stickboy1956 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Exactly. I forgot to talk about the Big 10 Network and how successful that has been as of late. The allure of every game being televised on a great network would be huge and would help PSU get off it's feet faster than anyone would think. B10 would be a powerhouse. For UMTC, what's a larger check? The check FSN writes to UMTC for the hockey rights or The increase from the Big10 Network if/when there is a Big10 hockey conf. It's obviously from FSN. Its money they don't have to share with anyone else. I don't know if FSN would carry any hockey games not covered by the Big10 network - I don't recall any Gopher football/basketball being shown on FSN since the Big10 network began. FSN would be looking for programming and regional WCHA hockey would be a nice addition. The Gophers have a great thing going with FSN right now - good money coming in and exclusive coverage over the entire region. Why would they want to change that? There is no upside for them to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherguy33 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think looking at a school like Penn State, a good comparison would be a team like Ohio State. OSU has been around a while, and is a huge, national recognized University, but they still don't have that niche in hockey. Michigan as a state is a storied hockey region, something that Ohio and Pennsylvania don't have. PSU, after ten years of hockey, would be no farther along than a school like Ohio State, unless something of a small miracle happened. Bingo! Just because you have money doesn't mean you have success. OSU and PSU was the exact comparison I was thinking. I don't see a BTHC anytime soon, if at all. Minnesota has a large percentage of the viewership of the BTN. Minnesota has no rivalry with MSU and OSU really in any sport. Michigan in hockey only. What does it gain? Nothing. If the football and basketball programs become more successful, you may see those rivalry's built. If the BTN want's to make money, they tap into more games of the CCHA and the WCHA. If I were the head of the BTN, my #1 priority would be to add the Final Five and CCHA tourney's to my offering. HD hockey is amazing and the WCHA's fan base mostly resides in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado. CCHA is Michigan and Ohio. FSN is owned by the same company as BTN and the scheduling is easy. Show the Hockey Showcase, any "Big Ten" team match-ups and any Wisco, Denver and Minnesota games because you have the talent under contract wit FSN already. The issue and school that I see is the FSSN and UND. I would think the BTN would treat them poorly because they don't work with the BTN or FSN. I would like that issue resolved as a priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bingo! Just because you have money doesn't mean you have success. OSU and PSU was the exact comparison I was thinking. I don't see a BTHC anytime soon, if at all. Minnesota has a large percentage of the viewership of the BTN. Minnesota has no rivalry with MSU and OSU really in any sport. Michigan in hockey only. What does it gain? Nothing. If the football and basketball programs become more successful, you may see those rivalry's built. If the BTN want's to make money, they tap into more games of the CCHA and the WCHA. If I were the head of the BTN, my #1 priority would be to add the Final Five and CCHA tourney's to my offering. HD hockey is amazing and the WCHA's fan base mostly resides in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado. CCHA is Michigan and Ohio. FSN is owned by the same company as BTN and the scheduling is easy. Show the Hockey Showcase, any "Big Ten" team match-ups and any Wisco, Denver and Minnesota games because you have the talent under contract wit FSN already. The issue and school that I see is the FSSN and UND. I would think the BTN would treat them poorly because they don't work with the BTN or FSN. I would like that issue resolved as a priority. Not rivals with those schools? You are a fool. If I were the BTN I would definitely want to push for a hockey conference. Besides, HD hockey is awesome. As for the Gophers losing money from FSN, that could still be part of the deal, especially since BTN probably wouldn't pick up all games. FSN is essentially = BTN when it comes to money, as FSN owns the majority of BTN. No one was saying that money equaled success, I don't know where you got that from. It's more like the tradition of the University as a whole, and success in other big time sports would allow them to be successful. The Big 10 conference would instantly be a powerhouse and give schools like OSU and PSU a big jump in recruiting power. It would be like the top teams in the WCHA basically, except the market for all of those schools is huge. You wouldn't find games not selling out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bingo! Just because you have money doesn't mean you have success. OSU and PSU was the exact comparison