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

Happy said:
Did they own the rights to air those games?
Click to expand...
When the original CCHA TV schedule came out, the BTN was scheduled to air the Michigan vs. Minnesota game. That was later changed to Fox Sports North. I'm not sure what the broadcast pecking order is, though, if Fox Sports gets first dibs on all game or if the BTN gets dibs on any game involving Big Ten teams, and if that's why it changed or if the BTN simply dropped it.

Wasn't Saturday's MSU/Minn game broadcast on the BTN's website (for a fee)? I'm sure they could have aired that on TV, even tape delayed, if they wanted.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

If minnesota has a brain we'll fight as hard as we can to prevent the Big Ten from having any broadcast rights to those games.

The Big Ten doesn't give two ****s about hockey and would probably end up wrecking all that is good about it. Less coverage, less promotions, and therefore crappier exposure. Less exposure = dead sport or relegation to The Ocho.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

M-HockeyNet said:
When the original CCHA TV schedule came out, the BTN was scheduled to air the Michigan vs. Minnesota game. That was later changed to Fox Sports North. I'm not sure what the broadcast pecking order is, though, if Fox Sports gets first dibs on all game or if the BTN gets dibs on any game involving Big Ten teams, and if that's why it changed or if the BTN simply dropped it.

Wasn't Saturday's MSU/Minn game broadcast on the BTN's website (for a fee)? I'm sure they could have aired that on TV, even tape delayed, if they wanted.
Click to expand...

What I don't get is 49% of the BTN is owned by Fox(51% Big Ten) so if the BTN has something more interesting to air, why not drop it to a Fox Sports regional channel?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Comley: "Wisconsin ... prefer(s) a Big Ten Conference."

I believe the lion's share of the Wisconsin fans do not prefer a BTN conference. I believe Eaves has been quoted as not in favor of the BTN. IF both of those are true, then we are left with Wisconsin = Alvarez.

Is that overstating the case?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

RedFreak said:
Comley: "Wisconsin ... prefer(s) a Big Ten Conference."

I believe the lion's share of the Wisconsin fans do not prefer a BTN conference. I believe Eaves has been quoted as not in favor of the BTN. IF both of those are true, then we are left with Wisconsin = Alvarez.

Is that overstating the case?
Click to expand...

has Barry ever even watched a hockey game?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

RedFreak said:
Comley: "Wisconsin ... prefer(s) a Big Ten Conference."

I believe the lion's share of the Wisconsin fans do not prefer a BTN conference. I believe Eaves has been quoted as not in favor of the BTN. IF both of those are true, then we are left with Wisconsin = Alvarez.

Is that overstating the case?
Click to expand...

Probably. Would it make sense for Badgers fans that are indeed against the Big Televen to start a little e-mail campaign to Alvarez, just so he knows what the people who pay at least a part of his salary think?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Larch said:
Probably. Would it make sense for Badgers fans that are indeed against the Big Televen to start a little e-mail campaign to Alvarez, just so he knows what the people who pay at least a part of his salary think?
Click to expand...

That's where I was going with this. But first I'm looking for contrary evidence to the hypothesis: "Only Alvarez thinks this is a good idea."
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

RedFreak said:
I believe the lion's share of the Wisconsin fans do not prefer a BTN conference. I believe Eaves has been quoted as not in favor of the BTN. IF both of those are true, then we are left with Wisconsin = Alvarez.
Click to expand...
Not sure if there's an Eaves quote floating around anywhere. The original article on the topic from Andy Baggot said that Eaves wasn't in favor of Wisconsin jumping from the WCHA to the CCHA, as was rumored during the BTHC talks should plans for the conference not materialize.

The article said Alvarez and UW senior associate athletic director Sean Frazier share "major concerns" about the overall health and direction of D-I hockey, so it's not just Barry who wants to see big changes. Ohio State also sounds in favor of the conference in the article.

