USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
- Thread starter GB Puck Fan
- Start date
UMICHhockeyRULZ
A guy who loves Blue Ice...
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I wouldn't be so sure about it if I were you. This years U$C isn't your Father's U$C. That being said I think U$C will win but I'm just sayin'...
BC is gonna get to lose to USC this year anyway and they don't have to change conferences to do it.
I wouldn't be so sure about it if I were you. This years U$C isn't your Father's U$C. That being said I think U$C will win but I'm just sayin'...
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
you never know.... OJ is in lock-up and won't be available for a pre-game pep talk.
BC is gonna get to lose to USC this year anyway and they don't have to change conferences to do it.
you never know.... OJ is in lock-up and won't be available for a pre-game pep talk.
UMICHhockeyRULZ
A guy who loves Blue Ice...
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
You just gave me a funny image. That of the entire U$C football team going to the prison and huddleing up next to the security glass to listen to OJ.
you never know.... OJ is in lock-up and won't be available for a pre-game pep talk.
You just gave me a funny image. That of the entire U$C football team going to the prison and huddleing up next to the security glass to listen to OJ.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I have some comments on the proposed idea about adding a Big Ten Hockey Coference.
1. In my opinion, the Big Ten Hockey Conference would need at least 8 teams to have a legit conference. If you have only 6 teams, then you are forcing them to either schedule a lot of out of conference games or to play each other more than 4 times a year. I think if you had an intial 8 team conference, then you could play each team 4 times for 28 conference games and then play the rest out of conference against previous rivals from the WCHA and elsewhere.
2. The problem in NCAA Hockey is the lack of division 2 hockey and the fact several non D1 schools play D1 hockey. A Division 1 school generally has more money to spend than a D2 or D3 school.
3. Geography is very important, as the smaller schools don't have the resources to fly to all their opponents, and generally travel by bus. The closer they are together, the less time them spend on the road traveling between opponents.
Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Air Force, Alaska Anchorage and Alaska Fairbanks all have this problem since they are located in isolated areas and have to travel a long way to play opponents.
4. If Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the WCHA to help form a new conference in the Big Ten, who will replace them in the WCHA?
5. In order for more schools to add college hockey, you need a larger talent pool and a bigger geographic region. The eastern schools already compete with the WCHA for the midwest kids, and recruit many of the top North East prsopects, so where will a new team recruit? Canada?
The Western states are the most likely to add a hockey program, perhaps Washington and Oregon? Combined with Iowa, Missiouri, Illinois and Penn State, you could add a few serious teams.
6. Minnesota Duluth has a very dominant Womens team, if you take Ohio state, Minnesota and Wisconsin out of the WCHA, that leave only North Dakota as a serious rival. You would be setting up the UMD womens team to run away with the coference year after year, which they already do anyways.
If you have a giant Big Ten conference, then its going to be placing all the top D1 schools in a giant conference, where they would have tons of talent and tons of money, as players will abandon the smaller schools to join the Big Ten. Can a conference full of primarily D2 schools compete with a conference full of D1 level schools?
Division 1 Hockey would then likely break up into the Big Ten Conference and an Eastern Conference with all the top teams in 2 groups, and the remaining conferences fielding all the second tier schools. The conference system works the way it is right now, because every conference (especially the WCHA) is a mix of big schools and small schools, the big schools provide the publicity and economic growth needed to sustain the various conferences. It prevents the big money schools from driving all the smaller ones into the ground.
7. The NCAA needs to rethink the cutting of Division 2 hockey, as every school is either Divion 1 or Divison 3 right now. If you added back D2 hockey, you could slowly grow those teams into D1 level and increase the playing field.
8. I think the NCAA should make all conferences 10 team conferences, forcing some breakups and realingment. Having 8 conferences of 8 or 10 teams each would be a tremendus boost for the growth of the sport.
For the Big Ten, I would use Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois and either a future conference addition, Northwestern, Perdue or Indiana.
I have some comments on the proposed idea about adding a Big Ten Hockey Coference.
1. In my opinion, the Big Ten Hockey Conference would need at least 8 teams to have a legit conference. If you have only 6 teams, then you are forcing them to either schedule a lot of out of conference games or to play each other more than 4 times a year. I think if you had an intial 8 team conference, then you could play each team 4 times for 28 conference games and then play the rest out of conference against previous rivals from the WCHA and elsewhere.
2. The problem in NCAA Hockey is the lack of division 2 hockey and the fact several non D1 schools play D1 hockey. A Division 1 school generally has more money to spend than a D2 or D3 school.
