Big Ten Hockey Conference

[Priceless]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It has nothing to do with not wanting to play them. How do the the Big Ten teams fill 14 to 16 games when other teams only have 6 open games and most prime weekends are taken with conference games? The NCAA has rules about when you start the season. during the season teams have a certaina moutn of time off. Any given team only has 4 or 5 open weekends they can play non conference games. They will never fill a entire schedule with that many non conference games unless the other leagues reduce their schedule....

The CCHA will only have 8 teams. With the Alaska exemption they would have 8 NC games apiece. They are natural travel partners for most BT schools. Then you have the same NC games for the other leagues. They'd have plenty of games.

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It has nothing to do with not wanting to play them. How do the the Big Ten teams fill 14 to 16 games when other teams only have 6 open games and most prime weekends are taken with conference games? The NCAA has rules about when you start the season. during the season teams have a certaina moutn of time off. Any given team only has 4 or 5 open weekends they can play non conference games. They will never fill a entire schedule with that many non conference games unless the other leagues reduce their schedule....

Easy peasy.

Since they have an in-demand product (well, the big 4 certainly do. OSU does to a certain extent, and PSU might), teams will be falling all over themselves to play them.

Assume a given team can only fit a two-game weekend series against a single Big Whatever team in their schedule (to simulate the "few good weekends of availability"), hypothetically we can have this (teams randomly selected, but with weights towards geography, and remembering known tourney commitments):
Michigan - Northern Michigan, Ferris State, Notre Dame, Clarkson, Union, Boston College, @ GLI
Michigan State - Western Michigan, UAH, Lake Superior, St. Lawrence, Air Force, UNH, @ GLI
Wisconsin - Minnesota-Duluth, Bemidji State, Denver, UNO, Boston U, UVM, @ Badger Classic
Minnesota - Colorado College, North Dakota, St. Cloud, Mankato, Maine, Providence, @ Dodge Holiday
Ohio State - Michigan Tech, Miami, Bowling Green, Quinnipiac, Niagara, Merrimack, Northeastern
Penn State - Robert Morris, Mercyhurst, RIT, Colgate, RPI, Sacred Heart, UMass-Amherst

I just filled out a 14 game non-con schedule for each Big Whatever team under my above limitations, and I didn't even use the Ivy League teams, the two Alaskas, or all of Atlantic Hockey.

It will not be remotely difficult for the Big Whatever to find itself a full non-conference slate.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I've been lurking here for a bit and wanted to provide some input from a Big Ten perspective. While I'm not a college hockey guy as an Illinois alum, I do have some insight on how the Big Ten thinks, the way the Big Ten Network works and how the conference approaches expansion decisions (as I'm the writer of Frank the Tank's Slant, which is a blog that has been focused on college realignment for the past year). A few things to think about regarding the prospect of a BTHC:

(1) The BTN does NOT have first dibs on hockey TV rights today - Contrary what appears to be a common belief on this board, the BTN isn't granted rights to any hockey games and has to buy telecasts from the CCHA and WCHA while working through the various schools. This has proven to be much more difficult than originally anticipated, which is why there are relatively few hockey games on the BTN right now. (It's NOT because the BTN supposedly doesn't care about hockey.) Mark Silverman, who is the president of the BTN, has been on the record as stating that getting more hockey games is the #1 priority for the network after football and basketball. The BTN really wants a BTHC to be a pillar for all Friday nights and most Saturday nights (as the games wouldn't have conflicts with football or basketball). Now, the CCHA and WCHA might be willing to grant the BTN more games now instead of losing the Big Ten teams entirely, but it's very likely too little too late. Being able to take all hockey games involving Big Ten teams in-house without having to go through a third party for TV rights is something that the conference would MUCH rather do.

(2) Remember about online streaming - Maybe even more important than the BTN on TV is leveraging hockey to build out the BTN's online streaming component via PPV and/or season passes. While people note that college hockey games aren't necessarily great general ratings draws, it's actually a perfect vehicle for online streaming - a sizable niche audience that's rabid enough to pay to watch games online. Since football and men's basketball games are all on TV and women's sports don't draw great online interest, it's hockey that provides the best opportunities to build up the BTN online and make that platform into a money-maker. Don't underestimate this as more and more viewers are watching games online - building out that online site is an extremely high priority for the BTN.

