cberkas Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Oh my bad. For some reason I thought you listed the B1G along with the SEC, Pac 12, and Big 12. I must have read your post wrong. And the SEC, BIG 12, and Pac 12 play in more then one sport. I guess you think Football, Basketball, Baseball, and Softball are all the same sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Little Orphan Annie? You make it sound like these teams don't already put as much if not more money into their programs than almost everyone else already does. Just because the B1G hockey programs are the 3rd or 4th biggest sport at the majority of their schools doesn't mean there is less money going into their programs than there are at schools where hockey is the 1st or 2nd sport. Their athletic budgets are many multiples of alot of the other schools and the TV revenue you keep dismissing just adds on to the overall amount of money they can spend within their athletic department that the majority of the schools don't get the luxury of having. And you make it sound like the UND's and Denver's of the world will be extinct in the long-run. Not going to happen. UND has the nicest arena in North America, if not the world. Denver doesn't have football and is a private school that probably has some very wealthy benefactors keeping both academics and athletics going strong. It is a big mistake to look at hockey thru the prism of basketball and especially football. Hockey is its own little world and is a very tight-knit group of schools. Kids are not going to scratch UND and Denver off their lists because they aren't members of the almighty Big 10. What hockey recruits look at in a program is not necessarily the same as what football and basketball recruits look at. And as for the Big 10 "brand" being unbeatable and unstoppable, the "brand" is only as good as the quality of the teams that represent it. Big 10 basketball this year is a very good brand; in the past, it hasn't always been good. Big 10 football is not nearly what it once was in the 1960's, 70's and 80's for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the migration from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt and the integration of southern colleges and universities, which has contributed to the rise of the SEC as THE football power conference in FBS. I am not saying it's impossible for the BTHC to become successful, but it will require a change in attitude and commitment towards hockey from the member schools to make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 In 2010-2011, 4 of the Big 10 hockey schools ranked in the top 10 in athletic department spending. Ohio State was #2, Michigan #3, Penn State #6 and Wisconsin #9. They all made a profit on their athletic departments. Their income has increased since then because of the Big 10 network. Money is not a problem for them or their hockey programs. Minnesota will continue to spend on their hockey program. Michigan State has had success in the past and will continue to have success. The new Big 10 hockey conference will be successful. Hockey may not be the top priority for all of the schools (probably not the top priority for any of the schools), but they have the resources and the interest to be successful. It isn't hard to believe that putting Big 10 schools in the same conference would spur interest at some of those schools. When Michigan meets Ohio State in any competition the interest increases substantially. It makes sense that it would happen in hockey, and it makes sense that the same thing could happen between other schools in the Big 10, probably to a lesser degree. Other programs will also be successful. UND, Denver and others in the NCHC will continue to be successful along with BC and other Hockey East schools. Some smaller schools, including some of the schools in the new WCHA may have trouble competing. Some of these schools have trouble competing right now. Like it or not, the Big 10 is currently the most powerful overall conference in the country at this time, and their foray into hockey is not going to change that. It is time to get over the whole thing and help all of these schools make college hockey more successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 The Big Ten network has made the conference richer and more powerful than any other conference. Im not just talking about on field performance. Weird I can barely get the channel. If the teams are not good their network will not be big and bad ( I guess all the good SEC fb teams play on the big networks every Saturday). They had better hope their basketball can continue their success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 January 2013 Forbes article. http://www.cbssports...ence-sec-fourth From the article- "The Big Ten is No. 1 with revenues of $310 million -- $250 million of that coming from TV. The Pacific 12 Conference is second at $303 million and the Atlantic Coast Conference third at $293 million. The SEC had revenues of $270 million." Check what happens in 2014/15/16. The big ten is a dying conference. Their only hope is basketball and the southern schools are already passing them (besides this season for some odd reason). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 In 2010-2011, 4 of the Big 10 hockey schools ranked in the top 10 in athletic department spending. Ohio State was #2, Michigan #3, Penn State #6 and Wisconsin #9. They all made a profit on their athletic departments. Their income has increased since then because of the Big 10 network. Money is not a problem for them or their hockey programs. Minnesota will continue to spend on their hockey program. Michigan State has had success in the past and will continue to have success. The new Big 10 hockey conference will be successful. Hockey may not be the top priority for all of the schools (probably not the top priority for any of the schools), but they have the resources and the interest to be successful. It isn't hard to believe that putting Big 10 schools in the same conference would spur interest at some of those schools. When Michigan meets Ohio State in any competition the interest increases substantially. It makes sense that it would happen in hockey, and it makes sense that the same thing could happen between other schools in the Big 10, probably to a lesser degree. Other programs will also be successful. UND, Denver and others in the NCHC will continue to be successful along with BC and other Hockey East schools. Some smaller schools, including some of the schools in the new WCHA may have trouble competing. Some of these schools have trouble competing right now. Like it or not, the Big 10 is currently the most powerful overall conference in the country at this time, and their foray into hockey is not going to change that. It