Hockey and the Big Ten

[MrGopher]

Ever since the news that Penn State will be adding varsity hockey in the next few years, I have been quite mixed about how I feel about all the Big Ten Hockey Conference rumors. While, I think it's great for Penn State, and college hockey in general, that Penn State will be playing D1 hockey, I have decided that it is not in the best interest of college hockey at large for a B10HC to be formed.

College Hockey is simply too small and regional to take the major bread winners from two conferences and throw them together. Not because that conference would be no good, but because the WCHA and the CCHA would suffer too dramatically. Without the consistent money and attention that the U, Uw, UM, and MSU bring, you can say goodbye to any sense of financial feasibility of hockey at Michigan tech, Lake Superior State, Bowling Green and Ferris State. And all the rest of the WCHA and CCHA programs would take a major hit as well.

I'm not arguing that there aren't benefits to a B10HC, but I don't think the time is right, even if the possibility looms now that there are six schools. Feel free to disagree, of course. :)

I would much rather see all six schools schedule each other every year (probably only one game a piece for out of conference match-ups) and the Big Ten awarding some sort of championship to the most successful team in those games. This would gauge the possibility of genuine rivalries for a potential B10HC sometime down the road.

[JackiO]

I would pretty much be disgusted with it. Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana don't even have programs. Penn State will be a bottom feeder for at least 10 years. To leave all the tradition and rivalries we have right now that have been built up forever dissipate would be very disappointing to me. I still do not see it happening. There aren't even enough teams to field a proper conference; I'm not even sure how the hell they would even go about making it work.

And everything else you said :).

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I would pretty much be disgusted with it. Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois and Indiana don't even have programs. Penn State will be a bottom feeder for at least 10 years. To leave all the tradition and rivalries we have right now that have been built up forever dissipate would be very disappointing to me. I still do not see it happening. There aren't even enough teams to field a proper conference; I'm not even sure how the hell they would even go about making it work.

And everything else you said :).

I disagree with the point that PSU will be bottom feeders for 10 years. The rumor of Mark Johnson coming to Penn State will create enough buzz for some top notch players to come to State College.

[ruralgopher]

I think it would be good for college hockey to have a flagship conference that non hockey fans would identify with.

And I hate und and think it would be a detriment to them.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

If this were to happen I would view it as a tragedy as great as a sports team leaving town. The WCHA IS a flagship conference right now. Creating a Big Ten conference isn't going to create more hockey fans. Hockey is a highly regional sport and that isn't going to change. The only thing that is going to happen is that the great tradition of the WCHA is going to be destroyed in an attempt to chase a few extra dollars. It sickens me.

[JackiO]

I disagree with the point that PSU will be bottom feeders for 10 years. The rumor of Mark Johnson coming to Penn State will create enough buzz for some top notch players to come to State College.

There is no way they become a top notch hockey program within 10 years. They may be decent, but they will not be top notch.

[GophersInIowa]

I think it would be good for college hockey to have a flagship conference that non hockey fans would identify with.

And I hate und and think it would be a detriment to them.

Along with CC, Denver, MN-Duluth, Miami, Western Michigan, and others. That's why I think it would be a bad move for hockey as a whole. Sure it would help the Big Ten teams, but they already are in pretty good shape funding wise compared to a lot of the smaller school programs and this would widen the gap even more.

As someone already said, creating a BT conference will not create a lot more interest in college hockey. I personally would be less interested in it as a whole because we wouldn't have the in-state rivalries anymore. We wouldn't play UND as much as we do now.

[ruralgopher]

If this were to happen I would view it as a tragedy as great as a sports team leaving town. The WCHA IS a flagship conference right now. Creating a Big Ten conference isn't going to create more hockey fans. Hockey is a highly regional sport and that isn't going to change. The only thing that is going to happen is that the great tradition of the WCHA is going to be destroyed in an attempt to chase a few extra dollars. It sickens me.

Among college hockey fans, yes the WCHA is a flagship conference. The sport of hockey is growing in spite of college hockey not really growing. College hockey remains largely a regional sport, hockey is not. Here is a list of states with high school hockey (excluding the obvious ones):MO KY VA KA NM TN AZ TX CA. Same exercise with minor league hockey, not including the states that also have HS hockey: OK LA MS GA NC AL FL. Obviously the NHL's reach has promoted this great expansion of the sport, while college fans are trying to remain in an isolated little regional bunker.

[MrGopher]

I think it would be good for college hockey to have a flagship conference that non hockey fans would identify with.

I won't go so far to disagree with this as others have. Rural is right in that, if college hockey is on the BigTen network more often, people in illinois, most of indiana, and a lot of iowa and nebraska will actually see college hockey, and how fun it is to care and watch. A wider television exposure does that for the sport... it helps sports fans, and bigten fans in particular, a glimpse into what college hockey is all about.

Having said that, I think that adding more nationally recognizable schools would do more for the growth of college hockey than forming nationally recognizable conferences. Forming BigTen hockey does not get Illini non-hockey fans interested in college hockey, but if Illinois formed a team, all of a sudden there would be tens of thousands of people more likely to care.

[MrGopher]

Among college hockey fans, yes the WCHA is a flagship conference. The sport of hockey is growing in spite of college hockey not really growing. College hockey remains largely a regional sport, hockey is not. Here is a list of states with high school hockey (excluding the obvious ones):MO KY VA KA NM TN AZ TX CA. Same exercise with minor league hockey, not including the states that also have HS hockey: OK LA MS GA NC AL FL. Obviously the NHL's reach has promoted this great expansion of the sport, while college fans are trying to remain in an isolated little regional bunker.

I don't think we are trying to remain in a bunker. I think that most of college hockey fans would love for different schools around the country to add D1 hockey. What they don't want ripped away are the fierce traditional rivalries. Even fans of the big schools don't want the viability of the smaller D1 hockey schools to go away. We don't want the structure of NCAA hockey to have BCS-type conferences, major conferences, mid-major conferences, nobodies, etc.

