Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Are you really comparing TV ratings from something on national TV basically every night to something available on regional TV?

Even if you're talking the Frozen Four, let's see, something that's on once a year with zero advertising (even from the network that broadcasts the thing) vs. something, like noted, on national TV essentially every day. What were poker ratings like before, say Rounders came out? How often was it even on TV? Are you really going to tell me that if college hockey was on national TV (and I mean ESPN (not U, not 2, but ESPN), Fox Sports, Bravo, Travel Channel, E!, NBC, plus the Game Show Network), it wouldn't get decent raitings too (not to mention maybe a dozen major motion pictures since Rounders too)?

Sorry, but the "poker gets better ratings" line is c r a p. There are a lot of things on TV thet get better ratings than college hockey, but the fact that stations keep putting them on and making money tells me more than this random, "no one is watching" argument.

Then why didn't ESPN pick up the NHL? Why didn't ESPN put on college hockey? You do realize that the college hockey championship game is only on ESPN because the NCAA forces ESPN to broadcast it as part of the deal for getting bigger and better sports right?

Better question: Why hasn't the Big Ten Network shown a keen interest in putting on hockey in the past?

Edit: And your claiming that ESPN and ESPN2 are oceans apart from each other is ridiculous at best. They are one click away from one another. ONE CLICK. That's a "huh, ESPN went to commercial, what else is on. College hockey? Gross." And no, college hockey would get terrible ratings no matter where they put it. After the Super Bowl it might have a shot. Anything else? No way, no how. There's a reason it isn't shown on national TV now. IT GETS RIDICULOUSLY LOW RATINGS!!!

 

[dggoddard]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Most college hockey that is on TV, with the exception of the Gophers, is on because the schools subsidize the cost of the broadcasts. Its a recruiting tool, so the schools or conferences agree to buy advertising time.

And for some reason the Gophers seem to be on TV about half as often this season than in the past. FSN-North appears to have cut the broadcast budget significantly. Not only Frank & Doug, but the pre & post game shows aren't as crisp or with as much talent as in the past.

Perhaps the Gophers aren't making money or perhaps FSN-North is phasing them out because the BTN is going to be stealing one of their flagship partners.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Well Fox Sports Detroit used to have the CCHA game of the week on every weekend. Often it featured either Michigan or MSU but it was every week.
not any more. gone.
If you talk to the sports radio guys, they get calls for three sports here in Detroit, and hockey isn't one of them. Even the Red Wings get few calls.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Most college hockey that is on TV, with the exception of the Gophers, is on because the schools subsidize the cost of the broadcasts. Its a recruiting tool, so the schools or conferences agree to buy advertising time.

And for some reason the Gophers seem to be on TV about half as often this season than in the past. FSN-North appears to have cut the broadcast budget significantly. Not only Frank & Doug, but the pre & post game shows aren't as crisp or with as much talent as in the past.

Perhaps the Gophers aren't making money or perhaps FSN-North is phasing them out because the BTN is going to be stealing one of their flagship partners.

Nah, they're doing almost the same number as they normally do. They have had to cut costs (Frank and Doug) because they finally upgraded to HD.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Then why didn't ESPN pick up the NHL? Why didn't ESPN put on college hockey?

OLN (Vs.) offered more. Read any trade publication, and ESPN will ba a major player in the next round of negotiations for the NHL broadcast deal. Again, read that last link again. Vs. made $35 million in advertising (2009 number) on the NHL (in the worst recession since the '30's). Now, I'm not at all claiming that college hockey is the NHL, but the argument is the same, "the raitings stink," "no one watches the NHL." And I say, who cares - Vs. is making truck-loads of money...

Better question: Why hasn't the Big Ten Network shown a keen interest in putting on hockey in the past?

This has been discussed ad nausium. The Big 10 Network does not have the broadcast rights to all the games right now. I can guarantee that they would do more.

You do realize that the college hockey championship game is only on ESPN because the NCAA forces ESPN to broadcast it as part of the deal for getting bigger and better sports right?

Edit: And your claiming that ESPN and ESPN2 are oceans apart from each other is ridiculous at best. They are one click away from one another. ONE CLICK. That's a "huh, ESPN went to commercial, what else is on. College hockey? Gross." And no, college hockey would get terrible ratings no matter where they put it. After the Super Bowl it might have a shot. Anything else? No way, no how. There's a reason it isn't shown on national TV now. IT GETS RIDICULOUSLY LOW RATINGS!!!

Yes, I realize how the Frozen Four deal works. Do you relize that ESPN-U still televises games anyway (they even have a game this Sunday: Union @ Yale 3 p.m. Eastern - should be a good one)? Why do you think they're putting that on TV? Because they're going to lose money on it?Yeah, ESPN has gotten where it is because they make decisions on what will lose them the most money...

And I never said that ESPN and ESPN2 were "oceans apart." What I said was, if college hockey was on national TV every day (like poker is), and not on regional sports channels (most of the country dosen't get college hockey 363 days of the year, then you're surprised that no one cares for the 2 days a year it's on ESPN and ESPN2?), it would get better ratings.

Also, did you actually read what I wrote? Poker is on TV literaly every day, on ESPN, Travel Channel, Fox Sports, Bravo, E!, NBC, plus the Game Show Network 365 days a year. Put college hockey on with a schedule like that and tell me that people wouldn't watch.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

This has been discussed ad nausium. The Big 10 Network does not have the broadcast rights to all the games right now. I can guarantee that they would do more.

Except the BTN has right of first refusal on all games. FSN just picks up the leftovers.

Also, did you actually read what I wrote? Poker is on TV literaly every day, on ESPN, Travel Channel, Fox Sports, Bravo, E!, NBC, plus the Game Show Network 365 days a year. Put college hockey on with a schedule like that and tell me that people wouldn't watch.

Yes, I did. And I addressed in by saying that I still don't think people would watch with that kind of exposure. Might I refer you to this link --> Link

 

[streaker]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

that's something a BTHC won't be able to just create out of nothing.

Michigan (what is it 8 or 9 titles? most before many of us were even born), MSU (2?)...it's just not the same. or at least that's my thoughts.

You are making it sound as if the non-WCHA schools are behind this. Not true. Michigan opposes a BTHC, at least the head coach does. The BTN is behind this. Vilify them. Michigan and MSU fans want what is best for college hockey, too- which is preserving OUR rivalries, preserving OUR conference and have rivalries with the WCHA Big Ten schools, too. Let Penn State come into the CCHA like UNO did and earn their stripes or to the ECACHL- and allow UAH to survive in the CCHA.

FTR- Michigan has (an NCAA best) nine titles, the latest in 1996 & 1998 and their latest FF appearance in 2008. MSU also has two titles since 1986, including the last one in 2007. I don't know the relevance to your point other than saying that their programs are not as strong as your WCHA conference rivals like UND, Denver etc. That's pretty much a given if you are comparing overall conference strength. But, it's been ten years since UND last won a title, seven for Minnesota, five for Denver. Wisconsin went sixteen years between titles, with the last in 2006.

Historically, both leagues have done just fine. In the 1980's, the WCHA won five NC's, the CCHA, three. In the 1990's, the CCHA won four NC's, the WCHA three. It has only been the past decade (00-2009) that the WCHA has dominated, winning six NC's to the CCHA's one. BUT, that one is the latest amongst the two conferences. The HEA has been in the NC game the last five seasons, winning three titles. The CCHA has been in the NC game three of the last four seasons, so it's not like they don't compete, and it's not like Michigan or MSU haven't been in the NC picture- just like your conference mates.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I'm sure if I'm off base here, someone can set me right. When you guys talk about TV ratings (WSOP and college hockey), aren't those national numbers? Where as tBTN is national, but caters regionally to Big Ten country. Tell me what the ratings were in Minnesota for the WSOP vs a UM/UND hockey game? Tell me what the ratings in Michigan are for the WSOP vs UM/MSU Big Chill game? Big Ten country doesn't just overlap college hockey country, it's a subset of it. Once tBTN gets rights to those games I can easily see them moving games to other days of the week, much like bounceyball.

