Big 10 a scapegoat?

[yooper(UP) hockey]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

As Dirty said, this is EXACTLY what will happen. As it is, NMU already has the following arrangement for Wisconsin: 1 weekend in Madtown, 1 weekend in a neutral site (Green Bay), 1 Badger Showdown appearance.

And, NMU has a non-conference game scheduled against NoDak. Terms of that trip? 1 weekend in Grand Forks. No return trips, no future dates.

If you're living in Marquette, how many times will you see Wisconsin an NoDak at the Berry Events Center? Zero.


It's already happening. The B1G blows it wide open.

The teams that we will have get to see return trips are from UAH and AIC. It will be a sad day for hockey when the big ten forms. Thats why the little schools should compete head to head with the Big 10 by forming one strong league.

 

[MavHockey14]

Has there been any serious talk of replacing Jutting?

They had the chance when his contract expired, while Blais was still available and wanting back in the WCHA. Instead of going with him, they decided to extend Jutting for another four years I believe. Smart move, right? Our AD is much more a basketball and football guy then anything else, he doesn't understand the potential his hockey team could have with a right guy at the helm. As icelund stated, there's really no search going on or anyone willing to care enough to axe the guy who can't even get us to St. Paul, let alone the NCAA tournament.

 

[CornwallAce]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

The teams that we will have get to see return trips are from UAH and AIC. It will be a sad day for hockey when the big ten forms. Thats why the little schools should compete head to head with the Big 10 by forming one strong league.

Nice! Someone is willing to come to West Springfield for an OOC game!

 

[gophfan]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

there programs shouldnt die just because they dont play those schools.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

My take:

If you take away the stupid rule about 6 teams in the BT conferences, it has to be put to a vote...

If PSU is legit, why do they "need" the other BT schools to survive? They could apply for an exemption, I think.

For those complaining about "if X, Y, and Z schools need A, B, C schools to survive, then fold them anyways," why does PSU really need them? They need them to survive. Hello hypocrisy.

I probably said it wrong, but you all get the idea.

If PSU is a legit D1, and I'm not saying they are not, why the vote for the BTHC? Cull others from the bloated WCHA/CCHA conferences. Make it truly regional. PSU plus Miami, OSU, ND, and add UAH, since they don't have a conference.

Yes, if I were PSU, go for the gold. Bring in UM, MI, WI, etc. If I were the rest of the BTHC? * you. We have a good deal. Earn your keep, PSU.

 

[gophfan]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

My take:

If you take away the stupid rule about 6 teams in the BT conferences, it has to be put to a vote...

If PSU is legit, why do they "need" the other BT schools to survive? They could apply for an exemption, I think.

For those complaining about "if X, Y, and Z schools need A, B, C schools to survive, then fold them anyways," why does PSU really need them? They need them to survive. Hello hypocrisy.

I probably said it wrong, but you all get the idea.

If PSU is a legit D1, and I'm not saying they are not, why the vote for the BTHC? Cull others from the bloated WCHA/CCHA conferences. Make it truly regional. PSU plus Miami, OSU, ND, and add UAH, since they don't have a conference.

Yes, if I were PSU, go for the gold. Bring in UM, MI, WI, etc. If I were the rest of the BTHC? * you. We have a good deal. Earn your keep, PSU.

I agree i alway thought they would make a good fit in the CCHA.

 

[Farce Poobah]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

I'm concerned about competitive fairness.

I believe its time for the RPI and Pairwise ratings to factor in where the game is played - with a "fair" (statistically neutralizing) adjustment for road/home/neutral ice.

This will be the only incentive to keep the Big Ten schools from playing a disproportionate number of home games, and getting an advantage in making the tournament.

 

[giwan]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

I'm concerned about competitive fairness.I believe its time for the RPI and Pairwise ratings to factor in where the game is played - with a "fair" (statistically neutralizing) adjustment for road/home/neutral ice.This will be the only incentive to keep the Big Ten schools from playing a disproportionate number of home games, and getting an advantage in making the tournament.

Yes exactly

 

[MavHockey14]

I'm concerned about competitive fairness.

I believe its time for the RPI and Pairwise ratings to factor in where the game is played - with a "fair" (statistically neutralizing) adjustment for road/home/neutral ice.

This will be the only incentive to keep the Big Ten schools from playing a disproportionate number of home games, and getting an advantage in making the tournament.

This is a very good point that often gets overlooked in this mess of the B1G. I agree with Brent as well, it's just a complete mess for college hockey.

 

[geezer]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

Im sorry if i came off like a doughbag . look im not a fan of the big ten either but look at a school like BGSU. They adminstriteers have basically run that program into the ground. Do you honestly think that program wouldve survived 5 years from now?

they adminstriteers are doughbags.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

there programs shouldnt die just because they dont play those schools.

I notice you were unable to refute anything that I said.

Honey, let someone else at the group home have the computer now.

