Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[bronconick]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Do I really need to explain the massive difference between Division 1 college hockey and farking two year old club hockey?

And who let Hobart back on the board? *****http://board.uscho.com/images/icons/icon13.gif******

[cycledown]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Hey knucklehead, I wasnt trying to explain the difference between the club and d1, so who is the real Hobart.....Its all yours!

I would put a thumbs down icon on the board but a number one sign would be better.

[Slap Shot]

We should be more worried about keeping the programs we already have and getting them to a near-profitable status before we think about expanding. Iona, Fairfield, and Wayne State have recently folded their programs, so I don't think expansion is the answer. Heck, we lost a conference! We also almost lost Alabama-Huntsville because of that conference fold. Let's build the programs we have now, get them even more popular, and then try to expand.

Yes. NCAA needs to get its house in order before we worry about expansion, and imho we are several years away from adding more teams than we subtract during the same time frame.

[cycledown]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

shot do you think college hockey will experience a large subtraction move?

[Slap Shot]

shot do you think college hockey will experience a large subtraction move?

Not necessarily, but given how precariously close they've been to subtracting teams recently (never mind the programs that have actually folded) that imho they are further from adding teams than we might prefer.

[4four4]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

The fact is despite the growth of hockey outside its traditional markets, the actual participation rates in the West Coast and the South are miniscule.

If a California school decided to play in the icebox they could easily field a college hockey program of only kids from California.

[Caustic Undertow]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

One of the issues I have is that I believe that if college hockey does not grow, it may shrink. It would be very bad for college hockey if, say, Bowling Green were to fold. I think it is still a possibility, and to have one of the few holders of a national championship banner vanish would be tragic.

Blockski suggests that player development and sport growth are different categories, and I see that logic. However, I think that growth will encourage player development, and I think that snagging top prospects will grow the sport. One of these days an American version of Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin will come floating out of Detroit or Hibbing or Los Angeles. If it were to happen now, he would play with the NTDP and then spend a year in London or Kelowna. That is where the best players are going. You can argue about whether or not college is just as good, but Major Junior's position as a place where top prospects become top draft picks and top pros is undeniable.

What college hockey can offer is an experience that one can't find in Major Junior. Sold-out Frozen Fours, tournaments in NHL arenas, outdoor games in front of 100,000 people.

Things that require college hockey to be growing. A shrinking college hockey is not an attractive product, even in good markets--who wants to get on a sinking ship?

Then again, when I read the annual "complain about ESPN's tv coverage" thread, I wonder if that's what we are. A few years ago, people complained about Steve Levy and Sean McDonough, and wished for Gary Thorne. We get Thorne, people gripe about him. Sometimes I wonder if public access cable is the better option.

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

If a California school decided to play in the icebox they could easily field a college hockey program of only kids from California.

There are 37 million of us. It doesn't take a high participation rate to churn out 2 dozen D-1 athletes. You could take Colorado, all of New England, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and our population would be roughly equivalent.

The sport isn't sponsored by CIF or any of the sectional high school federations and there are no plans or proposals to even discuss the issue as far as I know.. There are no top tier Junior teams in the state. There is no grass roots drive to bring hockey to the Pac 10 or the west coast. Hell, lacrosse has a much better shot at adding programs in sunset country. We don't even have a full complement of men's soccer teams in the Pac 10 (5 of 10) and the participation rate and general interest in the sport obliterates hockey out west. Unless Phil Knight shows up at Oregon with a 60 million dollar check to fund an ice rink and a team and all the BC schools decide to jump ship for the NCAA, Pac 10 hockey has no shot of getting off the ground. Nada. none.

One caveat I guess. "Pac 10" hockey's best shot is for the conference to grab Colorado in the upcoming game of expansion musical chairs and have them start a program. The Big 12 North is a much better option for these pie in the sky expansion dreams than the Pac 10, SEC, or vast majority of the ACC.

[FRICKER]

Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Keeoing the teams we already have, in my opinion, is doing pretty good in the current economy. The eonomy, combined with Title IX pressures, make losing a few teams a real possibility. With that as a backdrop, Syracuse University adding a D1 team is decades overdue. Yeah, I know that Union, RPI, RIT, Cornell, Colgate, St. Lawrence, and Clarkson have deep roots in NY college hockey, the the Orangemen could still ice a competitive club. Will it happen soon? Don't hold your breath!!!

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Keeoing the teams we already have, in my opinion, is doing pretty good in the current economy. The eonomy, combined with Title IX pressures, make losing a few teams a real possibility. With that as a backdrop, Syracuse University adding a D1 team is decades overdue. Yeah, I know that Union, RPI, RIT, Cornell, Colgate, St. Lawrence, and Clarkson have deep roots in NY college hockey, the the Orangemen could still ice a competitive club. Will it happen soon? Don't hold your breath!!!

You say that as if NY were a key recruiting ground for the 10 D-1 schools in NY, which is definitely not the case. Sure, the occasional Matt Cavosie, Sam Paolini, or Erik Cole comes along, but certainly not nearly frequently enough to field a team with NY-only talent. If SU started up a men's team, they'd recruit nationwide (and in Canada), the same as pretty much everyone outside of Minnesota does.

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

You say that as if NY were a key recruiting ground for the 10 D-1 schools in NY, which is definitely not the case. Sure, the occasional Matt Cavosie, Sam Paolini, or Erik Cole comes along, but certainly not nearly frequently enough to field a team with NY-only talent. If SU started up a men's team, they'd recruit nationwide (and in Canada), the same as pretty much everyone outside of Minnesota does.

LynahFan:

I'm surprised you did not include Ithaca's own Dustin Brown as having been a potential recruit for a N.Y. Division I school. He was certainly eligible. NCAA regulations, or at least NCAA enforcement, hardly ever interfere with recruiting.

