Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Truth.
Look who's involved...
Good to see Larry as delusional as ever.
Truth.
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
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I knew this schtick seemed familiar... Big10 fanaticism... sure it makes sense to other Big10 fans... too bad the world is made up of people who aren't Big10 fans.
Good to see Larry as delusional as ever.
I knew this schtick seemed familiar... Big10 fanaticism... sure it makes sense to other Big10 fans... too bad the world is made up of people who aren't Big10 fans.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I was wondering about that.
Good to see Larry as delusional as ever.
I was wondering about that.
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
The 8 games on BTN must be the "Big TV Contract" he kept going on about...
I figured I wasn't the only one to pick up on that....Good to see Larry as delusional as ever.
The 8 games on BTN must be the "Big TV Contract" he kept going on about...
gfmorris
New member
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Is this truly a hard-and-fast requirement? In the CHA, we've kept an autobid with first five and now just four teams. I mean, we're an exceptional case [trying to keep the league from dying so the schools don't fold], but I can make case for a five-team BTHC.
Only, you know, in the blackest parts of my heart that want to kill college hockey.
GFM <-- has been sniffing enough of the BTHC smoke to think that's one main reason why UAH got the shaft from the CCHA this summer: not that the BTHC was an inevitability, but that it was a possibility and would upset the apple cart.
Is this truly a hard-and-fast requirement? In the CHA, we've kept an autobid with first five and now just four teams. I mean, we're an exceptional case [trying to keep the league from dying so the schools don't fold], but I can make case for a five-team BTHC.
Only, you know, in the blackest parts of my heart that want to kill college hockey.
GFM <-- has been sniffing enough of the BTHC smoke to think that's one main reason why UAH got the shaft from the CCHA this summer: not that the BTHC was an inevitability, but that it was a possibility and would upset the apple cart.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
this whole pervasive "big 10 awesomeness" attitude ticks me off... its fairly self-righteous and self-congratulatory in a way. I can't think of any way to spin it... the whole thing screams "people should love us because we're awesome and these losers are holding us back from seeing how awesome we are".
See, Larry, if you waited you could send a gray dot and a ranting message instead of a gray dot.
this whole pervasive "big 10 awesomeness" attitude ticks me off... its fairly self-righteous and self-congratulatory in a way. I can't think of any way to spin it... the whole thing screams "people should love us because we're awesome and these losers are holding us back from seeing how awesome we are".
See, Larry, if you waited you could send a gray dot and a ranting message instead of a gray dot.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Fun fact: The Wisconsin media pass makes no mention of the WCHA, only the Big Ten Conference (BTC).
Edit: The WCHA logo is on it, but the terms of the pass don't mention the WCHA. I'm pretty sure the legalese is their standard disclaimer for all sports, but it still made me pause and think.
Fun fact: The Wisconsin media pass makes no mention of the WCHA, only the Big Ten Conference (BTC).
Edit: The WCHA logo is on it, but the terms of the pass don't mention the WCHA. I'm pretty sure the legalese is their standard disclaimer for all sports, but it still made me pause and think.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
The badger administration acts like the one whiny ***** who can't get his way despite it being wrong and no one else liking it. I am starting to hate their administration more than their fans and teams.
The badger administration acts like the one whiny ***** who can't get his way despite it being wrong and no one else liking it. I am starting to hate their administration more than their fans and teams.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have to disagree. I think the 1000+ that attend Penn State home games would disagree as well.
I have no doubt that Penn State fans will fill a 4-5000 seat arena when (not if) it's built on campus.
If Penn State starting a varsity program is the catalyst for a BTHC remains to be seen, but the addition of the school would be good for NCAA hockey.
I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have to disagree. I think the 1000+ that attend Penn State home games would disagree as well.
I have no doubt that Penn State fans will fill a 4-5000 seat arena when (not if) it's built on campus.
If Penn State starting a varsity program is the catalyst for a BTHC remains to be seen, but the addition of the school would be good for NCAA hockey.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I'm certainly not saying that I want this, but I'm surprised that the idea hasn't been floated very often...