I firmly believe that if, by some miracle, Penn State joins the CCHA or HockeyEast, and stays in that league for 10 years, they will at that point, admit that they don't really care about playing Minnesota or Wisconsin. They would much rather play their rivals in their conference.

[ruralgopher]

I firmly believe that if, by some miracle, Penn State joins the CCHA or HockeyEast, and stays in that league for 10 years, they will at that point, admit that they don't really care about playing Minnesota or Wisconsin. They would much rather play their rivals in their conference.

I don't disagree with the premise that conference rivals take on a greater importance. What I'm saying is the sport of hockey is growing nationwide, and if more colleges are going to start programs they are going to have to see the $. The Big Ten Network would show $$. Once the Big Ten hockey conference is viable, the PAC 10 will follow. Regional hockey conferences that nobody outside of college hockey fans know are not going to get large schools excited about adding hockey.

[MrGopher]

I don't disagree with the premise that conference rivals take on a greater importance. What I'm saying is the sport of hockey is growing nationwide, and if more colleges are going to start programs they are going to have to see the $. The Big Ten Network would show $$. Once the Big Ten hockey conference is viable, the PAC 10 will follow. Regional hockey conferences that nobody outside of college hockey fans know are not going to get large schools excited about adding hockey.

Some good points in there. In the end, you are probably right: money will most likely win out. I just don't want it to. Oh well.

Speaking of the pac12 area, which schools have serious interest in D1 hockey? This is just me, but wouldn't a pacific-area conference do well to start off with UAA, UAF, Denver, CC, Air Force, and UBC (who has been interested in becoming an NCAA member), plus whichever Pac12 schools would be going varsity? That would be a conference I would love to see, and would go a great deal towards expanding the interest of the sport. There would be some big name schools, like Colorado, Washington, Oregon; some traditional powers like Denver, CC; and some with great potential like UBC and the Alaska schools. Most importantly, there would be potential for some serious rivalries to be built.

[ruralgopher]

The PAC 8 hockey conference is made up of all PAC 12 schools. Club sports I'm pretty sure, but by seeing the SUCCESS of PSU's transition into the BT hockey conference, the needle of interest moves, I bet.

[CrocShots]

Not having the ability to play the Sue or the Minnesota schools every year would truly be awful. Screw MTU and UAA and the Colorado schools.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Among college hockey fans, yes the WCHA is a flagship conference. The sport of hockey is growing in spite of college hockey not really growing. College hockey remains largely a regional sport, hockey is not. Here is a list of states with high school hockey (excluding the obvious ones):MO KY VA KA NM TN AZ TX CA. Same exercise with minor league hockey, not including the states that also have HS hockey: OK LA MS GA NC AL FL. Obviously the NHL's reach has promoted this great expansion of the sport, while college fans are trying to remain in an isolated little regional bunker.

Another side of of all of the Big 10 teams and Pac 10(or 12) adding hockey programs that needs to be considered is that the quality of the hockey is going to take a major hit. Even if enough people would be interested in watching college hockey in California I don't believe that the region would produce enough D1 talent for those schools. They would either take more players from MN, MI and MA, diluting the talent base of the colleges in those states, or their teams would be terrible. Either way I don't see how it is good for college hockey.

[ruralgopher]

Another side of of all of the Big 10 teams and Pac 10(or 12) adding hockey programs that needs to be considered is that the quality of the hockey is going to take a major hit. Even if enough people would be interested in watching college hockey in California I don't believe that the region would produce enough D1 talent for those schools. They would either take more players from MN, MI and MA, diluting the talent base of the colleges in those states, or their teams would be terrible. Either way I don't see how it is good for college hockey.

So a state with the population limitations like MN can produce enough talent to support 5 WCHA programs, but the entire west coast couldn't support 8, 10, or 12 teams? They could always go the UND route and import their players!

[FarmGopher]

A B1G hockey conference would be bad for college hockey. The landscape now helps keep more teams competitive, in both team quality and financially. Putting all of the B1G schools together would probably help them financially, but it would hurt the schools left in the discarded conferences ;possibly to the point where they would have to drop their hockey programs. Non-B1G teams might also have a much greater problem recruiting against teams that play in the "all-powerful" B1G conference.

I see no benefit from putting all the good programs in one (or two) "super" conference(s) while the rest of the teams are left to rot. That's not how college hockey will grow. Use strong programs to help the smaller programs grow and continue to bring new programs into the fold.

[ruralgopher]

Twice as many Natl championships have been won by non-BT schools than BT schools. There are some other strong programs out there. College hockey might pick up a program or two here and there under the current model, but for it to truly grow it needs the backing of a conference that carries some clout with TV.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Twice as many Natl championships have been won by non-BT schools than BT schools. There are some other strong programs out there. College hockey might pick up a program or two here and there under the current model, but for it to truly grow it needs the backing of a conference that carries some clout with TV.

But for it to truly grow it needs not just the backing of a TV network with clout but people who want to start watching college hockey. I think that our divergence of opinion consists of whether or not people from the states of IA, NE, IN and so on will start watching college hockey because it is on the Big Ten network or their state school throws together a team to "compete" in the conference.

I am originally from Iowa and I can guarantee you that people in Iowa are not going to start caring about hockey because the U of Iowa plays against MN, WI, UM and MSU. Any team they put together would get destroyed by all 4 of those schools, and likely by OSU and PSU as well. Hockey does not exist in the minds of the people in that state, and people aren't going to pay attention to it just because its on television, any more than they would pay attention to swimming or soccer that is televised by the B10 network.

I agree with you that it would be fabulous if more people embraced hockey and college hockey could be expanded. However, I just don't see where the market for it exists. People aren't going to consume a crappy product (and it would be crappy for Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern and Illinois) just because it is available.

[ruralgopher]

I can respect that point. I think that the real opportunity for expansion would be the PAC 12.

[MrGopher]

But for it to truly grow it needs the backing of a conference that carries some clout with TV.

I think this is right, but only if we are talking about D1 hockey legitimately being at a point where it can begin vying for national media competition with D1 hoops. The truth is that college hockey is not even close to that big yet.