 

[goldy_331]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

Where is that Butthurt Hockey Conference thread again that Donald started? I think it needs to be brought back up to the top again.

 

[billmich88888]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

As I see it, the formation of the BTHC, allows "room for expansion" in both western conferences. As it stands right now, college hockey is `full" with little practical room for expansion(assuming max. conference size of 12 teams) so maybe Hockey east has 2 open slots..if they choose that route. After the formation of the BTHC, there will be theoritically 6 "open slotsK in the west. Whether or not those conferences choose to accept applicants is up to their members. The CCHA not accepting UAH recently, may be a bad omen for smaller schools trying to establish D-1 hockey programs, in my opinion...

Just my 2 cents worth

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

As I see it, the formation of the BTHC, allows "room for expansion" in both western conferences. As it stands right now, college hockey is `full" with little practical room for expansion(assuming max. conference size of 12 teams) so maybe Hockey east has 2 open slots..if they choose that route. After the formation of the BTHC, there will be theoritically 6 "open slotsK in the west. Whether or not those conferences choose to accept applicants is up to their members. The CCHA not accepting UAH recently, may be a bad omen for smaller schools trying to establish D-1 hockey programs, in my opinion...

Just my 2 cents worth

Well, now that Captain ********* is no longer the commissioner of the CCHA, perhaps UAH has a chance.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

As I see it, the formation of the BTHC, allows "room for expansion" in both western conferences. As it stands right now, college hockey is `full" with little practical room for expansion(assuming max. conference size of 12 teams) so maybe Hockey east has 2 open slots..if they choose that route. After the formation of the BTHC, there will be theoritically 6 "open slotsK in the west. Whether or not those conferences choose to accept applicants is up to their members. The CCHA not accepting UAH recently, may be a bad omen for smaller schools trying to establish D-1 hockey programs, in my opinion...

Just my 2 cents worth

That's the glass half full approach, and honestly what everyone hopes for. The other side is that the CCHA is decimated, leaving only a handful of programs. The WCHA is a shell of its former self, and DU, CC, UND, UNO, Miami and Notre Dame combine leaving the other programs left in the WCHA/CCHA in the dust. They combine to form a conference that is on par with Atlantic Hockey (no disrespect intended). The Big Ten stays at six teams, and no other growth is felt there. We're left with 45-50 programs, and a 12-team NCAA Tournament.

As I said, we all hope that the Big Ten spurs growth in all areas of college hockey, and it becomes a thriving sport generating plenty of $$. There are just plenty of us that are worried that it will have the opposite effect. At the end of the day, people don't like change, and this is a huge change. There is nothing we can do to stop it though, so we just hope for the best, and prepare and fear for the worst.

I don't blame the Big Ten, they are just sparking this change. They will be the scapegoat if things do not go well, and will probably get all too little credit if things are great. It is what it is.

 

[Flashy Man]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

So what's to stop the other 53 teams from lobbying to change the level to 8 teams to receive an auto bid?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

So what's to stop the other 53 teams from lobbying to change the level to 8 teams to receive an auto bid?

What will be interesting is if the BTHC doesn't get an exemption from the 3-year waiting period for the automatic bid. That being said, college hockey bent over backwards to get a 4-team CHA an auto-bid, so I can't see them trying to get in the BTHC's way on this.

 

[aparch]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

So what's to stop the other 53 teams from lobbying to change the level to 8 teams to receive an auto bid?

Basketball, football, and every other sports conference out there that has to follow the same "six or more" rule for an auto-bid? Or is that just a hockey only rule?

Well, now that Captain ********* is no longer the commissioner of the CCHA, perhaps UAH has a chance.

While I concur with your assessment of the former commish, unless a partner is found to admit along with UAH, I don't foresee the CCHA going to nine teams just for the sake of going to nine teams. Not unless there has been some financial stability guaranteed to the the league AND it's member institutions for the 2013-14 season when they begin play without the B1G schools. Three years without a $15,000 trip to Omaha, and a lot of these schools aren't going to be happy adding that $15k back into their expenses just for a weekend in Alabama.

I'd like to remind you that where the WCHA returns to it's member institutions a six figure check each year, the CCHA barely writes a six significant figure check to it's member institutions.

 

[gophfan]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

the CCHA teams can still do just fine.

 

[CLS]

Re: Big 10 a scapegoat?

What will be interesting is if the BTHC doesn't get an exemption from the 3-year waiting period for the automatic bid.

And it would be really interesting if none of them made it as at-large teams.

That being said, college hockey bent over backwards to get a 4-team CHA an auto-bid, so I can't see them trying to get in the BTHC's way on this.

Didn't the CHA have six when they got the autobid? And when they dropped below the six team guideline, they kept the autobid for one more year? If so, the "favor" the NCAA did for the CHA was to let them keep it when they weren't qualified rather than giving it to them in the first place.