Big Ten Hockey Conference

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

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.

SWEET!

We're going to be the haves, right?

Eat it little people!

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

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.

Strictly speaking, this already happens. The AHA already occupies this space of the "low end team that can't get people to play at their home rinks".

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

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.

no. i think the primary goal is winning titles. big10 title, then ncaa title. preparation plays a lot into that and seasoning your team against foes that you may meet later on or that will give you a challenge will always be considered.

and again, this is a natural progression with teams that have a common bond. they have a conference set up for other sports. now that they have volume it is bound to happen.

 

[MGoBlueHockey]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

If they do this than I think that it would only be a success if they somehow got Notre Dame and Miami U to be hockey-only members.

Plus it would be great to have Michigan hockey coverage on the BTN.

Only problem I have is conference tournaments. How would that work?

 

[4four4]

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?

Exactly. That is why this is a done deal.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Strictly speaking, this already happens. The AHA already occupies this space of the "low end team that can't get people to play at their home rinks".

In that case: expect the ratio of "haves" and "have nots" to change.

And also expect there to be a lot fewer "okay, we have more than the have nots, but we don't have much" teams.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

If they do this than I think that it would only be a success if they somehow got Notre Dame and Miami U to be hockey-only members.

Big Ten won't have associate members. Ever.

Plus it would be great to have Michigan hockey coverage on the BTN.

When the BTN is generous enough to have them on TV? Yes.

If the BTN is able to regionalize game coverage (similar to the way NFL games are split up nationally on CBS and Fox), then the rest of this is moot point, but it's worth noting anyway.

Assume a 20 conference, 14 non-conference schedule for each team. That's 144 games during a season (60 conference matchups, 84 non-conference games). If the BTN is generous to hockey, they might show an average of 3 games a weekend (and I do think that is a VERY generous average... I think it will definately be closer to 2 games a weekend).

Let's generously assume that there are 24 weekends in the season, that's 72 games. Only half of ALL games involving Big Ten teams will be on TV. The rest of them? Maybe on tape delay, maybe the feed was purchased by a local FSN channel... but probably available only through live streaming. $$$$$

Only problem I have is conference tournaments. How would that work?

That, my friend, is easy to figure out. Conference tourney formats are as easily changed as non-conference schedules. Maybe they hold it in Chicago, maybe St. Paul, maybe Detroit, maybe Pittsburgh. Maybe all 6 teams go, maybe just the top 4, maybe the top 2 and the bottom 4 have play in games. It doesn't really matter.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Big Ten won't have associate members. Ever.

When the BTN is generous enough to have them on TV? Yes.

If the BTN is able to regionalize game coverage (similar to the way NFL games are split up nationally on CBS and Fox), then the rest of this is moot point, but it's worth noting anyway.

Assume a 20 conference, 14 non-conference schedule for each team. That's 144 games during a season (60 conference matchups, 84 non-conference games). If the BTN is generous to hockey, they might show an average of 3 games a weekend (and I do think that is a VERY generous average... I think it will definately be closer to 2 games a weekend).

Let's generously assume that there are 24 weekends in the season, that's 72 games. Only half of ALL games involving Big Ten teams will be on TV. The rest of them? Maybe on tape delay, maybe the feed was purchased by a local FSN channel... but probably available only through live streaming. $$$$$

That, my friend, is easy to figure out. Conference tourney formats are as easily changed as non-conference schedules. Maybe they hold it in Chicago, maybe St. Paul, maybe Detroit, maybe Pittsburgh. Maybe all 6 teams go, maybe just the top 4, maybe the top 2 and the bottom 4 have play in games. It doesn't really matter.

Live streaming in Minnesota will not go over very well especially since every Wild game is on television.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Live streaming in Minnesota will not go over very well especially since every Wild game is on television.

BTN could sell off its feed for syndication on FSN-MN. FSN would probably still make money off of it, actually- since FSN would get a good deal (Fox owns part of BTN) and the Gophers actually get good ratings locally. That would probably be a challenge elsewhere in the BTHC.

 

[4four4]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

BTN could sell off its feed for syndication on FSN-MN. FSN would probably still make money off of it, actually- since FSN would get a good deal (Fox owns part of BTN) and the Gophers actually get good ratings locally. That would probably be a challenge elsewhere in the BTHC.

I have been told the Gophers get a solid 2.0 rating.

 

[SanTropez]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Hey Gopher fans... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRfp...eature=related

Hey ugly helmet fan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja7Ni6JJddQ&feature=related

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

(1) The BTN does NOT have first dibs on hockey TV rights today -

Except for the part where you're absolutely wrong. People I know who are plugged into the Gophers and FSN are telling me the exact opposite. The BTN absolutely has first dibs.

The BTN can blather on about how they WANT to show more hockey but until I see it, I won't believe it.

 

[badger79]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Except for the part where you're absolutely wrong. People I know who are plugged into the Gophers and FSN are telling me the exact opposite. The BTN absolutely has first dibs.

The BTN can blather on about how they WANT to show more hockey but until I see it, I won't believe it.

The Big Ten Network would have first dibs -- if the Big Ten sponsored hockey. But there's no such thing as Big Ten hockey, so the BTN doesn't have first dibs on those games. That would be a major reason for creating a Big Ten hockey conference -- because then the Big Ten would own the media rights to Big Ten home games and could air them live on the network for dirt cheap.

It's probably not easy to get out of television contracts -- they are legally binding documents after all. Teams can't just say, "Well, we have the BTN now, we'll be seeing you" to FSN.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

The Big Ten Network would have first dibs -- if the Big Ten sponsored hockey. But there's no such thing as Big Ten hockey, so the BTN doesn't have first dibs on those games. That would be a major reason for creating a Big Ten hockey conference -- because then the Big Ten would own the media rights to Big Ten home games and could air them live on the network for dirt cheap.