Big conferences, big schools, and big markets all have college baseball, but ESPN only ever mentions college baseball during the college world series. And this is baseball! It's an ESPN approved sport (which hockey, unfortunately isn't even at the pro level).

The fact of the matter is that college hockey currently faces too much competition for young talent from the major junior hockey leagues here and in Canada. Too much of the non-NHL money which goes to spectator-level hockey goes to minor league hockey. Especially in markets where there is a longer history of AHL hockey than collegiate hockey.

College baseball faces quite similar obstacles, but big conferences with lots of TV money didn't do the trick. Baseball grew to its current level by having an enormous pool of amateur talent to draw from. Hockey has nothing close to that, except in Minnesota, Michigan, and New England. Also, college baseball chose to accept the fact that it is not the most direct way to the pros. An extremely small amount of US-born MLB talent is farmed in college... even less than US-born NHL talent is drawn from college hockey. USA hockey does not have depth of talent or interest to let Junior hockey take all of the best young players. The sport will continue to compete with the Junior hockey leagues for this reason.

[MrGopher]

But for it to truly grow it needs not just the backing of a TV network with clout but people who want to start watching college hockey. I think that our divergence of opinion consists of whether or not people from the states of IA, NE, IN and so on will start watching college hockey because it is on the Big Ten network or their state school throws together a team to "compete" in the conference.

I am originally from Iowa and I can guarantee you that people in Iowa are not going to start caring about hockey because the U of Iowa plays against MN, WI, UM and MSU. Any team they put together would get destroyed by all 4 of those schools, and likely by OSU and PSU as well. Hockey does not exist in the minds of the people in that state, and people aren't going to pay attention to it just because its on television, any more than they would pay attention to swimming or soccer that is televised by the B10 network.

I agree with you that it would be fabulous if more people embraced hockey and college hockey could be expanded. However, I just don't see where the market for it exists. People aren't going to consume a crappy product (and it would be crappy for Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern and Illinois) just because it is available.

I agree with this. Having grown up in Illinois, I can vouch for the fact that less than 1% of that population even knows that college hockey exists and that people actually watch it. Adding a BigTen conference won't solve that, but adding a UofI or Northwestern team would help, if only a little. High school level hockey only really exists in and around Chicago, and to a very small degree, around St. Louis. The interest in hockey in most of the state is very thin, and would be very hard-pressed to compete for attention with the Blackhawks and Blues, not to mention 3 AHL teams in the state.

[CrocShots]

I agree with this. Having grown up in Illinois, I can vouch for the fact that less than 1% of that population even knows that college hockey exists and that people actually watch it. Adding a BigTen conference won't solve that, but adding a UofI or Northwestern team would help, if only a little. High school level hockey only really exists in and around Chicago, and to a very small degree, around St. Louis. The interest in hockey in most of the state is very thin, and would be very hard-pressed to compete for attention with the Blackhawks and Blues, not to mention 3 AHL teams in the state.

Yup. U of I club teams have been successful of late, but thats a whole different ball game.

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10542

[Jike Spingleton]

Big conferences, big schools, and big markets all have college baseball, but ESPN only ever mentions college baseball during the college world series. And this is baseball! It's an ESPN approved sport (which hockey, unfortunately isn't even at the pro level).

How true. I live in one of the few places in the country where college baseball is relevant - I've tried explaining to LSU fans that nobody cares how dominant they are in baseball, just like nobody cares how dominant we are (were?) in hockey, but I don't think they fully grasp that their sport is regional.

I wonder if I'd run into the same situation with Duke/Virginia/Syracuse lacrosse fans?

[mnboiler]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate but what is the roll of teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Michigan State? It's to basically finance or bank roll the rest of college hockey or to gain as much revenue as possible for their schools? If you were an Athletic Director with a bottom line to meet every year whats more important?

[FarmGopher]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate but what is the roll of teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Michigan State? It's to basically finance or bank roll the rest of college hockey or to gain as much revenue as possible for their schools? If you were an Athletic Director with a bottom line to meet every year whats more important?

But how much less money would they make if the rest of college hockey wasn't there? Short term gain would not be worth the long term loss, in my mind.

[MrGopher]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate but what is the roll of teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Michigan State? It's to basically finance or bank roll the rest of college hockey or to gain as much revenue as possible for their schools? If you were an Athletic Director with a bottom line to meet every year whats more important?

Yup, that is essentially what the dilemma boils down to.

The money, at least initially, speaks strongly for the ADs of those schools to embrace the B10HC. Unfortunately, that leaves it up to those who oppose the B10HC to prove that what they think is best for college hockey is also best for those schools in the long run.

It is, admittedly, not an easy thing to prove.


PS: Do you have any info on Purdue's varsity hockey potential, rumors, etc.?

[ruralgopher]

But how much less money would they make if the rest of college hockey wasn't there? Short term gain would not be worth the long term loss, in my mind.

That's pretty dramatic. Hockey is the only sport for many of these schools that produces any revenue at all, they aren't going to cut the programs. Would the WCHA and CCHA need to restructure? Maybe, but that would be an issue for the WCHA and CCHA members to work out. MTU should be in the CCHA anyway and if the WCHA got rid of AA you have a much more compact conference to navigate, with plenty of good hockey programs in it and 2 nice new buildings to showcase events.

[Silvio]

The only thing I see a BigTen conference doing for hockey is increasing the travel costs for its member schools. If there is a demand for the product("viewing eyeballs") then schools would have deals similiar to the gophers and FSN. I would guess that it is pretty close to a wash to keep the same viewing audience and move increased profit to the big ten network while increasing the travel costs for all the member schools pretty significantly.

[Silvio]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate but what is the roll of teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Michigan State? It's to basically finance or bank roll the rest of college hockey or to gain as much revenue as possible for their schools? If you were an Athletic Director with a bottom line to meet every year whats more important?

In my mind they are only going to hurt themselves in the collective along with the smaller schools. Their major gain in revenue to the other schools is not through playing in their building, but by filing the Xcel and Joe Louis Area for 3 days every year. Now at best they can only fill one. Look at Wisconsin for example they do a tremendous job with support in their own area, but are only the 3rd or fourth largest fan base at the final five. U gopher hockey fans won't travel to a BigTen tournament in Michigan the same way they do the X.