Suppose the Big Ten teams decide they want to be in the same conference, but can't find a 6th BT team willing to go varsity. Let's see...what was the old WCHA in 1980 before the Michigan schools left?
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Colorado College
Denver
Notre Dame
Minnesota-Duluth
Michigan Tech
Well, pick the least competitive school (i.e. Michigan Tech), replace it with Ohio State, and voila...the Big Ten schools together with other Western schools who have major programs. The old WCHA together again, more or less.
That would leave the other CCHA and WCHA teams in a new Western conference that would still be fairly compact geographically (3 Minnesota, 5 Michigan, 2 Ohio, 1 Nebraska, 2 Alaska). The only problem is two Alaska schools in one conference, but you could subdivide east/west, put each Alaska school in a separate division, and work the travel accordingly. It would be "little sister" to the "new" WCHA, much like the MAC is to the Big Ten in other sports. College hockey would have two power conferences (Hockey East and new WCHA), along with two mid-majors (ECAC and, um, the MAC hockey conference?) who could produce a few regular contenders (Cornell, Miami) but who would be weaker top to bottom.
I think that this would be a bad thing for college hockey. Some of the "MAC hockey conference" schools might find it harder to survive.
But some suits who want $$$ are going to think of this sooner or later. After all, they just have to sit back and wonder, what if Michigan and MSU never left the WCHA? And then they will realize that this "solution" is right under their nose. The one thing that may give them pause is that the new conference would be even tougher than the current WCHA, and some teams accustomed to winning for many years (i.e., everyone but Ohio State and Notre Dame) would find themselves staring at losing seasons, which could hurt their own attendance.
I'm certainly not saying that I want this, but I'm surprised that the idea hasn't been floated very often...
Suppose the Big Ten teams decide they want to be in the same conference, but can't find a 6th BT team willing to go varsity. Let's see...what was the old WCHA in 1980 before the Michigan schools left?
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Colorado College
Denver
Notre Dame
Minnesota-Duluth
Michigan Tech
Well, pick the least competitive school (i.e. Michigan Tech), replace it with Ohio State, and voila...the Big Ten schools together with other Western schools who have major programs. The old WCHA together again, more or less.
That would leave the other CCHA and WCHA teams in a new Western conference that would still be fairly compact geographically (3 Minnesota, 5 Michigan, 2 Ohio, 1 Nebraska, 2 Alaska). The only problem is two Alaska schools in one conference, but you could subdivide east/west, put each Alaska school in a separate division, and work the travel accordingly. It would be "little sister" to the "new" WCHA, much like the MAC is to the Big Ten in other sports. College hockey would have two power conferences (Hockey East and new WCHA), along with two mid-majors (ECAC and, um, the MAC hockey conference?) who could produce a few regular contenders (Cornell, Miami) but who would be weaker top to bottom.
I think that this would be a bad thing for college hockey. Some of the "MAC hockey conference" schools might find it harder to survive.
But some suits who want $$$ are going to think of this sooner or later. After all, they just have to sit back and wonder, what if Michigan and MSU never left the WCHA? And then they will realize that this "solution" is right under their nose. The one thing that may give them pause is that the new conference would be even tougher than the current WCHA, and some teams accustomed to winning for many years (i.e., everyone but Ohio State and Notre Dame) would find themselves staring at losing seasons, which could hurt their own attendance.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
If the old WCHA was around I don't believe we would have seen schools like SCSU, MSU-Mankato and BSU jumping up to Division 1 hockey.
If the old WCHA was around I don't believe we would have seen schools like SCSU, MSU-Mankato and BSU jumping up to Division 1 hockey.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
The problem is that college hockey is too small to have a bunch of "mid-major" conferences. Atlantic Hockey is cost-containment and the CHA is dead and has been since Air Force left, probably. If the ECAC isn't on the same level as the other three conferences, they're close enough that it doesn't matter (ie: Mountain West in D1 football)
The creation of a Big Ten or a "Super WCHA" like mentioned below would probably kill half a dozen teams over the course of a decade. Long term, the best answer is some sort of 3 conference 8 teams per setup in the west, with room for newer teams and more non-conference availability (perhaps 21-24 instead of 28 conference games), but God and Herb Brooks help me if I know how to do said split.
