mksioux Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Good article and insight by the UNO beat writer Chad Purcell. Big Ten hockey? Big chill But there’s good reason this push toward Big Ten hockey has stirred so much resentment: At its root, it’s about helping the Big Ten alone grow its identity, with the side benefit of feeding the monster that is the Big Ten Network. And so you’ll have six brand-name schools — all campuses where hockey is, at best, third on the totem pole — blowing up the college hockey landscape. Meanwhile, the universities that pour the bulk of their resources into hockey have no voice in a non-existent discussion. Brad does a super job covering Sioux hockey, but I've not been impressed with his coverage of this issue. We've known the BTHC was coming for more than a year now. We know if there is going to be any reactionary conference allignment movement, North Dakota is going to be a major player. Yet I still have no idea where the UND coaches and administration stand on this issue. Are they standing firm with the WCHA or are they "weighing their options?" You'd think a young budding journalist would be all over this angle of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yes, we did, at Madison. Plus, I believe our women's softball team is scheduled to play Bucky again in Madison this spring. UND is currently *not* on the NCAA "naughty" list because of the settlement agreement, hence the games you mention. What comes next is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yes, we did, at Madison. Plus, I believe our women's softball team is scheduled to play Bucky again in Madison this spring. Thats when all was good with the NCAA, no one knows what is going to happen now. We could just as easily get back on the sanctions list and Minnesota and Wisconsin have an easy answer for not wanting to get beat by us, the NCAA sanctions list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Good article and insight by the UNO beat writer Chad Purcell. Big Ten hockey? Big chill Brad does a super job covering Sioux hockey, but I've not been impressed with his coverage of this issue. We've known the BTHC was coming for more than a year now. We know if there is going to be any reactionary conference allignment movement, North Dakota is going to be a major player. Yet I still have no idea where the UND coaches and administration stand on this issue. Are they standing firm with the WCHA or are they "weighing their options?" You'd think a young budding journalist would be all over this angle of the story. Obviously UND's or Drads thought on this isn't going to stop it from happening. I have no problem with not saying anything and if there is a plan, doing it behind closed doors. If we say we're with the WCHA and jump ship we look foolish, if we say we're looking to jump ship and than no one wants to join up we look foolish. Better to remain silent, FOCUS ON THE IMMEDIATE TASK AT HAND OF WINNING ANOTHER NC, than worry about something we have no control over. I'm sure no matter what stance Hak or the administration takes someone on this board will be up in arms anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillySioux Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 There is one school that holds the key to what dominos fall now. Its Notre Dame. If they commit to the CCHA, Miami stays and no more movement. If they dont.......all bets are off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mizzou/sioux Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Good article and insight by the UNO beat writer Chad Purcell. Big Ten hockey? Big chill Brad does a super job covering Sioux hockey, but I've not been impressed with his coverage of this issue. We've known the BTHC was coming for more than a year now. We know if there is going to be any reactionary conference allignment movement, North Dakota is going to be a major player. Yet I still have no idea where the UND coaches and administration stand on this issue. Are they standing firm with the WCHA or are they "weighing their options?" You'd think a young budding journalist would be all over this angle of the story. Chad Purcell's article really hit the nail on the head. And Dean Blais was right on in his comments. One can only speculate on how all of this is going to play out. It could possibly cripple a lot of smaller enrollment hockey schools. In my opinion I don't think it bodes well for college hockey overall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I would not be so sure about Miami jumping over. I read somewhere this morning (I went looking for it to cite it) that Miami would probably have financial issues with traveling to WCHA barns. Right now, most of their conference games are bus trips up into Michigan. Joining the WCHA would require a lot of flights, and one of the things cited was the size of their arena, 3200 seats, limiting the amount of $$$ they can get in. Also, the many of the remaining schools in the CCHA are in the MAC with Miami for their other sports. Their hockey arena is less than 5 years old. I don't understand limiting themselves so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 This is college hockey we're talking about. There are only 58 teams. "Institutional peers" hardly matters. Competitive peers at this point is the key, and the WCHA clearly is the top of the heap. Minnesota has become irrelevant competitively. Wisconsin is more stable, but I still am not hitting the panic button over this. The mastermind behind the whole BTHC is Jim Delany, who is widely acknowledged as the most powerful man in college sports. The Big Ten Network he envisioned is now a money-printing machine. No other conference will even approach the Big Ten's take from broadcasting, and the gulf is just getting bigger. Delany plans to nationalize college hockey, with the Big Ten as a king pin. It will start