(3) Ohio State and Penn State have NO sympathy for Minnesota and the Gophers will fall into line - There are tons of comments in this thread refer to how Minnesota could lose out on local TV money and WCHA rivalries with the formation of the BTHC. While that might be true for the hockey program specifically, it's a "penny wise pound foolish" argument from the perspective of the entire athletic department and university. Note that before the BTN was formed, Michigan, OSU and PSU all looked into starting their own school networks with football and basketball, which would've been worth a gazillion times more to those schools than the Minnesota FSN hockey package. Jim Delany persuaded those schools to give up those plans for the greater good of the Big Ten conference and pool those TV rights together to form the BTN. As a result, the Minnesota athletic program featuring a football team that can't beat FCS teams from the Dakotas has literally made tens of millions of dollars per year off of the backs of Ohio State and Penn State. Minnesota makes more TV money than Notre Dame (even with its NBC contract), Florida, Texas and USC all because of the Big Ten's TV revenue that's equally distributed among members. This means that OSU and PSU will rightfully tell Minnesota to go ****** itself if it whines about any revenue it would supposedly lose with a BTHC - the Gophers are making a whole lot more money off of OSU and PSU than the other way around and the least it could do is provide something of value in the one sport that it's actually considered to be a power.

The overall point is that there WILL be a Big Ten Hockey Conference - there's no "if" here. It's wasted breath in lamenting its formation because it's a foregone conclusion from the conference's perspective. Note that the Big Ten was willing to throw schools like Iowa State (which is a neighborly public school with Big Ten member Iowa), Missouri and Kansas to non-BCS conferences like the Mountain West when it took Nebraska from the Big 12 (and almost triggered the dissolution of that conferences if Texas and its minions had moved to the Pac-10). The Big Ten also casts a Grim Reaper shadow over the Big East if the Big Ten ever decides to expand again. So, if you think it's going to care one bit about the smaller hockey schools, you're extremely naive. Therefore, the WCHA and CCHA schools really need to have a game plan to cope with the loss of the Big Ten schools (because it's going to happen whether the hardcore college fans like it or not).

 

[Happy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Easy peasy.

Since they have an in-demand product (well, the big 4 certainly do. OSU does to a certain extent, and PSU might), teams will be falling all over themselves to play them.

Assume a given team can only fit a two-game weekend series against a single Big Whatever team in their schedule (to simulate the "few good weekends of availability"), hypothetically we can have this (teams randomly selected, but with weights towards geography, and remembering known tourney commitments):
Michigan - Northern Michigan, Ferris State, Notre Dame, Clarkson, Union, Boston College, @ GLI
Michigan State - Western Michigan, UAH, Lake Superior, St. Lawrence, Air Force, UNH, @ GLI
Wisconsin - Minnesota-Duluth, Bemidji State, Denver, UNO, Boston U, UVM, @ Badger Classic
Minnesota - Colorado College, North Dakota, St. Cloud, Mankato, Maine, Providence, @ Dodge Holiday
Ohio State - Michigan Tech, Miami, Bowling Green, Quinnipiac, Niagara, Merrimack, Northeastern
Penn State - Robert Morris, Mercyhurst, RIT, Colgate, RPI, Sacred Heart, UMass-Amherst

I just filled out a 14 game non-con schedule for each Big Whatever team under my above limitations, and I didn't even use the Ivy League teams, the two Alaskas, or all of Atlantic Hockey.

It will not be remotely difficult for the Big Whatever to find itself a full non-conference slate.

also, Minnesota will have no problem filling out a schedule with home and homes with in state teams if they had to. Could you imagine what would happen at St. Cloud, or Mankato if those school turned down a chance of a pair of games like that.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

You're seriously going to compare UMinn to BSU for drawing teams to their building? You said that no one could fill out a schedule needing 14 OOC games a year, and I showed that it is quite possible. Besides, SCSU, NoDak, UMD and MSUM have played at BSU fairly regularly, with the Gophs even coming once... You really think Minnesota would do worse in drawing teams to their barn?

