it isn't necessarily a good thing. And Alvarez is a self-serving a** that wants to make a name for himself no matter who or what gets in the way.

Nobody said there was never a possibility of B1G hockey, just that it was a long shot that any of the other B1G schools would add a program. Enter Terry Pegula. No donation, no B1G hockey.

Any addition to the BTHC will be a full member school, not an affiliate. They can survive with 6.

[MichFan]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

FWIW, RIT and Union also fit in as D-III schools that play D-I hockey, although neither of them awards scholarships since they upgraded too late. I would also think that many if not all of the D-II schools only play up in hockey.

Point well taken. That said, none of those D2 or non-scholarship D3 schools are AAU either. Unlike Hopkins, they're not someone the B1G presidents would like to have in the CIC.

In fact, outside the Big Ten, I think that the only other AAU institutions playing hockey are 5 of the 6 Ivies (Dartmouth is not a member) and BU. (Well, also McGill and Toronto, but they're not in the NCAA). They're all D1, and I don't think that any of them are interested in being B1G affiliates.

Unless...what if the Ivies decide to split from the ECAC and form their own conference, as has occasionally been discussed? Then maybe a scheduling arrangement with the B1G? Or maybe an Ivy-Big 10 joint league? The B1G presidents just might approve that one! (P.S. That was not meant seriously!)

[Freddie]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Nobody said there was never a possibility of B1G hockey, just that it was a long shot that any of the other B1G schools would add a program. Enter Terry Pegula. No donation, no B1G hockey.

Any addition to the BTHC will be a full member school, not an affiliate. They can survive with 6.

Ding, Ding, Ding!
You win the prize for most logical and concise post on this thread.

FWIW, I don't remember anybody (other than a few totally weeded out tools) ever saying that there would NEVER be a B1G Hockey Conference...the argument was always about whether the eventual existence of such a conference would be a benefit to college hockey, or a detriment.

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

While this all makes for an interesting discussion, I still stand by my original point; B1G has no reason to add hockey-only affiliate members.

"No reason" is a little strong. But I read most of the posts as agreeing that it won't happen and probably shouldn't.

It's been an enjoyable game of "What If." And no doubt MGoBlueHockey has had a great time nudging along the conversation. Gotta believe that 7 pages exceeded his highest expectations.

A 6 team conference is perfectly viable, as long as all 6 are committed to hockey and on sound financial ground.

Viable, yes. Ideal, no. For all the reasons previously mentioned.

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Well... It's.... True.

Johns Hopkins to join Big Ten for lacrosse.

[Pigfarmer]

My guess is that if the B1G ever added affiliate members it would only be to reach the thresh hold of 6 teams ... not in an effort to just add schools to 6 or more B1G schools. So I don't see affiliate members being added to any sports with 6 or more B1G participants..... But I could see a sport with fewer than 6 adding several schools to go well beyond the 6 schools needed for a conference to create a premier B1G conference in a particular sport...ie lacrosse.
I see this as a probability--- the B1G wants to dominate all sports/ marketing, and this is how you do it

I guess this is old news