Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[joegrav]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's really endlessly amusing to me that some people think a BTHC would launch and then instantly become such a dominant force in college hockey that the other teams might as well just give up. It's like combining the WCHA superiority complex with a Big 10 superiority complex.

What evidence do we have that a BTHC would even become the best conference right away, let alone far and away destroying everyone?

The Big 10 is at best the 4th best conference in football and the 3rd best conference in basketball. It does pretty well in Olympic/non-revenue sports but not nearly as well as the ACC and the PAC 10.

Meanwhile, Penn State, the team that's supposedly triggering this mudslide that will ruin everyone not in the Big 10, has been playing basketball forever and I don't think they've ever even made it to the Final Four. Why do we assume they're going to just start playing hockey and instantly be good?

The other Big 10 teams in college hockey, while good, aren't exactly everyone's overlords-

Michigan hasn't brought home the big hardware in quite a while. Minnesota... yeah, they've really been setting the world on fire the last few years. Wisconsin sure looked superior to everyone else in Detroit! Ohio State is basically the living proof that the theory some people have about Penn State - drop in a big-name athletics program, and BOOM! great hockey team - is flat out wrong.

You mean to tell me that taking Minnesota and Wisconsin - good teams, but not titanic overlords of college hockey by any stretch - and moving them away from regular games against Denver and North Dakota and toward regular games against Ohio State and an expansion Penn State, is somehow going to make MN and WI dominant?

I support the foundation of a BTHC on the grounds that it will hopefully open up expansion slots for a few new teams (CIS schools?) to jump into NCAA hockey in a few years in established conferences. But let's not think that a BTHC would dominate college hockey. I'll keep my money on BC, BU, Maine, UNH, Miami, NoDak and Denver to continue to compete with and often beat out Minny, Wisco and Michigan just as they do now.

[joegrav]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's really endlessly amusing to me that some people think a BTHC would launch and then instantly become such a dominant force in college hockey that the other teams might as well just give up. It's like combining the WCHA superiority complex with a Big 10 superiority complex.

What evidence do we have that a BTHC would even become the best conference right away, let alone far and away destroying everyone?

The Big 10 is at best the 4th best conference in football and the 3rd best conference in basketball. It does pretty well in Olympic/non-revenue sports but not nearly as well as the ACC and the PAC 10.

Meanwhile, Penn State, the team that's supposedly triggering this mudslide that will ruin everyone not in the Big 10, has been playing basketball forever and I don't think they've ever even made it to the Final Four. Why do we assume they're going to just start playing hockey and instantly be good?

The other Big 10 teams in college hockey, while good, aren't exactly everyone's overlords-

Michigan hasn't brought home the big hardware in quite a while. Minnesota... yeah, they've really been setting the world on fire the last few years. Wisconsin sure looked superior to everyone else in Detroit! Ohio State is basically the living proof that the theory some people have about Penn State - drop in a big-name athletics program, and BOOM! great hockey team - is flat out wrong.

You mean to tell me that taking Minnesota and Wisconsin - good teams, but not titanic overlords of college hockey by any stretch - and moving them away from regular games against Denver and North Dakota and toward regular games against Ohio State and an expansion Penn State, is somehow going to make MN and WI dominant?

I support the foundation of a BTHC on the grounds that it will hopefully open up expansion slots for a few new teams (CIS schools?) to jump into NCAA hockey in a few years in established conferences. But let's not think that a BTHC would dominate college hockey. I'll keep my money on BC, BU, Maine, UNH, Miami, NoDak and Denver to continue to compete with and often beat out Minny, Wisco and Michigan just as they do now.

[CHFAN222]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's really endlessly amusing to me that some people think a BTHC would launch and then instantly become such a dominant force in college hockey that the other teams might as well just give up. It's like combining the WCHA superiority complex with a Big 10 superiority complex.

What evidence do we have that a BTHC would even become the best conference right away, let alone far and away destroying everyone?

The Big 10 is at best the 4th best conference in football and the 3rd best conference in basketball. It does pretty well in Olympic/non-revenue sports but not nearly as well as the ACC and the PAC 10.

Meanwhile, Penn State, the team that's supposedly triggering this mudslide that will ruin everyone not in the Big 10, has been playing basketball forever and I don't think they've ever even made it to the Final Four. Why do we assume they're going to just start playing hockey and instantly be good?

