What's new
By:
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

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

blockski said:
The article implied three series, not three games.
Click to expand...

scsutommyboy said:
If they played 2 games against Mich, MSU and OSU they wouldn't have anything left. Even if they kept the one game against Mich and MSU they would then play two every year against OSU? That doesn't make sense either.
Click to expand...

Exactly what bearing does the article (that I didn't even read) have to do with what I posted? I never said anything about all of the Big Ten teams playing each other twice. I just said it would be very easy for Minnesota/Wisconsin to add in one game each year against Ohio State so every Big Ten team plays each other at least once, and you could crown a "Big Ten Champion".
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Having each of the five play each other once is fine with me.

I don't like the idea of the 5 BT teams adding other non-BT teams to create a conference with an auto bid. That's not a BTHC, to me.

If they BT is going to add hockey, then GROW the sport. Make the other six schools add hockey (and to be fair, make Wisconsin add baseball back!) and then make a true BTHC. That would leave space in the CCHA and WCHA for more teams - an even more growth.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

kdilks said:
Exactly what bearing does the article (that I didn't even read) have to do with what I posted? I never said anything about all of the Big Ten teams playing each other twice. I just said it would be very easy for Minnesota/Wisconsin to add in one game each year against Ohio State so every Big Ten team plays each other at least once, and you could crown a "Big Ten Champion".
Click to expand...

Um, the whole reason this topic is being discussed is because of this article. Ignorance doesn't serve you well.

And no, it's not easy to just add one game. The logistics of adding just one game is actually quite difficult. Everything's set up to add 2 game series. If you're going to do just one game, you need a partner to do it with (as Michigan and Michigan State do when they visit Minnesota and Wisconsin - travel partners). That set up doesn't work well with 5 teams and would be difficult to squeeze in under the current scheduling system.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

scsutommyboy said:
The only way I think the WCHA drops their number of games is if the CCHA does as well. In that case then they could have a scheduling alliance
Click to expand...

No, if Minnesota and Wisconsin told the WCHA drop the number of games, or we leave, the WCHA will drop the number of games. simple math.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

blockski said:
Um, the whole reason this topic is being discussed is because of this article. Ignorance doesn't serve you well.

And no, it's not easy to just add one game. The logistics of adding just one game is actually quite difficult. Everything's set up to add 2 game series. If you're going to do just one game, you need a partner to do it with (as Michigan and Michigan State do when they visit Minnesota and Wisconsin - travel partners). That set up doesn't work well with 5 teams and would be difficult to squeeze in under the current scheduling system.
Click to expand...

The point is I was referring to an alternate idea presented by somebody in this thread (wsummers), not the original article, so the original article shouldn't factor into the discussion.

I already gave two suggestions for how to add the Ohio State game with minimal impact to the current scheduling system.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

IMO, Ohio State has the most to gain from a BigTen hockey conference because out of the 5 they're the one that appears to distinctly lack a traditional culture. To me, as an eastern fan, when I think "Ohio State" I think "oh, yeah, them, I guess they play hockey"... on the other hand, to me the other schools, MSU, UMich, UMinn, and UW all have a culture... I never picked that off of Ohio State.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

blockski said:
What's clear is that the knee-jerk reaction that a BTHC would kill college hockey as we know it no longer applies, as the college-hockey-as-we-know-it isn't all that stable anymore. CHA is dead, both the WCHA and CCHA are too large to be effective conferences within the current framework (28 games, 2 game series...), and potential for growth is next to nil.
Click to expand...

I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. College-hockey-as-we-know-it is indeed in a bit of trouble, but it's because the current configuration is TOO stable - we're in a total logjam that won't allow any new teams to join the party.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Some thoughts on this.

The WCHA would be hurt but would still probably be ok. They still will have UND, DU, and the new Neb Omaha. Hopefully the open slots might entice a Big 12 school to open up a hockey program. It'd be interesting to see how it affects their conference tourney though.

The CCHA would be hurt the most. Hopefully though with Notre Dame in the conference and Miami they could still be good. What is likely to happen in this case is Robert Morris and Niagara will get offeres to join the CCHA and likely accept. UAH as well if they are not already in. Hopefully the ADs at the schools in the CCHA will see this coming and really push to endow as many of the teams scholarships as possible to help protect the longevity of the teams.

