PDA

View Full Version : Story - There were serious discussions on a Big Ten hockey league this past summer



Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-12-2009, 01:28 PM
Here is a link to the story: http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/article_79517d2e-b953-52ee-b0e4-9d11b3606084.html?mode=story

Personally, I think Maturi needs to stop trying to play the role of "white knight" for the small-time hockey programs on this and start looking at it from a Big Ten perspective. Minnesota has an obligation (just like everyone else in the Big Ten) to make sure that the Big Ten Network is successful considering that the U of M is receiving millions of dollars from the BTN annually. It is not the job of the U of M, UW, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State to perpetually "prop-up" the many small and failing programs in college hockey. Regionalization would be best for D1 college hockey long-term. Having schools from Alaska to Nebraska to Alabama to Colorado and from a wide range of time zones in the WCHA & CCHA does not make sense and never has. Plain and simple a Big Ten hockey league would be best for Big Ten schools.

I am sure people who grew up in or near the smaller WCHA schools (including No Dak) and perhaps even some of those who did not will "have at me" now. How dare I suggest a Big Ten Hockey league :cry:

trixR4kids
10-12-2009, 04:36 PM
Maturi is right, it's a terrible idea and as expected this never even went beyond the preliminary stages of consideration.

This white knight argument is also ridiculous. Our rivalries with UND and even Minn State are much bigger than rivalries with OSU or the other 6 big ten teams (that don't even have a team yet) could ever be.


many U of M hockey fans would disagree in respect to our hockey rivalry with wisconsin not being bigger (as you said) than our hockey rivalry with und. i think und fans like to view it that way for some reason, but most u of m fans would disagree. we have been playing wisconsin in sports since the 1800's. not the case with und. the rivalry with wisconsin is much stronger in ALL sports.

Woog has always talked about how the Gopher Sioux rivalry is one of the most in intense in all of sports. Just because we played them for the first time (1930) a mere 8 years after we played Bucky for the first time (1922), doesn't mean the WI rivalry is more intense. As Hammy said you must hang with some weird MN fans in some bizarro world because nobody actually agrees with any of this. Sure many fans would disagree with me but the vast majority would state otherwise as it's so much easier to hate the Sioux.

GophBen
10-12-2009, 05:04 PM
Thank God for Maturi.

g_manpucker
10-12-2009, 05:08 PM
The voice of reason straight from the man at the top of the food chain at the U...thank you Maturi!

gopherguy05
10-12-2009, 07:15 PM
Matrui is right on this one again...

Bronk...you can think whatever you want, but seriously, most Gopher Hockey fans want it to stay status quo.....

GophBen
10-12-2009, 07:47 PM
I don't know, guys. I think going to the Big Ten Network where Gopher Hockey can get interrupted in the middle of the 2nd period for a Indiana basketball press conference is definitely the right move.

Chadypu
10-12-2009, 08:43 PM
Something needs to be done to get rid of tape delays on one of the most followed college hockey teams in the US.

g_manpucker
10-13-2009, 08:17 AM
The play by play guys on the BTN suck!! I hate when the BTN attempts to broadcast any hockey game. They need to stick to barely being able to do football or bouncy ball play by play! I would rather watch LaPlanta and Gorg do the play by play!!!

GophersInIowa
10-13-2009, 09:19 AM
It's not the job of the big schools like Minnesota and Michigan to "prop-up" the smaller schools like you said. But, more than anything, they want college hockey to survive and thrive. Moving into a big-school only Big Ten conference would really hurt the small schools and could eventually mean many of the programs becoming extinct. That would not be a good thing.

Furthermore, playing Ohio St., Michigan, or Michigan St. is not as exciting and fun as playing UND, St. Cloud St. and UMD. I think most Gopher hockey fans would agree.

psych
10-13-2009, 03:37 PM
Here is a link to the story: http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/article_79517d2e-b953-52ee-b0e4-9d11b3606084.html?mode=story

Personally, I think Maturi needs to stop trying to play the role of "white knight" for the small-time hockey programs on this and start looking at it from a Big Ten perspective. Minnesota has an obligation (just like everyone else in the Big Ten) to make sure that the Big Ten Network is successful considering that the U of M is receiving millions of dollars from the BTN annually. It is not the job of the U of M, UW, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State to perpetually "prop-up" the many small and failing programs in college hockey. Regionalization would be best for D1 college hockey long-term. Having schools from Alaska to Nebraska to Alabama to Colorado and from a wide range of time zones in the WCHA & CCHA does not make sense and never has. Plain and simple a Big Ten hockey league would be best for Big Ten schools.