Why would anybody care if they play OSU or PSU? They will be bottom of the BTHC almost every year. Minnesota, Mich and MSU will have a easier time filling their schedule because the in state teams will want to face them. All Big Ten teams will also not have that many options because there are not that many options once the conference season starts. If teams want they can play hard ball and ask for a two year deal with one at home. Can they fill their schedule? Maybe, but calling it easy is far from the truth.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

also, Minnesota will have no problem filling out a schedule with home and homes with in state teams if they had to. Could you imagine what would happen at St. Cloud, or Mankato if those school turned down a chance of a pair of games like that.

What would happen?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It has nothing to do with not wanting to play them. How do the the Big Ten teams fill 14 to 16 games when other teams only have 6 open games and most prime weekends are taken with conference games? The NCAA has rules about when you start the season. during the season teams have a certaina moutn of time off. Any given team only has 4 or 5 open weekends they can play non conference games. They will never fill a entire schedule with that many non conference games unless the other leagues reduce their schedule....

1) one conference will lose three teams (and everyone will need to replace those games
2) another conference will lose two teams (and everyone will need to replace those game
3) two conferences now are in such a pinch to fill their ooc schedule that they actually play.each.other.now as ooc games.

..if you schedule it, they will come

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

1) one conference will lose three teams (and everyone will need to replace those games
2) another conference will lose two teams (and everyone will need to replace those game
3) two conferences now are in such a pinch to fill their ooc schedule that they actually play.each.other.now as ooc games.

..if you schedule it, they will come

The WCHA and CCHA won't play less games because Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mich, MSU and OSU leave.....All WCHA teams could have kept it's same non conference schedule last year and played a full 28 game league schedule without those teams...

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

The WCHA and CCHA won't play less games because Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mich, MSU and OSU leave.....All WCHA teams could have kept it's same non conference schedule last year and played a full 28 game league schedule without those teams...

sure... they could reshuffle and make it so half the teams get an extra data with western michigan and some get an extra gate with bgsu. absolutely.

or.... they could open up some ooc games to try and improve their pwr, get some guarantees by visiting the gophs for the 'fall dodge classic' or the 'winter dodge classic', or maybe the 'spring dodge classic' , or invite uah.

up to them...

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

What would happen?

They would go the way of the Dodo bird.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Why would anybody care if they play OSU or PSU? They will be bottom of the BTHC almost every year. Minnesota, Mich and MSU will have a easier time filling their schedule because the in state teams will want to face them. All Big Ten teams will also not have that many options because there are not that many options once the conference season starts. If teams want they can play hard ball and ask for a two year deal with one at home. Can they fill their schedule? Maybe, but calling it easy is far from the truth.

I disagree. The Big Ten will have no problems finding teams to fill up their home non conference schedule. I highly doubt they will want to play in anybody else's barn.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I disagree. The Big Ten will have no problems finding teams to fill up their home non conference schedule. I highly doubt they will want to play in anybody else's barn.

it'll certainly be catch-22 in a couple cases. teams will benefit from playing them if you assume the conference will be stong and your pwr will get a bump (opp opp winning pct). but the better teams (sioux, bc, bu, miami, du, uhn, etc) will not just go there with no return trip. then you really on middling teams who want the benefit and can stand not having a home game. but it will be a risk to keep scheduling soft ooc teams at home if you don't win, then don't win a majority of your bthc league games and end up missing out on the ncaa tourney.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I've been lurking here for a bit and wanted to provide some input from a Big Ten perspective. While I'm not a college hockey guy as an Illinois alum, I do have some insight on how the Big Ten thinks, the way the Big Ten Network works and how the conference approaches expansion decisions (as I'm the writer of Frank the Tank's Slant, which is a blog that has been focused on college realignment for the past year). A few things to think about regarding the prospect of a BTHC:

(1) The BTN does NOT have first dibs on hockey TV rights today - Contrary what appears to be a common belief on this board, the BTN isn't granted rights to any hockey games and has to buy telecasts from the CCHA and WCHA while working through the various schools. This has proven to be much more difficult than originally anticipated, which is why there are relatively few hockey games on the BTN right now. (It's NOT because the BTN supposedly doesn't care about hockey.) Mark Silverman, who is the president of the BTN, has been on the record as stating that getting more hockey games is the #1 priority for the network after football and basketball. The BTN really wants a BTHC to be a pillar for all Friday nights and most Saturday nights (as the games wouldn't have conflicts with football or basketball). Now, the CCHA and WCHA might be willing to grant the BTN more games now instead of losing the Big Ten teams entirely, but it's very likely too little too late. Being able to take all hockey games involving Big Ten teams in-house without having to go through a third party for TV rights is something that the conference would MUCH rather do.

(2) Remember about online streaming - Maybe even more important than the BTN on TV is leveraging hockey to build out the BTN's online streaming component via PPV and/or season passes. While people note that college hockey games aren't necessarily great general ratings draws, it's actually a perfect vehicle for online streaming - a sizable niche audience that's rabid enough to pay to watch games online. Since football and men's basketball games are all on TV and women's sports don't draw great online interest, it's hockey that provides the best opportunities to build up the BTN online and make that platform into a money-maker. Don't underestimate this as more and more viewers are watching games online - building out that online site is an extremely high priority for the BTN.

(3) Ohio State and Penn State have NO sympathy for Minnesota and the Gophers will fall into line - There are tons of comments in this thread refer to how Minnesota could lose out on local TV money and WCHA rivalries with the formation of the BTHC. While that might be true for the hockey program specifically, it's a "penny wise pound foolish" argument from the perspective of the entire athletic department and university. Note that before the BTN was formed, Michigan, OSU and PSU all looked into starting their own school networks with football and basketball, which would've been worth a gazillion times more to those schools than the Minnesota FSN hockey package. Jim Delany persuaded those schools to give up those plans for the greater good of the Big Ten conference and pool those TV rights together to form the BTN. As a result, the Minnesota athletic program featuring a football team that can't beat FCS teams from the Dakotas has literally made tens of millions of dollars per year off of the backs of Ohio State and Penn State. Minnesota makes more TV money than Notre Dame (even with its NBC contract), Florida, Texas and USC all because of the Big Ten's TV revenue that's equally distributed among members. This means that OSU and PSU will rightfully tell Minnesota to go ****** itself if it whines about any revenue it would supposedly lose with a BTHC - the Gophers are making a whole lot more money off of OSU and PSU than the other way around and the least it could do is provide something of value in the one sport that it's actually considered to be a power.

The overall point is that there WILL be a Big Ten Hockey Conference - there's no "if" here. It's wasted breath in lamenting its formation because it's a foregone conclusion from the conference's perspective. Note that the Big Ten was willing to throw schools like Iowa State (which is a neighborly public school with Big Ten member Iowa), Missouri and Kansas to non-BCS conferences like the Mountain West when it took Nebraska from the Big 12 (and almost triggered the dissolution of that conferences if Texas and its minions had moved to the Pac-10). The Big Ten also casts a Grim Reaper shadow over the Big East if the Big Ten ever decides to expand again. So, if you think it's going to care one bit about the smaller hockey schools, you're extremely naive. Therefore, the WCHA and CCHA schools really need to have a game plan to cope with the loss of the Big Ten schools (because it's going to happen whether the hardcore college fans like it or not).

I wish that everything you've said isn't true. But it probably is. And even as a Wisconsin fan... I hate that. I do doubt that all of the non-BTHC schools in the west will be able to cope with the changes. We will see damage from the BTHC, and we will probably have fewer than 58 teams not long after PSU joins the party.

Our best hope is that Paul Kelley really knows how to convince bigger schools to jump in as well. But, barring a proliferation of billionaire hockey fan alums from other BCS-level schools, I'm not holding my breath.

