College Hockey 2012/13 (non UND Hockey)

[as15]

Bjugstad with 9 games in the show 0 points and a minus 7...rather tough start for the young man.

Florida does have the worst record in the NHL, it would be a hard situation for any player to step into and be successful.

[yzerman19]

Florida does have the worst record in the NHL, it would be a hard situation for any player to step into and be successful.

agree that the team isn't helping his cause. I have little doubt he will have a successful NHL career. I think as physically ready as he is for the NHL, the tough transition (even with a bad team) shows how good they are at the next level. When you think about all the talented players that we have seen play in the WCHA over the last decade, it is amazing to see the relatively few who really are able to step in and produce right away. Especially at 20.

Zach Parise had his first stand out year at 22

Toews was a freak and did at 19

Vanek 21

[scpa0305]

Bjugstad with 9 games in the show 0 points and a minus 7...rather tough start for the young man.

I saw that....not good.

[scpa0305]

Florida does have the worst record in the NHL, it would be a hard situation for any player to step into and be successful.

Other guys are putting up pts. I'm sure there are growing pains but Hanowski already has a goal.

[tnt]

According the the CSS those MInny incoming recruits (excluding Fasching and Vannelli) are way down there in the rankings....190's/low 200's.

Wouldn't get too hung up on draft status, as those players are smallish players that will probably have good college careers, but no guarantee of success in the NHL. Not saying these guys will be as good, but I would take an Evan Trupp or Ryan Duncan any day, especially when those guys are more likely to stay longer. I think I would also rather have a Cammaratta than a Fasching, at least at the college level.

[Oxbow6]

Bjugstad with 9 games in the show 0 points and a minus 7...rather tough start for the young man.

The zero points surprises me, but not the -7. IMO he is not above average defensively and on a bad team.

[MissSioux85]

It's official, Steve Rohlik is the new head coach at Ohio State

http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/042413aaa.html

[MafiaMan]

It's official, Steve Rohlik is the new head coach at Ohio State

http://www.ohiostate.../042413aaa.html

I've read a number of Ohio State blogs and from everything I gathered, Osiecki was indeed not happy with OSU's lack of commitment to a hockey-only facility and an average attendance of roughly 4,000 in a building that seats more than 4 times more than that for basketball. I guess that would qualify as a 'difference of opinion.'

[siouxnews]

I'm fine with that. His numbers are inflated due to the line he plays on (yes I know the others are gopher recruits as well) but I think both Kloos and Tammaratta are the one's driving his production. They are all tiny though.

i wouldnt say he is tiny at 5'11.. and he plays bigger with some grit. he was also at one time reportedly recruited by north dakota, minnesota, denver and BC. im assuming he chose ohio state because of the Osiecki connection with his cousin having played under him at wisconsin- but he is a 4th round nhl pick with an added year of post-drafted junior hockey.. he will be a contributor for someone in the fall IMO- wherever he ends up

[scpa0305]

i wouldnt say he is tiny at 5'11.. and he plays bigger with some grit. he was also at one time reportedly recruited by north dakota, minnesota, denver and BC. im assuming he chose ohio state because of the Osiecki connection with his cousin having played under him at wisconsin- but he is a 4th round nhl pick with an added year of post-drafted junior hockey.. he will be a contributor for someone in the fall IMO- wherever he ends up

Have u seen him play? I would say he is 5'10 max...and like 160. I'm 5'10 and I was never considered big. I was actually talking about his linemates. Kloos does most of the feeding on that line.

[Ray77]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but in Brad's blog:

Fargo won it in dramatic fashion, on an overtime goal by Gabe Guertler, who proceeded to do the Theo Fleury “ride the stick” celebration.

Quite fittingly, Guertler is committed to Minnesota.

[MafiaMan]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but in Brad's blog:

Quite fittingly, Guertler is committed to Minnesota.

No doubt, Kyle "act like every goal I score is my first!" Rau would approve!

[GFG]

@LetsPlay_Hockey

Big Ten hockey schools will get $2 million per year from the Big Ten Network, in addition to the allotment that all B1G schools receive.

Interesting tweet. If true, it's a pretty solid incentive for more Big Ten schools to add teams. $2 million per year is more than almost any DI program makes for profit in one season.

[Redneksioux]

Well lets hope these big ten schools invest those bucks to promote their hockey teams.