I also don't see the imminent demise of the other schools after tBTHC forms. There are only so many roster spots available. Swami, if you took the best player off the other teams in the WCHA and sent them to Minnesota, wouldn't UND or DU still be pretty good? I think all tBTHC does is shuffle players at most. What would hurt the smaller schools would be if the PAC10 or SEC conferences started D1 hockey. They have no recruiting base and would have to lure players from Minn or Mich to play for them.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

You are making it sound as if the non-WCHA schools are behind this. Not true. Michigan opposes a BTHC, at least the head coach does. The BTN is behind this. Vilify them. Michigan and MSU fans want what is best for college hockey, too- which is preserving OUR rivalries, preserving OUR conference and have rivalries with the WCHA Big Ten schools, too. Let Penn State come into the CCHA like UNO did and earn their stripes or to the ECACHL- and allow UAH to survive in the CCHA.

FTR- Michigan has (an NCAA best) nine titles, the latest in 1996 & 1998 and their latest FF appearance in 2008. MSU also has two titles since 1986, including the last one in 2007. I don't know the relevance to your point other than saying that their programs are not as strong as your WCHA conference rivals like UND, Denver etc. That's pretty much a given if you are comparing overall conference strength. But, it's been ten years since UND last won a title, seven for Minnesota, five for Denver. Wisconsin went sixteen years between titles, with the last in 2006.

Historically, both leagues have done just fine. In the 1980's, the WCHA won five NC's, the CCHA, three. In the 1990's, the CCHA won four NC's, the WCHA three. It has only been the past decade (00-2009) that the WCHA has dominated, winning six NC's to the CCHA's one. BUT, that one is the latest amongst the two conferences. The HEA has been in the NC game the last five seasons, winning three titles. The CCHA has been in the NC game three of the last four seasons, so it's not like they don't compete, and it's not like Michigan or MSU haven't been in the NC picture- just like your conference mates.

that's not what I meant. referring to Michigan/MSU/OSU/PSU I'm just saying that they don't have the recent success that Nodak, Minnesota, Denver, Wisconsin (4 titles since 1982-83) have and not only that, their rivalries (except a non-existent psu obviously) have been non-existent since *at least* the mid-to-late 70's.

I know Michigan had 7 titles by the 70's but most if not all of those titles were before I was born and I had only a vague awareness of their history in 80's when I discovered UW hockey. It's like the Detroit Lions in football. they were once **** good (bobby lane et al) but not many people remember that anymore.

also it's the amount of time playing each other and the NCAA title's won in that time and the animosity and jealousy built up around that and recruiting wars that makes me think it will take more than a simple 5-10 years to build the BTHC into something.

with the exception of Robbie Earl I can't think of one notable player opposing CCHA fans have griped about losing to Wisconsin. I can name plenty both ways with Minnesota/Nodak/DU/UW

So I guess in a nutshell if this happens, it will be 2025 before you see a new triumvarate of hate like you have w/Nodak/MN/UW. and if UW continues to schedule Nodak then rivalries not named Minnesota/Nodak may never achieve that status

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I also don't see the imminent demise of the other schools after tBTHC forms. There are only so many roster spots available. Swami, if you took the best player off the other teams in the WCHA and sent them to Minnesota, wouldn't UND or DU still be pretty good? I think all tBTHC does is shuffle players at most. What would hurt the smaller schools would be if the PAC10 or SEC conferences started D1 hockey. They have no recruiting base and would have to lure players from Minn or Mich to play for them.

