Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I like how your fantasy team sucks every year. You wanna tell me how to embed it? 'Cause if it takes more than 8 seconds to learn, I don't care.

Two clicks on the youtube page, ctrl-c, ctrl-v. It's really not that complicated.

 

[slowe]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Starting to feel like Kevin Bacon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro

Can you tell us what the problem is that's being ignored? The Big Ten has a conference with an autobid and non conference games that they will easily be able to fill. Some may choose to fill them with old rivals and others with new. They won't hurt to get games, so why bother to add an affiliate member when they've never had one in any sport before? Are you suggesting that getting non conference games will be such a hassle that the Big 10 will invite some small school to be an affiliate member for one sport just because it would make for less scheduling work?

I could see it for lacrosse, but still no one has answered why they would bother for hockey?

 

[Dirty]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I could see it for lacrosse, but still no one has answered why they would bother for hockey?

So Minnesota can't continue ducking UND.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Personally, 7 teams would be ideal: 24 conference games and 10 NC games. Enough NC games to feed existing rivalries and a perfectly balanced conference schedule. 6 would be my next choice. After that you need to get to 12 and have a schedule similar to the ECAC where everyone plays everyone else (4 against a rival) for 24 conference games.

Food for thought. In the usual case, having an odd number of teams is a negative. Every weekend at least one team has to play outside the conference or have a bye. But there isn't much "usual" about this case. The BTHC might be the one group of teams that wouldn't have any trouble finding non-conference competition week in and week out.

The six team set-up is less problematic than normal for the same reason. There are lots of potential nc match-ups that both sides will be willing to make sacrifices for.

All that said, eight teams works really well schedule-wise: 28 conference games, fully balanced schedule, two home and two away games against each opponent every year. Not sure why Stauber1 deleted his post; as a general rule what he said was correct.

 

[gopheritall]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

So Minnesota can't continue ducking UND.

Huh? How are we ducking UND? We just played them and have them on the schedule for the next 4 years. I'd love to have UND in the B1G but they're right, if the B1G had them in hockey they would also want football and basketball. Plus, as someone already pointed out UND wants to be an east coast team.

6 teams is good for now but expansion will come...

 

[Jim]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Hockey isn't enough of a money making sport to justify associating UND with the Big Ten brand.

My opinion is: if I wouldn't want the school added as a full member, I don't want the school added as an affiliate.

Warde Manuel, Director of Athletics, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, Unit 1173, Storrs, CT 06269 (860) 486-2725. email: athleticdirector@uconn.edu. He will come as a full member tomorrow.

 

[SCSU Euro]

Can you tell us what the problem is that's being ignored? The Big Ten has a conference with an autobid and non conference games that they will easily be able to fill. Some may choose to fill them with old rivals and others with new. They won't hurt to get games, so why bother to add an affiliate member when they've never had one in any sport before? Are you suggesting that getting non conference games will be such a hassle that the Big 10 will invite some small school to be an affiliate member for one sport just because it would make for less scheduling work?

I could see it for lacrosse, but still no one has answered why they would bother for hockey?

Um, I was saying that its fine at six and the wont add anyone. People asking "Who will they add? WHO will they ADD?!?" are the mob that runs over Kevin Bacon

 

[pinch]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

My guess is that if the B1G ever added affiliate members it would only be to reach the thresh hold of 6 teams ... not in an effort to just add schools to 6 or more B1G schools. So I don't see affiliate members being added to any sports with 6 or more B1G participants..... But I could see a sport with fewer than 6 adding several schools to go well beyond the 6 schools needed for a conference to create a premier B1G conference in a particular sport...ie lacrosse.
I see this as a probability--- the B1G wants to dominate all sports/ marketing, and this is how you do it

 

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Food for thought. In the usual case, having an odd number of teams is a negative. Every weekend at least one team has to play outside the conference or have a bye. But there isn't much "usual" about this case. The BTHC might be the one group of teams that wouldn't have any trouble finding non-conference competition week in and week out.

The six team set-up is less problematic than normal for the same reason. There are lots of potential nc match-ups that both sides will be willing to make sacrifices for.