I am sure people who grew up in or near the smaller WCHA schools (including No Dak) and perhaps even some of those who did not will "have at me" now. How dare I suggest a Big Ten Hockey league :cry:

You seriously have to be a troll.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-13-2009, 05:43 PM
Maturi is right, it's a terrible idea and as expected this never even went beyond the preliminary stages of consideration.

This white knight argument is also ridiculous. Our rivalries with UND and even Minn State are much bigger than rivalries with OSU or the other 6 big ten teams (that don't even have a team yet) could ever be.



Woog has always talked about how the Gopher Sioux rivalry is one of the most in intense in all of sports. Just because we played them for the first time (1930) a mere 8 years after we played Bucky for the first time (1922), doesn't mean the WI rivalry is more intense. As Hammy said you must hang with some weird MN fans in some bizarro world because nobody actually agrees with any of this. Sure many fans would disagree with me but the vast majority would state otherwise as it's so much easier to hate the Sioux.

i think you are looking for gopher puck live.........

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-13-2009, 05:44 PM
The play by play guys on the BTN suck!! I hate when the BTN attempts to broadcast any hockey game. They need to stick to barely being able to do football or bouncy ball play by play! I would rather watch LaPlanta and Gorg do the play by play!!!

did you get lost on your way to gopher puck live? :rolleyes:

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-13-2009, 05:48 PM
You seriously have to be a troll.

ohhh...opps.....you got me! actually, it has nothing to do with that. it simply has to do with the fact that playing schools like uno, bemidji state, minnesota state, michigan tech & alaska-anchorage numerous times each year SUCKS ASS!

head back to gopher puck live now with the rest of the fools. :eek:

g_manpucker
10-13-2009, 08:10 PM
Bronco I should introduce you to a guy named StevieG! You two think a lot alike. Could you tell me how to get to the promised land i.e. GPL?

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-13-2009, 08:44 PM
Bronco I should introduce you to a guy named StevieG! You two think a lot alike. Could you tell me how to get to the promised land i.e. GPL?

oh, i am pretty sure you know how to get to gopher puck live my friend. i have already read your and trixr4kids many "insightful" posts over there. it is a real treasure-trove! :rolleyes:

trixR4kids
10-14-2009, 01:58 AM
You've had some real gems yourself Bronco... I know drunken Sioux fans whose ramblings make more sense than your most intelligent thoughts.

psych
10-14-2009, 01:37 PM
ohhh...opps.....you got me! actually, it has nothing to do with that. it simply has to do with the fact that playing schools like uno, bemidji state, minnesota state, michigan tech & alaska-anchorage numerous times each year SUCKS ASS!

head back to gopher puck live now with the rest of the fools. :eek:

You are in the minority of folks who would rather see the Gophers play Ohio State, Michigan State, and Michigan than UND, SCSU, and UMD. The vast majority prefer the latter teams than the former. Really, I guarantee you that. If your argument is "The average person would rather watch Minnesota play OSU, MSU, and Michigan", you yourself said that you want college hockey to be regionalized, so why the hell do you care what the average person thinks? If the average person started caring, that would mean more exposure for college hockey, less regionalization, and programs like Bemidji State would be fine for the future :eek: Sorry that your argument sucks.

ditt1605
10-14-2009, 03:57 PM
I don't think Maturi is trying to "save the little guys", but rather is just giving his MN perspective. I'm assuming it's completely different than those of WI, MI, MSU and OSU. MN has several instate rivals that are currently in their league as well as a few traditional out of state rivals. I really don't know about the others, but I find it hard to believe they have the same amount of "rivals" as the U. In their cases, it may make more sense to ditch their current conferences (I don't know if those other schools have any rivals other than each other or us).

That said, there's some of this (BT conference argument) I agree with (regionalization) and some I don't (not playing traditional rivals). I'm intrigued by the concept of a big ten conference, however, since there are only 5 Big ten schools with teams it could not be a Big ten only conference.

I would be open to putting the BT teams in the same conference, but it would also have to accept successful non-big ten teams in the region to fill it out (UND, CC, Miami, Notre Dame...etc). As for our rivals that don't make it into the new conference, we would most likely have to play them as part of the non-conference schedule. For example, part of the dodge holliday classic or instead of the college hockey showcase, we could do a MN hockey showcase...etc.