It's not just going to be 1 or 2 guys off each team. It's going to be 3-5 guys from the top 5-6 non-big 10 programs that go Big 10 instead. When the Big 10 conference forms, there will be 18 brand new scholarships at Penn State, and Ohio State is going to dramtically upgrade its talent level as they move leagues. Additionally, the currrent Big 10 teams are going to win some players that they might have lost to UND, Denver, etc. So, realistically, we are looking at 30-40 top players moving to the Big 10 who otherwise wouldn't be there today. Those 30-40 players are likely going to be Denver, UND, CC, Miami and Notre Dame's top guys, who now want the best competition and exposure. UND, Denver, Notre Dame Miami and CC will be still able to field competitve teams, but they won't get very many of the high profile, highly drafted players anymore, and their recruiting is going to be deeply affected. Right now, the lure of playing in the top league is what allows these smaller schools to compete for titles because their roster spots are in the top league. Take away top league from them, and the schools left behind are going to no longer be top level programs. They are going to be mid-majors, hoping to scrap their way to the top instead of having top level talent....

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I can easily see them moving games to other days of the week, much like bounceyball.

I could stomach the BTHC after some acclimation. Moving the games to other days of the week I could not stomach. No, no, no, no, and no.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

It's not just going to be 1 or 2 guys off each team. It's going to be 3-5 guys from the top 5-6 non-big 10 programs that go Big 10 instead. When the Big 10 conference forms, there will be 18 brand new scholarships at Penn State, and Ohio State is going to dramtically upgrade its talent level as they move leagues. Additionally, the currrent Big 10 teams are going to win some players that they might have lost to UND, Denver, etc. So, realistically, we are looking at 30-40 top players moving to the Big 10 who otherwise wouldn't be there today.

Sorry. That's far from a realistic estimation. I'll stipulate that it suits your scenario nicely.

However, it isn't as if the existing talent pool of the big ten schools is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else in our current alignment. Such things can only be subjectively measured to be sure, but I'm happy to argue that the differential isn't as great as you imply here.

The five current Big Ten schools do not now attract the top 100 players. If they did then your estimation would be accurate. But they don't.

Those 30-40 players are likely going to be Denver, UND, CC, Miami and Notre Dame's top guys, who now want the best competition and exposure. UND, Denver, Notre Dame Miami and CC will be still able to field competitve teams, but they won't get very many of the high profile, highly drafted players anymore, and their recruiting is going to be deeply affected. Right now, the lure of playing in the top league is what allows these smaller schools to compete for titles because their roster spots are in the top league. Take away top league from them, and the schools left behind are going to no longer be top level programs. They are going to be mid-majors, hoping to scrap their way to the top instead of having top level talent....

Welcome to the same world in which the remaining 45 or so other Division 1 teams have always lived. Rule #1 in this world ... pointing out the built-in weighted advantages of the "haves" may result in less than glowing reviews of one's attitude.

I applaud you if you are advocating some massive restructuring of the recruiting process in college sports. Because frankly, it's a total sham. You may not see that from the side of the tracks where you now reside since it is the inequities and disadvantages of the process that have built DU up over the last dozen years.

Any consequence of a BTHC formation that results in a more egalitarian landscape for all non-big ten schools is a step forward for college hockey. The end is not nigh for "small" programs instead I argue that the landscape is becoming slightly less tilted against them.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Sorry. That's far from a realistic estimation. I'll stipulate that it suits your scenario nicely.

However, it isn't as if the existing talent pool of the big ten schools is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else in our current alignment. Such things can only be subjectively measured to be sure, but I'm happy to argue that the differential isn't as great as you imply here.

The five current Big Ten schools do not now attract the top 100 players. If they did then your estimation would be accurate. But they don't.


Welcome to the same world in which the remaining 45 or so other Division 1 teams have always lived. Rule #1 in this world ... pointing out the built-in weighted advantages of the "haves" may result in less than glowing reviews of one's attitude.

