Smaller Schools......

[Patman]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Calling it a 'benefit' is strong, but college hockey in general would benefit from more non-conference games.

Reducing conference schedules from 28 games to more like 20, 22, or 24 max is a good thing. It would make large conferences difficult to pull off, would mean more OOC games (thus making old ideas to absorb growth, such as CHA, more feasible), and would increase the effectiveness of the PWR by reducing some of the schedule insularity.

The situation we have currently with 4 established conferences that are not only full, but overflowing, playing most of their games against themselves, is not conducive to growth and probably actually hampers the ability for college hockey to sustain itself.

In short, this is unsustainable. Things must change.

If a BTHC or some form of BT competition is inevitable, then maybe that can be the vehicle to help reform the structure of college hockey to something more sustainable.

I don't want a Badgerine telling me how its great for the sport, but yes, your team is going to have to suffer... its for your own good.

Oh, and I'm with you on the schedule issue... its tossing the baby out with the bathwater though.

 

[cycledown]

Re: Smaller Schools......

They would love to. The issue comes in that the Big Ten teams will want to play them at home so they can make more money. I don't see a lot of return trips to play at small schools, which is what would help them.

Maybe the conference could set up a contract to do to help them out, remember nothing is impossible and the BTHC is not currently established. I think the conference might be more than willing to work something out financially with nonconference schools. But that is speculation just like the rest of this thread. There is alot of fear on the issue and doesnt have to be.

 

[komey1]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Maybe the conference could set up a contract to do to help them out, remember nothing is impossible and the BTHC is not currently established. I think the conference might be more than willing to work something out financially with nonconference schools. But that is speculation just like the rest of this thread. There is alot of fear on the issue and doesnt have to be.

The key word here is MIGHT. However, given past history of major conferences in other sports, there will be limited road games to other non-top teams by Big 10 teams.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Enough of Jcarter....the med line has been overkilled today and wrongfully on another thread.

You don't suppose there might be a reason for that do you?

Are you related to Osorojo? Or Hokydad...he is the only other poster I know with ESP.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Dont EVER think I need your help, they either sink or swim, so why anti BTHC when the teams you state are already folding without the existance of the issue. Shows me the BTHC cant be the problem you said so yourself

You're grasping at straws.

The teams that would be hurt are ones that are surviving currently with the BTHC schools in the WCHA/CCHA. The teams that have folded, or are close to folding, obviously couldn't survive no matter what happened. Those are two separate issues.

Creating the BTHC would result in more schools folding their programs, not less. If John Doe can survive as long as he gets his weekly paycheck, good for him. If he loses that weekly paycheck, he's dunzo. Now, substitute SCSU for John Doe, and substitute MN/WI for the weekly paycheck. Understand? Probably not.

 

[cycledown]

Re: Smaller Schools......

You're grasping at straws.

The teams that would be hurt are ones that are surviving currently with the BTHC schools in the WCHA/CCHA. The teams that have folded, or are close to folding, obviously couldn't survive no matter what happened. Those are two separate issues.

Creating the BTHC would result in more schools folding their programs, not less. If John Doe can survive as long as he gets his weekly paycheck, good for him. If he loses that weekly paycheck, he's dunzo. Now, substitute SCSU for John Doe, and substitute MN/WI for the weekly paycheck. Understand? Probably not.

The future of college is expansion and the smaller schools are going to have to find a way to operate or fold, hopefully, if there is a BTHC there can be something worked out. Now with this weeks Penn State decision, everybody across the board will have reanalyze their future plans for college hockey and it wont be the BTHC at fault. i understood before you said it.

 

[Patman]

Re: Smaller Schools......

The future of college is expansion and the smaller schools are going to have to find a way to operate or fold, hopefully, if there is a BTHC there can be something worked out. Now with this weeks Penn State decision, everybody across the board will have reanalyze their future plans for college hockey and it wont be the BTHC fault. i understood before you said it.

Translation... "the future of college hockey is not you... if you want to stick with it, adapt, otherwise, get out of my way".

 

[blockski]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Creating the BTHC would result in more schools folding their programs, not less. If John Doe can survive as long as he gets his weekly paycheck, good for him. If he loses that weekly paycheck, he's dunzo. Now, substitute SCSU for John Doe, and substitute MN/WI for the weekly paycheck. Understand? Probably not.

I'm not going to try and defend Larry here, but your logic is flawed.

Not creating the BTHC won't save those programs.

 

[Patman]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Not creating the BTHC won't save those programs.

Wait, if the status quo is fine... and adding a Penn State to the CCHA is an improvement for the lot of the other schools then how doesn't it save those programs?

That's not even inaccurate... its just plain wrong. Creating the BTHC is the problem... its the driver. Keeping the leagues in tact works for those programs.

 

[GopherBigGuy911]

Re: Smaller Schools......

I know I am going to take it up the *** for saying this, but how about the fact that if you play good winning hockey fans will come and fill your arena????? As a result how about of the Big Ten they come up with different format of filling the NCAA Tourny such as the top 2 teams in each conference (tourny winner automatically and then the first or second team in the confernece in points automatically make it with last 4 spots filled by useing the old "PairWise" system with no conference having more than 3 representatives?). Just throwing it out there.....

 

[blockski]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Wait, if the status quo is fine... and adding a Penn State to the CCHA is an improvement for the lot of the other schools then how doesn't it save those programs?