I think we could all agree that going from 3 (wcha, hockey east, ccha) to 2 major conferences (hockey east, BT conference) would not be good for college hockey as a whole. The only reason the big ten talks about forming their own conference is based on the big ten executives' interests ($, exposure, $), not necessarily for what's best for the individual schools.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-14-2009, 09:19 PM
I don't think Maturi is trying to "save the little guys", but rather is just giving his MN perspective. I'm assuming it's completely different than those of WI, MI, MSU and OSU. MN has several instate rivals that are currently in their league as well as a few traditional out of state rivals. I really don't know about the others, but I find it hard to believe they have the same amount of "rivals" as the U. In their cases, it may make more sense to ditch their current conferences (I don't know if those other schools have any rivals other than each other or us).

That said, there's some of this (BT conference argument) I agree with (regionalization) and some I don't (not playing traditional rivals). I'm intrigued by the concept of a big ten conference, however, since there are only 5 Big ten schools with teams it could not be a Big ten only conference.

I would be open to putting the BT teams in the same conference, but it would also have to accept successful non-big ten teams in the region to fill it out (UND, CC, Miami, Notre Dame...etc). As for our rivals that don't make it into the new conference, we would most likely have to play them as part of the non-conference schedule. For example, part of the dodge holliday classic or instead of the college hockey showcase, we could do a MN hockey showcase...etc.

I think we could all agree that going from 3 (wcha, hockey east, ccha) to 2 major conferences (hockey east, BT conference) would not be good for college hockey as a whole. The only reason the big ten talks about forming their own conference is based on the big ten executives' interests ($, exposure, $), not necessarily for what's best for the individual schools.

no offense, but you completely "missed it" on the highlighted part. you are aware that they play college hockey (and have for a long time) in michigan as well correct? you are aware of how many CCHA teams reside in the state of michigan (i.e. similar to minnesota) correct? LOTS! as many or even more than in minnesota. do you honestly believe that all of those michigan based CCHA teams who are not named michigan or even michigan state do not consider michigan or michigan state to be their biggest rivals? that point i am making is that multiple teams in a hockey conference being from the same state and considering the flagship state university to be their rival is not something "unique" to minnesota and is therefore not something that the U of M should feel obligated to try and protect when michigan and michigan state in the end would likely sign up for a BTHC as well.

also, the only out-of-state U of M rival that would be affected by a BTHC would be the north dakota fighting susies. frankly i don't really give a rip if a BTHC negatively impacts the UND hockey program. tough luck susies! their program is full of canadian thugs of play cheap as well as dickheads who try to start bench clearing brawls (before, during and after games) year-after-year. i am all about the long-term strength and success of the U of M hockey program and fellow big ten hockey programs, not the und fighting susies.

ditt1605
10-15-2009, 03:38 PM
Yes, I am aware that the state of MI has the third most D1 teams in the nation.

My bad, that's what I get for assuming and posting before checking things out. I wrote that because other than MI, MSU, OSU, ND and Miami I never hear about the other schools in the CCHA.

After doing some checking, I could see both MI and MSU having in-state rivalries with Northern Michigan and Lake Superior State (based on their histories). However, I doubt that they would consider Ferris State and W MI as rivals (based on their performance). Seeing the recent history with those other schools, I would say that our in-state rivals are better competition.

From the article, it seems that the BTHC league would be CCHA heavy either with just the inclusion of ND or some of the others mentioned. Maturi could be holding out for some of the WCHA names to be thrown in. I seriously doubt Maturi would OK anything without at least one of their other rivals regardless if it's UND or not. I wonder if the board of regents woud give Maturi a little incentive to bring along the other U of M school.

edit: My defintion of a "rivalry" is when both teams consider each other a "rival". I will not consider MN vs Bemidji State a rivalry since we don't consider them a rival, eventhough they might consider us a rival. Just becuase the little guy is gunning for the top dog does not make it a rivalry. The feeling has to be mutual.

g_manpucker
10-15-2009, 09:14 PM
That is a good point ditt about the programs in the state of Michigan that are all in the CCHA, do they really want to dissolve their association with that conference or the three big ten schools in said conference...probably not. As much as Minnesota State or St. Clown want to keep the WCHA the way it is, Lake State and Northern Michigan would want to keep their association with the CCHA...for the money and the recruiting exposure. A big ten conference would just siphon everything away from those mid level teams, I don't think either conference as a whole would want that.