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

I'm surprised the figure is that high.

[keikla]

Well lets hope these big ten schools invest those bucks to promote their hockey teams.

Some of them might, but you know OSU is pumping that $ right into the football team.

[MafiaMan]

Some of them might, but you know OSU is pumping that $ right into the football team.

Agree x 1000. It's certainly not going to women's field hockey or men's ice hockey!

[Siouxman]

Some of them might, but you know OSU is pumping that $ right into the football team.

They have to have money to pay the players, since the players can't sell stuff anymore, at least as far as the NCAA knows.

[Wilbur]

I'm going to keep beating a dead horse with Osiecki. If I was him I would question my school's commitment to hockey with playing a playoff series in essentially their practice facility or youth hockey rink.

If it isn't football or men's basketball Ohio State doesn't care. A guy I worked with during college grew up in Ohio, huge Ohio State fan, was unaware they had a hockey team.

[SJHovey]

@LetsPlay_Hockey

Big Ten hockey schools will get $2 million per year from the Big Ten Network, in addition to the allotment that all B1G schools receive.

Interesting tweet. If true, it's a pretty solid incentive for more Big Ten schools to add teams. $2 million per year is more than almost any DI program makes for profit in one season.

I saw that elsewhere, and personally as a fan of a non-Big 10 school it doesn't really bother me, for these reasons.

First, the Big 10 schools have had a huge financial advantage over non-Big 10 schools for years, especially since the BTN was formed. That network has poured millions into each of the 12 schools, hockey and non-hockey alike. That has not translated directly into wins, especially in hockey.

Second, this special allocation already belonged, and was going at least in part, to the hockey schools. It's $12 million (6 schools x $2 million/school). What, were they going to spend the $12 million on hookers and blow for the commissioner's Christmas party without this allocation? No, each of the 12 current schools would have presumably received $1 million anyway. So the extra is $1 million, not $2 million.

Third, I've always assumed the Big 10 splits up it's revenues from the BTN equally. I think they are now starting down a slippery slope when they start allocating money with at least some connection to who is generating it. It's not much of a jump for teams like Michigan, Michigan St., Nebraska, et al., to demand a bigger slice of the BTN pie for the extra football revenues they are generating. Going to make it tough for Minnesota that doesn't have a major conference financial player in any sport but hockey.

[MNState0fHockey]

I saw that elsewhere, and personally as a fan of a non-Big 10 school it doesn't really bother me, for these reasons.

First, the Big 10 schools have had a huge financial advantage over non-Big 10 schools for years, especially since the BTN was formed. That network has poured millions into each of the 12 schools, hockey and non-hockey alike. That has not translated directly into wins, especially in hockey.

Second, this special allocation already belonged, and was going at least in part, to the hockey schools. It's $12 million (6 schools x $2 million/school). What, were they going to spend the $12 million on hookers and blow for the commissioner's Christmas party without this allocation? No, each of the 12 current schools would have presumably received $1 million anyway. So the extra is $1 million, not $2 million.

Third, I've always assumed the Big 10 splits up it's revenues from the BTN equally. I think they are now starting down a slippery slope when they start allocating money with at least some connection to who is generating it. It's not much of a jump for teams like Michigan, Michigan St., Nebraska, et al., to demand a bigger slice of the BTN pie for the extra football revenues they are generating. Going to make it tough for Minnesota that doesn't have a major conference financial player in any sport but hockey.

The $2 million is new revenue that wasn't received by programs before that will only be received by the six Big Ten hockey schools. But the general premise of your post is correct. Most of these Big Ten schools will just dump that extra $2 million into their general sports fund and it will go towards football and bouncy ball.

[SJHovey]

The $2 million is new revenue that wasn't received by programs before that will only be received by the six Big Ten hockey schools. But the general premise of your post is correct. Most of these Big Ten schools will just dump that extra $2 million into their general sports fund and it will go towards football and bouncy ball.

I guess my point was that MN, Wisconsin and the other hockey schools were going to get half that money anyway, with or without this new policy.