With the online streaming bit- I think we all know what that really means. If there are 10 games involving Big Ten teams on any given weekend- there will be two games on TV, 8 available online only- maybe for syndication if your local channel has the cash for it. Maybe we'll get lucky and that ratio will be closer to 4 on TV, 6 online only. Either way: get out your pocketbooks, hockey fans, and pray that you've got a good connection.

I disagree. The Big Ten will have no problems finding teams to fill up their home non conference schedule. I highly doubt they will want to play in anybody else's barn.

If the small schools thought they could get away with it, it'd be interesting to see them try to blackball the BTHC.

But they can't, they won't and I won't even bother pretending like it'll happen. This will end up being like football or basketball: little teams won't have a lot of home OOC dates, their ticket revenue will dwindle, and you will see an increase in the chasm between the haves and the have nots.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I've been lurking here for a bit and wanted to provide some input from a Big Ten perspective. While I'm not a college hockey guy as an Illinois alum, I do have some insight on how the Big Ten thinks, the way the Big Ten Network works and how the conference approaches expansion decisions (as I'm the writer of Frank the Tank's Slant, which is a blog that has been focused on college realignment for the past year). A few things to think about regarding the prospect of a BTHC:

(1) The BTN does NOT have first dibs on hockey TV rights today - Contrary what appears to be a common belief on this board, the BTN isn't granted rights to any hockey games and has to buy telecasts from the CCHA and WCHA while working through the various schools. This has proven to be much more difficult than originally anticipated, which is why there are relatively few hockey games on the BTN right now. (It's NOT because the BTN supposedly doesn't care about hockey.) Mark Silverman, who is the president of the BTN, has been on the record as stating that getting more hockey games is the #1 priority for the network after football and basketball. The BTN really wants a BTHC to be a pillar for all Friday nights and most Saturday nights (as the games wouldn't have conflicts with football or basketball). Now, the CCHA and WCHA might be willing to grant the BTN more games now instead of losing the Big Ten teams entirely, but it's very likely too little too late. Being able to take all hockey games involving Big Ten teams in-house without having to go through a third party for TV rights is something that the conference would MUCH rather do.

(2) Remember about online streaming - Maybe even more important than the BTN on TV is leveraging hockey to build out the BTN's online streaming component via PPV and/or season passes. While people note that college hockey games aren't necessarily great general ratings draws, it's actually a perfect vehicle for online streaming - a sizable niche audience that's rabid enough to pay to watch games online. Since football and men's basketball games are all on TV and women's sports don't draw great online interest, it's hockey that provides the best opportunities to build up the BTN online and make that platform into a money-maker. Don't underestimate this as more and more viewers are watching games online - building out that online site is an extremely high priority for the BTN.

(3) Ohio State and Penn State have NO sympathy for Minnesota and the Gophers will fall into line - There are tons of comments in this thread refer to how Minnesota could lose out on local TV money and WCHA rivalries with the formation of the BTHC. While that might be true for the hockey program specifically, it's a "penny wise pound foolish" argument from the perspective of the entire athletic department and university. Note that before the BTN was formed, Michigan, OSU and PSU all looked into starting their own school networks with football and basketball, which would've been worth a gazillion times more to those schools than the Minnesota FSN hockey package. Jim Delany persuaded those schools to give up those plans for the greater good of the Big Ten conference and pool those TV rights together to form the BTN. As a result, the Minnesota athletic program featuring a football team that can't beat FCS teams from the Dakotas has literally made tens of millions of dollars per year off of the backs of Ohio State and Penn State. Minnesota makes more TV money than Notre Dame (even with its NBC contract), Florida, Texas and USC all because of the Big Ten's TV revenue that's equally distributed among members. This means that OSU and PSU will rightfully tell Minnesota to go ****** itself if it whines about any revenue it would supposedly lose with a BTHC - the Gophers are making a whole lot more money off of OSU and PSU than the other way around and the least it could do is provide something of value in the one sport that it's actually considered to be a power.

