Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

    Sweet news! Let's get UIC up in this beyotch!
    the state of hockey is good

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

      Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
      So where would women's hockey play at Michigan, at Yost? Also what would they have to do, revamp Yost AGAIN to add a locker room for them? I was under the impression from different comments here and there over the years that Red would NOT willingly share Yost with a women's team. But if women's hockey isn't coming for several more years there's a strong possibility that Red will have retired by then. Brandon may be more successful getting Red's successor to go along with it than Red.
      That's pretty much what I've gathered.

      Originally posted by Spartanforlife4 View Post
      Ice Cube? I have no idea where that is located in relation to campus but it seats 1000. Plus it's home to the u18 team so it can't be a super dump (though I've never been so who knows).
      It's only about 3 miles from Yost. Ice Cube already has locker rooms for U-17, U-18, Ann Arbor Figure Skating Club, Pioneer High School, Huron High School, and Saline High School (U-17 and U-18 also have their own workout facilities). So I don't know how easily they could also add a U of M women's team.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

        Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
        So where would women's hockey play at Michigan, at Yost? Also what would they have to do, revamp Yost AGAIN to add a locker room for them? I was under the impression from different comments here and there over the years that Red would NOT willingly share Yost with a women's team. But if women's hockey isn't coming for several more years there's a strong possibility that Red will have retired by then. Brandon may be more successful getting Red's successor to go along with it than Red.
        Three options I've been told.

        1. Ann Arbor Ice Cube. It seats 1K, isn't that far away and is where the US NDTP plays.

        2. Play at Yost and take lacrosse's temporary utility building and house lockerrooms there (right next to the baseball stadium which is adjacent to Yost) until a better option is found.

        3. Or the longshot being considered. Return to the U-M Coliseum. An IM building that seats 1K. Formerly the home of men's hockey from 1922-23 - 1972-73.

        'Cube-
        *****http://www.a2ice3.com/images/stadium1.jpg******

        Really really old picture of the Coliseum
        *****http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/getimage-idx?viewid=BL004107;cc=bhl;entryid=x-bl004107;quality=2;view=image******
        ---
        National Champions: 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1964, 1996, 1998
        Frozen Four: 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1962, 1964, 1977, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2018
        19 Conference Championships
        10 Conference Tournament Championships
        2 Hobey Baker Winners


        @UMichWD on Twitter

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

          Wasn't the Big 10 hockey conference officially formed when 50% of the Big 10 teams had D1 Ice Hockey? (i.e. 6 Teams)

          Well now with the addition of Marlyand and Rutgers there are now less than 50% of the Big 10 schools that have Ice Hockey.... time to disband the Big 10 Hockey Conference!

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Red Cows View Post
            Very cool historical note. However, the ECAC has another opinion about this:

            http://www.ecachockey.com/men/history/index
            Well, John's Hopkins played in 1894 and Minnesota in 1895, so I guess the ECAC is wrong.
            Last edited by mnstate0fhockey; 02-01-2013, 08:11 AM.
            @MNState0fHockey on Twitter
            On the Web at www.mnhockeycentral.com
            High School, Gophers, and Wild News on Facebook at Minnesota Hockey Central

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

              North Dakota would be an ideal add to me and no-brainer. They bring a tremendous program, fan support and it makes geographical sense. If Neb or iowa ever decide to add hockey, they'll be right around them. Plus, they bring a women's program which would create a B1G women's conference at 6 members (including Michigan).
              ---
              National Champions: 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1964, 1996, 1998
              Frozen Four: 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1962, 1964, 1977, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2018
              19 Conference Championships
              10 Conference Tournament Championships
              2 Hobey Baker Winners


              @UMichWD on Twitter

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                UND would never make the B1G if academics are involved. DU probably would. wouldn't it be funny if DU bolted the new formed NaCHo to join the B1G in hockey. they would no doubt pull Miami along and CC if they could. Western, UND, SCSU, Omaha, UMD would be left homeless. karma. karma. karma. in this scenario, I would love to see UMD rejoin the WCHA.
                Originally posted by mtu_huskies
                "We are not too far away from a national championship," said (John) Scott.
                Boosh Factor 4

                Originally posted by Brent Hoven
                Yeah, but you're my favorite hag.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                  Originally posted by Red Cows View Post
                  No offense to a fine institution like John's Hopkins, but the only thing that would drive their addition, it would appear, might be academic considerations, not really athletic ones. What do they really bring to the table for the Big 10, otherwise? John's Hopkins probably needs (wants?) the Big 10 more than the Big 10 needs John's Hopkins.
                  JH is a lacrosse superpower and has no need for the B1G. They are something the B1G wants to get to 6.
                  Originally posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010
                  The fact that you BC fans revel in the superiority of your team in an admittedly weak league leads me to believe you will be more sorely disappointed when the end comes than we will.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                    B1G needs to add a ****** or two so it isn't Sparty or Brutus who is cemented as the ole miss or vandy year after year like "super Conf sec footbal"l.
                    a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                      Originally posted by MGoBlueHockey View Post
                      North Dakota would be an ideal add to me and no-brainer. They bring a tremendous program, fan support and it makes geographical sense. If Neb or iowa ever decide to add hockey, they'll be right around them. Plus, they bring a women's program which would create a B1G women's conference at 6 members (including Michigan).
                      I don't know that this gets to the real criteria for affiliate selection which will lead to big chests of money for B1G.

