One step closer to Big Ten Hockey Conference

[WayOutWest]

Why would the Big Ten have it's own network and not try and get as much exposure for their conference? I believe they have a pretty good idea about the amount of revenue hockey will generate. Hate to see Mn and Wis leave WCHA.

I think they do a pretty good job of that, to be honest.
Televise as much football and basketball as possible. That draws viewership. But I am not seeing a lot of Lacrosse, gymnastics, or swimming being televised on BTN. Hockey, love it as I may, just does not draw.
Now, BTN might be "hopeful" that hockey will, but television networks are FAR from 100% correct about their prospects. The national networks long ago discovered the truth about hockey viewership, as did FSN about televising high school hockey.

[no97]

Let me just throw this out there - sure, hockey gets a nice crowd of around 9-10,000. Maybe most care about the "rivalry" games, maybe less than half. I couldn't tell you how many are "hockey" fans, vs. those that are "Gopher" fans. Now look at football and basketball. Football draws ~ 40-50,000 per game and basketball ~ 14,000 per game. Add in the TV audience and how many "Gopher" fans (and by extension, Big 10 fans) are there in the state of Minnesota? How many of those folks aren't hockey fans, and sit around wondering why the Gophers don't play Ohio State on the ice, and why Michigan and Michigan State are only played once.

Now, do the math. So you tick off a small number of hockey fans, but some stick around. Plus, you add in all the local Big 10 fan base, and it's a net positive. Those of us who are passionate and post on hockey message boards rant and rave, but overall, it is a win/win for the Gophers...

edit: Oh, and you don't think the Big 10 Network cares about hockey? Then why are they showing 9 games this year? That's way up from past history:

http://www.bigtennetwork.com/dpp/about_ ... y-schedule

[WayOutWest]

edit: Oh, and you don't think the Big 10 Network cares about hockey? Then why are they showing 9 games this year? That's way up from past history:

http://www.bigtennetwork.com/dpp/about_ ... y-schedule

I think the Big Ten cares about anything they can turn a buck on.
You're using a 9 game schedule as evidence of their interest? Seriously? 9 games?
How many basketball games did they televise last winter? How many football games do they televise in the fall?
9 games is...............................an experiment.................nothing more.

[JSR]

And "murmers" and "a long way from making a decision" don't amount to more than your post.

The difference is that the comments in that article are coming from people with influence in the situation and they are clearly behind it. Which I tend to put a lot more creedence in when compared to a random fan's displeasure with the idea.

The Lucia comments were somewhere in the Tribune. I believe he said something to affect of the Big Ten ADs and the Big Ten office would make the call. He's basically along for the ride. He also stated he would like to maintain playing some WCHA teams (a la UMD).

Even Sandelin said the Big Ten Conference "looks like a good possibility."

I'm not saying you have to like it or want it. I just think you are grossly underestimating the situation's future chances

Okay guys, I have been ferreting around. The talk that is out there is definitely.........out there. You win.
And nope, I don't like it, and I don't believe Minnesota or Wisconsin fans generally will either. As a Minnesotan, how do you replace a series with UND with one against Michigan State and call it "good?" It will be far inferior. And it will be VERY sad to lose multiple series against in-state rivals St. Cloud, UMD and Mankato as well. (Even Bemidji State.) This will not be a good move for the Minnesota fan base, when and if it occurs. If it does, I hope it takes decades!!!!!!

Wayoutwest, I'm sorry to tell you this but not only will a Big Ten Hockey Conference (BTHC) happen it si actually imminent.

To answer a few of your questions:
#1 Purdue and Nebraska are no where near bringing hockey on board just because a BTHC is in the works. Just like Wisconsin is no where near bringing men's baseball back just because the Big Ten has a baseball conference. All the conference, and the NCAA require is that you have 6 of yoru schools competing at the D1 level to field a conference and give an automatic bid to the NCAA tourney. So quit droning on about Purdue and other schools who aren't likely goign to even be participating in the sport.