All that said, eight teams works really well schedule-wise: 28 conference games, fully balanced schedule, two home and two away games against each opponent every year. Not sure why Stauber1 deleted his post; as a general rule what he said was correct.

With commitments Minnesota made to in-state schools (8 games), a 28 conference schedule is too large - I think current 28 WCHA games limits the number of OOC series too much. Doesn't OSU want to play their in-state teams every year? If so, with 28 conference games, that leaves only one more series to reach 34 games.

Next years B1G schedule with approximately 2/3 Conference and 1/3 OOC seems ideal.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

With commitments Minnesota made to in-state schools (8 games), a 28 conference schedule is too large - I think current 28 WCHA games limits the number of OOC series too much. Doesn't OSU want to play their in-state teams every year? If so, with 28 conference games, that leaves only one more series to reach 34 games.

Of course I want OSU to maintain ties with Miami & BG. Preferably each series would be played on a home and home basis, so each team would come to Columbus for a game every season. But if it needs to be a two game set every other year, that's fine too. And granted, 28 + 2 + 2 = 32; not much wiggle room for other non-conference play. So either the six team format, or Almington's 7 team idea, does have that selling point.

Next years B1G schedule with approximately 2/3 Conference and 1/3 OOC seems ideal.

Which does seem to fit the exact situation that Minnesota currently finds itself in. And yet, it's best not have amnesia with regard to all other variables. There is relevant evidence on this question. A sampling:

1. Many will be too young to have first hand memories of this, but the WCHA was a 6 team league for a while during the '80s. It was comprised of MN/WI/UMD/ND/CC/DU. Those teams couldn't run away from that size fast enough. They even set up an interlocking schedule with Hockey East to get away from the problem of having too many games against too few teams.

2. The desire for 8 in-state, non-conference games per year is probably unique in all of college hockey. In the long run, I've got to wonder if the Gophers aren't going get a little sick of it. First you'll have what promises to be a very challenging 20 game BTHC schedule. Then add 8 more games against teams that are all wildly fired up to play you, and all think of you as their biggest rival. And of course you'll want to squeeze in North Dakota somehow; that's the one "local" series where you actually have the same level of passion that the opponent has. Then there will be the temptation to play Eastern powers, both for pairwise purposes and to best prepare for the NCAA tournament. Bottom line? Six non-conference games may not be enough, but 14 may quickly prove to be too many.

3. I know you're knowledgable about the Women's WCHA as you post on the Women's Board as well. The Women's WCHA is just one of several examples of how well the schedule works for an 8 team league. Earlier in its history, the Men's WCHA also played with 8 teams. A fully balanced schedule has multiple selling points, not the least of which is that it's the fairest way to determine the regular season champ. Over the course of time, being short a couple of non-conference games has been seen as a reasonable price to pay for that balance. Of course if you grow to 10 or 12 teams, the fully balanced schedule usually isn't an option. But again over the course of time, that's been seen a significant drawback -- forcing a conference to choose among the lesser of evils when setting up its schedule.

FWIW.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

1. Many will be too young to have first hand memories of this, but the WCHA was a 6 team league for a while during the '80s. It was comprised of MN/WI/UMD/ND/CC/DU. Those teams couldn't run away from that size fast enough. They even set up an interlocking schedule with Hockey East to get away from the problem of having too many games against too few teams.

The WCHA was a six team league from 1981-1983.

The Interlocking schedule with Hockey East came after Tech & Northern came on board in 1984.

From 1984 to 1989, the established yet depleted WCHA and newly formed Hockey East played an interlocking schedule in which games against teams from both leagues counted in the standings.

It was designed in part to give each side a boost. Most of the founding of Hockey East had just split off from the ECAC, while the WCHA was just three years removed from losing Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame and Michigan Tech to the CCHA (although Michigan Tech and Northern Michigan were part of the WCHA by the time the interlock started).

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2012/03/21/bra...een-ncaa-first-round-opponents/#ixzz2K44KFOru

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Appreciate the link, dggoddard. Note that the six team WCHA is described as "depleted" and needing "a boost."