is time to get over the whole thing and help all of these schools make college hockey more successful. College Hockey will never be popular across the entire country...it's a different animal than basketball and football. Hockey is a tight knit "family" and thus I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't mind the realignment at all. I simply don't think the big ten hockey conference will work...they will have 3 decent teams year in and year out. Even Wisconsin is only good every 3-5 years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 College Hockey will never be popular across the entire country...it's a different animal than basketball and football. Hockey is a tight knit "family" and thus I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't mind the realignment at all. I simply don't think the big ten hockey conference will work...they will have 3 decent teams year in and year out. Even Wisconsin is only good every 3-5 years or so. I never said that college hockey would be popular across the country. I have no clue where you got that from my post. It doesn't have to for the Big 10 to be successful. The Big 10 is in hockey country. The Big 10 Network is centered on hockey country. They aren't too concerned about whether college hockey is selling in Arizona or Mississippi. They are making money off Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states where hockey is part of the lifestyle. The Big 10 has 3 of the most successful programs in college hockey history. Do you think that they are going to fall apart? I don't think so. Michigan State is part of a group just below that. They are probably a top 10-12 program all time in college hockey, certainly over the past 20 years. So they have 4 programs, 2/3 of their conference, that have had great success in college hockey. There is nothing that would suggest that any of these programs are going to lose ground. And they have one of the largest athletic programs in the country that has added hockey, with the financial ability to back it up. Even if they only have 3 teams in the tournament every year, that would be better than most conferences and would mean that 1/2 the conference was in the national tournament each year. That sounds like a successful conference to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaroundsioux Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 See how much hockey the BIG$ Network shows in March. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzie679 Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Check what happens in 2014/15/16. The big ten is a dying conference. Their only hope is basketball and the southern schools are already passing them (besides this season for some odd reason). How is the Big Ten a dying conference? They are probably the #1 or #2 most powerful entity in college sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm a big ten fan. Cheer for most of the schools in all sports....including gopher football when they are losing to I-AA schools from North Dakota. I just think that college hockey is such an afterthought to them with big picture sports like pumpkin ball and pigskin tossing always having the top priority. The big ten network lost my love when a few years ago I watched a game that I later found out was called in the studio.....no live reporting, interviews....anything....plus they murdered names all night. When I lost BTN on my cable package earlier this year I called and pay six extra bucks for the channel. But unfortunately it wasn't for the college hockey productions.....or lack there of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think y'all are selling Penn State short... They have this huge benefactor and no basketball program to speak of. Pennsylvania is not out of the national hockey footprint by any stretch, in fact you might say that they are in the middle of it. The Nittany Lions will be one of the stronger B1G teams sooner rather than later. They may be coming from nowhere, but they are coming in with more cash (and maybe more commitment) than any new program has for decades. As for the breakup, I would rather that we went back to the old WCHA from the time I was at UND and that would be UND, UM, UW, Duluth, CC, Denver, Michigan, Michigan State, Michigan Tech and Notre Dame. THAT was a conference! We will never get back there again, so we have to move on. The B1G is one of the most recognizable conferences in college athletics and their members have deep pockets. We will mourn the passing of the old WCHA, some of us mourn the passing of the original version, but life will go on. It's kinda like missing the old rivalries of the NCC, but now preferring to build the new rivalries in the Big Sky. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 See how much hockey the BIG$ Network shows in March. ESPN controls television for all games the rest of the season. The Big 10 Network would only have a chance to broadcast something if ESPN decided to sell the rights. They probably would have shown a lot of hockey this past weekend, basketball was on CBS and their affiliate networks. The weekend of the Big 10 BB tourney they would probably show mainly basketball, that's where the money comes from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Just paged through BTN for the week and weekend. Seems like Women's LaCrosse must be having some sort of national tournament or something really important going on as well. Plus all sorts of coverages of press conferences for NCAA basketball tournaments. Two of their teams are in the NCAA hockey tournament. Could show a replay of the Minnesota-Wisconsin outdoor game? Nope. Well at least on Monday they'll have a Big Ten football recap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 And you make it sound like the UND's and Denver's of the world will be extinct in the long-run. Not going to happen. UND has the nicest arena in North America, if not the world. Denver doesn't have football and is a private school that probably has some very wealthy benefactors keeping both academics and athletics going strong. It is a big mistake to look at hockey thru the prism of basketball and especially football. Hockey is its own little world and is a very tight-knit group of schools. Kids are not going to scratch UND and Denver off their lists because they aren't members of the almighty Big 10. What hockey recruits look at in a program is not necessarily the same as what football and basketball recruits look at. And as for the Big 10 "brand" being unbeatable and unstoppable, the "brand" is only as good as the quality of the teams that represent it. Big 10 basketball this year is a very good brand; in the past, it hasn't always been good. Big 10 football is not nearly what it once was in the 1960's, 70's and 80's