That's not even inaccurate... its just plain wrong. Creating the BTHC is the problem... its the driver. Keeping the leagues in tact works for those programs.

Who says the status quo is fine? I've been arguing for a long time that the status quo is unsustainable. It is not fine.

Don't mistakenly equate the system you know and love with one that works. If the turmoil of the last few years with CHA and folding programs wasn't enough to underscore that for you, I don't know what is.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Who says the status quo is fine? I've been arguing for a long time that the status quo is unsustainable. It is not fine.

Don't mistakenly equate the system you know and love with one that works. If the turmoil of the last few years with CHA and folding programs wasn't enough to underscore that for you, I don't know what is.

So when the BTHC is formed, and half a dozen teams vanish off the map, teams that are profitable now scramble to create a league that makes half the money the WCHA takes home from the postseason, that'll be proof by your logic that that setup is also flawed, but I expect your reaction to be "**** y'all, my teams are rolling in dough. I can't wait for Georgia to add hockey."

 

[moose97]

Re: Smaller Schools......

What benefit is it to play Big 10 teams if the BTHC is created? The Big 10 schools will likely insist on playing at their place. Sure, they have most likely 14 non-conference games available. I would be willing to bet that at least 12 of them wil be home games for the Big 10 schools. So unless they give a little payday to the teams, there is little benefit monetarily to playing them.

Paydays are not exclusive to BCS teams giving large sums to beat up (or get embarassed by) FCS teams. I know for a fact that Bemidji State, in a crappy rink, paid a $10,000 guarantee for a weekend series against Bentley (for a series that attracted a total of 2394 fans) back in '04-'05. Surely in an environment of Big 10 TV contracts and large filled rinks, those schools could pay quite a bit more than that.

I remember NDSU getting a huge check from some Big IX school when they were transitioning to FCS, and the AD was quoted as saying that would pay half the football budget for the year on that one game alone. If a non-Big 10 hockey team were smart, they could easily fund their entire budget playing every OOC game on the road. Not ideal for building a fan base, but perhaps fiscally responsible.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Smaller Schools......

So when the BTHC is formed, and half a dozen teams vanish off the map, teams that are profitable now scramble to create a league that makes half the money the WCHA takes home from the postseason, that'll be proof by your logic that that setup is also flawed, but I expect your reaction to be "**** y'all, my teams are rolling in dough. I can't wait for Georgia to add hockey."

Bingo.

Sometimes, addition leads to subtraction.

And blockski: programs like SCSU don't need saving right now. They'll need to be saved if the BTHC is formed. They'll lose out on the revenue they get when teams like MN/WI come to town (they still might come to town if the BTHC is formed, but I think it's unlikely).

That's what the pro-BTHC crowd doesn't get. SCSU/MSUM/etc will still play MN/WI, but at MN/WI's arenas. That won't bring in the same kind of revenue that those programs get with the current WCHA.

 

[blockski]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Bingo.

Sometimes, addition leads to subtraction.

And blockski: programs like SCSU don't need saving right now. They'll need to be saved if the BTHC is formed. They'll lose out on the revenue they get when teams like MN/WI come to town (they still might come to town if the BTHC is formed, but I think it's unlikely).

That's what the pro-BTHC crowd doesn't get. SCSU/MSUM/etc will still play MN/WI, but at MN/WI's arenas. That won't bring in the same kind of revenue that those programs get with the current WCHA.

Oh, no - I get it.

Where we differ is on the scale of the impact.

Moreso, this is going to happen. So you'd better channel your energy into shaping the future into something that works for you rather than trying to stop the unstoppable.

Unless you want to somehow convince Penn State to turn down that 88 million.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Oh, no - I get it.

Where we differ is on the scale of the impact.

Moreso, this is going to happen. So you'd better channel your energy into shaping the future into something that works for you rather than trying to stop the unstoppable.

Unless you want to somehow convince Penn State to turn down that 88 million.

I'm all for Penn State having a program.

I'm not for the BTHC.

And the impact will not be immediate. It'll take a few years; a slow death, for the most part.

 

[blockski]

Re: Smaller Schools......

I'm all for Penn State having a program.

I'm not for the BTHC.

And the impact will not be immediate. It'll take a few years; a slow death, for the most part.

Slow change? Yes. Slow death? Only if you refuse to adapt.

Again, change was inevitable - the system wasn't sustainable as structured.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Since this thread is pointless and cycledown is a ****ing retard, I feel that there is not other option.

Top 100 Movies of all time, according to AFI (list announced Jan. 2007)

GO!

 

[The Rube]

Re: Smaller Schools......

Slow change? Yes. Slow death? Only if you refuse to adapt.

Again, change was inevitable - the system wasn't sustainable as structured.

What powers do the smaller schools have, if the biggest schools leave the conference? They won't have the same media coverage. They won't have the same revenue. They won't have the same crowds.

 

[moose97]

Re: Smaller Schools......

What powers do the smaller schools have, if the biggest schools leave the conference? They won't have the same media coverage. They won't have the same revenue. They won't have the same crowds.

They have the leverage of the fact that the Big 10 schools will still need OOC games (and more of them than before). Call it collusion if you want, but demanding a fair payday for traveling to BTHC rinks is all about survival, right?