ditt1605
10-16-2009, 12:17 PM
That is a good point ditt about the programs in the state of Michigan that are all in the CCHA, do they really want to dissolve their association with that conference or the three big ten schools in said conference...probably not. As much as Minnesota State or St. Clown want to keep the WCHA the way it is, Lake State and Northern Michigan would want to keep their association with the CCHA...for the money and the recruiting exposure. A big ten conference would just siphon everything away from those mid level teams, I don't think either conference as a whole would want that.

there's no doubt that the WCHA and CCHA do not want those schools to leave. The question here is whether it's better for the Big Ten schools to form their own conference: I'm pretty sure it comes down to money and exposure.

From a Big Ten exec perspective, I would say absolutely. They get all their teams together and can try to play off the football rivalries. Also, in their own conference, they wouldn't be tied to the current TV contracts and can shift TV to the BTN. While not as popular as football, I'm guessing there's quite a bit of $ in the BT hockey markets. On the exposeure aspect, I'm thinking the casual fan is more apt to watch a big ten match up rather than MSU vs. Western Mi.

From a individual school perspective, I think it doesn't make sense for the U or MI. Mostly because of the histories, tradition and fan base. I think these schools make enough $ right now to not see a big gain from switching conferences.

I think it does make sense for WI, MSU and OSU. WI does have tradition and history, but doesn't have a state wide fan base, a traditional hockey rival other than MN and I don't think they get as much TV revenue. While they do get some exposure on TV, it's nothing like the gophers. At least in my experience from having lived in SE WI. I've really only seen a WI hockey game on TV when the play the gophs, OSU, MI or MSU. Therefore, there is both money and exposure to gain from a Big Ten conference. MSU and OSU, I'm ASSUMING are along the lines with WI, but don't hold me to that.

Therefore, as the original article outlines, you end up with the Big Ten Conference execs saying, " lets form our own league". MN says, "no" openly. WI and OSU say, "yes" openly. MSU and MI have no comment.

GophersInIowa
10-16-2009, 03:02 PM
there's no doubt that the WCHA and CCHA do not want those schools to leave. The question here is whether it's better for the Big Ten schools to form their own conference: I'm pretty sure it comes down to money and exposure.

From a Big Ten exec perspective, I would say absolutely. They get all their teams together and can try to play off the football rivalries. Also, in their own conference, they wouldn't be tied to the current TV contracts and can shift TV to the BTN. While not as popular as football, I'm guessing there's quite a bit of $ in the BT hockey markets. On the exposeure aspect, I'm thinking the casual fan is more apt to watch a big ten match up rather than MSU vs. Western Mi.

From a individual school perspective, I think it doesn't make sense for the U or MI. Mostly because of the histories, tradition and fan base. I think these schools make enough $ right now to not see a big gain from switching conferences.

I think it does make sense for WI, MSU and OSU. WI does have tradition and history, but doesn't have a state wide fan base, a traditional hockey rival other than MN and I don't think they get as much TV revenue. While they do get some exposure on TV, it's nothing like the gophers. At least in my experience from having lived in SE WI. I've really only seen a WI hockey game on TV when the play the gophs, OSU, MI or MSU. Therefore, there is both money and exposure to gain from a Big Ten conference. MSU and OSU, I'm ASSUMING are along the lines with WI, but don't hold me to that.

Therefore, as the original article outlines, you end up with the Big Ten Conference execs saying, " lets form our own league". MN says, "no" openly. WI and OSU say, "yes" openly. MSU and MI have no comment.

Lots of good points here. I'll just add that if you ask "would a Big Ten Conference be good for the future of college hockey as a whole?" I think the answer is no. Even if this were to help the bigger programs like MN and MI, I would surely hurt the smaller programs like MN St., UMD, and St. Cloud St.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
10-16-2009, 08:50 PM
Yes, I am aware that the state of MI has the third most D1 teams in the nation.

My bad, that's what I get for assuming and posting before checking things out. I wrote that because other than MI, MSU, OSU, ND and Miami I never hear about the other schools in the CCHA.

After doing some checking, I could see both MI and MSU having in-state rivalries with Northern Michigan and Lake Superior State (based on their histories). However, I doubt that they would consider Ferris State and W MI as rivals (based on their performance). Seeing the recent history with those other schools, I would say that our in-state rivals are better competition.