Big 10 hockey conference would need 8 teams at least to make the scheduling easy. If it looks like the conference is likely to happen than Penn St would start up a program IMHO. To help out the schools left over from the move the Big 10 could offer each of the schools in those conferences guaranteed home games from Big 10 schools over the next few years similar to what the ACC did when they raided the Big East. It'd be interesting to see where they decide to host the conference tournament maybe Chicago at the United Center?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Who all gets to decide if the Big Ten would offer hockey? Would it be all the schools or just the schools with hockey? Who's allowed to vote on it?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

LynahFan said:
I think you're contradicting yourself a bit here. College-hockey-as-we-know-it is indeed in a bit of trouble, but it's because the current configuration is TOO stable - we're in a total logjam that won't allow any new teams to join the party.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your statement, but I don't know that I'd characterize it as 'stable.' Stale might be a better word.

12 teams is too many for conferences where you're limited by geography to play nothing but 2-game series. The demise of CHA and the subsequent reshuffling has exposed the cracks in the foundation, IMO.

I see it as a bit of a tragedy of the commons - everybody wants on the two solid conferences in the West, and that will eventually hurt everyone.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

thebrain said:
So Michigan, Michigan State, and The Ohio State could decide they want to start and Minnesota and Wisconsin would have to follow?
Click to expand...
As discussed in earlier threads ad infinitum, if they get one more school, they may not have a choice.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Patman said:
IMO, Ohio State has the most to gain from a BigTen hockey conference because out of the 5 they're the one that appears to distinctly lack a traditional culture. To me, as an eastern fan, when I think "Ohio State" I think "oh, yeah, them, I guess they play hockey"... on the other hand, to me the other schools, MSU, UMich, UMinn, and UW all have a culture... I never picked that off of Ohio State.
Click to expand...

Agreed. OSU would increase their recruiting capabilities tremendously. They would be able to field a title contender within a decade or so.

Obviously the WCHA and CCHA would be weakened tremendously, especially depending on who the BTHC would take with them (assuming they would want more than 6 teams in their conference). I don't think you'd see the demise of college hockey like some suggest, but I don't think the BTHC would help it.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Well, let's also discuss this hypothetical:

Let's say there's a school that wants to add hockey. However, there aren't any conferences out there to join. Wouldn't it be nice if they could leverage other athletic associations into finding a place for their new hockey team? Seems to me that would solve one of the major hurdles to big schools (i.e. those with the resources to add sports) adding hockey.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Obviously the WCHA and CCHA would be weakened tremendously, especially depending on who the BTHC would take with them (assuming they would want more than 6 teams in their conference). I don't think you'd see the demise of college hockey like some suggest, but I don't think the BTHC would help it.
Click to expand...
Certainly some WCHA/CCHA conference realignment would need to be made, but I think ultimately the CCHA has the most to lose. If one of their scenarios for the BTHC comes to pass--Notre Dame and/or Miami joining--plus UNO departing next season, that would leave the CCHA without almost all their top schools. Obviously the league doesn't look too competitive without them. I definitely think Notre Dame and Miami have to stay in the CCHA in order for it to be decent, though on paper there doesn't look to be much quality top to bottom outside of those two and perhaps NMU (if they can ever get it together for a full season).

With NoDak, CC, Denver, the Dean Blais-led UNO, and a host of Minnesota schools, I think the WCHA will be fine. There's still enough there.

If Alvarez wants to regionalize the sport, I suppose both Alaska schools get stuck in the WCHA (another loss for the CCHA), and maybe put Air Force there, too? Send some combination of Niagara/Mercyhurst (or whatever Atlantic Hockey team or two) to the CCHA. Maybe move Michigan Tech? Alabama-Huntsville?

Whatever the scenario, though, I don't see the CCHA gaining any marquee name(s) that can replace the teams it loses, and that could have a negative effect on competition, attendance, recruiting, and such.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I think Alvarez's point on regionalization has less to do with geography and more to do with economics.

No other NCAA sport has conferences with such disparate membership. The WCHA and CCHA have everything from the biggest athletic budgets in all of NCAA sports down to division 3 schools and other programs that barely invest in their programs.

This historic, ingrained inequity is exposing the strains within college hockey.

Every other sport seems to do OK with conferences aligned based on level of investment in the sport. And that's exactly why the WCHA is set to weather a storm better than the CCHA - the level of investment is far more similar amongst those teams.

I don't know if the Big Ten Conference is the answer, but this is a conversation that needs to be had. And the Big Ten is exactly the entity to force the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top