                      The real criteria in my mind is a national university brand...and demographics (as Delaney puts it) or population. UND I don't think qualifies along those lines. John Hopkins does only mildly more being in Baltimore and being so dominant in Lacrosse. But the difference is that B1G hockey will happen no matter what...while B1G Lacrosse will only happen with a JH...and the other big difference is that new member Maryland would love the whole set up.
                      Go Gophers!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                        Originally posted by huskyfan View Post
                        UND would never make the B1G if academics are involved. DU probably would. wouldn't it be funny if DU bolted the new formed NaCHo to join the B1G in hockey. they would no doubt pull Miami along and CC if they could. Western, UND, SCSU, Omaha, UMD would be left homeless. karma. karma. karma. in this scenario, I would love to see UMD rejoin the WCHA.
                        So I guess the NCHC is just karma for MTU bolting the WCHA for the CCHA?
                        Originally posted by SJHovey
                        Pretty sure this post, made on January 3, 2016, when UNO was 14-3-1 and #2 in the pairwise, will go down in USCHO lore as The Curse of Tipsy McStagger.
                        Originally posted by Brenthoven
                        We mourn for days after a loss, puff out our chests for a week or more after we win. We brave the cold for tailgates, our friends know not to ask about the game after a tough loss, we laugh, we cry, we BLEED hockey, specifically the maroon'n'gold. Many of us have a tattoo waiting in the wings, WHEN (not IF) the Gophers are champions again.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                          Originally posted by Nick Papagiorgio View Post
                          JH is a lacrosse superpower and has no need for the B1G. They are something the B1G wants to get to 6.
                          And moreover, they're the only worthwhile candidate left on the table, barring another ACC defection. The B1G isn't going to go after Marquette or Mercer.
                          UConn -- Clarkson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                            Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                            I don't know that this gets to the real criteria for affiliate selection which will lead to big chests of money for B1G.

                            The real criteria in my mind is a national university brand...and demographics (as Delaney puts it) or population. UND I don't think qualifies along those lines. John Hopkins does only mildly more being in Baltimore and being so dominant in Lacrosse. But the difference is that B1G hockey will happen no matter what...while B1G Lacrosse will only happen with a JH...and the other big difference is that new member Maryland would love the whole set up.
                            All of this rings true.

                            Some quick reactions, just thinking out loud:

                            1. The phrase "affiliate member" has Notre Dame's fingerprints all over it. Notre Dame may be Our Lady, but she's also the Mother of Affiliate Membership. Trouble is, does the idea pass the plausibility test at this point in time? ND just joined Hockey East amid much fanfare. Are we really to believe they'd leave before playing a single conference game? Doesn't feel plausible to me.

                            2. Despite what both of us think the "real" criteria are, suppose additions were made purely on hockey grounds. In that case, North Dakota would be a great catch. But for this to happen, Delaney & Co. would have to do something FOR the hockey community, as opposed to doing something TO the hockey community. Never say never, but that would almost require a paradigm shift. Throughout the formation of the BTHC, the powers-that-be have treated hockey as a resource to be deployed, as opposed to a partner with legitimate wants and needs.

                            3. I can imagine that any number of things are honestly "on the table." But my guess is the conference line-up for 2013-14 won't change from what's already been announced.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                              Why do people want johnny come lately Miami (OH) for anything? Ben Rapelisberger is the only famous player from there, and they aren't a national brand in any way.
                              PSNetwork / XBOX GamerTag: xJeris
                              Steam Profile

                              Sports Allegiance
                              NFL: CHI; MLB: MN, NYM; NHL: MN, MTL; NCAAB: MN, UNLV; NCAAF: MN, MIA; NCAAH: MN; Soccer: USA, Blackburn

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Big Ten- Adding affiliate members for hockey isn't off the table

                                You guys are blowing this all way out of proportion. 5 teams in the B1G have lacrosse. You need 6 to get an autobid and create a league. The B1G wants a league to justify putting more games on BTN. The lacrosse members are worried they'll be stuck at 5 members desperately waiting for a 6th like hockey was. So one possibility would be to add a non B1G school just to get to 6.

                                This isn't an audition for expansion. And I highly doubt they would consider this for hockey just because it would be cool to see more strong teams play together. B1G Hockey already has their league. There's nothing to say they even will do this for lacrosse. I'm sure it's a "we're willing to talk about anything" kinda deal. Get all options on the table. Plus what would you do with an affiliate member if another B1G school joined lacrosse? Kick the affiliate member to the curb? Keep them forever? I doubt they'd want that. I don't mean to come across as so negative on this, but I would be VERY surprised if it happened. I'm sure they'll just goad another team into joining, like MSU trying to keep up with UM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X