3. Geography is very important, as the smaller schools don't have the resources to fly to all their opponents, and generally travel by bus. The closer they are together, the less time them spend on the road traveling between opponents.
Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Air Force, Alaska Anchorage and Alaska Fairbanks all have this problem since they are located in isolated areas and have to travel a long way to play opponents.
4. If Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the WCHA to help form a new conference in the Big Ten, who will replace them in the WCHA?
5. In order for more schools to add college hockey, you need a larger talent pool and a bigger geographic region. The eastern schools already compete with the WCHA for the midwest kids, and recruit many of the top North East prsopects, so where will a new team recruit? Canada?
The Western states are the most likely to add a hockey program, perhaps Washington and Oregon? Combined with Iowa, Missiouri, Illinois and Penn State, you could add a few serious teams.
6. Minnesota Duluth has a very dominant Womens team, if you take Ohio state, Minnesota and Wisconsin out of the WCHA, that leave only North Dakota as a serious rival. You would be setting up the UMD womens team to run away with the coference year after year, which they already do anyways.
If you have a giant Big Ten conference, then its going to be placing all the top D1 schools in a giant conference, where they would have tons of talent and tons of money, as players will abandon the smaller schools to join the Big Ten. Can a conference full of primarily D2 schools compete with a conference full of D1 level schools?
Division 1 Hockey would then likely break up into the Big Ten Conference and an Eastern Conference with all the top teams in 2 groups, and the remaining conferences fielding all the second tier schools. The conference system works the way it is right now, because every conference (especially the WCHA) is a mix of big schools and small schools, the big schools provide the publicity and economic growth needed to sustain the various conferences. It prevents the big money schools from driving all the smaller ones into the ground.
7. The NCAA needs to rethink the cutting of Division 2 hockey, as every school is either Divion 1 or Divison 3 right now. If you added back D2 hockey, you could slowly grow those teams into D1 level and increase the playing field.
8. I think the NCAA should make all conferences 10 team conferences, forcing some breakups and realingment. Having 8 conferences of 8 or 10 teams each would be a tremendus boost for the growth of the sport.
For the Big Ten, I would use Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois and either a future conference addition, Northwestern, Perdue or Indiana.
Last edited:
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
The BTHC issue has evolved a little with the help of any possibility of Big Ten expansion. I would like to see Mizzou get an invite, they fit geographically and their sports couldn't hurt the conference. As far as hockey is concerned (at the club level) they are big rivals to Iowa and possibly more with some other BT clubs. But there are many variables that need to be worked out at least there is some discussion.
The BTHC issue has evolved a little with the help of any possibility of Big Ten expansion. I would like to see Mizzou get an invite, they fit geographically and their sports couldn't hurt the conference. As far as hockey is concerned (at the club level) they are big rivals to Iowa and possibly more with some other BT clubs. But there are many variables that need to be worked out at least there is some discussion.
Last edited:
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I think Mizzou will stay where they are, as there is no real incentive to leave. Geographically, Missouri is right in the heart of Big 12 territory, so travel expense are rarther light, with the only big trek being the one down to Texas. Were they to move to the Big Ten, the travel costs would be a lot higher. Football wise, Missouri benefits from being in the Big 12 North, though I admit they could also do ok in the Big Ten at the moment given its lackluster bowl records as of late.
Additionally, if Missour joined the Big Ten, the Big 12 would then be a team short, causing them all sorts of trouble unless they had a replacement member lined up.
Hockey is not the only Big Ten Sport that would be factored in, you have to factor in Football and Basketball at the very least. I would look at Miami of Ohio, Cincinatti and Pittsburg as possible Big Ten additions, but not a team thats firmly entrenched in a big name conference. While the Big East is a BCS conference, its not as big as the other major conferences and has already experienced a lot of member changes over the last 10 years, so one more defection would not be that big of a deal.
The goal of any Division 1 expansion or realignment should be to enhance the quality of the sport and maximize the competitive abilities of each conference, but avoid creating 1 or 2 all powerful conferences.
Right now, the WCHA and the ECHA are probably the top two conferences, hence why most of the frozen four teams tend to come from those two conferences. Rmember the other year when we had 4 WCHA teams in the Frozen Four? The CCHA with Michigan, Michigan State and the like is a close 3rd, but the other two are the top conferences.
Creating a Big Ten conference just takes the top WCHA and CCHA teams and puts them in a new conference. Granted the WCHA would still have UND and Denver, but the other teams would be less solid. The CCHA would have Miamo (OH) and Notre Dame, but then like the WCHA, a bunch of no names.
