Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

[bigmrg74]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

1) They should do more recruiting of schools. Perhaps one of the functions of the newly-formed College Hockey, Inc. should be recruiting other schools to look at hockey as a revenue-producing business case. It will be hard with Title IX of course, but eventually, ADs are going to want sports that can generate some money when properly built. The business case for a hockey at a big school is that a $20-50 million investment in on-campus hockey program can be paid off in 10-15 years or so (or less in a retrofit). Right now, however, it's a tough sell. Lacrosse is likely a cheaper option that can generate revenue for schools looking to add a contact sport.

2) I am all for adding more Big 10, SEC, PAC-10 or other BCS schools to college hockey so that we could someday get to 70-100 teams and create a more national game, with a less fragile center of gravity. I just don't want to see the WCHA relegated to a mid major league in that scenario. What college hockey doesn't need are more schools that aren't willing to really fund the programs to be truly competitive (Wayne State, Findlay, etc.).

Personally, I think what College Hockey, Inc should talk to some of the booster clubs out there and yoke their combined strength in getting more schools to add hockey. Say that they hold talks between all of the current school booster clubs and with the Colorado State group thats trying to get D1 Hockey going at their school. Say that CH Inc can get somewhere between 0.5% to 1.0% of what those booster clubs would normally raise for their own clubs and then give it to CSU as an endowment to be spent on Men's and Women's Hockey together, that would end up be a good chunk of change to further the goal of another school at where once added, hockey would quickly become sustainable. In the future, they could look at other schools where the same gift would go a long ways of helping to grow College Hockey.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I would imagine so. Or you could assign points to individual games, so you could weigh them (a la the way that the Wisconsin-Minnesota Border Battle points are allocated).

Well, it all depends on how the WCHA schedule gets reduced, too. If UW and MN are playing 4 WCHA games, then yes, double count. If they're only playing 2, then schedule another series.

You'd also have home and away considerations. With 5 teams, you'd want to face two at home and two away. So, if UW and MN are playing 4 times a season in the reduced WCHA, let's say they're also playing at Michigan, at Michigan State, and hosting OSU. Thus, you'd want to count the home series against the Gophers as part of the BTC standings so UW gets 2 home series and 2 road series. The other would just be a regular WCHA series.

The chances for double-counting would be better if the larger conference (i.e the 12 team WCHA) had 3 BT schools instead of 2, but I think we'd all like to see the CCHA be philanthropic and get to 12 teams, too.

 

[Clifton]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Just a hunch, but I see the "Big Ten" schedule involving one home and one road game against each school (yes, that will involve Wisconsin and Minnesota making a single game trip to Columbus), with most of the other series going along the lines of the Showcase format (one game in Madison, then one in Minneapolis, same for Ann Arbor and East Lansing). If individual schools are playing each other four times in a year, they'll just designate two of the games as "Big Ten games" in advance.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Just a hunch, but I see the "Big Ten" schedule involving one home and one road game against each school (yes, that will involve Wisconsin and Minnesota making a single game trip to Columbus), with most of the other series going along the lines of the Showcase format (one game in Madison, then one in Minneapolis, same for Ann Arbor and East Lansing). If individual schools are playing each other four times in a year, they'll just designate two of the games as "Big Ten games" in advance.

I think that's the best option if the WCHA and CCHA seasons remain at 28 games.

In that case, Minnesota and Wisconsin could pair up for a showcase-like travel partner weekend and tack, say, Miami onto the schedule for a single OOC game each.

Either way, I wasn't anticipating a full 4 games against each BT team - just a regular 2 game series. But that kind of arrangement would require a reduction in the length of the conference seasons.

 

[ansinator]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Just to throw a wrench in the works here:

Alvarez: Big Ten to Push for 12th Team

A couple of names being thrown around the message boards that could affect hockey are Notre Dame and Boston College. Either of those would give the Big Ten 6 D-1 teams and an auto-bid if they wanted to create a true BTHC.

 

[Patman]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Just to throw a wrench in the works here:

Alvarez: Big Ten to Push for 12th Team

A couple of names being thrown around the message boards that could affect hockey are Notre Dame and Boston College. Either of those would give the Big Ten 6 D-1 teams and an auto-bid if they wanted to create a true BTHC.

just because somebody on the internet says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it.