Let's assume the BTN generates $240 million. 12 schools get $20 million each. Let's assume as a result of broadcasting hockey on the BTN the new revenue is $252 million (which I don't think the tweet necessarily suggests). Rather than each of the 12 schools getting $21 million, the 6 hockey schools get $22 million and the 6 others still get $20 million. Isn't that what's going on with this new program? It's not like there is an outside third party that's giving $12 million to the Big 10 to give to the hockey schools. They're just changing from the traditional model where everyone got the same to a new model where those with hockey get a little bigger slice. And if that's true, don't be surprised when the football and bounceyball schools come looking for a change in allocation.

[MNState0fHockey]

I guess my point was that MN, Wisconsin and the other hockey schools were going to get half that money anyway, with or without this new policy.

Let's assume the BTN generates $240 million. 12 schools get $20 million each. Let's assume as a result of broadcasting hockey on the BTN the new revenue is $252 million (which I don't think the tweet necessarily suggests). Rather than each of the 12 schools getting $21 million, the 6 hockey schools get $22 million and the 6 others still get $20 million. Isn't that what's going on with this new program? It's not like there is an outside third party that's giving $12 million to the Big 10 to give to the hockey schools. They're just changing from the traditional model where everyone got the same to a new model where those with hockey get a little bigger slice. And if that's true, don't be surprised when the football and bounceyball schools come looking for a change in allocation.

Not sure about that. Without the Big Ten Hockey conference, there probably wouldn't be as many games on the BTN because there wouldn't be conference matchups. And without the extra games, there wouldn't be the extra advertising revenue. From what I understand, the $2 million the hockey programs are getting is directly tied to new advertising revenue generated from the increased number of hockey games on the BTN. That $$$ doesn't exist without the BTHC.

Yes, these schools would have gotten half the money anyways, but here is why this policy is significant: The non-hockey schools aren't getting any of this money. Why is that significant???

Biggest impact I think this will have is showing other Big Ten schools that there is $$ to be made in college hockey, and that the BTN revenue generated will at least offset the costs of running a program. We could see other Big Ten schools adding programs in the not-so-distant future, especially if the hockey related revenue generated by the BTN increases.

[Siouxman]

Not sure about that. Without the Big Ten Hockey conference, there probably wouldn't be as many games on the BTN because there wouldn't be conference matchups. And without the extra games, there wouldn't be the extra advertising revenue. From what I understand, the $2 million the hockey programs are getting is directly tied to new advertising revenue generated from the increased number of hockey games on the BTN. That $$$ doesn't exist without the BTHC.

Yes, these schools would have gotten half the money anyways, but here is why this policy is significant: The non-hockey schools aren't getting any of this money. Why is that significant???

Biggest impact I think this will have is showing other Big Ten schools that there is $$ to be made in college hockey, and that the BTN revenue generated will at least offset the costs of running a program. We could see other Big Ten schools adding programs in the not-so-distant future, especially if the hockey related revenue generated by the BTN increases.

Isn't the BTN already broadcasting something at those times with advertising revenue? If so, it isn't all incrementally new revenue. Some of it will just replace what they lose. Just asking, because I don't watch BTN (by choice).

[SJHovey]

Not sure about that. Without the Big Ten Hockey conference, there probably wouldn't be as many games on the BTN because there wouldn't be conference matchups. And without the extra games, there wouldn't be the extra advertising revenue. From what I understand, the $2 million the hockey programs are getting is directly tied to new advertising revenue generated from the increased number of hockey games on the BTN. That $$$ doesn't exist without the BTHC.

Yes, these schools would have gotten half the money anyways, but here is why this policy is significant: The non-hockey schools aren't getting any of this money. Why is that significant???

Biggest impact I think this will have is showing other Big Ten schools that there is $$ to be made in college hockey, and that the BTN revenue generated will at least offset the costs of running a program. We could see other Big Ten schools adding programs in the not-so-distant future, especially if the hockey related revenue generated by the BTN increases.

Maybe. I have no idea what kind of revenue the hockey broadcasts generate, although $12 million seems high. But again, I have no basis for that opinion.

And maybe getting that extra little spiff or share of the BTN revenue will cause schools to start a hockey program. Or, it might cause them to ask why they don't get a larger share of basketball or football BTN revenue, where they are generating large returns. And that was really my main point. To what extent is this a subtle, initial shift by the Big 10 towards rewarding individual schools based upon income generated by an individual program at that school. If the Big 10 should ever go in that direction, schools like Minnesota will be hurt more than helped.