Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table
I can add that there has been public discussion here in Nebraska in the press about the University of Nebraska adding lacrosse as a sport and even more talk about adding field hockey. Perhaps they are the "other" Big 10 team that is referred to in the link earlier in this thread although I rather doubt that. We have a brand new AD who has been interviewed ad nauseum here since he took the job here January 1, and he's said bupkis about any of this so far.
I've already outlined my case for why I think Nebraska is going to, at the very least, take a
serious look at D-1 hockey in the not too distant future in this thread:
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?102760-ACHA-D1-to-NCAA-D1
If the Huskers, who will be the best positioned school in the entire country in less than a year to actually do this if they want to, let alone in the Big 10, are, in fact, to become team #7 in the Big 10 hockey conference then I would think it could not be all that difficult to find one more school in the conference to jump on board in hockey. That school would have to address:
A. The need for the necessary facilities.
B. Fund the necessary scholarships and operating expenses.
C. Address the Title IX implications at their school caused by the addition of a men's hockey team, if any. I don't know the situation at the other Big 10 schools that don't already have men's hockey but I addressed this in some detail as far as Nebraska is concerned in the other thread.
If they can't, I would think the conference would be better off temporarily subsidizing the 8th school for a time, if needed, than it would be in allowing any affiliate schools. That would, I would think, be a whole lot more palatable than affiliates being added to the conference. I don't see the (financial) upside to adding affiliates in any sport for the Big 10 and I'd be utterly shocked if it happened. We are talking about the richest conference in the country that also has a goodly chunk of the largest schools in the country in it's conference as well as lot of the biggest athletic department budgets besides.
No offense to a fine institution like John's Hopkins, but the only thing that would drive their addition, it would appear, might be academic considerations, not really athletic ones. What do they really bring to the table for the Big 10, otherwise? John's Hopkins probably needs (wants?) the Big 10 more than the Big 10 needs John's Hopkins.
The Big Ten Sports Management Committee meetings upcoming in Chicago mentioned in the article link earlier in the thread would seem to me to probably have to have on it's discussion agenda something along the lines of "How do we get to eight teams in men's hockey?". This seems obvious because a 6 team conference really doesn't cut it. For starters, Big 10 college hockey conference teams will have to play a disproportionate number of out of conference games as opposed to every other conference. That would probably have Pairwise ramifications, that could be good or bad for them, I suppose, that affect them and no other conference as a result. At the beginning, too, this will be further watered down by having a brand new team as one of those 6 teams (Penn State), who is going to probably stink for a few years (sorry, Nittany Lion fans--you'll have a hard time duplicating this season's record next season). Looking at Minnesota's roster and the competition they'll see in their new conference next season, I have little reservation predicting they win the conference next season in a walk and will probably end up with a record that really overstates how good they are as a result of all this (despite the fact that I think they'll be pretty good, anyway).
6 teams are not gonna work, long-term. I don't see how the Big 10 can allow that to continue for any length of time at all. And I just don't believe there would be any real sentiment to resolve this issue using affiliates. Frankly, that'd be "beneath" them. At the very least, they
should feel that way. It'd be embarrassing for the conference to to do this, I would think. They only way I could see selling this would be from sort of benevolence/magnanimous standpoint, otherwise, if I am the commissioner of another conference, I am laughing at the "Big" 10 whenever this is ever announced.
