Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michigan Getting a Women's Team?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    Loses money? What college sport besides football and basketball doesn't lose money? The one and ONLY reason the PAC moved to the B1G is they couldn't resist the carrot stick of BIG MONEY that was offered to them. Perhaps you don't understand the scope of how much money that is coming into play, it can indeed fund an additional sport like hockey. There are five NHL teams out west so you can't say there's not a venue for it or lack of popularity. Hockey has been growing by leaps and bounds in this country for a number of years. Look at the strides of USA Hockey in developing it from youth to the Olympics.The PAC knew full well that ALL their sports must travel often as far as the east coast so that obviously was a non-factor in their decision ( and current Big Ten schools travelling out there). I don't see recruiting a particular region as a factor either. Current recruiting covers all the USA, Canada and Europe.
    There was a fairly loud outcry from the athletes of these PAC schools in the non-revenue sports when the B1G announcement was made. Many of them did not want to travel like this, taking time away from school, not to mention the wear and tear from traveling across country so many times when they weren't earning the NIL bucks like the revenue sports were. Most of those sports aren't sending athletes to the pros, especially on the women side, so falling behind in school was not a desire for them. I think there could be an issue for these former PAC schools recruiting for certain sports moving forward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by robertearle View Post

    I don't think a five team B1G would have to worry about getting bids into tournament, even without an autobid.

    Scheduling might be a bit tricky, but an autobid really wouldn't matter much.
    Doesn't matter. No conference is going to form from scratch without at least six teams.

    Leave a comment:


  • StPaulSam
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    Loses money? What college sport besides football and basketball doesn't lose money? The one and ONLY reason the PAC moved to the B1G is they couldn't resist the carrot stick of BIG MONEY that was offered to them. Perhaps you don't understand the scope of how much money that is coming into play, it can indeed fund an additional sport like hockey. There are five NHL teams out west so you can't say there's not a venue for it or lack of popularity. Hockey has been growing by leaps and bounds in this country for a number of years. Look at the strides of USA Hockey in developing it from youth to the Olympics.The PAC knew full well that ALL their sports must travel often as far as the east coast so that obviously was a non-factor in their decision ( and current Big Ten schools travelling out there). I don't see recruiting a particular region as a factor either. Current recruiting covers all the USA, Canada and Europe.
    I do understand the amount of money involved. My brother in law works in a Big 12 Athletics department. I hear a lot about it. I still don't think women's hockey will be added by any of the new Big Ten schools any time soon. Especially not by Washington and probably not by Oregon, both of whom will be getting 50% of the media payouts that USC, UCLA, and all of the rest of us will get. What new money the incoming four will receive is probably committed for the time being (for eg., travel costs), especially for a place like UCLA where they have to pay some to Berkeley to offset Berkeley's costs and where the UCLA athletics department is otherwise in deep financial trouble and looking at cutting olympic sports.

    cf. https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/...to-the-big-ten

    Are there any HS hockey programs for girls even in SoCal or Washington/Oregon? I don't mean private lessons outside of school, I mean run by the schools.

    B1G athletics departments don't have a grapple on how they're going to deal with the travel for their current sports either. And to think that the Big Ten presidents almost vetoed Penn State because they didn't want student athletes going all the way to State College, the horror!

    Originally posted by Timothy A View Post

    I do believe the UW men's hockey team turn a slim profit.
    IIRC Gopher men's hockey is also revenue positive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Timothy A
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    Loses money? What college sport besides football and basketball doesn't lose money?
    I do believe the UW men's hockey team turn a slim profit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hockeybuckeye
    replied
    Originally posted by StPaulSam View Post

    as much as we would all like this to be true, from an AD perspective it's another sport that loses money that would need to be flown across the country 10-15 times per year.
    Loses money? What college sport besides football and basketball doesn't lose money? The one and ONLY reason the PAC moved to the B1G is they couldn't resist the carrot stick of BIG MONEY that was offered to them. Perhaps you don't understand the scope of how much money that is coming into play, it can indeed fund an additional sport like hockey. There are five NHL teams out west so you can't say there's not a venue for it or lack of popularity. Hockey has been growing by leaps and bounds in this country for a number of years. Look at the strides of USA Hockey in developing it from youth to the Olympics.The PAC knew full well that ALL their sports must travel often as far as the east coast so that obviously was a non-factor in their decision ( and current Big Ten schools travelling out there). I don't see recruiting a particular region as a factor either. Current recruiting covers all the USA, Canada and Europe.
    Last edited by Hockeybuckeye; 04-01-2024, 08:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • StPaulSam
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    It's hard to gauge what those PAC/Big Ten teams attitudes are on hockey. Now that they're in a conference that does have 4'school with women's hockey and will probably now be getting a fifth it may peak their interest but time will tell.
    as much as we would all like this to be true, from an AD perspective it's another sport that loses money that would need to be flown across the country 10-15 times per year. Travel with another team? maybe but then you've got your men's basketball team waiting on women's hockey for an extra day (and another night of hotel rooms) then rushing them both to the airport to fly 6-7hrs from State College to Eugene. Or say you put them on commercial flights. Fine but then you're stuck getting them Eugene-Denver-O'Hare-Bus 2-3hrs to Madison (plus any traffic in Chicago). Good luck getting enough seats+room for bags if the airline is only flying a 50-70 seater into Eugene.

