Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

I prefer the pretty dumb idea of cutting the WCHA and CCHA down to 22 or 24 conference games and then having the 5 big 10 schools do some type of NC round robin tournament to let them crown the worthless champion then to go with the completely stupid option of having the big ten schools cut ties with the CCHA and WCHA to form their own conference.

Pretty dumb beats completely stupid every time.

I'd rather have neither, but I agree that your preferred option is better than the alternative.

 

[Scottyp]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Remember that with a 12 team WCHA, Minnesota's schedule will look like this:

Wisconsin, designated rival - 4 games against. (4 games total)
2 other teams - 4 games against each, teams rotating each season. (8 games total)
the remaining 8 teams in the conference - 2 games against each (16 games total)

So, of the 11 other teams in the conference, you're only going to get a true, 4 game home and home series exchange against only 3 of them.

Sure doesn't seem like you'll be playing each other all that often, after all. Unless you wanted to kick some people out or go rogue and form your own conference...

If this Big Ten sub-conference happens, it'll be because the status quo in college hockey is unsustainable. It is a symptom of (and in my mind, a partial solution to) the problems with college hockey's structure, not a cause of them.

Spot on post, Blockski. The status quo is unsustainable. There are two parts of this debate: the facts that efforts are underway to start looking at solutions to it, and people's opinion of some of the solutions being discussed.

I have followed Big Ten sports, Wisconsin sports and college hockey for 25 years. One thing I have learned is that the B10 keeps controversial/strategic discussions very quiet, and by the time you start hearing about them, by and large decisions have already been made internally. This is a lesson reinforced by the whole Notre Dame to the Big Ten debacle. The fact that we heard about BTHC being discussed means it was thoroughly discussed, and may have been for some time. All aspects were vetted.
Subsequent decisions by UW to drop the B10 showcase, drop its holiday tournament (freeing up non conference slots), regularly schedule OSU, and announce to its fans that non conference games against eastern teams were going to be unlikely in the near term future, point to something, no? I bet that next year's UW schedule has a two game series with each B10 CCHA school. And if Minnesota does not follow suit, they will be called to task. Or we will crown a B10 champ without including them.

My opinion on this is that if done right it can be a good thing. We have to force the BTN to dedicate more of its programming to hockey. We need to maintain the WCHA/CCHA structure (at least until a viable alternative is available). And we need to guarantee that any B10 school that goes D1 will be part of it. If it doesn't benefit college hockey as a whole, I would be against it.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Why is this still being discussed? It will never happen, end of story...

 

[Larch]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Why is this still being discussed? It will never happen, end of story...

Never say never. I think we can stop assuming it won't happen. Where there's smoke, there is usually fire, and it's about time to drop to the floor to breath some better air.

I don't like the idea of a BTHC at all, but I'm afraid much like the UND nickname demise, it's time is coming no matter how much we kick and scream about it.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Never say never. I think we can stop assuming it won't happen. Where there's smoke, there is usually fire, and it's about time to drop to the floor to breath some better air.

I don't like the idea of a BTHC at all, but I'm afraid much like the UND nickname demise, it's time is coming no matter how much we kick and scream about it.

Trust me, NEVER! The only people who bring this up are non-hockey fans. They don't understand the conference structure as it currently is. I can't speak for the WCHA but the CCHA has a lot of schools from basically no-name conferences and/or D-2 schools in everything else ecept hockey. If you created an all, or majority Big Ten Hockey conference the likes of Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Northern Michigan, Western Michigan (along with the other MAC schools: BGSU, Miami), etc. would crumble. Notre Dame would survive only because they are Notre Dame and have a tremendous amount of financial revenue but the small school hockey programs would become non-existant.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Trust me, NEVER! The only people who bring this up are non-hockey fans. They don't understand the conference structure as it currently is. I can't speak for the WCHA but the CCHA has a lot of schools from basically no-name conferences and/or D-2 schools in everything else ecept hockey. If you created an all, or majority Big Ten Hockey conference the likes of Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Northern Michigan, Western Michigan (along with the other MAC schools: BGSU, Miami), etc. would crumble. Notre Dame would survive only because they are Notre Dame and have a tremendous amount of financial revenue but the small school hockey programs would become non-existant.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Why would those programs crumple? No one has ever given me an adequate explanation for why they think that. If all those programs are so dependent on the one home weekend a year against MI or MSU for financial viability then I think that there are far bigger issues that need to be addressed then just the possible formation of B10 hockey scheduling agreement (which is all that has been proposed this far) or actual conference.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Why would those programs crumple? No one has ever given me an adequate explanation for why they think that. If all those programs are so dependent on the one home weekend a year against MI or MSU for financial viability then I think that there are far bigger issues that need to be addressed then just the possible formation of B10 hockey scheduling agreement (which is all that has been proposed this far) or actual conference.