[CrocShots]

Welp. Looks close to official now:

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8400&ATCLID=205120556

More Coverage/reaction here:

http://www.gopherpucklive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&p=352932#p352932

[ruralgopher]

I think this will be much better for college hockey than most expect.

[GopherinPhilly]

Being someone that lives outside of MN...I love the idea of 20 nationally televised games and a Big Ten Tourny...truthfully, if you were to ask anyone that is not a hard and true college hockey fan what WCHA means...they would not even know it had something to do with hockey...but you say Big Ten and they know what that is.

College hockey has grown profoundly in MN with the development of SCSU, MSU-Mankato and UMD being D1 programs...this growth hasn't translated into big TV dollars...with a big ten base...we can earn 2 times as much from TV than we earn from Fox regional coverage and it brings more eyeballs to the Big Ten network overall...more subscribers, more dollars plus a bigger percentage of TV revenue...plus I get to see the games.

I suspect that we will se some changes with other hockey leagues and more realignment...but the Big Ten brand has value and I beleive it will translate into hockey over time.

[MaxyJR1]

It will be interesting if MN ends it's association with UND. We don't play them in any sport in which we are not in their conference due to the Mascot situation. I assume that the Gophers will never play them unless it is in the NCAA tournament, unless the Sioux name is approved or ended for good.

[BeerBibleBullets]

Along with CC, Denver, MN-Duluth, Miami, Western Michigan, and others. That's why I think it would be a bad move for hockey as a whole. Sure it would help the Big Ten teams, but they already are in pretty good shape funding wise compared to a lot of the smaller school programs and this would widen the gap even more.

As someone already said, creating a BT conference will not create a lot more interest in college hockey. I personally would be less interested in it as a whole because we wouldn't have the in-state rivalries anymore. We wouldn't play UND as much as we do now.

I agree its financially probably better for those B10 teams. But the CCHA and WCHA will really suffer. Every other school in the WCHA had a full arena when Minnesota came to town, I'm sure it was the same with the others. Do the folks in Mankato or Duluth get exited about Michigan Tech, Colorado College or Nebraska Omaha coming in...no. Thats why they have arenas that seat 2200, while UM and UW seat about 10k.

I wonder if this will make some other schools consider elevating their hockey from club level. Like Illinois and Northwestern.

[howeda7]

I question how much $$ this is going to make the Gophers in particular. You speak of 20 games on the BTN, but outside of advertising, where is the extra $$? If I'm a cable/satellite provider, I'm not paying a higher subscriber fee just because you added these hockey games that only a tiny % of my audience gives two craps about. Football/basketball will still make up 99.5% of the value the BTN has to the distributors. I think the Gophers will lose more money from FSN than they will gain from the BTN. This may not be true for the other 5 as they may not make very much now.

[howeda7]

How true. I live in one of the few places in the country where college baseball is relevant - I've tried explaining to LSU fans that nobody cares how dominant they are in baseball, just like nobody cares how dominant we are (were?) in hockey, but I don't think they fully grasp that their sport is regional.

I wonder if I'd run into the same situation with Duke/Virginia/Syracuse lacrosse fans?

College baseball is regional in terms of interest, but at least a majority of schools still play it. Major college hockey is far more regionalized than baseball in that regard. I don't think lacrosse fans harbor any similar illusion. Many Americans have never watched a lacrosse game period, much less a college lacrosse game.

[MrGopher]

I think this will be much better for college hockey than most expect.

I hope you're right, rural.

Haha, but for now, I'm pretty sad.

Initial concerns:
Who will we go out of our way to keep rivalries with? (hopefully UND, UMD, SCSU)
Will there be less Gopher hockey on TV? (better not be, or I will freak)
Will this mean better recruits who might have been satisfied with SCSU or UMD or even UND?
Exactly how much will this hurt UND hockey? (I hope a hell of a lot)
Average number of B10 teams in NCAA tourney? (3 of 6?) (4 of 6?)

[ruralgopher]

I hope you're right, rural.

Haha, but for now, I'm pretty sad.

Initial concerns:
Who will we go out of our way to keep rivalries with? (hopefully UND, UMD, SCSU)
Will there be less Gopher hockey on TV? (better not be, or I will freak)
Will this mean better recruits who might have been satisfied with SCSU or UMD or even UND?
Exactly how much will this hurt UND hockey? (I hope a hell of a lot)
Average number of B10 teams in NCAA tourney? (3 of 6?) (4 of 6?)

Great questions.

I don't think that the U will go out of their way to do anything with UND unless the mascot thing is solved, and with the state of ND involved now, I don't know if that will be soon. UMD, and SCSU are locks, I hope we also play MSU.

Less hockey on TV? Doubt it, unless you consider tape delay games as games on TV. If I remember right the BTN is trying to leverage a 2nd channel and that was a main driver for this, they need more live programming. Between the alternate channels I hope they can figure this out.

I think it will help recruiting. Probably won't hurt UND at all in the near term. Long term, kids will want to play in the best conference, which will be the BT.

I don't know how the math will work with pairwise, but it isn't hard to imagine MN, MI, WI, and MSU all in the tourney, but I think it will be 3 most years.

What are your thoughts?

[MrGopher]

Great questions.

I don't think that the U will go out of their way to do anything with UND unless the mascot thing is solved, and with the state of ND involved now, I don't know if that will be soon. UMD, and SCSU are locks, I hope we also play MSU.

Less hockey on TV? Doubt it, unless you consider tape delay games as games on TV. If I remember right the BTN is trying to leverage a 2nd channel and that was a main driver for this, they need more live programming. Between the alternate channels I hope they can figure this out.

I think it will help recruiting. Probably won't hurt UND at all in the near term. Long term, kids will want to play in the best conference, which will be the BT.

I don't know how the math will work with pairwise, but it isn't hard to imagine MN, MI, WI, and MSU all in the tourney, but I think it will be 3 most years.