I applaud you if you are advocating some massive restructuring of the recruiting process in college sports. Because frankly, it's a total sham. You may not see that from the side of the tracks where you now reside since it is the inequities and disadvantages of the process that have built DU up over the last dozen years.

Any consequence of a BTHC formation that results in a more egalitarian landscape for all non-big ten schools is a step forward for college hockey. The end is not nigh for "small" programs instead I argue that the landscape is becoming slightly less tilted against them.

I don't see things as becoming more egalitarian in this scenario. I see more winners and losers. I am not saying the top 100 players are in the Big 10 now, because the big 10 teams are now split into the somewhat equal WCHA and CCHA. They have their stars and role players as all programs do.

However, the Big 10 IS going to gain significantly more talent when it becomes the top league, as the very best players tend go where the comptition is the best. And where will those players come from? Right now they are more spread out, but they will quickly concentrate in the best league. I contend that the top 5-6 programs in the west who aren't Big 10 teams (DU, North Dakota, Miami, Notre Dame, CC, UMD for example) are the big losers here, as they will no longer be landing as many of those top players as they do now. My school, Denver, might keep a player like a Drew or a Nick Shore since they are local kids, but other drafted kids from elsewhere-- Players like Beau Bennett or Jason Zucker or Sam Brittain? These NHL bound players probably aren't coming to Denver so much for the school as they are for a chance to play for a successful program in the top league. I think those kinds of players would go to Penn State, Ohio State or Michigan if Denver is no longer in the best hockey league. So Denver gets 1 "A" prosepct instead of 3-4. And the Pioneers then fill out their rosters with the kind of players who are at Bemidji State or Minnesota State. Denver becomes a mid-major. And so do those other 5-6 schools. UND might keep a few more since their facility is Big 10 level, and Notre Dame might keep a few more since they are Notre Dame, a top ranked school. But DU, CC, Miami and UMD probably lose their top guys first....Denver has worked very hard to raise and spend the money to compete well with the Big Boys, but the competitve advantage they have earned now will likely erode, as recruiting slips and attendance drops. I find that very sad....

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Far be it for me to attempt to negate your perspective. But I think it's a perspective limited to just those few mid-majors you're keen to mention here.

From the perspective of the majority of other D1 programs the leveling of the landscape is a good thing. Sorry I suppose that it means DU slides off the hill a bit ... but again; welcome to our world.

And to reiterate ... the BHHC concept is pure spite. DU may have thought it was engaged to a couple of Big Ten schools but as it turns out ... they'll be spurned in favor of incestuous cousins.

Nobody is asking you to give the engagement ring back; just stop howling about how hurt you are and move along. Planning and/or threatening to host a BHHC gang bang because your (the program's) feelings of rejection are deep isn't a logical response and makes you (the program) appear a bit morally challenged.

 

[hanasoni]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Maize just makes me angry.

Yep, we all feel the same way about, yep, CORN !!!

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

While I think most Minnesotans are resigned to the fact that the BTHC is somewhat of an inevitability, this isn't going to help attendance one iota. Whether it hurts it is up for debate. I tend to lean more to the side that believes this will only hurt attendance. Adding to that, Minnesota's plan to further squeeze the season ticket holders and I see major problems for this school. Winning will solve most of them of course, but then again, maybe it won't.

I'm against the BTHC as much as anyone, but that aside if the "ticket squeezing" continues to produce attendance woes I have a feeling someone will have right mind to adjust the current ticket scheme in a manner that will correct the current problems - winning program or not.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I don't see things as becoming more egalitarian in this scenario. I see more winners and losers. I am not saying the top 100 players are in the Big 10 now, because the big 10 teams are now split into the somewhat equal WCHA and CCHA. They have their stars and role players as all programs do.