From the article, it seems that the BTHC league would be CCHA heavy either with just the inclusion of ND or some of the others mentioned. Maturi could be holding out for some of the WCHA names to be thrown in. I seriously doubt Maturi would OK anything without at least one of their other rivals regardless if it's UND or not. I wonder if the board of regents woud give Maturi a little incentive to bring along the other U of M school.

edit: My defintion of a "rivalry" is when both teams consider each other a "rival". I will not consider MN vs Bemidji State a rivalry since we don't consider them a rival, eventhough they might consider us a rival. Just becuase the little guy is gunning for the top dog does not make it a rivalry. The feeling has to be mutual.

doubt it. that is not going to happen. the only team who is not currently a member of the big ten that would be invited is notre dame - because of history with the big ten in other sports and because notre dame's academics are on par with the rest of the big ten schools. und will not be a member of a BTHC.

vinko bogataj
11-08-2009, 06:15 PM
there's no doubt that the WCHA and CCHA do not want those schools to leave. The question here is whether it's better for the Big Ten schools to form their own conference: I'm pretty sure it comes down to money and exposure.

From a Big Ten exec perspective, I would say absolutely. They get all their teams together and can try to play off the football rivalries. Also, in their own conference, they wouldn't be tied to the current TV contracts and can shift TV to the BTN. While not as popular as football, I'm guessing there's quite a bit of $ in the BT hockey markets. On the exposeure aspect, I'm thinking the casual fan is more apt to watch a big ten match up rather than MSU vs. Western Mi.

From a individual school perspective, I think it doesn't make sense for the U or MI. Mostly because of the histories, tradition and fan base. I think these schools make enough $ right now to not see a big gain from switching conferences.

I think it does make sense for WI, MSU and OSU. WI does have tradition and history, but doesn't have a state wide fan base, a traditional hockey rival other than MN and I don't think they get as much TV revenue. While they do get some exposure on TV, it's nothing like the gophers. At least in my experience from having lived in SE WI. I've really only seen a WI hockey game on TV when the play the gophs, OSU, MI or MSU. Therefore, there is both money and exposure to gain from a Big Ten conference. MSU and OSU, I'm ASSUMING are along the lines with WI, but don't hold me to that.

Therefore, as the original article outlines, you end up with the Big Ten Conference execs saying, " lets form our own league". MN says, "no" openly. WI and OSU say, "yes" openly. MSU and MI have no comment.

This post pretty much hits it on the head. I think the other unique aspect to the "U" is the financial end. Basically, you have 3 main issues that would negatively impact us.

1. Travel Expense, flying to tOSU or Notre Dame or even Michigan and MSU is more expensive than putting the team on a bus to Mankato, Duluth or St. Cloud. This same thing would apply to the Michigan schools as well. Strangely, we flat out said "No" and both Michigan schools declined comment.

2. Television Exposure. For the Gophers virtually every game is shown locally and statewide via FSN. This features our own announcers and a network with significantly wider distibution and familiarity to local fans. Given the BTN lovefest for Michigan and Ohio State, would we be allowed to keep our local contract with FSN so all games could still be shown? If FSN were to lose some of the marquee games (say UW) would they still bid the rights at all if they could, would they bid less costing our AD more money? How many Gopher games would be guaranteed LIVE TV coverage? All significant questions that need answering.

3. Television Revenue. Would the BTN be able to generate enough dollars to offset any potential dollar loss suffered by the potential loss of our own contract? Does the University really want to decrease its own revenue to allow redistribution of BTN money to other member schools? Particularily non-hockey playing schools? The flip side of arguments like Bronko's are the same? He doesn't care to support UMD, MSU-Mankato and so forth. Is it any more palatable to give up our own TV revenue the help Iowa get a better return from BTN? I'd argue no.

These issues to me are the real biggies. Our TV deal makes Minnesota unique in the college hockey world. The program turned a $4.5 million profit last year, largely based on TW exposure in one way or another. No other program in the nation, including UND, UW or Michigan made more than $2.5 million. To make changes to placate the Big Ten office or BTN, neither of which have much affinity for us in other areas, doesn't seem to make sense to me. We potentially give up revenue, allow rival schools better media exposure in our talent rich market and still sell out each game at the same price. Since our ticket prices are already the highest in the nation, they won't go up more. Other than allowing some non-core fans to say "wow, we play tOSU this weekend and they must be better than UND", I'm not sure what the University would gain. I suspect that Michigan and MSU both feel similar. The only winners in this would be UW and tOSU (and maybe Notre Dame).