Big Ten Hockey Conference

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Pretty much no chance. The only school that won't want this is Minnesota...others either won't care MI or MSU or want it...pretty much everyone else.

The only hope for not getting a BTHC is for MN to convince MI and MSU that it's not a good thing for their bottom line. I'd say try to convince WI, but I don't think Alvarez is open to listening to facts.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

The only hope for not getting a BTHC is for MN to convince MI and MSU that it's not a good thing for their bottom line. I'd say try to convince WI, but I don't think Alvarez is open to listening to facts.

I doubt Barry gives two shiats about hockey anyway.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I'm not entirely convinced Michigan won't come out against it from the get-go. Michigan is in a very similar situation to Minnesota.

JLA is the center of the CCHA Tourney and they would stand to lose that except for once every 3-5 years. Not what I would consider a good deal for them.

Add into that the high density of Michigan schools they play and it makes it somewhat more similar. They don't have the huge increase in travel expenditures since they are centrally located but it's still going to increase.

I don't know. I'm just crossing my fingers at this point. They came to their senses regarding the icing, but man, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[moose97]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

As I noted, it's the AD's and Senior Women's Administrators who would have the initial power (and it would seem that the Presidents would follow their AD's recommendations). I would think that you could just about throw out the Women's Admin's opinion, and this comes down to each school's AD. So:

Michigan - Dae Brandon: no idea where UM or Brandon stands
Michigan State - Mark Hollis: no idea where MSU or Hollis stands
Minnesota - Joel Maturi: has spoken out against the BTHC before
Ohio State - Gene Smith: the school likely to benefit the most by a BTHC
Penn State - Tim Curley: likely wouldn't have started hockey w/ out the BTHC
Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez: seems to be driving the BTHC bus

So, I see it as 3 yes votes (OSU, PSU and UW), 1 no (UMinn) and 2 not sure (UMich and MSU), with OSU, PSU and UW needing to only convince one of the Michigan schools to vote yes, and it's a done deal.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

As I noted, it's the AD's and Senior Women's Administrators who would have the initial power (and it would seem that the Presidents would follow their AD's recommendations). I would think that you could just about throw out the Women's Admin's opinion, and this comes down to each school's AD. So:

Michigan - Dae Brandon: no idea where UM or Brandon stands
Michigan State - Mark Hollis: no idea where MSU or Hollis stands
Minnesota - Joel Maturi: has spoken out against the BTHC before
Ohio State - Gene Smith: the school likely to benefit the most by a BTHC
Penn State - Tim Curley: likely wouldn't have started hockey w/ out the BTHC
Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez: seems to be driving the BTHC bus

So, I see it as 3 yes votes (OSU, PSU and UW), 1 no (UMinn) and 2 not sure (UMich and MSU), with OSU, PSU and UW needing to only convince one of the Michigan schools to vote yes, and it's a done deal.

Unless Minnesota can convince Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Nebraska, Illinois to get involved

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Unless Minnesota can convince Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Nebraska, Illinois to get involved

You guys are forgetting the Cardinal Rule of Big Ten voting:

Ohio State has 1 vote; Michigan has 1 vote; the other 8 long time schools COMBINED have 1 vote; Joe Paterno thinks he has a vote.

 

[Sterling Cooper]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Unless Minnesota can convince Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Nebraska, Illinois to get involved

And that's not going to happen. Ohio State, Michigan and (to a lesser degree) Wisconsin and Penn State drive the Big Ten revenue train. Minnesota takes orders in the Big Ten; they don't give them.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

As I noted, it's the AD's and Senior Women's Administrators who would have the initial power (and it would seem that the Presidents would follow their AD's recommendations). I would think that you could just about throw out the Women's Admin's opinion, and this comes down to each school's AD. So:

Michigan - Dae Brandon: no idea where UM or Brandon stands
Michigan State - Mark Hollis: no idea where MSU or Hollis stands
Minnesota - Joel Maturi: has spoken out against the BTHC before
Ohio State - Gene Smith: the school likely to benefit the most by a BTHC
Penn State - Tim Curley: likely wouldn't have started hockey w/ out the BTHC
Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez: seems to be driving the BTHC bus

So, I see it as 3 yes votes (OSU, PSU and UW), 1 no (UMinn) and 2 not sure (UMich and MSU), with OSU, PSU and UW needing to only convince one of the Michigan schools to vote yes, and it's a done deal.

IMO, it comes down to if and that is big if the Big Ten Network decides to actually spend time, money and effort in a BTHC. If the network shows the schools money it drive the bus.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I doubt Barry gives two shiats about hockey anyway.

Yes but he wants the BTHC to be a part of his legacy. Bank on it.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

The only hope for not getting a BTHC is for MN to convince MI and MSU that it's not a good thing for their bottom line. I'd say try to convince WI, but I don't think Alvarez is open to listening to facts.

listening to facts? barry alvarez didn't even know UW had a hockey team (you know the one team in madison with 4-decades of championship success and sold-out stadiums?) until about April 4 2006 so....extrapolate from there

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

As I noted, it's the AD's and Senior Women's Administrators who would have the initial power (and it would seem that the Presidents would follow their AD's recommendations). I would think that you could just about throw out the Women's Admin's opinion, and this comes down to each school's AD. So:

Michigan - Dae Brandon: no idea where UM or Brandon stands
Michigan State - Mark Hollis: no idea where MSU or Hollis stands
Minnesota - Joel Maturi: has spoken out against the BTHC before
Ohio State - Gene Smith: the school likely to benefit the most by a BTHC
Penn State - Tim Curley: likely wouldn't have started hockey w/ out the BTHC
Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez: seems to be driving the BTHC bus

So, I see it as 3 yes votes (OSU, PSU and UW), 1 no (UMinn) and 2 not sure (UMich and MSU), with OSU, PSU and UW needing to only convince one of the Michigan schools to vote yes, and it's a done deal.

The crazy part is the other remaining schools not sponsoring hockey may vote on the matter. Who is to say Indiana and Illinois vote for a Big Ten Hockey Conference, especially if they decide to play in the icebox.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

The crazy part is the other remaining schools not sponsoring hockey may vote on the matter. Who is to say Indiana and Illinois vote for a Big Ten Hockey Conference, especially if they decide to play in the icebox.

If this is true...then this is over before it begins. Why wouldn't Iowa say yes to additional revenue from the BigTen Network?

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

If this is true...then this is over before it begins. Why wouldn't Iowa say yes to additional revenue from the BigTen Network?

No one said they would get a share of the additional revenue...we're just saying that any of the 11 (12) schools can vote on the matter. Traditionally voting is left to the schools that are participating.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I still don't know where the additional revenue is coming from the Big Ten Network. Not in advertising, because no one watches hockey. And not in increased # of subscribers or charging extra per subscriber, because, well, no one watches hockey.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I still don't know where the additional revenue is coming from the Big Ten Network.

The money tree?

 

[blockski]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I still don't know where the additional revenue is coming from the Big Ten Network. Not in advertising, because no one watches hockey. And not in increased # of subscribers or charging extra per subscriber, because, well, no one watches hockey.

You don't see it?

The BTN isn't trying to be ESPN here. FSN generates plenty of revenue for Gopher Hockey - that's what the BTN is after. If no one watches hockey, then what explains the existing local TV deals?

Likewise, they can indeed generate more advertising revenue from live programming of games that they can't get from re-runs or other non-live programming.

They're also likely interested in using this as a part of their online broadcasting platform.

 

[Skeeterman]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It's not BTHC, it's LSHC- Little Six Hockey Conference.

 

[Rover]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Watching this from a distance I too find it hard to believe that there's no money being made on this. Its college athletics. Nobody does anything unless it involves money or they need to comply with gender equality rules. Without looking at the finances, I don't believe the Big Ten network would be pushing this if they couldn't sell the advertising on it vs whatever they have in that time slot now. If college hockey can sell out a football stadium in Wisconsin, Michigan St and soon Michigan, there's gotta be a market and revenues associated with it.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

You don't see it?

The BTN isn't trying to be ESPN here. FSN generates plenty of revenue for Gopher Hockey - that's what the BTN is after. If no one watches hockey, then what explains the existing local TV deals?

Likewise, they can indeed generate more advertising revenue from live programming of games that they can't get from re-runs or other non-live programming.

They're also likely interested in using this as a part of their online broadcasting platform.

FSN may make money, but that's one state and one program.

Teams that have major TV deals:
Minnesota (FSN)
Denver (FSN)
North Dakota (FCS)
New Hampshire (NESN)

Anyone else?

CSTV and ESPNU have a "Game of the Week" and SNY covers an ECAC game on occasion. The BTN and FSD also occasionally broadcast games. Some schools have a local TV deal (Maine has moved to WABI-5 and WPME) but models that make money are few and far between.

And even when a TV deal turns a profit, we still aren't talking football or basketball dollars. That's the money that drives networks and conferences; not hockey (or baseball or soccer or lax) money.

 

[moe24]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

FSN may make money, but that's one state and one program.

Teams that have major TV deals:
Minnesota (FSN)
Denver (FSN)
North Dakota (FCS)
New Hampshire (NESN)

Anyone else?

CSTV and ESPNU have a "Game of the Week" and SNY covers an ECAC game on occasion. The BTN and FSD also occasionally broadcast games. Some schools have a local TV deal (Maine has moved to WABI-5 and WPME) but models that make money are few and far between.

And even when a TV deal turns a profit, we still aren't talking football or basketball dollars. That's the money that drives networks and conferences; not hockey (or baseball or soccer or lax) money.

The CCHA as a whole has a deal with FSN-Detroit, a profitable one (especially when Big Ten schools are featured).