 

[ansinator]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

just because somebody on the internet says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it.

I'm sorry I thought this was a forum for discussing college hockey and this thread specifically for discussing a Big Ten Hockey Conference; how silly of me.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Just to throw a wrench in the works here:

Alvarez: Big Ten to Push for 12th Team

A couple of names being thrown around the message boards that could affect hockey are Notre Dame and Boston College. Either of those would give the Big Ten 6 D-1 teams and an auto-bid if they wanted to create a true BTHC.

There's no way BC would want to play against the big11 teams and lose all the time. Not to mention the long bus rides.

 

[ansinator]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

There's no way BC would want to play against the big11 teams and lose all the time. Not to mention the long bus rides.

I don't really think either team is going to join, if they are even approached. Notre Dame already said no once and BC is too far east. Though it would be interesting to see what happened if BC did join and then was forced to leave Hockey East for a BTHC.

 

[Larch]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I don't really think either team is going to join, if they are even approached. Notre Dame already said no once and BC is too far east. Though it would be interesting to see what happened if BC did join and then was forced to leave Hockey East for a BTHC.

Actually, I think that would work better to stay away from a BTHC if it were BC. No way would they want to leave Hockey East. You'd have Minnesota, Michigan State (apparently) and BC all saying no to a BTHC.

I'm not sure why, but I'd bet money that it will be Iowa State that ends up joining the Big 12 squared. IF anybody does indeed join.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Actually, I think that would work better to stay away from a BTHC if it were BC. No way would they want to leave Hockey East. You'd have Minnesota, Michigan State (apparently) and BC all saying no to a BTHC.

I'm not sure why, but I'd bet money that it will be Iowa State that ends up joining the Big 12 squared. IF anybody does indeed join.

Why would the Big Ten want Iowa State? They add a crappy football team with an equally crappy basketball team, add nothing in terms of media markets, and would probably be the worst academic school in the conference.

Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Mizzou would all happen well before that.

BC is just crazy talk.

 

[Patman]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I'm sorry I thought this was a forum for discussing college hockey and this thread specifically for discussing a Big Ten Hockey Conference; how silly of me.

nothing wrong with the news article... i saw a similar article with somebody saying "BC it'd make sense so there can be a BigTen hockey league" in the comments.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

[Iowa State]...would probably be the worst academic school in the conference.

sparty won't give up that title without a fight.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Boston College? Are you ****ing serious? I don't even know how to respond to that.

Edit: Oh wait, I do.

College Hockey 4
BTHC 1

 

[kdilks]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I believe there's something in the Big Ten bylaws which says any expansion would have to be into a state that's either currently has a Big Ten team, or is adjacent to one. BC does not qualify, and doesn't even remotely have enough appeal to make schools want to override it.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I believe there's something in the Big Ten bylaws which says any expansion would have to be into a state that's either currently has a Big Ten team, or is adjacent to one. BC does not qualify, and doesn't even remotely have enough appeal to make schools want to override it.

This is true, but bylaws can easily be changed. If they have the votes to extend an offer of membership, they have the votes to change the bylaws.

 

[Beer Pong Horn]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

This is true, but bylaws can easily be changed. If they have the votes to extend an offer of membership, they have the votes to change the bylaws.

...but not for Boston College or Rutgers. Missou seems unlikely too, and Pitt isn't big enough.

EDIT: Derr, no bylaws changes necessary for everyone but BC. I still don't think any of them will get in though.

 

[kdilks]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

This is true, but bylaws can easily be changed. If they have the votes to extend an offer of membership, they have the votes to change the bylaws.

I believe there's something in the Big Ten bylaws which says any expansion would have to be into a state that's either currently has a Big Ten team, or is adjacent to one. BC does not qualify, and doesn't even remotely have enough appeal to make schools want to override it.

.

 

[CHFAN222]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Rutgers is probably the school they would go with. The school has shown a commitment to football with the recent $100 million expansion of the stadium. Rutgers would make for a better rival of Penn State than Mich State. Plus its Women's bball team would strengthen that league and the mens team would be no pushover either. The biggest thing though would be the addition of the NY/NJ market helping out the Big 10 channel.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

No argument from me about BC - that will never happen. All I'm saying is that the bylaw argument doesn't mean anything.