Also note that in recent years small leagues like the CHA have needed to grow, or they perish. Part of that, of course, is the need to gain or retain an autobid to the NCAA tournament. With six, you're OK on that front. But let's not completely ignore the potential problems that can arise when a league is too small.

 

[Almington]

Appreciate the link, dggoddard. Note that the six team WCHA is described as "depleted" and needing "a boost."

Also note that in recent years small leagues like the CHA have needed to grow, or they perish. Part of that, of course, is the need to gain or retain an autobid to the NCAA tournament. With six, you're OK on that front. But let's not completely ignore the potential problems that can arise when a league is too small.

I think that the Big Ten has more stability than the CHA or WCHA had.

It's hard to have a balanced conference schedule and enough conference games with the NCAAs game limits with more than 6 or 7 teams.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I think that the Big Ten has more stability than the CHA or WCHA had.

It's hard to have a balanced conference schedule and enough conference games with the NCAAs game limits with more than 6 or 7 teams.

I agree with both these points. And because BT teams should have a relatively easy time booking games outside the conference, I believe your seven team plan is viable. (So go ahead, Illinois -- take the plunge!)

But I also think that Minnesota is the only team in D-1 that really needs 14 non-conference games to create a satisfactory schedule, and that even the Gophers may change their thinking after trying it out for a few years.

 

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I agree with both these points. And because BT teams should have a relatively easy time booking games outside the conference, I believe your seven team plan is viable. (So go ahead, Illinois -- take the plunge!)

But I also think that Minnesota is the only team in D-1 that really needs 14 non-conference games to create a satisfactory schedule, and that even the Gophers may change their thinking after trying it out for a few years.

I think that with the NCAA 34 game limit, 24 to 26 conference games is perfect, that leaves 8-10 NC games which should allow for a good cross-section of NC games without to much fluff and filler. It seems that UW has done a decent job of finding 8 quality NC games (BU/BC, DU/CC, UND) to fill the drop in NC games with the other 6 being very similar to what the NC games are currently for UW to get the 3 of home dates that they want.

While an odd number of teams is a pain scheduling wise, if due to BTN scheduling needs conference games go from being a Fri-Sat series to being more one off games Monday, Wed, Friday, or Sunday (to avoid going H2H with BB nights) I see having one team not playing each night as being much less of an issue. 7 teams becomes a much greater issue with playoff scheduling (& seed is dropped, a play-in game between 6 and 7, or the 1 seed gets a first round bye) but nothing that can't be fixed. I do recognize that having 8 teams is ideal from a playoff perspective.

 

[mnpokecheck]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

1. Many will be too young to have first hand memories of this, but the WCHA was a 6 team league for a while during the '80s. It was comprised of MN/WI/UMD/ND/CC/DU. Those teams couldn't run away from that size fast enough. They even set up an interlocking schedule with Hockey East to get away from the problem of having too many games against too few teams.

Part of that I believe was also that 3 Michigan teams moved to the CCHA and left a scheduling void. Difference now is that Bemidji, Mankato, St Cloud exist and along with UMD can fill that void. Also the former WCHA teams - CC, Denver, MTech, AA and UNO will want to keep the rivalries alive as well. I expect situation is similar for UMich, MSU and OSU with their former CCHA teams.

One advantage to having 8 teams in the B1G conference is getting more teams into the tourney. But I think a good OOC schedule can make up for that in a 6 team league.

2. The desire for 8 in-state, non-conference games per year is probably unique in all of college hockey. In the long run, I've got to wonder if the Gophers aren't going get a little sick of it. First you'll have what promises to be a very challenging 20 game BTHC schedule. Then add 8 more games against teams that are all wildly fired up to play you, and all think of you as their biggest rival. And of course you'll want to squeeze in North Dakota somehow; that's the one "local" series where you actually have the same level of passion that the opponent has. Then there will be the temptation to play Eastern powers, both for pairwise purposes and to best prepare for the NCAA tournament. Bottom line? Six non-conference games may not be enough, but 14 may quickly prove to be too many.

Agree to all of that. The 8 in-state games is a combination of what is good for the State of Minnesota hockey and I'm sure politics are involved as well. These 8 games tie MN hands a bit, but I agree it is important to support these teams. Bemidji went thru hoops to join the other Minnesota teams in the WCHA and get a rink built....they put in their ante and all of sudden the table was closed. UMD built a arena recently and St Cloud's arena is being overhauled currently.

