Pitt to Big 10 - the rumor mill heats up

Donate To GopherHole
T

TAW

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
496
Reaction score
44
Points
28
This doesn't make sense to me money-wise, although it does every other way. I also don't see how they reach this decision so soon, unless they envision more joining down the road.

Link to Pitt Rivals Board.
 


I think the only reason an announcement would be made this early is because of the 27 month advanced notice that the Big East requires.Here's their scout board.
 

Well they make sense in a lot of ways. I was thinking Notre Dame might be persuaded to join.
 




It's more likely than you may think TAW. Notre Dame would make more money (their deal with NBC is only $9 million annually while each big ten school brings in $22 million from the Big Ten Network) while spending less (travel expenses and administrative costs). The only thing that stands in the way is arrogance. Pitt is a nice choice from a geographic, tradition and academic standpoint, but really they don't bring much to the table financially. Notre Dame has all those things and offers the financial reward for the conferences that lacking in any other choice. Also, Notre Dame has a hockey team, so the potential for hockey as a big ten sport is now on the table. A Big Ten hockey conference would be huge.
 

gophmeister said:
It's more likely than you may think TAW. Notre Dame would make more money (their deal with NBC is only $9 million annually while each big ten school brings in $22 million from the Big Ten Network) while spending less (travel expenses and administrative costs). The only thing that stands in the way is arrogance. Pitt is a nice choice from a geographic, tradition and academic standpoint, but really they don't bring much to the table financially. Notre Dame has all those things and offers the financial reward for the conferences that lacking in any other choice. Also, Notre Dame has a hockey team, so the potential for hockey as a big ten sport is now on the table. A Big Ten hockey conference would be huge.
Click to expand...

A big ten hockey conference would kill college hockey.
 

Why expansion again???

Reasons I see for...
- huge championship payday - $
- interest increase (only if it Notre Dame)
- market increase if we add Pitt or Rutgers
- Nat championship upset in the Big11Ten title game gives us 2 BCS teams
- More BTN $$??

Reasons against I see....
- possibly knocking the top Big Ten out of the Nat Championship - big reason to NOT do this in my opinion
- we already get 2 BCS team routinely and the $$ associated with it
- depending on alignment could break up some yearly rivalries ( or even make the 2 yrs off with Mich we have worse - every 3 years - for the LBJ battle)
- travel could be further if adding Rutgers or other school not already in a Big11Ten state - minor one
- could knock 1 of the teams out of the BSC because of the additional loss...leaving the Big Ten with 1 BCS team....or allow a leap frog of a "3rd" best team to just the 2nd that lost in the Big11Ten title game

Thoughts??
 




Gophers09 said:
A big ten hockey conference would kill college hockey.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The east would be completely unaffected by this. The west would see Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the best conference in college hockey. However UND, DU, CC, and the MN-based schools can more than hold their own in comparison to other conferences. Michigan, MSU, and OSU leaving would hurt the CCHA I believe, but then it would allow for smaller schools to advance.

Ultimately I think that forming the Big Ten conference in hockey would help college hockey in the long run, as it would attract more national attention and encourage other schools to form teams as well. College hockey gets overlooked for the most part, but occasionally gets ESPN time in the Frozen Four and if a son of an NHLer is playing and such. The Big Ten would demand attention, especially with it's dominance.
 


The Big L said:
Sure it would be great to get Texas. Why would they want to join the Big Ten again? They hold all the power in the Big 12 conference.
Click to expand...

Because they would get an extra $10 million in tv revenue alone every year?

This (and the addenda) is a great, though long, look at the expansion contenders, especially Texas.
 



I guess I really don't want expansion unless it's Notre Dame. Just reading that Pitt may have already been invited to join doesn't sound like good news to me. Although they fit into the Big Ten academic, location and sports wise, I just thought the choice would be more exciting. I don't think Texas will ever join. There's a huge hurdle to overcome with the Texas state legislature, and the travel logistics for the non-revenue sports isn't practical. Missouri is intriguing, but I don't think they have enough panache for those in charge of this.