What are your thoughts?

I agree with you about UND, except that i think this whole BTHC thing might be the tipping point for many of the UND alumni to actually switch their position and abandon their "save the Sioux" ambitions. This might help it end sooner and smoother for a lot of their fans.

Ideally, the BTN adds another full-time channel (none of this alternate channel business). They will probably pick up 7-8 Gopher games a year (conference games obviously), and the rest will fall into FSN's lap. Also, ideally, Frank and Doug will be making the call on FSN, while they get a legitimate pair to do the BTN games.

As far as the NCAA tourney goes, you're right, it has everything to do with pairwise. With that system, if all six schools dominate non-conf games, we could realistically see 5 of 6 teams in there. But I'd guess 4 would be the average. 3 in a bad year.

Another concern is the scheduling... I suppose there would be a home series and an away series against every team... 20 conference games. The Gophers played 34 regular season games this year (and had a few weekends off). This leaves a good amount of room (about 14-16 games) for non conference. I'd love to see 4 games with UND, 4 with UMD, and then a home and away series with SCSU, and another with Mankato every year. But that's just me.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

I used to defend Joel Maturi. Now I hope that he and Barry Alvarez burn in hell.

[the huskie gopher]

i hate the idea of big ten hockey conference! hockey is a regional sport. Why would the U trade SCSU and UND for Penn State and Ohio State? Is that really more appealing? People in Columbus and Happy Valley dont care their hockey teams playing a UM or UW while people in this state do! Just wrong! Hockey needs to stay in this area and losing these rivalries is an atrocity. screw you penn state for bringing this to our doorstep.

[GopherGod]

I hate this idea as well. Playing UMD and UND in a non-conference series is alot different than competing against them to win the WCHA.

[Ralph_Wiggum]

I like big ten hockey. It's not the job of the big ten schools to help the other smaller schools. It's just not. It's also not the job of the big ten schools to grow the entire sport of college hockey. The other schools have to do that as well. Why in the hell should the gophers or spartans or wolverines be expected to grow the sport in North Dakota and Duluth? The other schools have to do that.

[ruralgopher]

It isn't the U's job to worry about the wcha or any of its teams. It is the U's job to look out for the U. The BTN has paid huge dividends and if the addition of hockey makes the conference better, the U has to think about what is best for themselves. Every sport could be a 'regional' if you wanted it to be.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

It isn't the U's job to worry about the wcha or any of its teams. It is the U's job to look out for the U. The BTN has paid huge dividends and if the addition of hockey makes the conference better, the U has to think about what is best for themselves. Every sport could be a 'regional' if you wanted it to be.

And a sport can't have nationwide appeal just because you want it to.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

I like big ten hockey. It's not the job of the big ten schools to help the other smaller schools. It's just not. It's also not the job of the big ten schools to grow the entire sport of college hockey. The other schools have to do that as well. Why in the hell should the gophers or spartans or wolverines be expected to grow the sport in North Dakota and Duluth? The other schools have to do that.

So subsidizing Ohio State and Penn State hockey is better?

[ruralgopher]

And a sport can't have nationwide appeal just because you want it to.

Good thing the NHL didn't have this foxhole mentality.

[MrGopher]

Good thing the NHL didn't have this foxhole mentality.

But even that is very hit-or-miss. The NHL is bleeding money in Phoenix, Nashville, Miami, Atlanta...

Everybody knows that teams in smaller markets in Canada would do much better. I would rather have the NHL sacrifice broader American acceptance in favor of stable teams in solid markets.

Now I'm getting quite-off topic, I'll shut up about that now.

[the huskie gopher]

Why would the Big Ten schools want to create a league for themselves? Every year they all have a chance to make the tourney. With both the WCHA and CCHA Michigan, MSU, UW and the U could realistically make it every year! With the league does anyone think 4 or 5 teams will make the tourney? With how watered down the big schools will make their NC schedules its hard to see it.

[GophersInIowa]

It isn't the U's job to worry about the wcha or any of its teams. It is the U's job to look out for the U. The BTN has paid huge dividends and if the addition of hockey makes the conference better, the U has to think about what is best for themselves. Every sport could be a 'regional' if you wanted it to be.

Yes, but if their actions hurt college hockey as a whole, it will eventually start to affect the U as well. This could be a positive thing in the short run, but could potentially be very negative for college hockey as a whole in my opinion. Smaller programs could very easily go belly up. That's not a good thing.

Also, competing against UND, UMD, St. Cloud St. every year is a lot more exciting to me than playing Ohio St., Michigan St., or Penn St. Yes, this action could result in more publicity for the sport, but it also could alienate current fans as the intrastate rivalries will not be the same.

[ruralgopher]

Why would the Big Ten schools want to create a league for themselves?.

$$. The conference needs more live programming to make the big ten network 2 viable. Big ten network 2 = more subscriber fees.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Good thing the NHL didn't have this foxhole mentality.
.
Yeah, its been so wildly successful that the Phoenix franchise is about to end up in Winnipeg. I know that you think that anyone opposing Big Ten hockey is a small minded fool. However, most of us that oppose the move simply understand how great college hockey and playing in the WCHA currently is and are unwilling to risk it all trying to shoot the moon by trying to growi the sport beyond its current borders.

Hypothetically, if the Gophers were able to leave the Big Ten for football and join a conference with, lets say Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Missouri, Akron and Toledo would you be willing to do it as long as it amounted to some more money?

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

$$. The conference needs more live programming to make the big ten network 2 viable. Big ten network 2 = more subscriber fees.

There is no way that the Big Ten is going to be able to hold the cable and satellite programs hostage again over college hockey. Everyone caved the first time because of the widespread popularity of football and basketball. They are going to get laughed trying it a second time with hockey as their additional programming.

[lakesbison]

this is Perfect, Gophers stick with the only REAL D1 teams in the big ten conference. The arrogant, racist nicknamed team known as general custer will have nothing. they are nothing without their "fake rivalry's" with Minn/Wisc.