    This is to say nothing of the fact that your recruiting is still going to come from the East, Midwest, and Canada.

    I hate to be a downer but until you could convince a few programs to start simultaneously out west, seems very hard to imagine. If they do add sports, I'd expect them to add the kind of sports where you go to large meets and play multiple schools at the same event. Perhaps even ones sponsored by the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation (like the non-hockey ECAC for sports not sponsored by a primary conference) that they can add with lots of schools out west, likely for Title IX compliance reasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hockeybuckeye
    replied
    Originally posted by Lindsay View Post

    My point is that it took Minnesota 4 years in the Ncaa era to win a national championship, 6 for Wisconsin and 22 for Ohio State.
    From my perspective I count 6 years for Ohio State to win a Natty. For me the clock didn't realistically start until Nadine became head coach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lindsay
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post

    It's not my intent to insult Penn State but the CHA is an extremely weak conference and it's my impression if Penn State was in the WCHA they'd be in the bottom half of the conference.
    But the CHA might be a good starting point for a new Michigan program until they get their feet under them.
    My point is that it took Minnesota 4 years in the Ncaa era to win a national championship, 6 for Wisconsin and 22 for Ohio State. Penn State has had a real D1 coach for like 6 years. There’s nothing curious about their results to date other than they need to figure out the portal because it gutted them last year.

    Leave a comment:


  • robertearle
    replied
    Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post

    LOL

    Of course, there is no B1G women's hockey conference until two new programs startup. Without the sixth team, there's no autobid.

    As for the WCHA, I think they keep their AQ for a two-year probationary period, and then if they can't get back up to six teams, they lose it (remember the men's CHA when they were down to four teams). (One of the reasons the CHA worked so hard to get another team in -- Delaware in this case -- was because they were one team from leaving away from losing their autobid.)
    I don't think a five team B1G would have to worry about getting bids into tournament, even without an autobid.

    Scheduling might be a bit tricky, but an autobid really wouldn't matter much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    It's hard to gauge what those PAC/Big Ten teams attitudes are on hockey. Now that they're in a conference that does have 4'school with women's hockey and will probably now be getting a fifth it may peak their interest but time will tell.
    Definitely hard to gauge. But my interest meter when I point it towards the PAC teams reads pretty close to zero. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hockeybuckeye
    replied
    Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
    I just don't see the PAC schools doing anything for a long time, if at all.
    It's hard to gauge what those PAC/Big Ten teams attitudes are on hockey. Now that they're in a conference that does have 4'school with women's hockey and will probably now be getting a fifth it may peak their interest but time will tell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hockeybuckeye
    replied
    Originally posted by Lindsay View Post

    Penn State only elevated to D1 in 2012 I believe, and wasted several years before getting an experienced D1 coach. Since Kampersal came along it took time but they are now the team to beat in CHA.
    It's not my intent to insult Penn State but the CHA is an extremely weak conference and it's my impression if Penn State was in the WCHA they'd be in the bottom half of the conference.
    But the CHA might be a good starting point for a new Michigan program until they get their feet under them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lindsay
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    That probably because those schools have better resources but that being said it's curious Penn State hasn't been more of a contender.
    Absolutely the resources don’t compare, plus all the majors offered, there’s less likely to be an issue there. So once they get good coaches lined up, no reason these programs shouldn’t be leaders.

    Penn State only elevated to D1 in 2012 I believe, and wasted several years before getting an experienced D1 coach. Since Kampersal came along it took time but they are now the team to beat in CHA. I’m not sure what edge I’d say they have against the other B1G ten programs: Wisconsin with the USA Hockey legend Coach and pipeline, Minnesota’s backyard depth of talent, and Ohio State’s Queen of the Transfer Portal. Penn State just lost an associate head coach; we will see what the immediate future holds for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hockeybuckeye
    replied
    Originally posted by Russell Jaslow View Post
    The only chance for a women's B1G is for both Michigan schools to create a team, IMO.
    Michigan State could start one but they're cheap bas*ards!

    Leave a comment:


  • Russell Jaslow
    replied
    Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
    It's been mentioned before how Illinois was on track to start hockey and it stalled when COVID hit, but could it get on track?
    Also the PAC schools coming into the Big Ten all have club teams, perhaps they may consider them becoming NCAA teams like Michigan?
    ​​​​
    Don't hold your breath.

    Reading between the lines, Illinois has totally given up on the idea. I just don't see the PAC schools doing anything for a long time, if at all.

    The only chance for a women's B1G is for both Michigan schools to create a team, IMO.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X