The other Big 10 teams in college hockey, while good, aren't exactly everyone's overlords-

Michigan hasn't brought home the big hardware in quite a while. Minnesota... yeah, they've really been setting the world on fire the last few years. Wisconsin sure looked superior to everyone else in Detroit! Ohio State is basically the living proof that the theory some people have about Penn State - drop in a big-name athletics program, and BOOM! great hockey team - is flat out wrong.

You mean to tell me that taking Minnesota and Wisconsin - good teams, but not titanic overlords of college hockey by any stretch - and moving them away from regular games against Denver and North Dakota and toward regular games against Ohio State and an expansion Penn State, is somehow going to make MN and WI dominant?

I support the foundation of a BTHC on the grounds that it will hopefully open up expansion slots for a few new teams (CIS schools?) to jump into NCAA hockey in a few years in established conferences. But let's not think that a BTHC would dominate college hockey. I'll keep my money on BC, BU, Maine, UNH, Miami, NoDak and Denver to continue to compete with and often beat out Minny, Wisco and Michigan just as they do now.

Good points. Also the talent pool for US players is expanding every year. More and more of the best players are coming from the sun belt states. If anything I think the B10HC might actually help to steal away a few players who considered going to Major Juniors.

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's really endlessly amusing to me that some people think a BTHC would launch and then instantly become such a dominant force in college hockey that the other teams might as well just give up. It's like combining the WCHA superiority complex with a Big 10 superiority complex.

The issue isn't that the BTHC teams would be come dominant, its that leaving the conferences would severely negatively affect the teams, schools and communities left behind.

[Patman]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Can't USF play at the Everblades site?

[darker98]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Agreed.

While almost spot on. If you are going to change my post. Note that you have done so.

[Dirty]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Agreed.

On work release from raping animals are we?

[SanTropez]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's really endlessly amusing to me that some people think a BTHC would launch and then instantly become such a dominant force in college hockey that the other teams might as well just give up. It's like combining the WCHA superiority complex with a Big 10 superiority complex.

What evidence do we have that a BTHC would even become the best conference right away, let alone far and away destroying everyone?

The Big 10 is at best the 4th best conference in football and the 3rd best conference in basketball. It does pretty well in Olympic/non-revenue sports but not nearly as well as the ACC and the PAC 10.

Meanwhile, Penn State, the team that's supposedly triggering this mudslide that will ruin everyone not in the Big 10, has been playing basketball forever and I don't think they've ever even made it to the Final Four. Why do we assume they're going to just start playing hockey and instantly be good?

The other Big 10 teams in college hockey, while good, aren't exactly everyone's overlords-

Michigan hasn't brought home the big hardware in quite a while. Minnesota... yeah, they've really been setting the world on fire the last few years. Wisconsin sure looked superior to everyone else in Detroit! Ohio State is basically the living proof that the theory some people have about Penn State - drop in a big-name athletics program, and BOOM! great hockey team - is flat out wrong.

You mean to tell me that taking Minnesota and Wisconsin - good teams, but not titanic overlords of college hockey by any stretch - and moving them away from regular games against Denver and North Dakota and toward regular games against Ohio State and an expansion Penn State, is somehow going to make MN and WI dominant?

I support the foundation of a BTHC on the grounds that it will hopefully open up expansion slots for a few new teams (CIS schools?) to jump into NCAA hockey in a few years in established conferences. But let's not think that a BTHC would dominate college hockey. I'll keep my money on BC, BU, Maine, UNH, Miami, NoDak and Denver to continue to compete with and often beat out Minny, Wisco and Michigan just as they do now.

You make valid points but lets not forget history and that everything goes in cycles, while Minnesota has had a few down years and Michigan hasn't brought home any hardware in awhile the Big Ten teams as a whole have been near or at the top in College Hockey for most of there existence.



National Championships:
Michigan 9
Wisconsin 6
Minnesota 5
Michigan State 3

Runners up:
Minnesota 6
Michigan 2
Michigan State 2
Wisconsin 1


Frozen Four Appearances:
Michigan 23
Minnesota 19
Wisconsin 9
Michigan State 9

Tourney Appearances:
Minnesota 32
Michigan 32
Michigan State 26
Wisconsin 24


Tourney wins:
Minnesota 50
Michigan 46
Wisconsin 34
Michigan State 30

[CHFAN222]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You make valid points but lets not forget history and that everything goes in cycles, while Minnesota has had a few down years and Michigan hasn't brought home any hardware in awhile the Big Ten teams as a whole have been near or at the top in College Hockey for most of there existence.



