PDA

View Full Version : Big Ten conference discussed, rejected



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

GB Puck Fan
10-11-2009, 08:16 AM
I apologize if there's already a thread based on this article.

According to a Madison paper, the concept of a Big Ten hcokey conference was discussed more this summer - in light of the CHA demise - but was rejected. Mostly because of Minnesota, apparently, but didn't seem like there was a big ground swell of support for it.

http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/article_79517d2e-b953-52ee-b0e4-9d11b3606084.html

Some tidbits I found interesting...

* The Big Ten would've asked other non BT schools to join, such as Notre Dame or others to get to the 6 minimum for an auto-bid, instead of getting non-D1 teams to move up. Not really a BTHC then, is it?

* it also mentioned the idea of Wisconsin jumping to fill to the CCHA's 12th spot, but that Eaves didn't like it, so it didn't go anywhere.

Overall, personally, I'm glad it didn't happen. While I agree some changes might be needed, I like the current WCHA and don't see a need for a BTHC.

joecct
10-11-2009, 09:03 AM
The only way the CCHA and WCHA subdivide to create a 3rd western conference is if some media network throws gobs of money towards the new conference.

Both conferences are (or will be if UAH gets into the CCHA) at the maximum managable number of teams (12). If somebody new starts up, then ????

Which brings up another thought --- does having the WCHA and CCHA at their max # of teams inhibit growth of college hockey in the West???

RSTuthill
10-11-2009, 09:33 AM
The only way the CCHA and WCHA subdivide to create a 3rd western conference is if some media network throws gobs of money towards the new conference.

Both conferences are (or will be if UAH gets into the CCHA) at the maximum managable number of teams (12). If somebody new starts up, then ????

Which brings up another thought --- does having the WCHA and CCHA at their max # of teams inhibit growth of college hockey in the West???
Good points, Joe. As to the last question I am guessing yes. But I would worry more about the potential loss of UAH, a very viable program btw, than I would about future expansion. Worrying about the latter kinda puts the cart before the horse.

MikeAnderson
10-11-2009, 09:44 AM
Both conferences are (or will be if UAH gets into the CCHA) at the maximum managable number of teams (12). If somebody new starts up, then ????

I would contend that 16 is at least as manageable as 12, except that you have that pesky spectre of dividing into divisions, not playing everyone in the regular season and making for an interesting postseason (if you're die hard on inviting every team to the tournament...).

Hammer
10-11-2009, 10:27 AM
Well, if you're playing at 14 or 16, you could theoretically play everyone in your conference twice, putting you at 26 or 30 conference games. You're on your own to figure out postseason play from there.

scsutommyboy
10-11-2009, 12:40 PM
It doesn't surprise me Wisconsin is for the BTC. I was watching a sconnie broadcast last year and Alveraz was a guest in the booth and he said he was in favor of it.

wsummers
10-11-2009, 01:08 PM
While a Big Ten Conference isn't happening anytime soon (if ever). What's likely to happen within the next two years is a scheduling arrangement where all BT schools play each other one or two times a year and then declare a BT champ much in the same way Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, and Wisconsin did when they were all in the WCHA.

Happy
10-11-2009, 01:20 PM
It doesn't surprise me Wisconsin is for the BTC. I was watching a sconnie broadcast last year and Alveraz was a guest in the booth and he said he was in favor of it.

Wisconsin does not sell out, while Minnesota does. Wisconsin would sell more tickets in the BTHC.

scsutommyboy
10-11-2009, 01:44 PM
While a Big Ten Conference isn't happening anytime soon (if ever). What's likely to happen within the next two years is a scheduling arrangement where all BT schools play each other one or two times a year and then declare a BT champ much in the same way Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, and Wisconsin did when they were all in the WCHA.

The only way that will happen is if the WCHA and CCHA cut back their conference schedule.

Greyeagle
10-11-2009, 01:47 PM
Wisconsin does not sell out, while Minnesota does. Wisconsin would sell more tickets in the BTHC.

Oh they sell out, it's just not attendance related. ;)

kdilks
10-11-2009, 02:39 PM
The only way that will happen is if the WCHA and CCHA cut back their conference schedule.

Not especially. Say you just count one meeting between the Big Ten teams each year. For teams in the same conference, have a pre-determined game that counts towards the Big Ten standings. If you wanted to, you could even count all of the conference games, just weight them based on how often the teams play. For Minnesota/Wisconsin vs Michigan/Michigan State, you already have the College Hockey Showcase. All you're missing is a yearly matchup between Ohio State and Minnesota/Wisconsin. So all you'd really need to add is a second "showcase" where Minnesota/Wisconsin alternate between visiting and hosting Ohio State and perhaps Miami (based on geography). Another option might be to have the three Big Ten teams rotate hosting a showcase with Minnesota/Wisconsin vs Ohio State/invite team (all teams involved would only get to host every 3 years instead of every 2, but this way Minnesota/Wisconsin aren't locked into the same 4 OOC opponents each year).

The main point is, the only thing that's missing is a yearly Ohio State vs Minnesota/Wisconsin matchup, and that could be easily integrated without changing the conference schedule if the teams were up for it.

slurpees
10-11-2009, 02:50 PM
I would contend that 16 is at least as manageable as 12, except that you have that pesky spectre of dividing into divisions, not playing everyone in the regular season and making for an interesting postseason (if you're die hard on inviting every team to the tournament...).