Strongly for: Wisconsin
In favor: Ohio State
Unknown: Michigan
Not in favor (at the moment): Michigan State
Strongly against: Minnesota
 
Last edited:
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Happy said:
has Barry ever even watched a hockey game?
Click to expand...
Alvarez was at the regional in Green Bay a few years ago. I rode in an elevator with him from the press box/suites to the main concourse.
M-HockeyNet said:
Not sure if there's an Eaves quote floating around anywhere. The original article on the topic from Andy Baggot said that Eaves wasn't in favor of Wisconsin jumping from the WCHA to the CCHA, as was rumored during the BTHC talks should plans for the conference not materialize.

The article said Alvarez and UW senior associate athletic director Sean Frazier share "major concerns" about the overall health and direction of D-I hockey, so it's not just Barry who wants to see big changes. Ohio State also sounds in favor of the conference in the article.

Strongly for: Wisconsin
In favor: Ohio State
Unknown: Michigan
Not in favor (at the moment): Michigan State
Strongly against: Minnesota
Click to expand...

When I talked to OSU's John Markell last week, he brought the Big Ten up, not me:

http://thehockeyshow.blogspot.com/2009/11/happy-holidays-this-weeks-show-is-up.html
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

moose97 said:
Alvarez was at the regional in Green Bay a few years ago. I rode in an elevator with him from the press box/suites to the main concourse.
Click to expand...
Alvarez riding in an elevator still doesn't answer the question of whether he actually watched the hockey game :)
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

M-HockeyNet said:
Alvarez riding in an elevator still doesn't answer the question of whether he actually watched the hockey game :)
Click to expand...

touche... He was talking about the game (I was going to the post game presser), so someone must have at least told him Bucky looked good beating BSU ;)
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

moose97 said:
touche... He was talking about the game (I was going to the post game presser), so someone must have at least told him Bucky looked good beating BSU ;)
Click to expand...

Did he ask when the next time Wisconsin would get 4 home games in the NCAA's?
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Happy said:
has Barry ever even watched a hockey game?
Click to expand...

I watched a scalper try and sell him a ticket outside the Bradley Center during the 2006 Frozen Four.

He didn't buy the ticket, so I can't confirm he saw those games. ;)
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Start a Big Ten conference, and let em go play each other. Then see how attendance drops, tv revenues fall short, and all the other teams beat up on them, as their recruiting starts to suck.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Happy said:
Did they own the rights to air those games?
Click to expand...

No, they did not.

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
I believe they get to cherry pick games involving Big Ten teams...not sure on the exact legalities of it though, so I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

There are still competing contracts here, as all Big Ten schools are also party to conference-based and individual school-based TV contracts.

RedFreak said:
Comley: "Wisconsin ... prefer(s) a Big Ten Conference."

I believe the lion's share of the Wisconsin fans do not prefer a BTN conference. I believe Eaves has been quoted as not in favor of the BTN. IF both of those are true, then we are left with Wisconsin = Alvarez.

Is that overstating the case?
Click to expand...

I also think Comley phrased his words poorly, and you're cherry picking his statement a bit. Reading on in that article, it's clear that Comley's talking about a Big Ten 'conference' while still retaining the WCHA and CCHA affiliations. Basically, if you knocked the WCHA and CCHA conference seasons down to 22 games or so, you could easily just have the teams schedule each other in OOC games to fill out the rest and have a full round robin between all of the 5 BT schools. You essentially can have two conferences at once.

The conventional use of the word conference, however, is mutually exclusive with membership in another conference.

This is a complex issue, and trying to boil it down to soundbytes won't help things.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Happy said:
Did he ask when the next time Wisconsin would get 4 home games in the NCAA's?
Click to expand...
Cry me a river.

You know what's funny about this broken record from certain Minny posters? Minnesota had a chance at having all home games to get the title in '66, '91 and '89. They didn't get it done.
 
Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

kdilks said:
It must be so hard only getting regionals OR the Frozen Four every year.
Click to expand...

Oh, give Happy a break. He's a gopher. Only the most self-aware of that species could possibly be expected to know that they are spoiled rotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top