However, the Big 10 IS going to gain significantly more talent when it becomes the top league, as the very best players tend go where the comptition is the best. And where will those players come from? Right now they are more spread out, but they will quickly concentrate in the best league. I contend that the top 5-6 programs in the west who aren't Big 10 teams (DU, North Dakota, Miami, Notre Dame, CC, UMD for example) are the big losers here, as they will no longer be landing as many of those top players as they do now. My school, Denver, might keep a player like a Drew or a Nick Shore since they are local kids, but other drafted kids from elsewhere-- Players like Beau Bennett or Jason Zucker or Sam Brittain? These NHL bound players probably aren't coming to Denver so much for the school as they are for a chance to play for a successful program in the top league. I think those kinds of players would go to Penn State, Ohio State or Michigan if Denver is no longer in the best hockey league. So Denver gets 1 "A" prosepct instead of 3-4. And the Pioneers then fill out their rosters with the kind of players who are at Bemidji State or Minnesota State. Denver becomes a mid-major. And so do those other 5-6 schools. UND might keep a few more since their facility is Big 10 level, and Notre Dame might keep a few more since they are Notre Dame, a top ranked school. But DU, CC, Miami and UMD probably lose their top guys first....Denver has worked very hard to raise and spend the money to compete well with the Big Boys, but the competitve advantage they have earned now will likely erode, as recruiting slips and attendance drops. I find that very sad....

Talented kids want playing time more than anything else which means top players will never go be third line guys for the Michigans and Minnesota when they can go to Denver. Adding PSU to college hockey isn't going to take huge amounts of talent away from DU or any other WCHA team either. The top kids at SCSU, DU, UMD and UND don't want to play at OSU now, so why would they in a six team league where they will finish 5 every year? they won't want to go to PSU either and finish last every year in the big ten. Denver might lose a lot of their fair weather fans, but the Minnesota schools and UND will still draw big crowds. The programs that lose out are the small CCHA teams that might not make it without Michigan and MSU.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

I don't see things as becoming more egalitarian in this scenario. I see more winners and losers. I am not saying the top 100 players are in the Big 10 now, because the big 10 teams are now split into the somewhat equal WCHA and CCHA. They have their stars and role players as all programs do.

However, the Big 10 IS going to gain significantly more talent when it becomes the top league, as the very best players tend go where the comptition is the best. And where will those players come from? Right now they are more spread out, but they will quickly concentrate in the best league. I contend that the top 5-6 programs in the west who aren't Big 10 teams (DU, North Dakota, Miami, Notre Dame, CC, UMD for example) are the big losers here, as they will no longer be landing as many of those top players as they do now. My school, Denver, might keep a player like a Drew or a Nick Shore since they are local kids, but other drafted kids from elsewhere-- Players like Beau Bennett or Jason Zucker or Sam Brittain? These NHL bound players probably aren't coming to Denver so much for the school as they are for a chance to play for a successful program in the top league. I think those kinds of players would go to Penn State, Ohio State or Michigan if Denver is no longer in the best hockey league. So Denver gets 1 "A" prosepct instead of 3-4. And the Pioneers then fill out their rosters with the kind of players who are at Bemidji State or Minnesota State. Denver becomes a mid-major. And so do those other 5-6 schools. UND might keep a few more since their facility is Big 10 level, and Notre Dame might keep a few more since they are Notre Dame, a top ranked school. But DU, CC, Miami and UMD probably lose their top guys first....Denver has worked very hard to raise and spend the money to compete well with the Big Boys, but the competitve advantage they have earned now will likely erode, as recruiting slips and attendance drops. I find that very sad....

So, uh. Ohio State can't get elite recruits, attendance, night games on weekends, or their own rink for playoff games now with a conference that has Notre Dame, Michigan (the only school they really care about beating anyway) ,and Michigan State, but add Wisconsin, Minnesota, and expansion Penn State and suddenly they're a juggernaut that's going to rip the talent right out of poor innocent Denver's hands as opposed to an 15-18-3 team that finishes 4-6th every year because they really don't care, as shown by their attendance, and constant forced movement out of their own rink.