National Championships:
Michigan 9
Wisconsin 6
Minnesota 5
Michigan State 3

Runners up:
Minnesota 6
Michigan 2
Michigan State 2
Wisconsin 1


Frozen Four Appearances:
Michigan 23
Minnesota 19
Wisconsin 9
Michigan State 9

Tourney Appearances:
Minnesota 32
Michigan 32
Michigan State 26
Wisconsin 24


Tourney wins:
Minnesota 50
Michigan 46
Wisconsin 34
Michigan State 30

How many of the appearances where when the tournament had just started. Weren't the alot less teams back then as well which would make going to the championship sort of either. I'm not trying to take away from their successful history however I do think it'd be nice to compare it to the number of teams playing at a high level so we can weigh it to what it takes to win it all now.

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

How many of the appearances where when the tournament had just started. Weren't the alot less teams back then as well which would make going to the championship sort of either. I'm not trying to take away from their successful history however I do think it'd be nice to compare it to the number of teams playing at a high level so we can weigh it to what it takes to win it all now.

Well, that depends on what you call "back then." If you just take out pre-1980, that eliminates 6 UMich titles, 3 UMinn titles, 2 UW titles and 1 MSU title of (12 of 23). If you bump it to say, 1990, that eliminates the same 6 UMich, 3 UMinn, 3 more UW and 1 more MSU title (up to 17 of 23).

So, not taking into account the runner-ups, FF's, appearances, etc. (which I know are a big part), the Big 10 has 6 National Titles in the last 20 years, or 30%. Nothing to sneeze at, but not "dominating" either.

[CHFAN222]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Well, that depends on what you call "back then." If you just take out pre-1980, that eliminates 6 UMich titles, 3 UMinn titles, 2 UW titles and 1 MSU title of (12 of 23). If you bump it to say, 1990, that eliminates the same 6 UMich, 3 UMinn, 3 more UW and 1 more MSU title (up to 17 of 23).

So, not taking into account the runner-ups, FF's, appearances, etc. (which I know are a big part), the Big 10 has 6 National Titles in the last 20 years, or 30%. Nothing to sneeze at, but not "dominating" either.

Let's compare it to the top teams in HE for the past twenty years. BU-2, BC-3, Maine-3. HE actually has had more national titles in the past 20 years than the B10 has. Throw in appearances by UVM and UNH and it seems as though HE will be able to hold its own against B10.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Let's compare it to the top teams in HE for the past twenty years. BU-2, BC-3, Maine-3. HE actually has had more national titles in the past 20 years than the B10 has. Throw in appearances by UVM and UNH and it seems as though HE will be able to hold its own against B10.

Not sure where Maine got a phantom title, but they've only taken home top prize twice. But still, they would have an equal amount of titles in comparison to the Big 10 teams if you look at 1990-present.

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Not sure where Maine got a phantom title, but they've only taken home top prize twice. But still, they would have an equal amount of titles in comparison to the Big 10 teams if you look at 1990-present.

Plus, the rest of the WCHA (I'm including NMU here) with 5 since 1990 and the CCHA with the other 2 - or three if you throw in NMU, which drops the W to 4 (although you can really see how history distorts things with how far LSSU has fallen).

edit sorry, forgot LSSU's first came in '88... And, HEA does have 7, two more than the rest of the WCHA:

Maine 1993 and 1999
BU 1995 and 2006
BC 2001, 2008 and 2010

[willythekid]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

don't let facts get in the way of a good story

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Plus, the rest of the WCHA (I'm including NMU here) with 5 since 1990 and the CCHA with the other 3. That's fairly balanced, truth be told (although you can really see how history distorts things with how far LSSU has fallen).

If you're going to count NMU's title for the WCHA, then you'd have to count Minnesota and Wisconsin's titles for the WCHA. Vice versa, since we're counting Minnesota and Wisconsin's titles for the Big Ten, I think it's only fair to count NMU's for the CCHA, so 4 for the WCHA and 4 for the CCHA. I know I'm nitpicking, but either way, your point remains valid.