The conference would lose respect and credibility, making those smaller schools irrelevant if UM, msu, and even tuo$ left. Plus, there are rivalries in place. Try to look at it from your own perspective, what would happen to Minny-Duluth, Bemidji, and because they're your problem after this season nebraska? Sure, the Denvers, NoDiks and Colorado Colleges could survive maybe but they would have to create a smaller conference to let all the have-nots (non-Big Ten schools) have a place to play.

In addition, there are only 5 Big Ten schools with D-1 Hockey programs. The rest only have club programs. You can't possibly expect Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Norethwestern or Iowa to compete with Michigan (even on our bad years) or Minnesota (even on our bad years). Sure Penn State is "considering" making the jump to D-1 but it won't happen for 15 or so years if ever.

The Canadian Juniors are already enough of a problem with diluting the talent pool, they just stole Michigan's next stud goalie. Creating more D-1 schools would decrease the quality of play even further.

 

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

The conference would lose respect and credibility, making those smaller schools irrelevant if UM, msu, and even tuo$ left.

Why? Those schools have a history and will still have a NCAA auto bid and at best three of the B10 schools will make the NCAA tournament every year and 8 eastern teams, that still leaves 5 NCAA spots for the teams in the CCHA and WCHA. I fail to see that as being made irrelevant.

Given that the B10 teams won't need an auto bid in the same way that the CHA or AH need theirs, a 5 team conference wouldn't be impossible. in that case teams would have 16 conference games, opening up 18 spots for games against their former WCHA and CCHA rivals.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Why? Those schools have a history and will still have a NCAA auto bid and at best three of the B10 schools will make the NCAA tournament every year and 8 eastern teams, that still leaves 5 NCAA spots for the teams in the CCHA and WCHA. I fail to see that as being made irrelevant.

Given that the B10 teams won't need an auto bid in the same way that the CHA or AH need theirs, a 5 team conference wouldn't be impossible. in that case teams would have 16 conference games, opening up 18 spots for games against their former WCHA and CCHA rivals.

A rivalry loses something when the games are out of conference. I like beating Minnesota only out of respect for their program. Wisconsin I could care less about. Disbanding the CCHA and WCHA would eliminate the rivalries.

You didn't respond to my other points. And what happens if all 5 of the Big Ten schools are deserving of going to the NCAA's? That did happen a few years ago IIRC...

 

[Almington]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

A rivalry loses something when the games are out of conference. I like beating Minnesota only out of respect for their program. Wisconsin I could care less about. Disbanding the CCHA and WCHA would eliminate the rivalries.

You didn't respond to my other points. And what happens if all 5 of the Big Ten schools are deserving of going to the NCAA's? That did happen a few years ago IIRC...

When those teams play 16 games against each other, someone have to lose. It is very unlikely that all 5 of the teams would be able to make the NCAAs without putting up a very, very good showing in the NC play.

As long as the games were played between the schools on a yearly basis, given the proximity (that the B10 schools never had) the rivalries would remain.

 

[UMICHhockeyRULZ]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

When those teams play 16 games against each other, someone have to lose. It is very unlikely that all 5 of the teams would be able to make the NCAAs without putting up a very, very good showing in the NC play.

As long as the games were played between the schools on a yearly basis, given the proximity (that the B10 schools never had) the rivalries would remain.

Who is left for the NC play? You already said that the rivalry games could continue so those games suposedly leave a very good NC record. I doubt very seriously tht Michigan would give up a home weekend to travel to NMU, LSSU, or Alaska. I also don't see Minnesota giving up an open home weekend to go to Nebraska, Colorado College, or Alaska-Anchorage.

If as you are proposing a Big Ten Hockey conference came back into existence I can forsee Miami and Northern Michigan going to the WCHA and what is left of the CCHA becoming the next CHA and disolving quickly. Do they deserve that? LSSU, Ferris, BGSU, etc. don't deserve that.

The only way I see a Big Ten Hockey conference coming to fruition is if it somehow advanced College Hockey. It won't and therefore it won't happen.

A wise man once said doing the same things and expecting different results is a sign of insanity. Wasn't there a Big Ten Hockey conference before? How did that turn out?

I was up doing laundry, what's your excuse? Goodnight.

 

[Slap Shot]

The only way I see a Big Ten Hockey conference coming to fruition is if it somehow advanced College Hockey. It won't and therefore it won't happen.

I don't think those that want the BTHC could care less about advancing college hockey and therefore that's not the stumbling block to their getting it implemented that you believe it to be. I'm as against the idea as you are, but Larch's "where there's smoke there's fire" point unfortunately makes a lot of sense and the fact some (such as Barry effing Alvarez) are not letting the idea die lends credence to that.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

First, you can stop arguing against the total disbandment of the WCHA and CCHA, umich - no one but you has proposed that.

But if you want to keep arguing with your own strawman, be my guest.

I don't think those that want the BTHC could care less about advancing college hockey and therefore that's not the stumbling block to their getting it implemented that you believe it to be. I'm as against the idea as you are, but Larch's "where there's smoke there's fire" point unfortunately makes a lot of sense and the fact some (such as Barry effing Alvarez) are not letting the idea die lends credence to that.