with small changes, like college hockey scores on the ESPN ticker. Later, it will become major changes - like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan paying two or three times the going rate for a top line coach. Delany has basically declared a financial arms war on the rest of the college hockey world, which is ill-prepared to battle the way the Big Ten can. The change in environment may lift all boats, but the Big Ten boats will be lifted higher and higher, while most of the rest of college hockey will see tides, and likely some rip tides. People kind of laugh at the idea that Illinois or Indiana will start hockey, but when those schools will soon be pulling in $30 mill / year just from broadcast rights, that pays for a lot of expenses and new facilities. If Minnesota wasn't handicapped with Maturi and Lucia, everyone in the WCHA would be alarmed. But guess what: those two won't be around by the time BTHC starts play. UND needs to be pals with the Big Ten's nemesis: Notre Dame. Notre Dame isn't going to waste the huge investment it has made into hockey. Notre Dame also has the capability of gaining some major hockey recognition on national TV (on a Big East network or elsewhere). Moreover, UND needs to help play the Canada card with UBC's entry into the WCHA. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that a major wild card school could start hockey. Look at Texas, which will be starting it's own network and will be in desperate straights for programming (new sports) and ways of spending the huge amounts of money coming it''s way. A Notre Dame/Texas league with a few others like UND would be a true anti-BTHC. The Big Ten may look like a harmless lizard now, but has the genes (and money feed) to grow into a dragon. We need to think big to slay the Big Ten monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 People kind of laugh at the idea that Illinois or Indiana will start hockey, but when those schools will soon be pulling in $30 mill / year just from broadcast rights, that pays for a lot of expenses and new facilities. If your revenue projections are for hockey television, I am laughing. As much as I love college hockey, and as much as I think it is a big deal, it remains extremely small potatoes on the national scene. I truly hope Illinois, Indiana and a whole bunch of other schools start varsity hockey programs. But we are still but 58 colleges and universities. Money-wise we are a blip on almost anyone else's radar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 If your revenue projections are for hockey television, I am laughing. As much as I love college hockey, and as much as I think it is a big deal, it remains extremely small potatoes on the national scene. I truly hope Illinois, Indiana and a whole bunch of other schools start varsity hockey programs. But we are still but 58 colleges and universities. Money-wise we are a blip on almost anyone else's radar. It's not for hockey itself, but for the whole BTN. Content is extremely important, and college hockey will gain more viewers (and advertisers) than women's basketball or wrestling. The impact of Penn State's program on Pennsylvania, for example, is underestimated by most on this board. Big Ten schools will be capable of doing things (facilities / scholarships / salaries) that even a few years ago the have-nots in the conference (Indiana, Northwestern) didn't dare dream. College hockey will never be as big as college basketball, but it at least will be comparable to the NHL's popularity in non-traditional markets (like Dallas, Raleigh, San Jose, where the NHL is actually prospering). When Minnesota pays it's next hockey coach $750,000, alarm bells will be ringing everywhere in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Obviously UND's or Drads thought on this isn't going to stop it from happening. I have no problem with not saying anything and if there is a plan, doing it behind closed doors. If we say we're with the WCHA and jump ship we look foolish, if we say we're looking to jump ship and than no one wants to join up we look foolish. Better to remain silent, FOCUS ON THE IMMEDIATE TASK AT HAND OF WINNING ANOTHER NC, than worry about something we have no control over. I'm sure no matter what stance Hak or the administration takes someone on this board will be up in arms anyways. I never said their thoughts on the subject would stop it from happening. Im interested in their reaction to it. Whats going on behind the scenes? I can understand why UND is not quick to release a formal statement for the reasons you mention. But good reporters can usually get to the bottom of whats going on without official statements, or sometimes in spite of official statements. I understand that Hak may be too preoccupied to comment this week (although this weekends games didnt stop Blais from commenting), but Im talking about long-term reporting over the past year, not specifically this week. And while I'm interested in Hakstol's thoughts, I'm more intersted in what Faison and Kelley think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It's not for hockey itself, but for the whole BTN. Content is extremely important, and college hockey will more viewers than women's basketball or wrestling... When Minnesota pays it's next hockey coach $750,000, alarm bells will be ringing everywhere in the WCHA. I can't believe adding hockey to the BTNetwork is going to impact their revenues by multi-millions $$$$ (Remember, every net dollar delivered by the BTN is divided by 12; they'd have to net $12 million new money to deliver $1 mil each to Minn and Wisc). It increases their programming options, but there is a cost to that as well. Every member is going to have to give up at least a portion of their current television revenues, if not the entirety. And I just don't see a college hockey coach making 3/4 large. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I can't believe adding hockey to the BTNetwork is going to impact their revenues by multi-millions $$$$ (Remember, every net dollar delivered by the BTN is divided by 12; they'd have to net $12 million new money to deliver $1 mil each to Minn and Wisc). It increases their programming options, but there is a cost to that as well. Every member is going to have to give up at least a portion of their current television revenues, if not the entirety. And I just don't see a college hockey coach making 3/4 large. Sorry. The Big Ten Network is still ramping up, especially in advertising dollars, but even in cable/satellite fees. Each school will get at least $1 million more per year for the next several years according to some projections. (I'll try to find a link) Is Big Ten hockey going to make them huge dollars? Certainly not immediately.. Minnesota will actually make less on hockey, but the Minnesota football program adds so little to the BTN that the Big Ten forces them to sacrifice their hockey cash cow at the alter of the BTN. In exchange, Minnesota football can remain atrocious but still get the same payout as Ohio State. By Minnesota withholding hockey, Ohio State and Penn State viewed that as a gross injustice considering how much value they add to the BTN. When Lucia is finally gone, Minnesota will make a statement that they are committed to restoring Gopher hockey, much like they did with Gopher basketball when they paid Tubby $3.3 mil / yr (which was ridiculous too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighting Sioux Fan Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The formation of the BTHC will allow Moorhead State to form a team now and compete in the WCHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Replacements for Minny and Wisconsin could be Alaska and N. Michigan. Works for Mich Tech and UAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Is Big Ten hockey going to make them huge dollars? Certainly not immediately.. I'm going with "never". We all love and live and breath a niche sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm going with "never". We all love and live and breath a niche sport. Precisely. The B10's hubris is showing again with this move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I'm going with "never". We all love and live and breath a niche sport. BT commish Delany seems to be disagreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS4127 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 When Lucia is finally gone, Minnesota will make a statement that they are committed to restoring Gopher hockey, much like they did with Gopher basketball when they paid Tubby $3.3 mil / yr (which was ridiculous too). Do you think their hockey program will make a turn around like their BB has?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Do you think their hockey program will make a turn around like their BB has?? We can dream ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejm Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 BT commish Delany seems to be disagreeing with you. I will take that as a compliment of the highest order. Delany is an egotistical idiot. He is also not a hockey guy. No one in the BigTen(+2) is hockey. This sport is going to get pushed aside by the BT. All this is to them is revenue capture. They don't care if they kill the CCHA in the process. And if that happens, you'll see DI hockey fall even further into the irrelevant category. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I will take that as a compliment of the highest order. Delany is an egotistical idiot. He is also not a hockey guy. No one in the BigTen(+2) is hockey. This sport is going to get pushed aside by the BT. All this is to them is revenue capture. They don't care if they kill the CCHA in the process. And if that happens, you'll see DI hockey fall even further into the irrelevant category. I'm in this catergory. I'm thinking this is going to make more schools fold than it does help college hockey. This is also why UND and a few of the other schools have to be careful. If they form a conference and leave a few other schools out in the cold other schools are in trouble. I hope I'm wrong but I see this move by the Big Ten taking schools away from college hockey, not adding any new ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 JOel Maturi will be on with mcfeely in 5 minutes on KFGO to talk about whether Minnesota will Play da sioux in da future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Recap of Maturi -Wished it would have stayed the same -Can't express his opinion cuz it will make his colleagues mad -Where as Minnesota needs Ohio state, Penn state in football, They need gophers in hockey -hopes to continue the rivalry, mascot is still an issue -loves the logo,loves the nickname -avoided the question about whether the nickanme will bar the gopehrs to play the sioux -said by the time, it will settle down and we should be able to play each other -two way street on scheduling -Get worse before it gets better - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Recap of Maturi -Wished it would have stayed the same -Can't express his opinion cuz it will make his colleagues mad -Where as Minnesota needs Ohio state, Penn state in football, They need gophers in hockey -hopes to continue the rivalry, mascot is still an issue -loves the logo,loves the nickname -avoided the question about whether the nickanme will bar the gopehrs to play the sioux -said by the time, it will settle down and we should be able to play each other -two way street on scheduling -Get worse before it gets better - Can't really disagree with any of this (except "mascot"). The schools had to go the party line, especially when the hosts hold most of the benjamins. 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.