To that end, the schools that will make up the conference, save maybe PSU (we'll see), are all exceptional hockey schools so the conference itself will be unbelieveably competitive withi itself out of the gate. Michigan, Minne, Mich State, Ohio State and Wisconsin are all excellent hockey schools.

#2, the Big Ten is actually in talks with the CCHA and WCHA as we speak to make a contract between the leagues happen so as to preserve certain rivalries but also ensure the new Big Ten hockey conference can fill out their yearly schedules. Much like the Big Ten currently does it football with the MAC. This contract would be beneficial to all conferences involved.

#3, the BTN IS a cash cow AND college hockey would give the BTN a big boost in ratings int he time slots that college hockey occupies. It is anot huge nationally but it is within the Big Ten footprint states where these schools play. Once the BTHC exsists, you can count on several things happening. #1 virtually ALL BTHC games will be shown on BTN, you can say good bye to FSN coverage of Gopher and Badger hockey games etc.... The upside is that we will probably get virtually ALL the games broadcast, whereas now we only get abotu 2/3 of the Badger games broadcast and see almost none of the other schools games, this would no longer be the case. Also, the games would be broadcast in HD for your home team games if you live in the home team state. Also a big plus as the grainy FSN coverage boarders on terrrible some games. The revenue generated would be more than worth while.

Also, the Big Ten is forethinking in that it seems like a high possibility that Notre Dame will, one day, join the conference in all sports. The addition of a BTHC that actually generates revenue for the teams and the conference is another piece of the puzzle of attactign ND to the conference.

Barry ALvarez may be more "in the know" of the Big Ten's inner workings than any other AD in the entire conference. Like it or not he's like the Dean of the conference and is Delaney's right hand man if you've been paying attention. Alvarez says the BTHC is all but a done deal wih the addition of PSU to D1 college hockey. I've actually spoken with many in the know down here in Madison and it's seems to be believed that the BTHC could come to fruition as early as the 2014 season.

personally I am excited for it as a Badger fan. I love the rivalries with Denver, UND and Minne but frankly, outside of those I don;t really care abotu any of the other conference games to the degree that I would miss having them. In fact I much rather look forward ot the idea of home at home, year in year out rivalries with Michigan and Mihcigan State and Ohio State and Minnsota over Benidhi, or Michigan Tech or MS St-Mankato or St Cloud State etc..... I am sure as Gopher fans you guys like those in state rivalries but Wisconsin fans and admins don;t really relish them that much.

Look for the BTHC to come very very soon and look for it to be a great addition to college hockey that many of us fans will greatly embrace.

[JSR]

edit: Oh, and you don't think the Big 10 Network cares about hockey? Then why are they showing 9 games this year? That's way up from past history:

http://www.bigtennetwork.com/dpp/about_ ... y-schedule

I think the Big Ten cares about anything they can turn a buck on.
You're using a 9 game schedule as evidence of their interest? Seriously? 9 games?
How many basketball games did they televise last winter? How many football games do they televise in the fall?
9 games is...............................an experiment.................nothing more.

The reason they only telvise 9 games is because they have no stake in the conferences those teams belong to. Notice which games they are televising. They are almost ALL games where Big Ten teams are playing against other Big Ten member teams. Once the BTHC exists they will begin televising virtually all of the games and those games do draw audiences in the Big Ten footprint states of Minne, Wisc, Mich, Pennsylvania and Ohio. And that, frankly, is all they need to draw from to make this a winning proposition but they will get a certain degree of sudiences from all over. This will be a huge thing for the BTN, the conference and college hockey.

[WayOutWest]

Once the BTHC exists they will begin televising virtually all of the games and those games do draw audiences in the Big Ten footprint states of Minne, Wisc, Mich, Pennsylvania and Ohio. And that, frankly, is all they need to draw from to make this a winning proposition but they will get a certain degree of sudiences from all over. This will be a huge thing for the BTN, the conference and college hockey.