Furthermore, if you realign Mens hockey, you would have to realign the womens conferences as well, and womens hockey does not have the same number of teams. Schools would have to add teams in order to prevent conferences from becoming to unstable, to small or to powerful of weak. 4 WCHA schools are currently mens only, so taking out Ohio State, Minnesota and Wisconsin leaves 5 womens teams, not enough for a conference. Nebraska Omaha is currently mens only I think, so future expansion would be a must.
The University of Minnesota Duluth womens team makes the playoffs almost every year, and has been to the title game numerous times, winning it on multiple occasions. Heck, they have even played fellow WCHA rival Wisconsin in the tital game more than once. ALL Division 1 champions for womens hockey have been from the WCHA, so the other conferences are a non factor.
I think Mizzou will stay where they are, as there is no real incentive to leave. Geographically, Missouri is right in the heart of Big 12 territory, so travel expense are rarther light, with the only big trek being the one down to Texas. Were they to move to the Big Ten, the travel costs would be a lot higher. Football wise, Missouri benefits from being in the Big 12 North, though I admit they could also do ok in the Big Ten at the moment given its lackluster bowl records as of late.
Additionally, if Missour joined the Big Ten, the Big 12 would then be a team short, causing them all sorts of trouble unless they had a replacement member lined up.
Hockey is not the only Big Ten Sport that would be factored in, you have to factor in Football and Basketball at the very least. I would look at Miami of Ohio, Cincinatti and Pittsburg as possible Big Ten additions, but not a team thats firmly entrenched in a big name conference. While the Big East is a BCS conference, its not as big as the other major conferences and has already experienced a lot of member changes over the last 10 years, so one more defection would not be that big of a deal.
The goal of any Division 1 expansion or realignment should be to enhance the quality of the sport and maximize the competitive abilities of each conference, but avoid creating 1 or 2 all powerful conferences.
Right now, the WCHA and the ECHA are probably the top two conferences, hence why most of the frozen four teams tend to come from those two conferences. Rmember the other year when we had 4 WCHA teams in the Frozen Four? The CCHA with Michigan, Michigan State and the like is a close 3rd, but the other two are the top conferences.
Creating a Big Ten conference just takes the top WCHA and CCHA teams and puts them in a new conference. Granted the WCHA would still have UND and Denver, but the other teams would be less solid. The CCHA would have Miamo (OH) and Notre Dame, but then like the WCHA, a bunch of no names.
Furthermore, if you realign Mens hockey, you would have to realign the womens conferences as well, and womens hockey does not have the same number of teams. Schools would have to add teams in order to prevent conferences from becoming to unstable, to small or to powerful of weak. 4 WCHA schools are currently mens only, so taking out Ohio State, Minnesota and Wisconsin leaves 5 womens teams, not enough for a conference. Nebraska Omaha is currently mens only I think, so future expansion would be a must.
The University of Minnesota Duluth womens team makes the playoffs almost every year, and has been to the title game numerous times, winning it on multiple occasions. Heck, they have even played fellow WCHA rival Wisconsin in the tital game more than once. ALL Division 1 champions for womens hockey have been from the WCHA, so the other conferences are a non factor.
Last edited:
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I am dumber now for trying to read through that...
wsummers
Section T since 1978
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Let's see...during the last three years there have been 3 Hockey East and 3 CCHA teams in the finals...None from the WCHA or ECAC...I have no idea what the ECHA has to to with this. But this is really totally irrelevant....
The only chance for a separate Big Ten hockey conference is if Notre Dame chooses to join the Big Ten. And even then it's unlikely unless there is a 7th team, which doesn't seem likely.
Let's see...during the last three years there have been 3 Hockey East and 3 CCHA teams in the finals...None from the WCHA or ECAC...I have no idea what the ECHA has to to with this. But this is really totally irrelevant....
The only chance for a separate Big Ten hockey conference is if Notre Dame chooses to join the Big Ten. And even then it's unlikely unless there is a 7th team, which doesn't seem likely.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Note: http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/2009-10-Hockey-on-the-Big-Ten-Network.asp
Notice that their games televised will be in High Def.
Also will be doing postgame, pregame and intermission show.
Step one is to get hockey on BTN regularly. Done.
Like it or not, BTHC is a done deal. I realize Maturi "said no", but realistically the Univ. of Minn. gets more benefits in one day from being a member of the Big Ten than a member of the WCHA for the entire decade. There is no way the Chancellor of Minnesota doesn't tell him to shut up and play OSU, MSU, and UM every year. Alvarez painted him into a corner by dropping the Big Ten College Showcase and scheduling OSU instead. I'm still predicting next year, but may be 2011-2012.