for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the migration from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt and the integration of southern colleges and universities, which has contributed to the rise of the SEC as THE football power conference in FBS. I am not saying it's impossible for the BTHC to become successful, but it will require a change in attitude and commitment towards hockey from the member schools to make it happen. Not sure what kind of reading between the lines you had to do to get to that conclusion. Nowhere did I state that schools with current top programs that make hockey their number 1 or 2 priority are going to die off. I do think that some of the smaller schools are going to continue to struggle, as they always have, especially with some of the more successful programs and better draws joining different conferences. You are the one who thinks that athletic departments that have budgets that dwarf those of other schools aren't going to find the resources to keep their programs competitive. They already do that and their budgets keep growing, mainly because of the TV money they bring in. Kids/recruits are very well aware of the reputation of programs and what they are able to offer. Hockey isn't much different from football and basketball in that regard. Kids aren't jumping at a chance to play football at Duke because they have a good basketball team. I'm confused on what kind of attitude change and commitment you think the B1G needs to have? Minnesota has been and will continue to be a powerhouse. Michigan missed its first tournament in 20 some years, were down all year, but still the conference championship game and almost got in. Wisconsin is in the tournament. MSU had a down year but regularly make the tournament. That is 2/3's of the conference that are regularly in the postseason. OSU has been down, who know if they will improve. PSU is a wildcard, but they definitely have the financial backing to be successful. I would guess that each one of those teams spends more on hockey than at minimum half of the NCHC and definitely spend more than anyone left in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focker Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ohio is NOT a hockey hotbed and never will be. Did anyone see the attendance for the CCHA championship game in Detroit? Pathetic. That was with MIchigan in championship game in their own state! You think if they're playing MN or WI in that game and it's a 'big ten' game people will suddenly flock there to see it??? You can say those teams have great fans, but they sure don't travel... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you were a baseball player, you would be Pete LaCock...(yes, that is actually a real player) His dad would be Peter Marshall from Hollywood Squares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 OSU drew 5700 and change and 6700 and change at Value City Arena against Notre Dame and Michigan this year. That's a 1/3 full barn. Sleeping giant? OSU should smarten up and improve their own on-campus ice arena rather than force its hockey team to play in VCA. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariucci Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 OSU drew 5700 and change and 6700 and change at Value City Arena against Notre Dame and Michigan this year. That's a 1/3 full barn. Sleeping giant? OSU should smarten up and improve their own on-campus ice arena rather than force its hockey team to play in VCA. Those are good attendance numbers for a regular season college hockey game and you know it. It's stupid to compare it to the size of their arena and you know that as well. BTW, scpa0305 is seriously delusional abut the Big Ten. A dying conference? It's never been stronger financially than it is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MavHockey14 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Correct. I suppose they COULD add hockey only affiliates, but that is just a guess. You have a great point, because whoever decides to join will be a brand new program (weak as hell!) The strength of schedule is already going to be an issue with the current members. Who would they add though? They wanted Notre Dame to help with the expansion in football, and that clearly didn't work out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Those are good attendance numbers for a regular season college hockey game and you know it. It's stupid to compare it to the size of their arena and you know that as well. BTW, scpa0305 is seriously delusional abut the Big Ten. A dying conference? It's never been stronger financially than it is now. Yep, and UND drew 10,000 during a blizzard this season. Game, Set, Match. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Let'sGoHawks! Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Welp, looks like we will be comparing conferences a lot in the coming years! I guess it will have to do, since we won't be playing the gophers for awhile. NCHC>Big Ten 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariucci Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Yep, and UND drew 10,000 during a blizzard this season. Game, Set, Match. I was never comparing UND's attendance numbers to OSU's. Just stating that those attendance numbers MafiaMan posted are very good for a college hockey game, well above average. Those numbers will only go higher now that they are associated with a conference that those fans can relate to and will actually recognize the names of their opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpiehl Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't think the Big 10 name holds a lot of power for recruits, especially recruits north of the border. Was in Calgary this week, and at the bar there was no college basketball on. Wasn't on the local cable station, either. But there were three different hockey games on. And advertisements for the WHL playoffs. So the Big 10 success in basketball this season isn't going to sway too many. Besides, most hockey players aren't exactly basketball fans. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 & prisons dont usually have indoor ice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Those are good attendance numbers for a regular season college hockey game and you know it. It's stupid to compare it to the size of their arena and you know that as well. Oh please. 1/3 of the Irish crowd was Notre Dame fans...1/2 of the Michigan crowd was wearing maize and blue. Size of an arena DOES matter and YOU know that as well. 3,500 in a small barn that seats 3,600 is a great hockey environment. 3,500 in an arena that seats 17,500 is about as lively as a 4:00 pm Saturday afternoon Catholic mass. 2 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.