I was thinking. I don't see a BTHC anytime soon, if at all. Minnesota has a large percentage of the viewership of the BTN. Minnesota has no rivalry with MSU and OSU really in any sport. Michigan in hockey only. What does it gain? Nothing. If the football and basketball programs become more successful, you may see those rivalry's built. If the BTN want's to make money, they tap into more games of the CCHA and the WCHA. If I were the head of the BTN, my #1 priority would be to add the Final Five and CCHA tourney's to my offering. HD hockey is amazing and the WCHA's fan base mostly resides in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Colorado. CCHA is Michigan and Ohio. FSN is owned by the same company as BTN and the scheduling is easy. Show the Hockey Showcase, any "Big Ten" team match-ups and any Wisco, Denver and Minnesota games because you have the talent under contract wit FSN already. The issue and school that I see is the FSSN and UND. I would think the BTN would treat them poorly because they don't work with the BTN or FSN. I would like that issue resolved as a priority. Why would the Big Ten Network have any interest in televising a hockey tournament where many of the games, even the finals, could easily end up being two non-Big Ten teams? I can't imagine the BTN execs wanting to televise any of the games unless at least one Big Ten team is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Why would the Big Ten Network have any interest in televising a hockey tournament where many of the games, even the finals, could easily end up being two non-Big Ten teams? I can't imagine the BTN execs wanting to televise any of the games unless at least one Big Ten team is involved. Exactly. And I'm sure the BTN doesn't have rights over the CCHA tourney and wouldn't be interested in doing so. Why would they want the Final Five? Just for the Gophers and BADgers. No one else that would be watching the Big 10 network would really care about UND/MSU-M/SCSU/CC/etc... Obviously fans of all those teams would watch, but would other people who are fans of big 10 teams only? I just don't see why that would be a positive move for the BTN at all. Only if you knew your two B10 teams would be there, and both be in the championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Not rivals with those schools? You are a fool. If I were the BTN I would definitely want to push for a hockey conference. Besides, HD hockey is awesome. As for the Gophers losing money from FSN, that could still be part of the deal, especially since BTN probably wouldn't pick up all games. FSN is essentially = BTN when it comes to money, as FSN owns the majority of BTN. No one was saying that money equaled success, I don't know where you got that from. It's more like the tradition of the University as a whole, and success in other big time sports would allow them to be successful. The Big 10 conference would instantly be a powerhouse and give schools like OSU and PSU a big jump in recruiting power. It would be like the top teams in the WCHA basically, except the market for all of those schools is huge. You wouldn't find games not selling out. I don't think a Big Ten conference automatically equals greats recruits coming in. You'll get a few better guys, but as a whole, I don't think it's as significant as you think, especially in the case of PSU. There are so many intangibles behind the scenes that players consider I'm sure, and we have no idea about them. Also, with a small conference, you'd have to play each team more often, and I don't think that's a good strategy because fans can have an excuse to not go thinking "I'll catch 'em when they're in town the next time." I don't think Michigan's, Minnesota's, or Wisconsin's recruiting will change at all. If MSU can't get decent recruits now, I think it will still be difficult with a Big Ten conference....same with OSU...and for sure with PSU. If it was so easy and such a for sure thing that all the stuff you mentioned would happen, it would have been done already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't think a Big Ten conference automatically equals greats recruits coming in. You'll get a few better guys, but as a whole, I don't think it's as significant as you think, especially in the case of PSU. There are so many intangibles behind the scenes that players consider I'm sure, and we have no idea about them. Also, with a small conference, you'd have to play each team more often, and I don't think that's a good strategy because fans can have an excuse to not go thinking "I'll catch 'em when they're in town the next time." I don't think Michigan's, Minnesota's, or Wisconsin's recruiting will change at all. If MSU can't get decent recruits now, I think it will still be difficult with a Big Ten conference....same with OSU...and for sure with PSU. If it was so easy and such a for sure thing that all the stuff you mentioned would happen, it would have been done already. Well obviously Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin's recruiting can't change. Minnesota usually has one of the top 2 or 3 classes, wich Wisco and Michigan right there too. There's nowhere to go except down for those recruiting classes. It's clearly not easy and a for sure thing, it's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well obviously Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin's recruiting can't change. Minnesota usually has one of the top 2 or 3 classes, wich Wisco and Michigan right there too. There's nowhere to go except down for those recruiting classes. It's clearly not easy and a for sure thing, it's just my opinion. Yeah, and based on everything else I've read from you, you don't know much about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yeah, and based on everything else I've read from you, you don't know much about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherguy33 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Why would the Big Ten Network have any interest in televising a hockey tournament where many of the games, even the finals, could easily end up being two non-Big Ten teams? I can't imagine the BTN execs wanting to televise any of the games unless at least one Big Ten team is involved. FSN broadcasts those games already. Big Ten broadcasts in HD. Hockey makes money in a larger scope than ever. It adds value to the air time to bring hockey into it. Expose people to more hockey and the quality of play in those tourney's is top notch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherguy33 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Not rivals with those schools? You are a fool. If I were the BTN I would definitely want to push for a hockey conference. Besides, HD hockey is awesome. As for the Gophers losing money from FSN, that could still be part of the deal, especially since BTN probably wouldn't pick up all games. FSN is essentially = BTN when it comes to money, as FSN owns the majority of BTN. No one was saying that money equaled success, I don't know where you got that from. It's more like the tradition of the University as a whole, and success in other big time sports would allow them to be successful. The Big 10 conference would instantly be a powerhouse and give schools like OSU and PSU a big jump in recruiting power. It would be like the top teams in the WCHA basically, except the market for all of those schools is huge. You wouldn't find games not selling out. We are rivals with Iowa and Wisconsin. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State fans don't look forward to Minnesota week. That's the week they sell their tickets. Like U of M fans on AA week. Get out of your bubble. Because its a game to slay Goliath doesn't mean its a rival. You show me a rivalry with any other BT school than Iowa and Wisco.. What is your definition of a rivalry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 FSN broadcasts those games already. Big Ten broadcasts in HD. Hockey makes money in a larger scope than ever. It adds value to the air time to bring hockey into it. Expose people to more hockey and the quality of play in those tourney's is top notch. fssn has got to get it in HD along with fsn and others. its such a difference for the sport of hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 fssn has got to get it in HD along with fsn and others. its such a difference for the sport of hockey It really depends on the capabilities of the arena they are broadcasting an event. Twins and Wild games are in HD on FSN because they have HD cameras...but the Mariucci doesn't have these cameras so they aren't shown in that. I believe FSN-RM brought their own HD cameras (can anyone confirm this). The one that was by me both games was not an REA camera and on the side of the camera it said "HD" on it. It'd be nice to have FSSN go HD, but it'd be so expensive. I heard HD cameras are ridiculous in price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedFrog Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Not sure if this was pointed out yet or not, but thought it worth mentioning even if it had been. If you go to the WCHA Homepage, you will see the 10 WCHA team logos on the top border, along with Bemidji State and Ohio State. Not sure if this is any indicator, or why they would have those 2 other logos on there. Edit: Nevermind....they are in the women's side of the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 You forgot this: DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 One would hope UAH gets in somewhere, like the CCHA: New York Times: Youth Hockey Thrives in (of all places) Huntsville, Alabama In 1962, Fred Hudson stood at the Ice Palace with a whistle in his hand. He looked toward one end of the rink and saw his ragtag crew of 60 hockey players wearing the finest leather helmets, brand-new skates, elbow pads and shin guards. Hudson blew the whistle, and half the players fell down. Only one player, whose father was a Canadian military attach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.