16 is not as manageable as 12, with 16 you have imbalanced scheduling and divisions cause problems because teams from one division aren't as good as others and have skewed records (think big 12 north in fb)

scsutommyboy
10-11-2009, 03:19 PM
Not especially. Say you just count one meeting between the Big Ten teams each year. For teams in the same conference, have a pre-determined game that counts towards the Big Ten standings. If you wanted to, you could even count all of the conference games, just weight them based on how often the teams play. For Minnesota/Wisconsin vs Michigan/Michigan State, you already have the College Hockey Showcase. All you're missing is a yearly matchup between Ohio State and Minnesota/Wisconsin. So all you'd really need to add is a second "showcase" where Minnesota/Wisconsin alternate between visiting and hosting Ohio State and perhaps Miami (based on geography). Another option might be to have the three Big Ten teams rotate hosting a showcase with Minnesota/Wisconsin vs Ohio State/invite team (all teams involved would only get to host every 3 years instead of every 2, but this way Minnesota/Wisconsin aren't locked into the same 4 OOC opponents each year).

The main point is, the only thing that's missing is a yearly Ohio State vs Minnesota/Wisconsin matchup, and that could be easily integrated without changing the conference schedule if the teams were up for it.

If they schedule OSU every year they won't get to play anybody else because they already play Michigan and MSU every year. From the sound sof it Maturi is agaisnt that. the only way to do it is to reduce the conference schedule.

huskyfan
10-11-2009, 03:46 PM
hate to sound cynical, but the minute the $$$ is there, there will be a BTHC.
hopefully that won't be for a long while.

blockski
10-11-2009, 04:06 PM
Some interesting notes from the article:


A league devoted to Big Ten schools would create a major ripple effect on the rest of NCAA Division I hockey, which currently has 58 programs assigned to six conferences. Some believe it would trigger much-needed realignment and stability. Others contend it would lead to a dominant entity -- the Big Ten -- and jeopardize the existence of smaller programs.

UW senior associate athletic director Sean Frazier, who oversees the men's and women's hockey programs, said he and athletic director Barry Alvarez share "major concerns'' about the overall health and direction of men's hockey at the NCAA Division I level.

What's clear is that the knee-jerk reaction that a BTHC would kill college hockey as we know it no longer applies, as the college-hockey-as-we-know-it isn't all that stable anymore. CHA is dead, both the WCHA and CCHA are too large to be effective conferences within the current framework (28 games, 2 game series...), and potential for growth is next to nil.


Chris Schneider, the associate athletic director for sports administration at Ohio State, said a Big Ten men's hockey league appeals to his school in part because of the scheduling doors it would open.

Minnesota and UW currently have annual matchups with Michigan and Michigan State in the College Hockey Showcase, but Ohio State has no consistent access to the two WCHA schools.

"It's something I think we'd like to see accomplished,'' Schneider said of the Big Ten men's hockey league, "but I think we can achieve some of the same goals through a scheduling alliance.''

This would seem to go hand in hand with the rumored proposal of dropping the WCHA's conference season to 22 games, instead of 28 games. Those extra non-conference games would be a fantastic way to meet the goals of the Big Ten schools, diversify everyone's schedules, make the PWR data less insular, etc.

The larger point is that the old canard that the BTHC would hurt the status quo doesn't hold water, because the status quo is slowly killing itself.

scsutommyboy
10-11-2009, 04:14 PM
Some interesting notes from the article:



What's clear is that the knee-jerk reaction that a BTHC would kill college hockey as we know it no longer applies, as the college-hockey-as-we-know-it isn't all that stable anymore. CHA is dead, both the WCHA and CCHA are too large to be effective conferences within the current framework (28 games, 2 game series...), and potential for growth is next to nil.



This would seem to go hand in hand with the rumored proposal of dropping the WCHA's conference season to 22 games, instead of 28 games. Those extra non-conference games would be a fantastic way to meet the goals of the Big Ten schools, diversify everyone's schedules, make the PWR data less insular, etc.

The larger point is that the old canard that the BTHC would hurt the status quo doesn't hold water, because the status quo is slowly killing itself.

The only way I think the WCHA drops their number of games is if the CCHA does as well. In that case then they could have a scheduling alliance

blockski
10-11-2009, 04:16 PM
The only way I think the WCHA drops their number of games is if the CCHA does as well. In that case then they could have a scheduling alliance

Well, yes - it wouldn'ty really make sense to increase the number of non-conference games without other conferences to play those games against. ;)

kdilks
10-11-2009, 04:25 PM
If they schedule OSU every year they won't get to play anybody else because they already play Michigan and MSU every year. From the sound sof it Maturi is agaisnt that. the only way to do it is to reduce the conference schedule.

Minnesota/Wisconsin get 6 or 8 OOC games (depending on whether or not they go to Anchorage). How would 3 games against Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State prevent them from playing anybody else?

scsutommyboy
10-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Minnesota/Wisconsin get 6 or 8 OOC games (depending on whether or not they go to Anchorage). How would 3 games against Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State prevent them from playing anybody else?

If they played 2 games against Mich, MSU and OSU they wouldn't have anything left. Even if they kept the one game against Mich and MSU they would then play two every year against OSU? That doesn't make sense either.

blockski
10-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Minnesota/Wisconsin get 6 or 8 OOC games (depending on whether or not they go to Anchorage). How would 3 games against Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State prevent them from playing anybody else?

The article implied three series, not three games.