Minn/Wisc can go back to NOT playing them in all sports because of their obvious mistreatment of native americans. Not to mention their 14 canadians, having kids get frostbite underage and letting them play, etc etc etc.

Poor englestad arena, wont be able to host postseason games, such a shame, ha ha ha ha.

[ruralgopher]

.
Yeah, its been so wildly successful that the Phoenix franchise is about to end up in Winnipeg. I know that you think that anyone opposing Big Ten hockey is a small minded fool. However, most of us that oppose the move simply understand how great college hockey and playing in the WCHA currently is and are unwilling to risk it all trying to shoot the moon by trying to growi the sport beyond its current borders.

Hypothetically, if the Gophers were able to leave the Big Ten for football and join a conference with, lets say Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Missouri, Akron and Toledo would you be willing to do it as long as it amounted to some more money?

I don't think that people who are longing to hang on to tradition are small minded fools. I think people who think that this will 'ruin' college hockey are being a bit small minded. As to Phoenix and the NHL, 2 points. 1, that is one 'non-traditional' location that has struggled, others are succeeding wildly. 2, bad management is bad management. Even Edmonton nearly went broke because of bad management and that was when they were contructing beer bottle pyramids with Stanley Cups. As to your football analogy, I have no idea what you are attempting to correlate there so I'm not going to attempt to respond.


There is no way that the Big Ten is going to be able to hold the cable and satellite programs hostage again over college hockey. Everyone caved the first time because of the widespread popularity of football and basketball. They are going to get laughed trying it a second time with hockey as their additional programming.

You are right, they aren't going to go out and pitch a Big Ten Hockey Network. They are going to go after a 2nd BTN that will have football and basketball mixed over both channels so providers have to pick them both up. They need more live programming to make it happen though, hence the hockey.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

You are right, they aren't going to go out and pitch a Big Ten Hockey Network. They are going to go after a 2nd BTN that will have football and basketball mixed over both channels so providers have to pick them both up. They need more live programming to make it happen though, hence the hockey.

But the only additional programming going from one station to two would be Big Ten college hockey. They already have basketball and football. Spreading it over two channels as opposed to one doesn't mean you are getting anything extra besides hockey and people aren't naive enough to believe otherwise. The Big Ten network already has a great deal in place. They get a high user fee on basic tiers and still get to sell their top football and basketball games to ESPN/ABC. It astonishes me how fast the greed kicks in. Hey, we were able to extort some extra money from the public a couple of years back, why not try it again for twice the money!

As far as the football analogy it probably wasn't very apt because Minnesota isn't a strong football program right now. A better analogy would be OSU, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Nebraska forming a new conference with Oklahoma and Texas and kicking Minnesota and the other little sisters of the poor to the curb because they only need to take care of their own programs. Why not consolidate the strong programs into a few conferences and keep all the money to themselves? Its not their job to subsidize Gopher football.

[Jike Spingleton]

College baseball is regional in terms of interest, but at least a majority of schools still play it. Major college hockey is far more regionalized than baseball in that regard. I don't think lacrosse fans harbor any similar illusion. Many Americans have never watched a lacrosse game period, much less a college lacrosse game.

Agreed. But I also believe that college hockey has a broader appeal in the areas in which it is played than baseball does. Meaning, there are more pockets of this country where college hockey is a huge deal than there are for college baseball.

When I lived in South Florida for a year, nobody gave a damn about Miami Hurricanes baseball, and they're one of the premier programs in the nation. College baseball gets totally lost in the shuffle in Southern California, despite having USC, UCLA, Cal State Fullerton, etc.. Meanwhile, hockey takes center stage in New England and the Upper Midwest.

As someone who grew up on the west coast and never cared much about hockey until attending Minnesota, I like the idea of a Big Ten hockey conference. The best part, so far, is how much it irks Sue fans. :D Having seen the interest in their club teams, I would be surprised if Indiana and Illinois didn't add varsity hockey by the end of the decade, and if so, the B10 hockey conference is serving its purpose.

[howeda7]

$$. The conference needs more live programming to make the big ten network 2 viable. Big ten network 2 = more subscriber fees.

I find it very hard to believe there's going to be a Big Ten Network 2 and even harder to believe it will be built on the back of hockey. The BTN is primirily available in 8 states and in at least 5 of those 8 states (PA, OH, IL, IN and IA) college hockey will draw a very limited audience. Further, this is a network that from ~March 10th to ~August 25th has almost no relavent programming. Now we're going to make two channels? If I was the CEO of a cable company I'd offer you a penny per subsriber for 'BTN2', say 'take it or leave it' and consider that generous.

[howeda7]

Agreed. But I also believe that college hockey has a broader appeal in the areas in which it is played than baseball does. Meaning, there are more pockets of this country where college hockey is a huge deal than there are for college baseball.

When I lived in South Florida for a year, nobody gave a damn about Miami Hurricanes baseball, and they're one of the premier programs in the nation. College baseball gets totally lost in the shuffle in Southern California, despite having USC, UCLA, Cal State Fullerton, etc.. Meanwhile, hockey takes center stage in New England and the Upper Midwest.

As someone who grew up on the west coast and never cared much about hockey until attending Minnesota, I like the idea of a Big Ten hockey conference. The best part, so far, is how much it irks Sue fans. :D Having seen the interest in their club teams, I would be surprised if Indiana and Illinois didn't add varsity hockey by the end of the decade, and if so, the B10 hockey conference is serving its purpose.

I disagree about Miami baseball. They draw very big crowds compared to any Big 10 school. It's true that there isn't a huge following among casual fans, but in reality there isn't a huge following for Gopher Hockey among casual fans either. But like Gopher hockey, a large % of Miami baseball games are televised, etc. How many Gopher baseball games are? It's probably not as popular as it was pre-Marlins (darn those pro teams coming in and ruining great programs!) but I don't think you can say 'nobody gives a damn.' As with anything, it's usually about winning. For example, Virginia is building a very good program. They frequently sell out week-end games now, and baseball outdraws the great lacrosse team. 5 years ago they drew flies.

[mnboiler]

First sorry Mr. Gopher for not getting back to you sooner. But no there are no rumors that Purdue will add hockey as a varsity sport. They do have a club team but there isn't an indoor ice rink in Lafayette or West Lafayette. For Purdue to add a varsity hockey team it would take a Penn State sized donation. So no, not going to happen, which is incredibly sad, I think. Personally I think Purdue could draw 4000 people a night to a hockey game, maybe upwards of 5000, my idea would be to convert Lambert Fieldhouse, its right next to Mackey Arena into a hockey rink but that won't happen.

Second, a 6 team hockey conference seems really small. Is it crazy to think they might need 8 teams to make it go? If that is the case who do you get to join? North Dakota and Notre Dames? Miami of Ohio? UMD? Any other ideas?

Third, if the BTN2 does happen they are more than likely need more football to televise. I'm just thinking out loud here but would it be possible to get the TV to a conference like the MAC to fill hours.

[MrGopher]

Skunk fans not nearly as upset as we are. Likely because we are their only rivals (UND does not count, they are pricks and goons to every team). Also the promise of a conference tourney in Chicago, or anywhere other than the X.

http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/40790/Big-Ten-Hockey-is-now-official?page=1

[MrGopher]

First sorry Mr. Gopher for not getting back to you sooner. But no there are no rumors that Purdue will add hockey as a varsity sport. They do have a club team but there isn't an indoor ice rink in Lafayette or West Lafayette. For Purdue to add a varsity hockey team it would take a Penn State sized donation. So no, not going to happen, which is incredibly sad, I think. Personally I think Purdue could draw 4000 people a night to a hockey game, maybe upwards of 5000, my idea would be to convert Lambert Fieldhouse, its right next to Mackey Arena into a hockey rink but that won't happen.

Second, a 6 team hockey conference seems really small. Is it crazy to think they might need 8 teams to make it go? If that is the case who do you get to join? North Dakota and Notre Dames? Miami of Ohio? UMD? Any other ideas?

Third, if the BTN2 does happen they are more than likely need more football to televise. I'm just thinking out loud here but would it be possible to get the TV to a conference like the MAC to fill hours.

Hey, not a problem, Boiler. Sad to hear Purdue is far from hockey.

If there is going to be a BTHC, I am very strongly against associate members for hockey only. On the surface, yeah, 6 seems small, but I actually like small number of teams because of the non-conf opportunities it provides. Also, with 6 teams, that basically removes a round of conference playoff action (which could be used for even more non-conf games).

I like your MAC idea. I think more exposure for the MAC would greatly help them, and if their football programs get more coverage and people think more highly of them, it would benefit the Big10 schools more (since we play them so much and get knocked for 'easy' games). I also think that big-time high school matchups in the region could be covered, especially around state tournament times.

[badgergopher]

Who should they play?

News releases say that there are 20 B10 games a season leaving 14 non-conference games.

My preference:

Play one series every year rotating home/away: UND, UMD, SCSU (home & home) - 6 games
Play a Denver invitational every year - Minnesota, Wisconsin, CC, Denver play in Denver (Friday MN/CC, WI/DU & Saturday MN/DU, WI/CC) - 2 games
Play one series every other year: MSU, Bemidji - 2 games

That leaves Tech, Anchorage, and Omaha. I wouldn't bother. The other four games should be scheduled against teams from the east.

[MrGopher]

Some interesting thoughts from CHN:

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/03/22_commentary_into_the_unknown.php

[bassy123]

Who should they play?

News releases say that there are 20 B10 games a season leaving 14 non-conference games.

My preference:

Play one series every year rotating home/away: UND, UMD, SCSU (home & home) - 6 games
Play a Denver invitational every other year - Minnesota, Wisconsin, CC, Denver play in Denver (Friday MN/CC, WI/DU & Saturday MN/DU, WI/CC) - 2 games
Play one series every other year: MSU, Bemidji - 2 games

That leaves Tech, Anchorage, and Omaha. I wouldn't bother. The other four games should be scheduled against teams from the east.


i don't think we'll play UND. i thought maturi had a policy where he won't play the sioux out of conference until the change their nickname.

[MrGopher]

this is Perfect, Gophers stick with the only REAL D1 teams in the big ten conference. The arrogant, racist nicknamed team known as general custer will have nothing. they are nothing without their "fake rivalry's" with Minn/Wisc.

Minn/Wisc can go back to NOT playing them in all sports because of their obvious mistreatment of native americans. Not to mention their 14 canadians, having kids get frostbite underage and letting them play, etc etc etc.

Poor englestad arena, wont be able to host postseason games, such a shame, ha ha ha ha.

Lakes, you should spearhead the promotion of varsity hockey at NDSU.

UND will need a new conference rival now that The U exists on a higher plane than the rest of the WCHA.

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Skunk fans not nearly as upset as we are. Likely because we are their only rivals (UND does not count, they are pricks and goons to every team). Also the promise of a conference tourney in Chicago, or anywhere other than the X.

http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/40790/Big-Ten-Hockey-is-now-official?page=1

That's exactly right. The U stands to lose much, much more than they do. And their AD was one of the major people pushing for the change. My understanding from what I heard today is that Maturi and the U were against moving out of the WCHA but were unable to keep it from happening.

[discochris]

That's exactly right. The U stands to lose much, much more than they do. And their AD was one of the major people pushing for the change. My understanding from what I heard today is that Maturi and the U were against moving out of the WCHA but were unable to keep it from happening.

Most of my friends are Sioux fans, and I have to listen to so much garbage about how the Gophers are leaving because they can't hack it in the WCHA. The fact is, if the Big Ten sponsors the sport, the Gophers have no choice but to go along, as charter members of the Big Ten.

Personally, I think it will be good for the Big Ten teams in terms of publicity, which means better players, but probably bad for college hockey as a whole. College hockey isn't the most stable sport as it is, and pulling the major markets out of the WCHA and CCHA can't be good for the remaining schools. That said, if it hurts UND, I'm all for it. I'm for anything that hurts UND hockey - there is no team in any sport I hate more.