3. I know you're knowledgable about the Women's WCHA as you post on the Women's Board as well. The Women's WCHA is just one of several examples of how well the schedule works for an 8 team league..

I think MN Women's WCHA situation is potentially in the same spot as the men's in say 5-10 years - add 2 B1G teams, say...Michigan and Michigan State add womens hockey - MN would be asked to schedule the other Minnesota state womens teams and UND.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Appreciate the link, dggoddard. Note that the six team WCHA is described as "depleted" and needing "a boost."

With all due respect to Todd Milewski (who was probably in grammar school at the time ), the WCHA was thriving during that period. In '79, '80 and '81 three different teams from the WCHA won National Championships. The league then shrunk to 6 teams. North Dakota won the championship in '82, against another WCHA team (Wisconsin). Wisconsin won it in '83 (the second year of being a 6 team league), and UMD was a 4OT goal away in '84 from making it 6 straight for WCHA teams. It should be noted that like the '82 Frozen Four, both the '83 and '84 Frozen Fours boasted two WCHA teams. During that 3 season run as a 6 team league, 4 different teams made Frozen Four appearances and 3 made championship game appearances.

A six team league is capable of thriving quite nicely.

As for the interlocking schedule, I've always believed it was that decision that ushered in the modern era of college hockey that we have today, with more parity. Contrary to "boosting" the WCHA, it had the effect of chipping away at the dominance over college hockey held by teams in that conference.

Following the '83 championship won by Wisconsin, WCHA teams had won 29 National Championships. The rest of college hockey, just 7. And Cornell had 3 of those, BU 2. The opportunity to play a wider variety of teams, coupled with the recent moves of Michigan and Michigan St. to the CCHA, "spread the wealth" so to speak in college hockey.

That's why I think the net effect of adding an additional hockey conference next season, with a broader array of out of conference games to choose from, will only further enhance that parity, rather than usher in a period of BTHC dominance as some fear.

 

[pgb-ohio]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Part of that I believe was also that 3 Michigan teams moved to the CCHA and left a scheduling void. Difference now is that Bemidji, Mankato, St Cloud exist and along with UMD can fill that void. Also the former WCHA teams - CC, Denver, MTech, AA and UNO will want to keep the rivalries alive as well. I expect situation is similar for UMich, MSU and OSU with their former CCHA teams.

One advantage to having 8 teams in the B1G conference is getting more teams into the tourney. But I think a good OOC schedule can make up for that in a 6 team league.

Agreed; opportunities for desirable and convenient non-conference play will be much greater than they were for the 1980's WCHA. For that reason the smallish size of the new BTHC is indeed less problematic. The new league won't have to resort to scheduling six regular season games per conference foe -- which did happen back in the 1980's for those WCHA teams.

With all due respect to Todd Milewski (who was probably in grammar school at the time ), the WCHA was thriving during that period. In '79, '80 and '81 three different teams from the WCHA won National Championships. The league then shrunk to 6 teams. North Dakota won the championship in '82, against another WCHA team (Wisconsin). Wisconsin won it in '83 (the second year of being a 6 team league), and UMD was a 4OT goal away in '84 from making it 6 straight for WCHA teams. It should be noted that like the '82 Frozen Four, both the '83 and '84 Frozen Fours boasted two WCHA teams. During that 3 season run as a 6 team league, 4 different teams made Frozen Four appearances and 3 made championship game appearances.

A six team league is capable of thriving quite nicely.

Your history is accurate and your point is well taken. Still, even with all that success, that WCHA was eager to grow the number of conference opponents -- first through the interlocking schedule and then through expansion. Could be the long term health of the league was the priority, as opposed to on-ice success in the short term.

 

[MGoBlueHockey]

Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

I wouldn't be surprised also to see UConn added as a full member eventually. Would bring a hockey program, too.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

I wouldn't be surprised also to see UConn added as a full member eventually. Would bring a hockey program, too.

U Conn makes more sense than freaking North Carolina....