The problem is that college hockey is too small to have a bunch of "mid-major" conferences. Atlantic Hockey is cost-containment and the CHA is dead and has been since Air Force left, probably. If the ECAC isn't on the same level as the other three conferences, they're close enough that it doesn't matter (ie: Mountain West in D1 football)
The creation of a Big Ten or a "Super WCHA" like mentioned below would probably kill half a dozen teams over the course of a decade. Long term, the best answer is some sort of 3 conference 8 teams per setup in the west, with room for newer teams and more non-conference availability (perhaps 21-24 instead of 28 conference games), but God and Herb Brooks help me if I know how to do said split.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
Well, your second paragraph points out the problem laid out in the first. College hockey isn't big enough for 'mid major' conferences, but it's too big for the current set-up as well.
Hence, I like the idea of the Big Ten Cup - reducing conference schedules down to 20-24 games and providing more OOC options. Should make other conferences more viable and larger ones less so, while alleviating pressures of a true BTHC and also providing room for future growth.
Well, your second paragraph points out the problem laid out in the first. College hockey isn't big enough for 'mid major' conferences, but it's too big for the current set-up as well.
Hence, I like the idea of the Big Ten Cup - reducing conference schedules down to 20-24 games and providing more OOC options. Should make other conferences more viable and larger ones less so, while alleviating pressures of a true BTHC and also providing room for future growth.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
It will neer match the glory of the DQ Cup.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I agree 100%. Another stupid meaningless trophy that has nothing to do with anything.
I agree 100%. Another stupid meaningless trophy that has nothing to do with anything.
bronconick
Yep, still here
gfmorris
New member
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
It was insular schedules that 1) killed the CHA and 2) made Atlantic Hockey into a terribly-insular league.
GFM
It was insular schedules that 1) killed the CHA and 2) made Atlantic Hockey into a terribly-insular league.
GFM
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I don't think that college hockey isn't big enough for "mid major" as people dub it and for God sakes stop using that terminology... a 5th place league of 6 is just that... below half.
The biggest problem here is that a lot of schools depend upon the "big 10" collection to fill their coffers and sustain their programs. Any leagues absent these schools will have to lower their expectations as well as expenditures in a hurry which will likely translate into a few closed up programs. I think college hockey could survive but western hockey as we know it would not. I think Eastern hockey will be impacted but ironically it might be a positive impact as the Big10 is a peer group to the D1 schools and might be a catalyst of sorts... but this will be a moot point for the traditional CCHA/WCHA programs.
the problem with Big10 hockey is that its a continental rift... and its only a positive for certain survivors of that rift.
I don't think that college hockey isn't big enough for "mid major" as people dub it and for God sakes stop using that terminology... a 5th place league of 6 is just that... below half.
The biggest problem here is that a lot of schools depend upon the "big 10" collection to fill their coffers and sustain their programs. Any leagues absent these schools will have to lower their expectations as well as expenditures in a hurry which will likely translate into a few closed up programs. I think college hockey could survive but western hockey as we know it would not. I think Eastern hockey will be impacted but ironically it might be a positive impact as the Big10 is a peer group to the D1 schools and might be a catalyst of sorts... but this will be a moot point for the traditional CCHA/WCHA programs.
the problem with Big10 hockey is that its a continental rift... and its only a positive for certain survivors of that rift.
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected
I think it was this thread where the Weis buyout was brought up as a financial hardship for ND, based on the usual media speculation of $18 MM.
A story from the ND-related sphere (blueandgold.com) today on Weis going to KC puts it at only $4 MM, paid out over a period of six years.
I think it was this thread where the Weis buyout was brought up as a financial hardship for ND, based on the usual media speculation of $18 MM.
A story from the ND-related sphere (blueandgold.com) today on Weis going to KC puts it at only $4 MM, paid out over a period of six years.