Really, Swami?

Some of the Michigan schools, my own included will take a hit in a scenario where they don't get a couple games yearly vs. Michigan and Michigan State for attendance. We're finding that in Kalamazoo, winning helps as well, so I think we'll survive barring another ten years of Culhane level hockey. The addition of Penn State will mean 18 scholarships, 5-6 that may go to elite talent, but frankly, they're an Eastern school as far as recruiting goes, and you won't even notice it.

UND's "facility is Big-10 level" Er, no. It's better than Big Ten level, if you're talking the average of the BT facilities. Frankly, Magness has nothing to be ashamed of compared to Munn, Yost or the Schott.

If the Big Ten teams suddenly decide down the road they're each going to start pouring money into hockey like they do with football and basketball, go ahead and worry. I think they'll take that tv money and put it back into football to keep up with the SEC, basketball to keep up with the ACC/Big East and continue to treat hockey like the niche sport that it is instead of another arms race, especially when there's no one out there to compete against in that respect.

 

[streaker]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

that's not what I meant. referring to Michigan/MSU/OSU/PSU I'm just saying that they don't have the recent success that Nodak, Minnesota, Denver, Wisconsin (4 titles since 1982-83) have and not only that, their rivalries (except a non-existent psu obviously) have been non-existent since *at least* the mid-to-late 70's.

I know Michigan had 7 titles by the 70's but most if not all of those titles were before I was born and I had only a vague awareness of their history in 80's when I discovered UW hockey. It's like the Detroit Lions in football. they were once **** good (bobby lane et al) but not many people remember that anymore.

also it's the amount of time playing each other and the NCAA title's won in that time and the animosity and jealousy built up around that and recruiting wars that makes me think it will take more than a simple 5-10 years to build the BTHC into something.

with the exception of Robbie Earl I can't think of one notable player opposing CCHA fans have griped about losing to Wisconsin. I can name plenty both ways with Minnesota/Nodak/DU/UW

So I guess in a nutshell if this happens, it will be 2025 before you see a new triumvarate of hate like you have w/Nodak/MN/UW. and if UW continues to schedule Nodak then rivalries not named Minnesota/Nodak may never achieve that status

Nah, I'll call b.s., sorry. Leave Ohio State out of the equation. Except for a FF appearance in 1998, their program has been non-existent on the national front. Michigan wasn't much of a contender in the 70's and 80's, either, except for one Finals appearance in 1977. That was when they were in the WCHA playing Wisconsin and Minnesota more frequently.

You could throw UND, Minnesota and Michigan in a hat during the 90's and add Denver in the early 2000's and they would have been competitive with each other. Wisconsin became relevant again in the mid-2000's but wasn't a huge factor during the mid and late 90's. Sixteen year drought. Up until 2004, Denver hadn't won a title since 1969. 23 years between titles for Minnesota- from 1979 to 2002. North Dakota was the most consistent, winning titles in each of the last three decades, but hasn't won since 2000. Michigan has won as many titles in the past fifteen seasons as Minnesota, UND and Denver. MSU and Wisconsin have one. I know you need a firm measurement, but just because a program doesn't win a NC doesn't make it uncompetitive. Michigan was one of the best teams in the 90's and yet, only won two titles- mostly because other programs like LSSU, BU and Maine were really good, too. Do you also realize that Michigan has won more games than any other team in the past decade?

So, each program has a reason to claim that they have been on par with the others in the past 20 years. Rivals? Heck yes- especially UND/Michigan in the late 90's, and Minnesota and Wisconsin since the CHS in 1993. Minnesota had to go thru Michigan each time they won their last two NC's in the FF. Michigan has been knocked out and has knocked out other WCHA powers in the regionals. I can't see where you come off saying that they weren't a program of equal breath as your other WCHA rivals.