[Slim Tubby]

I can't help but worry that moving to the Big Ten Network will only LESSEN our ability to watch the games a la hoops unless FSN can negotiate rights to the games not televised on the network. And not playing The Sue WILL be a bad thing...our hatred for one another is born from history and respect. That league rivalry will be sorely missed IMHO by fans of both teams. :(

[tjgopher]

There is zero chance that places like Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, and Indiana add men's ice hockey. First of all, with Title IX they would also have to add women's hockey. Adding men's and women's hockey, plus a facility is 100% crazy in this day and age. No chance. None. Athletic departments are CUTTING sports, not adding them. That is, unless someone writes you a $100 million check, which isn't going to happen at any of those four schools. Everyone is hurting for money right now and no one will be taking on any major added elective expenses such as this.

Northwestern might be able to add it because it is a private school and because there would likely be an arena somewhere in Chicago available. But, I think that is highly unlikely.

[goldengophers]

It would never happen but allowing satellite schools of Big Ten schools (UMD and Nebraska Omaha) to Big Ten hockey would be a great way to increase the number of teams in the conference.

[RodentRampage]

Title IX does NOT require schools to have women's hockey if they have men's hockey. They could comply with Title IX by adding some other sport. My understanding is that the WCHA required members to have both men's and women's hockey, but I don't know if the Big Ten will have any such requirement.

[discochris]

Title IX does NOT require schools to have women's hockey if they have men's hockey. They could comply with Title IX by adding some other sport. My understanding is that the WCHA required members to have both men's and women's hockey, but I don't know if the Big Ten will have any such requirement.

That's not true. There are only eight teams that play in the women's WCHA.

[MrGopher]

In case anyone cares... here's some of the most frequent, all-time opponents for Gopher Pucks. The Gophers lead all of these all-time series.

1. North Dakota - 283 games
2. Michigan Tech - 264 games
3. Michigan - 260 games
4. wisconsin - 257 games
5. Colorado College - 251 games
6. Minnesota Duluth - 216 games
7. Denver - 175 games
8. Michigan State - 154 games
9. St. Cloud - 87 games
10. Alaska Anchorage - 76 games
11. Mankato - 43 games
12. Notre Dame - 37 games
.
.
Ohio State -13 games

(also Illinois - 17 games in the '30s and '40s)

[ruralgopher]

And not playing The Sue WILL be a bad thing...our hatred for one another is born from history and respect.

My hatred is born of the worst fan interactions I've ever experienced.

[tjgopher]

Title IX does NOT require schools to have women's hockey if they have men's hockey. They could comply with Title IX by adding some other sport.

Correct, I should have worded it that way. Point being, NO school is adding sports right now (save for PSU after the $$$ fell from the sky). No chance those other Big Ten teams take on the cost of adding not only men's hockey, but some other women's sport with an equal or greater number of scholarships. The only way those sports are added is if someone could prove to the schools that men's hockey would be a profit-making sport and there are existing ice arena facilities. Unfortunately, at IA, IU, and PU, I just don't see it being a positive revenue force.

[Slim Tubby]

My hatred is born of the worst fan interactions I've ever experienced.

That too. :)

[lakesbison]

amen, these racists are sooo arrogant, read this article below:


http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_77b44fd8-4c1e-11e0-b2ce-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story


also, they have 14 canadians, and Briggs & Frattin / Snowbank Kristo. THey think they will have 10,000 down at the xcel for frozen four, ahhh NO, you had 3974 in attendence in green bay idiots.... and Duluth fans will buy tickets and gopher fans wont sell you their tickets!!

[HowBoutThemBison?]

I think it would be good for college hockey to have a flagship conference that non hockey fans would identify with.

And I hate und and think it would be a detriment to them.

It'll hurt them. But as a North Dakotan I feel like I sort of can comment on this. I hate UND, more than anyone here. They are the most arrogant and dilusional fans I've ever dealt with. They have millions of fans, tens of millions around the world, and if you dont believe them, just ask them and they'll tell you all about it. haha

UND will not get hurt by this, they sell out their Arena when they play Manitoba for God's sake. They have a good following up there, Grand Forks has nothing else to do so they go watch "the hockies." Now will this hurt the WCHA's chances of getting bunches of teams into the tournement? Yes, even though Minnesota hasn't been great lately, they still carry a ton of prestige. They are honestly partially responsible for teams like Duluth and middle of the pack WCHA teams getting into the tournement because, "Oh! They beat Minnesota!" or "They placed above minnesota!"

Just my two cents! Good Luck in the Big Ten!

[HowBoutThemBison?]

Lakes, you should spearhead the promotion of varsity hockey at NDSU.

UND will need a new conference rival now that The U exists on a higher plane than the rest of the WCHA.

NDSU has discussed hockey quite a bit the past 10 years or so and it won't happen. Alumni don't want it. We don't have the luxury that the U of M has. We don't have that kind of money to guarantee that adding hockey won't hurt football and basketball. However, if some bigtime alum drops $50 Mill if and only if it got spent on hockey, I'd be all for it I suppose.

UND, :) so excited to see them continue to get left behind by the real schools in the area, The Bison and The Goofs.

[Unregistered User]

NDSU has discussed hockey quite a bit the past 10 years or so and it won't happen. Alumni don't want it. We don't have the luxury that the U of M has. We don't have that kind of money to guarantee that adding hockey won't hurt football and basketball. However, if some bigtime alum drops $50 Mill if and only if it got spent on hockey, I'd be all for it I suppose.

UND, :) so excited to see them continue to get left behind by the real schools in the area, The Bison and The Goofs.

You've made your point on these boards. Now go home, you're starting to sound like a jack-hole.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

You've made your point on these boards. Now go home, you're starting to sound like a jack-hole.

I apologize, i noticed you guys are not very fond of the "Goofs". My roommate is a bigtime gopher fan and usually refers to them as that. No insult intended.

[JoeDirt]

I apologize, i noticed you guys are not very fond of the "Goofs". [B] My roommate is a bigtime gopher fan and usually refers to them as that. No insult intended.[/]

seems as though I've read this line of BS before.