It's probably not easy to get out of television contracts -- they are legally binding documents after all. Teams can't just say, "Well, we have the BTN now, we'll be seeing you" to FSN.

Yes, but you forget the fact that Minnesota is a member of the big ten. This next part is speculation, but I'd have to bet it's written into the contract or it's decided prior to the season which games the BTN wants. /end speculation

Are you really telling me that FSN doesn't want the UW-MN games the BTN got? Preposterous.

 

[badger79]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

Yes, but you forget the fact that Minnesota is a member of the big ten. This next part is speculation, but I'd have to bet it's written into the contract or it's decided prior to the season which games the BTN wants. /end speculation

It doesn't make sense that FSN would pay a bunch of money to televise Minnesota's hockey games and then allow the BTN to stipulate which games they get. Even with the football contracts, ABC/ESPN pick which games they want first and then BTN gets the dregs.

The real question is, why wouldn't the Big Ten Network want hockey? It's live sports programming that they can produce for a song. Programming is not cheap to come by -- it's probably the biggest cost of running a network. College hockey fans are a niche audience, but they're dedicated, hugely passionate and will follow their sport wherever it goes.

 

[blockski]

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:

Frank - love your blog and all the commentary on Big Ten expansion over the past year. It's been great to read.

(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.

I think point #2 is spot on, but I'd also note 4four4's comment:

Live streaming in Minnesota will not go over very well especially since every Wild game is on television.

One key element of the original BTN sales pitch was that once the BTN had carriage agreements with all the local cable providers, every single school saw the number of games their team was on TV for football or basketball increase over the previous arrangement.

As point #3 notes, there's no sympathy for Minnesota's lost revenue from the other Big Ten hockey schools, all of whom carry more weight than Minnesota does when it comes to football and basketball. However, there will be a revolt if Big Ten hockey means fewer Minnesota Gopher hockey games are available on basic cable in the Twin Cities.

I love the idea of trying to bolster the streaming video market online, but asking Minnesota to go from having nearly 100% of their games, home and road, on expanded basic cable TV to some number less than 100% will be a very difficult lift. With the beginning of the BTN, all you had to do was wait for carriage agreements. If the BTN starts putting Gopher Hockey online, then that's a problem.

Not that it would be a great idea to do so anyway, the Gophers get good ratings in the Twin Cities. Maybe the solution is to somehow regionalize hockey broadcasts - the Twin Cities get the game that Minnesota is playing, Milwaukee gets the Badgers, etc. However, asking Minnesota to decrease the coverage their team receives will be a very difficult ask.

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).

Yes, the WCHA and CCHA do need to plan for this proactively, rather than wishing that it won't happen.

That said, a scenario where a BTHC plays 20 conference games and 14-16 non-conference games gives those conferences a window of opportunity. Reducing the number of conference games for all teams in college hockey would be a welcome change, and might make this transition a little smoother.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

It doesn't make sense that FSN would pay a bunch of money to televise Minnesota's hockey games and then allow the BTN to stipulate which games they get. Even with the football contracts, ABC/ESPN pick which games they want first and then BTN gets the dregs.

The real question is, why wouldn't the Big Ten Network want hockey? It's live sports programming that they can produce for a song. Programming is not cheap to come by -- it's probably the biggest cost of running a network. College hockey fans are a niche audience, but they're dedicated, hugely passionate and will follow their sport wherever it goes.

Again, speculation, but ever hear of prorating?

Also, you need to reread my post again. This could be decided prior to each season which games the BTN wants and FSN picks up the scraps.

Your last paragraph is silly. Live sports programming is very expensive to produce, especially if you have to fly your on-air personalities around the country and put them up in hotels and pay for their per diems.

College hockey is tiny. TINY. Being passionate means zero to revenue. That's worth stating again, there is only ONE thing that means anything to revenue: Ratings. Period. College hockey doesn't have them.

When reruns of old football games get better ratings than college hockey, the cost-benefit analysis tends to tip to the cost-heavy side.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

However, there will be a revolt if Big Ten hockey means fewer Minnesota Gopher hockey games are available on basic cable in the Twin Cities.

Especially when they find out the quality BLOWS and it costs $3 per game. TO put it succinctly: F*k that.

Add to that the fact that Minnesota (and more importantly, the WCHA) enjoys a fantastic conference tournament in its own backyard. You tell Minnesota fans to travel to anywhere beyond Wisconsin and you're going to lose a good chunk of those tickets. Same thing with Michigan and JLA. Granted, they are more centrally located but the point still stands.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Big Ten Hockey Conference

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).

Would have to agree with this Frank. Everybody else thats not in the Big Ten needs to start working now on building up warchests so they can continue on without the BT schools coming to their barns, and if I was a fan of say the bigger schools that are going to be SOL on with the BTHC, like Miami, Notre Dame, UND, and Denver, I would start now making it a point to go to those away games, help out those smaller programs somewhat. They're not going to be wanting the smaller schools folding up shop in 10-15 years time leaving them without a substainable conference.

If they do this than I think that it would only be a success if they somehow got Notre Dame and Miami U to be hockey-only members.

*Headslap!*

 

[Gurtholfin]

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"?

Do you honestly think that we will expect 3-4 schools to get in EVERY season even with 16 spots available? That doesn't happen amongst those programs now.

If it goes to 12 teams and they still use the pairwise it will come down to...

Simple Math.


I for one won't complain. Be one of the top 12 or shut up.