Now, if you were to put them into a conference together, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and MSU would develop stronger rivalries. The problem is, they may not be the best teams in their current conferences anymore, nor are they the biggest rivals with each other. Those other rivalries matter and shouldn't be disturbed- like Denver/UND for the WCHA and Miami/Notre Dame for the CCHA which is the biggest rub for each program. That I agree with you on.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference Pt II - The Exodus

Nah, I'll call b.s., sorry. Leave Ohio State out of the equation. Except for a FF appearance in 1998, their program has been non-existent on the national front. Michigan wasn't much of a contender in the 70's and 80's, either, except for one Finals appearance in 1977. That was when they were in the WCHA playing Wisconsin and Minnesota more frequently.

You could throw UND, Minnesota and Michigan in a hat during the 90's and add Denver in the early 2000's and they would have been competitive with each other. Wisconsin became relevant again in the mid-2000's but wasn't a huge factor during the mid and late 90's. Sixteen year drought. Up until 2004, Denver hadn't won a title since 1969. 23 years between titles for Minnesota- from 1979 to 2002. North Dakota was the most consistent, winning titles in each of the last three decades, but hasn't won since 2000. Michigan has won as many titles in the past fifteen seasons as Minnesota, UND and Denver. MSU and Wisconsin have one. I know you need a firm measurement, but just because a program doesn't win a NC doesn't make it uncompetitive. Michigan was one of the best teams in the 90's and yet, only won two titles- mostly because other programs like LSSU, BU and Maine were really good, too. Do you also realize that Michigan has won more games than any other team in the past decade?

So, each program has a reason to claim that they have been on par with the others in the past 20 years. Rivals? Heck yes- especially UND/Michigan in the late 90's, and Minnesota and Wisconsin since the CHS in 1993. Minnesota had to go thru Michigan each time they won their last two NC's in the FF. Michigan has been knocked out and has knocked out other WCHA powers in the regionals. I can't see where you come off saying that they weren't a program of equal breath as your other WCHA rivals.

Now, if you were to put them into a conference together, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and MSU would develop stronger rivalries. The problem is, they may not be the best teams in their current conferences anymore, nor are they the biggest rivals with each other. Those other rivalries matter and shouldn't be disturbed- like Denver/UND for the WCHA and Miami/Notre Dame for the CCHA which is the biggest rub for each program. That I agree with you on.

You and I are focused on different things. I know Michigan has history and won 9 titles. I also know that UW HOCKEY fans mostly could care less about that team and that's because we play them once annually for 17 years and haven't met more than a 2-3 times that I can recall in the playoffs during that stretch.

I watched the Minnesota Vs. Michigan game, the UW vs. MSU and UW vs. UM games this past weekend. At no point were those crowds nearly as racaous as they would have been if DU/Nodak/Minn/UMD/SCSU were in town. and the teams themselves didn't seem too inspired. Hell michigan was alseep that entire game vs. minnesota.

it's a different atmosphere. when the CHS started it was a novelty but playing a team once a year won't create a rivalry.

I'll stand by this: It will take 20 years for the BTHC to form rivalries between UW and Mich, UW and MSU, or PSU or OSU that could come close to Nodak/Minn/Du/CC, etc. AND that's only going to happen if those other B10 teams are competing head to head for the same recruits getting coaches and fans bent out of shape, and the teams being relevant and winning big games against each other in the NCAA tourney.

I don't recall one recruit off the top of my head in 15-20 years that went to michigan over wisconsin or msu over wisconsin that the fanbase was ****ed about. but with Minn/Nodak/CC/Du that's there ad infinitum between all those schools. that stuff matters and helps seal rivalries. Hell UW even has a rivalry with BC in recruiting sort of...

I hate to break it to you but this UW and WCHA fan (and apparently many others) could care less about michigan, msu, osu, psu.

*IF* the B10 happens, then check back in w/me in 15-20 years to see if I hate those teams as much as the rats, the HAKstol fighting sux, or DU