I also don't understand those who think that this semi-proposed Big Ten scheduling alliance is bad for everyone but the Big Ten schools.

The simple fact is that under the current situation, with the WCHA at 12 teams and the CCHA at 11 (or maybe 12), college hockey will slowly be dying, choking on its own insularity. There's no place for any growth to occur, and the strength of that insularity (rivalries, tradition) is slowly choked out from 12 teams squeezing into a conference that should ideally have 8 - 10 max.

With a 28 game schedule, any WCHA team will only play a full 4 game series against 3 of the 11 other schools - likely one designated rival and 2 other rotating opponents.

If this had been presented as a call to reduce the conference schedule to include fewer games rather than a call to create a Big Ten mini-conference, people would be forced to look at it a little more objectively than the current OH NOES!!!1! BTHC!!!1!!!

 

[GoDanGo]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Trust me, NEVER! The only people who bring this up are non-hockey fans.

There's one problem here - as much as I wish you were right, as I'd rather not see the BTHC either.

Those non-hockey fans are, unfortunately, the ones high up making the decisions in many cases. The Big Ten and the Big Ten Network probably only have money in mind, and not the state of NCAA hockey nationwide. I'd have trouble calling Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin's AD, who's been pushing for the BTHC) a hockey fan. Not sure about the priorities of the other athletic depts. involved, but if it looks like a good financial move (even if it isn't in the long run) they'll likely go for it.

If this were up to coaches and diehard fans like some of us here, I agree it'd never happen. Unfortunately, the people making the decision have other motives ($) in mind.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Never say never. I think we can stop assuming it won't happen. Where there's smoke, there is usually fire, and it's about time to drop to the floor to breath some better air.

I don't like the idea of a BTHC at all, but I'm afraid much like the UND nickname demise, it's time is coming no matter how much we kick and scream about it.

Not to drag out the same points...but there is obviously huge headwinds against the BTHC.

First, other big ten schools have no interest. We continue to think in Minnesota or at other schools that everyone thinks hockey. They just don't. I have little doubt that almost no fans, faculty or alumns have any interest in attending or following Penn State college hockey...and likely far less at other schools. The cost of failure is huge, esp at a school such as a Big Ten school. A school like Illinois has the example of its U ILL-Chicago failure. Also, there would need to be another women's program added (or men's taken away)...and that is either a major cost or a very sticky issue.

Second, Minnesota does not want this. The current college hockey framework is advantagous for college hockey in Minnesota. From a college hockey attendance standpoint, the state of MN couldn't come out any further ahead if it tried. And this really helps the quality of life throughout the state. This can't be lost on the UofM. And as you can imagine, MN will always punch above its weight in terms of college hockey administration.

I think its far more likely there will be realignment...just what that looks like with only a handful of the MI, MSU, WI and MN schools in the west...I can't say.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Again:

NOBODY IS PROPOSING AN ACTUAL BIG TEN CONFERENCE.

What is being discussed is the reduction of WCHA and CCHA league schedules to 20 or 22 games, where the Big Ten schools would retain their membership in these leagues and then schedule each other with their newly available non-conference games.

Stop arguing against the BTHC. This is more like the Big Ten version of the DQ Cup.

Does anyone here actually read the information that's posted?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Again:

NOBODY IS PROPOSING AN ACTUAL BIG TEN CONFERENCE.

What is being discussed is the reduction of WCHA and CCHA league schedules to 20 or 22 games, where the Big Ten schools would retain their membership in these leagues and then schedule each other with their newly available non-conference games.

Stop arguing against the BTHC. This is more like the Big Ten version of the DQ Cup.

Does anyone here actually read the information that's posted?

The DQ Cup was a rousing success. The Big 10 should want to emulate it.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

The DQ Cup was a rousing success. The Big 10 should want to emulate it.

Let's just say the potential Big Ten Cup offers some more compelling match-ups and opportunities than the DQ Cup.

But the point stands - this is not a Big Ten conference to replace the WCHA and CCHA, it is something to supplement them.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

Again:

NOBODY IS PROPOSING AN ACTUAL BIG TEN CONFERENCE.

What is being discussed is the reduction of WCHA and CCHA league schedules to 20 or 22 games, where the Big Ten schools would retain their membership in these leagues and then schedule each other with their newly available non-conference games.

Stop arguing against the BTHC. This is more like the Big Ten version of the DQ Cup.

Does anyone here actually read the information that's posted?

The thread is titled Big Ten conference discussed, rejected. I believe there are multiple specific issues being discussed here...including proposals for alternatives.

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten conference discussed, rejected

The thread is titled Big Ten conference discussed, rejected. I believe there are multiple specific issues being discussed here...including proposals for alternatives.

Right, so you read the thread title and nothing else of the actual articles discussing the details of these ideas. Got it.

All of those other arguments have been hashed and rehashed and re-rehashed. We do, however, have a specific idea that stands a good chance of becoming reality (and in my mind, something that's more of a benefit to all of hockey than most would acknowledge) - yet folks would rather discuss things that have no relevance.