The overall point is that there WILL be a Big Ten Hockey Conference - there's no "if" here. It's wasted breath in lamenting its formation because it's a foregone conclusion from the conference's perspective. Note that the Big Ten was willing to throw schools like Iowa State (which is a neighborly public school with Big Ten member Iowa), Missouri and Kansas to non-BCS conferences like the Mountain West when it took Nebraska from the Big 12 (and almost triggered the dissolution of that conferences if Texas and its minions had moved to the Pac-10). The Big Ten also casts a Grim Reaper shadow over the Big East if the Big Ten ever decides to expand again. So, if you think it's going to care one bit about the smaller hockey schools, you're extremely naive. Therefore, the WCHA and CCHA schools really need to have a game plan to cope with the loss of the Big Ten schools (because it's going to happen whether the hardcore college fans like it or not).

Well written. Just remember the University of Minnesota is one of the original Big Ten members and they will fall in line with the rest of the Big Ten schools. I believe you need to direct some of sarcasm at the posters and not at the university of Minnesota. Maturi fully understands where his bread is buttered.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It will be entertaining to hear the *****ing from the Big10 supporters after 3-4 western programs drop hockey and the NCAA backs the tourney field down to 12 teams, making it so it will be very difficult for 3 or 4 Big10 teams to make the tournament. Can you say "backfire"?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It will be entertaining to hear the *****ing from the Big10 supporters after 3-4 western programs drop hockey and the NCAA backs the tourney field down to 12 teams, making it so it will be very difficult for 3 or 4 Big10 teams to make the tournament. Can you say "backfire"?

... wasn't it a couple months ago that the basketball tournament nearly doubled to 96?!? and while they only added three (for now), tv money available would easily let them talk themselves into allowing a bigger tournament with nearly half the teams making it. so what then if hockey allows a measly 1/3 of it's teams into the postseason.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I wish that everything you've said isn't true. But it probably is. And even as a Wisconsin fan... I hate that. I do doubt that all of the non-BTHC schools in the west will be able to cope with the changes. We will see damage from the BTHC, and we will probably have fewer than 58 teams not long after PSU joins the party.

Our best hope is that Paul Kelley really knows how to convince bigger schools to jump in as well. But, barring a proliferation of billionaire hockey fan alums from other BCS-level schools, I'm not holding my breath.

With the online streaming bit- I think we all know what that really means. If there are 10 games involving Big Ten teams on any given weekend- there will be two games on TV, 8 available online only- maybe for syndication if your local channel has the cash for it. Maybe we'll get lucky and that ratio will be closer to 4 on TV, 6 online only. Either way: get out your pocketbooks, hockey fans, and pray that you've got a good connection.

If the small schools thought they could get away with it, it'd be interesting to see them try to blackball the BTHC.

But they can't, they won't and I won't even bother pretending like it'll happen. This will end up being like football or basketball: little teams won't have a lot of home OOC dates, their ticket revenue will dwindle, and you will see an increase in the chasm between the haves and the have nots.

I agree. Smaller schools like SCSU are mad that things will change. I can't say I disagree with them.

 

[pinch]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

I don't know what the tax liabilities look like on $5 billion, but I think the easiest thing to do at this point is give each of the non hockey playing BT schools about $20 million each to kick start programs. I am sure any hockey loving financial advisor could make this argument.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It will be entertaining to hear the *****ing from the Big10 supporters after 3-4 western programs drop hockey and the NCAA backs the tourney field down to 12 teams, making it so it will be very difficult for 3 or 4 Big10 teams to make the tournament. Can you say "backfire"?

Well that is life. What can you do? Nothing and hope for the best.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

it'll certainly be catch-22 in a couple cases. teams will benefit from playing them if you assume the conference will be stong and your pwr will get a bump (opp opp winning pct). but the better teams (sioux, bc, bu, miami, du, uhn, etc) will not just go there with no return trip. then you really on middling teams who want the benefit and can stand not having a home game. but it will be a risk to keep scheduling soft ooc teams at home if you don't win, then don't win a majority of your bthc league games and end up missing out on the ncaa tourney.

Who is to say the Big Ten schools even want to play the better teams at their arena? That is a money loss for the Big Ten. They would rather play an easier non conference schedule at home to make more money than play on the road at a "good" teams arena. The BTHC is purely about making more revenue.