PDA

View Full Version : Ramsey: College chaos could touch WCHA



4four4
06-19-2010, 12:26 AM
CC Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/sports/college-100384-chaos-ramsey.html)


A Big Ten hockey conference would drain the WCHA and college hockey, but a Big Ten hockey conference would fall right into line with the current climate of college sports.

Money is changing everything including college hockey.

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
06-19-2010, 01:38 AM
CC Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/sports/college-100384-chaos-ramsey.html)

Money is changing everything including college hockey.

I'm surprised cycledown has not blown his load in this thread yet.

huskiesfan1990
06-19-2010, 02:25 AM
Wow. How does it makes sense for the B10 teams to break away and form their own conference for TV money? Don't they already get money from the B10 Network anyways?

Bakunin
06-19-2010, 05:23 AM
While realignment made sense financially to the power conferences in football, it makes no sense at all in hockey. Exactly what will MN, UW, Michigan, MSU, and OSU gain by grouping together? I can't comment on the others, but in MN's case, they already have a tv contract with FSN. There's little likelihood the BTN would be able to improve on that arrangement financially. Geographically, it doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Hockey fans like to do the road trip thing - and what are the odds that a lot of them are going to want to make the 12 hour trek to Columbus for a weekend series? Compare that trip with an hour to St. Cloud/Mankato, two hours to Duluth, 4 1/2 hours to Grand Forks, 5 1/2 hours to Omaha, and 6 1/2 hours to Houghton.

Even if they found a way to also poach Notre Dame from the CCHA to get to six teams, it just makes zero sense. I also fail to see how their postseason tournament would manage to come close to the financial power of the final five (plus the Big Ten typically has tournaments in Indianapolis - can anyone imagine this working for hockey?!).

Happy
06-19-2010, 12:07 PM
Wow. How does it makes sense for the B10 teams to break away and form their own conference for TV money? Don't they already get money from the B10 Network anyways?

it doesn't help the teams at all, it helps the Big Ten network, you know, the guys paying the bills. they want to show two big name schools playing hockey on Friday nights, they want a regular season championship battle to hype, and then they want a tourney to end the year. They want input on when the good games will be played. having a few games, here and there, against virtually unknown teams isn't going to cut it, when they are paying out a quarter billion dollars.

Handyman
06-19-2010, 12:11 PM
While realignment made sense financially to the power conferences in football, it makes no sense at all in hockey. Exactly what will MN, UW, Michigan, MSU, and OSU gain by grouping together? I can't comment on the others, but in MN's case, they already have a tv contract with FSN. There's little likelihood the BTN would be able to improve on that arrangement financially. Geographically, it doesn't make a lot of sense, either. Hockey fans like to do the road trip thing - and what are the odds that a lot of them are going to want to make the 12 hour trek to Columbus for a weekend series? Compare that trip with an hour to St. Cloud/Mankato, two hours to Duluth, 4 1/2 hours to Grand Forks, 5 1/2 hours to Omaha, and 6 1/2 hours to Houghton.

Even if they found a way to also poach Notre Dame from the CCHA to get to six teams, it just makes zero sense. I also fail to see how their postseason tournament would manage to come close to the financial power of the final five (plus the Big Ten typically has tournaments in Indianapolis - can anyone imagine this working for hockey?!).

Do you think if you have a BTHC that MN and WI are just going to stop playing the other teams in the WCHA? They are going to have a buttload of games to fill since the BTHC will have only a few teams and you can bet your *** they will fill them with the WCHA rivals if for no other reason than to keep their PWR up.

The BTHC melodrama is way overblown.

thebrain
06-19-2010, 12:30 PM
Do you think if you have a BTHC that MN and WI are just going to stop playing the other teams in the WCHA? They are going to have a buttload of games to fill since the BTHC will have only a few teams and you can bet your *** they will fill them with the WCHA rivals if for no other reason than to keep their PWR up.

The BTHC melodrama is way overblown.

Big 10 teams could actually get away with only traveling for conference games and hosting all non-conference games. 24 home dates would look real nice to the bean counters.

However, would the rest of the WCHA have high PWR without Minnesota and Wisconsin? North Dakota and Denver would probably be ok

Goon
06-19-2010, 01:37 PM
This seems like a subject that never goes away but never happens or comes to fruition.

joecct
06-19-2010, 09:14 PM
This seems like a subject that never goes away but never happens or comes to fruition.Sounds like HS boys talking about s-x.

Bakunin
06-19-2010, 11:20 PM
Do you think if you have a BTHC that MN and WI are just going to stop playing the other teams in the WCHA?
Obviously not.

They are going to have a buttload of games to fill since the BTHC will have only a few teams and you can bet your *** they will fill them with the WCHA rivals if for no other reason than to keep their PWR up.
Instead of 24 games against WCHA teams not named UW, MN would be playing 14 games against them - at most. MN would commit to annual series against UND, UMD, and SCSU most likely, which would leave just 8 games (max) to split amongst the remainder of the league (unless two of these were used to play @UAA).

The BTHC melodrama is way overblown.
It is. Until somebody else in the conference forms a D-1 program, I don't think we have to worry about it.

Farce Poobah
06-20-2010, 08:30 AM
Mark Twain was wrong.

Football is the root of all evil.

Goon
06-20-2010, 12:15 PM
Sounds like HS boys talking about s-x.

Sadly I must agree. :D The never ending debate.

Timothy A
06-21-2010, 07:29 PM
If the big 10+2 was serious about the b10+2 hockey conf., they would have made it a priority to get Notre Dame instead of Nebraska. That would have given the 6th team they needed. But they really don't care about hockey, just football. I don't think the b10+2 hockey conference will ever get off the ground, and that's ok.

CHFAN222
06-21-2010, 07:36 PM
If the big 10+2 was serious about the b10+2 hockey conf., they would have made it a priority to get Notre Dame instead of Nebraska. That would have given the 6th team they needed. But they really don't care about hockey, just football. I don't think the b10+2 hockey conference will ever get off the ground, and that's ok.

Where have you been? The B10 has made getting Notre Dame a priority since they last invited them. Right now though Notre Dame does not want to be in the B10 to:

Keep its rivalries going with schools such as the military academies, USC, and BC which will only happen if they stay as an Independent
Stay in the BE and compete with many of the other top Catholic institutions in other sports

SCSU Euro
06-21-2010, 08:51 PM
If the big 10+2 was serious about the b10+2 hockey conf., they would have made it a priority to get Notre Dame instead of Nebraska.

Yeah... besides sucking the Notre Dame A.D.'s dick, giving them more money than God and promising the Big Ten's first eight born children to be property of the Notre Dame athletic department, what did the Big Ten do to try to get Notre Dame?

Red Till I'm Dead!
06-22-2010, 09:51 AM
Listen, Its not going to happen!!

The BT Network only shows a few games... why? Bouncy Ball!!!
Hockey will never trump men's and the way the BT Network looks at it, not even women's (Which is really Sad because NO ONE watches that SH**)

So no worries to all the people who don't want the BTHC to happen... its not