[blockski]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Blockski suggests that player development and sport growth are different categories, and I see that logic. However, I think that growth will encourage player development, and I think that snagging top prospects will grow the sport. One of these days an American version of Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin will come floating out of Detroit or Hibbing or Los Angeles. If it were to happen now, he would play with the NTDP and then spend a year in London or Kelowna. That is where the best players are going. You can argue about whether or not college is just as good, but Major Junior's position as a place where top prospects become top draft picks and top pros is undeniable.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, though. Talent like Ovechkin or Crosby is good enough to play in the NHL as soon as they are old enough - hence they play juniors by default. That's like saying college basketball is failing because LeBron didn't go to school.

That doesn't concern me, since those talents represent a very small percentage of the overall talent pool. So long as college hockey is getting talented kids and developing them at a high level (kids like Dany Heatley, Toews, etc), it'll be fine. You can't worry about the LeBrons, you need to try and get the kids that think they're good enough to jump right away and show them how college can make them better players.

Furthermore, I don't think college hockey needs those kinds of players at all. Hockey's development track isn't so fast that you're washed up once you hit 25, and college hockey has an excellent track record of identifying and developing talent that might not otherwise get seen. Just from the team I root for - Joe Pavelski was a late draft pick, plays 2 years at Wisconsin, earns All America honors, wins an NCAA title, and ends up playing in the NHL right off the bat. Brian Elliott was also a very late pick, plays a full 4 years (with slower development by goalies quite common) and has been starting consistently in the NHL this past season.

In short, I think the continuum of talent is much more broad than you lead on. No, college hockey won't get the super-elite talent, but junior hockey isn't really getting that talent through the merits of their development track either, but rather because of the age level. Given the talent that is in college hockey, I think college has a much better track record of developing the talent it does have, thanks to the decreased number of games and the practice/instruction available to players.

[bronconick]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think the best way for college hockey to expand isn't so much hoping that half a dozen southern schools or west coast schools are suddenly going to add teams en-masse and form the PAC-6 hockey conference in 2015 or whatever. That just seems highly unlikely to occur given the probable need to create a money pit of a women's team and the lack of guarantee that hockey is going to be any kind of money maker outside of where it currently is.

As far anyone outside of perhaps Denver and CC are concerned, California based college hockey may as well be Alaska pt. 2 without the exemption.

Ideally, you'd look to add teams along the fringes of where college hockey already exists, so they can have reasonable travel if they have to play a season or two independent while the current hockey conferences figure out what to do.

Find colleges in the Iowa/Missouri/Illinois triangle. Hell, we're talking about giving St. Louis a 2nd Frozen Four. Look around Maryland/DC/Virginia. See if Kentucky would like in without inviting Mississippi State, Florida, and LSU.

[Puck Swami]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think the best way for college hockey to expand isn't so much hoping that half a dozen southern schools or west coast schools are suddenly going to add teams en-masse and form the PAC-6 hockey conference in 2015 or whatever. That just seems highly unlikely to occur given the probable need to create a money pit of a women's team and the lack of guarantee that hockey is going to be any kind of money maker outside of where it currently is.

As far anyone outside of perhaps Denver and CC are concerned, California based college hockey may as well be Alaska pt. 2 without the exemption.

Ideally, you'd look to add teams along the fringes of where college hockey already exists, so they can have reasonable travel if they have to play a season or two independent while the current hockey conferences figure out what to do.

Find colleges in the Iowa/Missouri/Illinois triangle. Hell, we're talking about giving St. Louis a 2nd Frozen Four. Look around Maryland/DC/Virginia. See if Kentucky would like in without inviting Mississippi State, Florida, and LSU.

Incremental adding of programs on the college hockey fringes will keep the basic status quo at 60-70 programs, but won't generate the kind of substantial growth to get into the 100 program-area where college hockey becomes more viable as a national sport. To generate growth momentum, you need the copycat effect from schools that can afford it. We can debate whether hockey should be a national sport (some people think it should only be an east/midwest sport), but I still believe the emphasis needs to be on big school brands in the south and west. The fringe East-Midwest programs will come anyway once the bigger schools South and West start adding programs.

[solovsfett]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think it would help schools actually consider starting up a D-1 team when big-time roundball factories like UConn and UMass actually begin to show some real success and money making from their hockey programs. Right now those 2 are sort of a joke that way.

If I'm Syracuse and look at UConn or UMass you have to wonder.....are we going to be throwing $ down a drain?

Having Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Michigan State stay strong is an obvious lure if we're going to ever convince Illinois/Northwestern/Iowa/Purdue/Indiana/Penn State to ever start something up. If Oseicki turns tOSU into something substantial look out. Now 5 big 10 schools kicking *** and that just *might* lead to one or more other B10 schools seriously considering hockey. IF one or two more B10 schools join in and have some success I can see maybe schools in relative close proximity considering this addition. Namely Missouri (obviously try to build off st. louis blues interest somehow), Kentucky (proximity to ohio schools/and CBJ), Tennessee (build off Nashville predators interest if possible, though that interest is small).

And to be honest I think those that oppose expansion in the south are not considering just how rabid those fans are for their COLLEGE sports. I don't think any more than 5-10% of Kentucky fans give a s-h-i-t about their players once they leave school but man for that 1 year, 2, 3 or more they're always there and always going nuts at the games.

The main thing is being competitive early. Say if the Volunteers get a team they can't go 4-32 for 4 consecutive seasons, that would kill the momentum of starting up the team. They'd have to enjoy UNO type success at least (hover around .500 and scare the big dogs once in a while) to ensure a lasting team.

.02