However, if Notre Dame won't join, Pitt just might be the next best choice. It's just not what I wanted to read.
 

Historically, Pitt was one of Minnesota's big rivals, though we haven't played them much in recent decades. An expanded conference means a playoff, which means one champion only - no teams tying for the chamopionship as we have done frequently in the past. It will hurt teams like Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin and help Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan. I can't help but wish Penn State and Pitt would stay in the East and our conference stay at ten, with no playoff. But money is everything these days, even if we have to play at 9 a.m. o rbe seen only online, so money will determine the outcome. Hard to see how it will help us.
 

Caravan Shaker said:
Because they would get an extra $10 million in tv revenue alone every year?

This (and the addenda) is a great, though long, look at the expansion contenders, especially Texas.
Click to expand...

Edit: I see you linked an article that has proven me wrong!

I still wonder what that would do to the Texas baseball team. Not as high of a priority but still...interesting.
 

magpie said:
I disagree. The east would be completely unaffected by this. The west would see Minnesota and Wisconsin leave the best conference in college hockey. However UND, DU, CC, and the MN-based schools can more than hold their own in comparison to other conferences. Michigan, MSU, and OSU leaving would hurt the CCHA I believe, but then it would allow for smaller schools to advance.

Ultimately I think that forming the Big Ten conference in hockey would help college hockey in the long run, as it would attract more national attention and encourage other schools to form teams as well. College hockey gets overlooked for the most part, but occasionally gets ESPN time in the Frozen Four and if a son of an NHLer is playing and such. The Big Ten would demand attention, especially with it's dominance.
Click to expand...

The reason MCH and MSU left the WCHA was travel. With Omaha soon to be gone, even better. They and OSU would never agree to join what is an airplane league when they can bus anywhere except Alaska. Hockey is not a revenue sport at any of those schools (MCH breaks even) and only at OSU could then even make it one (based on arena size). The Blue jackets can hardly sell tickets there, so that's doubtful. Attendance: MCH 6,700 (#4 rank) per game; MSU 4,900 (#13); OSU 2,900 (#27), Notre Dame 2,700 (#30).

Minnesota is 3rd in attendance and outdraws MCH by over 3,000 per game.

Not a good financial move at all. Not happening.
 

hockey doesn't make minnesota any money. the only revenue sports for minnesota are football and basketball.
 

If Michigan leaves the CCHA, that league becomes a club sport. They need to separate Michigan (and possibly Notre Dame) from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota to keep both leagues viable. To date, the hockey collective has recognized this and realizes that they need all leagues to remain in play to have anything resembling a national championship. A Big Ten league may as well schedule a national championship against the best of east (and, as we all know, the ECHC is ACDC).
 

i'm batman said:
hockey doesn't make minnesota any money. the only revenue sports for minnesota are football and basketball.
Click to expand...

I hope I am missing something here. Last I saw was the Hockey team makes about 5 million a year for the U. They gross over 7 million.
 

highwayman said:
The reason MCH and MSU left the WCHA was travel. With Omaha soon to be gone, even better. They and OSU would never agree to join what is an airplane league when they can bus anywhere except Alaska. Hockey is not a revenue sport at any of those schools (MCH breaks even) and only at OSU could then even make it one (based on arena size). The Blue jackets can hardly sell tickets there, so that's doubtful. Attendance: MCH 6,700 (#4 rank) per game; MSU 4,900 (#13); OSU 2,900 (#27), Notre Dame 2,700 (#30).

Minnesota is 3rd in attendance and outdraws MCH by over 3,000 per game.

Not a good financial move at all. Not happening.
Click to expand...

I don't bother watching games against junior colleges either, but I'm always there to see big schools come to town. Surely this would be self-corrected... :rolleyes:
 


Rutgers does not bring in the New York market. New York is not a college town. The only teams that are somewhat followed in NYC are Notre Dame and Syracuse.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom