Hockey and the Big Ten

Donate To GopherHole
MrGopher

MrGopher

The Anti-Sioux
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
2,640
Reaction score
0
Points
36
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.
 

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 :).
 

JackiO said:
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 :).
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 


Ski U Mah Gopher 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

ruralgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

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.
 



ruralgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

MrGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

ruralgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 



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.
 

ruralgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 

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.
 

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.
 

ruralgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ruralgopher said:
But for it to truly grow it needs the backing of a conference that carries some clout with TV.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

MrGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 

MrGopher said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?
 

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?
 

mnboiler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

mnboiler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.?
 

FarmGopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

mnboiler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom