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

[Almington]

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

The B1G would probably go after the best option for an affiliate. The one with enough history & one with a huge dedicated fanbase. North Dakota would be the perfect affiliate addition. Michigan, minnesota, state & north dakota would be reunited in one conference for the first time since 1980-81.

Hockey isn't enough of a money making sport to justify associating UND with the Big Ten brand.

My opinion is: if I wouldn't want the school added as a full member, I don't want the school added as an affiliate.

[scoreboard]

With the recent whirlwind of news that the B1G is looking to form a B1G Lacrosse conference by adding powerhouse program and primarily D3 program Johns Hopkins, an article posted mentioned that the B1G is in fact not opposed to adding affiliate members in certain sports.

If this were to happen, I wouldn't be surprised to see the B1G go after miami or notre dame for hockey to bump the league to 8 members.


http://www.collegecrosse.com/2013/1/...-big-east-ecac

Johns Hopkins doesn't need the Big 10 in lacrosse.

[Spartanforlife4]

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

Crap...the dots are connected...

I'm more interested in what happens with women's hockey than this thread. Saw on the women's side the Michigan-Ann Arbor is going to add DI women's hockey. UMD, SCSU and UND are in a slightly awkward position that their women's teams remain in the WCHA.

Where did you see UM was adding a women's team? I've tried searching but haven't found anything.

For lacrosse I wish MSU would add a team. We had one until we had to replace it with women's crew because of Title IX. We also had to drop fencing and men's gymnastics because of it. I guess State could add men's and women's but I haven't even heard rumors about it, nevertheless legitimate talk.

For hockey affiliates, it's a limited selection. Miami seems to be the only team that isn't ND that is D1 that has Big Ten level academics, if they even make academics part of the selection. BG is out of place in the WCHA as the only D1 school but probably looks at it as a chance to revive the hockey program, so they most likely want to stay there.

[JohnsonsJerseys]

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

If they are going to offer affiliate memberships, it should ONLY be for schools [with] a national reputation, and who have a STELLAR academic reputation

Yeah, but UW, Minnesota and Michigan are already in the BigTen so it's going to be hard to enforce those criteria when looking for new members. At least you didn't ask for high moral standards with Ohio State and State Penn in the conference as well. Honestly, I would love to see UND get asked to join just so DU would get the feeling of thinking you're leading something, only to turn around and see that no one is following you. Of course St Cloud would not get an invite right away and would issue a press release saying how the great the NCHC is and that they are a great fit. Of course this would be retracted shortly after when their invite to the Big Ten arrived the next day due to mis-directed mail.

Ryan J

[MGoBlueHockey]

Where did you see UM was adding a women's team? I've tried searching but haven't found anything.

For lacrosse I wish MSUwould add a team. We had one until we had to replace it with women's crew because of Title IX. We also had to drop fencing and men's gymnastics because of it. I guess State could add men's and women's but I haven't even heard rumors about it, nevertheless legitimate talk.

For hockey affiliates, it's a limited selection. Miami seems to be the only team that isn't ND that is D1 that has Big Ten level academics, if they even make academics part of the selection. BG is out of place in the WCHA as the only D1 school but probably looks at it as a chance to revive the hockey program, so they most likely want to stay there.

It's in the women's hockey forum. The info comes from me in those posts. As someone who donates annually to the club team, has numerous friends in the ADept and have spoke to AD Dave Brandon about adding women's hockey, I'd say it's legit. Unless I'm being told the same lie over and over.

I was told Michigan would take their club lacrosse teams (men's & women's) to D1 in 2009. They were officially announced in 2011. Women's hockey isn't expected to make the jump until 2015-16. 2017-18 would be the latest. They have to transition to varsity club status before they go to varsity. That's the launching pad for eventual varsity sports here.

[Tipsy McStagger]

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

This source is unimpeachable, an SB Nation blog post. Its only a matter of time until teams are beating down the door to be in the BTHC.

[5mn_Major]

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

Not a big fan of any of this.

Seems like the B1G is rewarding schools for not joining. Seems like the B1G is going against what it has espoused for decades. And lastly, it seems like the B1G is supporting lacrosse (frankly televised, its pretty unwatchable).

Anything's possible for money I guess...oh and to please minty, new MD.

[5mn_Major]

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

It's in the women's hockey forum. The info comes from me in those posts. As someone who donates annually to the club team, has numerous friends in the ADept and have spoke to AD Dave Brandon about adding women's hockey, I'd say it's legit. Unless I'm being told the same lie over and over.

It seems like a long shot as they've been a bulwark against women's hockey for years.

But if true, it would be the biggest development since the formation of NCAA women's hockey.

[5mn_Major]

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

Johns Hopkins doesn't need the Big 10 in lacrosse.

There are some interesting aspects that go beyond lacross though. Lacrosse may just be the first date. The B1G sees academics the way construction workers see skirts.

Could there be implications for JH and the CIC? John Hopkins is the 13th top rated university in the country and has endowments that would put it 3rd (after MN) in the B1G. Pretty impressive for such a small school.

[joecct]

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

If there is money to be made a BCS school will add a new sport followed by the appropriate women's team to balance things out.

Thus lax will come before hockey at many B1G schools.

[Red Cows]

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

I can add that there has been public discussion here in Nebraska in the press about the University of Nebraska adding lacrosse as a sport and even more talk about adding field hockey. Perhaps they are the "other" Big 10 team that is referred to in the link earlier in this thread although I rather doubt that. We have a brand new AD who has been interviewed ad nauseum here since he took the job here January 1, and he's said bupkis about any of this so far.

I've already outlined my case for why I think Nebraska is going to, at the very least, take a serious look at D-1 hockey in the not too distant future in this thread:

http://board.uscho.com/showthread.ph...-D1-to-NCAA-D1

If the Huskers, who will be the best positioned school in the entire country in less than a year to actually do this if they want to, let alone in the Big 10, are, in fact, to become team #7 in the Big 10 hockey conference then I would think it could not be all that difficult to find one more school in the conference to jump on board in hockey. That school would have to address:

A. The need for the necessary facilities.
B. Fund the necessary scholarships and operating expenses.
C. Address the Title IX implications at their school caused by the addition of a men's hockey team, if any. I don't know the situation at the other Big 10 schools that don't already have men's hockey but I addressed this in some detail as far as Nebraska is concerned in the other thread.

If they can't, I would think the conference would be better off temporarily subsidizing the 8th school for a time, if needed, than it would be in allowing any affiliate schools. That would, I would think, be a whole lot more palatable than affiliates being added to the conference. I don't see the (financial) upside to adding affiliates in any sport for the Big 10 and I'd be utterly shocked if it happened. We are talking about the richest conference in the country that also has a goodly chunk of the largest schools in the country in it's conference as well as lot of the biggest athletic department budgets besides.

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.

The Big Ten Sports Management Committee meetings upcoming in Chicago mentioned in the article link earlier in the thread would seem to me to probably have to have on it's discussion agenda something along the lines of "How do we get to eight teams in men's hockey?". This seems obvious because a 6 team conference really doesn't cut it. For starters, Big 10 college hockey conference teams will have to play a disproportionate number of out of conference games as opposed to every other conference. That would probably have Pairwise ramifications, that could be good or bad for them, I suppose, that affect them and no other conference as a result. At the beginning, too, this will be further watered down by having a brand new team as one of those 6 teams (Penn State), who is going to probably stink for a few years (sorry, Nittany Lion fans--you'll have a hard time duplicating this season's record next season). Looking at Minnesota's roster and the competition they'll see in their new conference next season, I have little reservation predicting they win the conference next season in a walk and will probably end up with a record that really overstates how good they are as a result of all this (despite the fact that I think they'll be pretty good, anyway).

6 teams are not gonna work, long-term. I don't see how the Big 10 can allow that to continue for any length of time at all. And I just don't believe there would be any real sentiment to resolve this issue using affiliates. Frankly, that'd be "beneath" them. At the very least, they should feel that way. It'd be embarrassing for the conference to to do this, I would think. They only way I could see selling this would be from sort of benevolence/magnanimous standpoint, otherwise, if I am the commissioner of another conference, I am laughing at the "Big" 10 whenever this is ever announced.

[Hockeybuckeye]

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

It's in the women's hockey forum. The info comes from me in those posts. As someone who donates annually to the club team, has numerous friends in the ADept and have spoke to AD Dave Brandon about adding women's hockey, I'd say it's legit. Unless I'm being told the same lie over and over.

I was told Michigan would take their club lacrosse teams (men's & women's) to D1 in 2009. They were officially announced in 2011. Women's hockey isn't expected to make the jump until 2015-16. 2017-18 would be the latest. They have to transition to varsity club status before they go to varsity. That's the launching pad for eventual varsity sports here.

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.

[mnstate0fhockey]

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

With all this talk about John's Hopkins, thought I'd share this little nugget of college hockey history.

It appears that Johns Hopkins University of Baltimore may have been the first college in the United States to play hockey, having tied the Baltimore Athletic Club at the dedication of the newly built North Avenue Rink in Baltimore on December 26, 1894. The University of Minnesota may have been the second college in the nation to play the game. Although students from Yale and other eastern colleges visited Canada during Christmas vacation of 1894, Yale did not play the game until January of 1896 when they met Johns Hopkins. Columbia started hockey competition during the winter on 1896, while Brown and Harvard continued to play ice-polo through the season of 1896-1897.

[Spartanforlife4]

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.

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).

[Red Cows]

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

With all this talk about John's Hopkins, thought I'd share this little nugget of college hockey history.

Very cool historical note. However, the ECAC has another opinion about this:

http://www.ecachockey.com/men/history/index