Note: http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/2009-10-Hockey-on-the-Big-Ten-Network.asp
Notice that their games televised will be in High Def.
Also will be doing postgame, pregame and intermission show.
Step one is to get hockey on BTN regularly. Done.
Like it or not, BTHC is a done deal. I realize Maturi "said no", but realistically the Univ. of Minn. gets more benefits in one day from being a member of the Big Ten than a member of the WCHA for the entire decade. There is no way the Chancellor of Minnesota doesn't tell him to shut up and play OSU, MSU, and UM every year. Alvarez painted him into a corner by dropping the Big Ten College Showcase and scheduling OSU instead. I'm still predicting next year, but may be 2011-2012.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
The BTHC is not a done deal. Do you have any evidence?
The BTHC is not a done deal. Do you have any evidence?
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
BTHC SCENARIO NO. ELVENTYTHOUSANDFOURTEEN:
1) Pitt joins B10
2) On an unrelated note, Penn State decides to move hockey to a varsity level.
3) Illinois decides it's time for them to move up too.
The conference begins with seven teams.
4) Iowa says "hey, it's time for us to go to."
By now, there will be 8 teams in the BTHC
5) Pitt and N'Western start teams. (btw, they will play at the Pens and Blackhawks arenas)
6) The Indiana teams say "dat darn hockey is for dem nawtherners"
7) Three years later, Indiana teams add hockey.
*Oh, and this will all happen in the next 12 years
BTHC SCENARIO NO. ELVENTYTHOUSANDFOURTEEN:
1) Pitt joins B10
2) On an unrelated note, Penn State decides to move hockey to a varsity level.
3) Illinois decides it's time for them to move up too.
The conference begins with seven teams.
4) Iowa says "hey, it's time for us to go to."
By now, there will be 8 teams in the BTHC
5) Pitt and N'Western start teams. (btw, they will play at the Pens and Blackhawks arenas)
6) The Indiana teams say "dat darn hockey is for dem nawtherners"
7) Three years later, Indiana teams add hockey.
*Oh, and this will all happen in the next 12 years
Last edited:
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
How is "Step One" even close to done?
8 games is "on BTN regularly"? With the first one 3.5 months AFTER the season started. And not televising the CHS which features Big Ten teams...
How is "Step One" even close to done?
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I have no evidence except 25 years of experience following big ten sports. There is money to made, which is what drives a huge percentage of all college athletics. There is absolutely no chance that any of the schools will refuse to participate. Membership in the B10 brings hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to each school, sports wise and academically. That trumps just about any argument. Besides, it is really the only way to grow hockey revenue at B10 schools like UW and Minnesota. The way the B10 works is that things are discussed, for the most part decided, and then the details are really worked out while the decisions are slowly leaked out publically.
As for the CHS, its done. UW pulled out to play Ohio State.
Agreed, 8 or 9 games is not the ultimate in hockey packages. But you wouldn't develop a pregame, postgame and intermission show unless you are signalling the commitment is there.
I understand why people are threatened by this, but IMHO you needn't be. This is exactly what college hockey needs to do to.
I have no evidence except 25 years of experience following big ten sports. There is money to made, which is what drives a huge percentage of all college athletics. There is absolutely no chance that any of the schools will refuse to participate. Membership in the B10 brings hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to each school, sports wise and academically. That trumps just about any argument. Besides, it is really the only way to grow hockey revenue at B10 schools like UW and Minnesota. The way the B10 works is that things are discussed, for the most part decided, and then the details are really worked out while the decisions are slowly leaked out publically.
As for the CHS, its done. UW pulled out to play Ohio State.
Agreed, 8 or 9 games is not the ultimate in hockey packages. But you wouldn't develop a pregame, postgame and intermission show unless you are signalling the commitment is there.
I understand why people are threatened by this, but IMHO you needn't be. This is exactly what college hockey needs to do to.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Alvarez is a moron and if this goes through will be known as the Gary Betteman of college hockey.
Alvarez is a moron and if this goes through will be known as the Gary Betteman of college hockey.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Well, they have been streaming games on BTN.com all season, but since it's three bucks a game I haven't watched one live yet. Sometimes they do show the replay on BTN, but whoever the students are that do the camera work for MSU hockey are awful, so it's practically unwatchable.
Well, they have been streaming games on BTN.com all season, but since it's three bucks a game I haven't watched one live yet. Sometimes they do show the replay on BTN, but whoever the students are that do the camera work for MSU hockey are awful, so it's practically unwatchable.