Gotta disagree, UNLESS those in Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Iowa BTN viewing areas are not "treated" to Big Ten Hockey.
Those BTN viewers in Iowa would likely rather watch their collegiate LaCrosse team play than Wisconsin vs. Minnesota hockey.
Hockey simply does not have viewership on any level, of significance, to make it a "cash cow" anywhere. The NHL cannot get a network contract because of this. Heck, FSN could not even keep a great high school hockey weekly broadcast going in a state that is hockey crazy!!! Personally, the more college hockey being broadcast the better, for me, but I realize that I am not a typical BTN viewer.
Bring it on. It just won't make money.
And even if the schedule allows SOME play with other conferences, a Big Ten conference will absolutely limit those opportunities. And I, for one, will dislike the reduced opportunities to see UND, St. Cloud, UMD, Denver, CC, et al. Sorry, but the Gophers vs. UND says "hockey" to me. Gophers vs. Penn State...........not so much.

[JSR]

Once the BTHC exists they will begin televising virtually all of the games and those games do draw audiences in the Big Ten footprint states of Minne, Wisc, Mich, Pennsylvania and Ohio. And that, frankly, is all they need to draw from to make this a winning proposition but they will get a certain degree of sudiences from all over. This will be a huge thing for the BTN, the conference and college hockey.

Gotta disagree, UNLESS those in Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Iowa BTN viewing areas are not "treated" to Big Ten Hockey.
Those BTN viewers in Iowa would likely rather watch their collegiate LaCrosse team play than Wisconsin vs. Minnesota hockey.
Hockey simply does not have viewership on any level, of significance, to make it a "cash cow" anywhere. The NHL cannot get a network contract because of this. Heck, FSN could not even keep a great high school hockey weekly broadcast going in a state that is hockey crazy!!! Personally, the more college hockey being broadcast the better, for me, but I realize that I am not a typical BTN viewer.
Bring it on. It just won't make money.
And even if the schedule allows SOME play with other conferences, a Big Ten conference will absolutely limit those opportunities. And I, for one, will dislike the reduced opportunities to see UND, St. Cloud, UMD, Denver, CC, et al. Sorry, but the Gophers vs. UND says "hockey" to me. Gophers vs. Penn State...........not so much.

First of all the NHL has two network contracts, one with Versus and another with NBC. ESPN is also said to be trying to finaly woo them back. So your wrong right there.

High school hockey is not college or pro hockey, not even remotely close to a fair comparison. It's apples and oranges. Our country can't get enough football but high school football isn't watched on TV, does that mean college and pro football do not sell??

You clearly do not have any understanding of how the BTN works or how it makes money. The BTN is not funded through the traditional ad space revenue model. It makes the majority of it's money ($440 million last year by the way) from subscriber fees. Those subscriber fees are higher or lower depending if the subscriber lives in the state of a Big Ten school or not. Anything that will drive more subscribers (like college hockey would in several Big Ten states) drives larger revenues for the network and increases it's footprint. Further the subscriber has to subscribe for an all or nothing package when you have it because of the tiers it's shown on in the cable and satellite companies. Your idea of "signifcant" is skewed by the traditional revenue mdel of old time TV, that is no longer the gauge of significance economically for the conference. But that said, TV ratings prove folks in Iowa actually watch Badger and Minnesota hockey on TV at a much larger rate thanthey do things like women's basketball or college Lacrosse.

You keep making statements about this subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of and you have no research or fact to back your statements up. If you had any working knowledge of the BTN, the conference or the landscape off college sports and it's revenue model you'd realize how uninformed your statements are.

Lastly, I would much rather see Wisconsin -vs- PSU than watch Wisconsin-vs-Michigan Tech. With the new model I will get that AND I will still get Wisconsin-vs-UND. Gophers-vs-UND might say hockey to you and that's fine, Gophers-vs-UND likely won't go away anytime soon even with a BTHC but those other schools aren't marketable enough to hold the Gophers in the WCHA when the BTHC comes a knockin and you are goign to need to embrace that or stop watching college hockey I guess because it's a done deal. As Barry Alvarez said it is just a matter of how mcuh it will cost to buy out the schools from their exisitng conferences and what exact year it will start. They have a good guess son the dollar amount and they also have a guess on the year 2014. Bookmark this page, you'll want it for reference when everything I've said comes true.

[WayOutWest]

First of all the NHL has two network contracts, one with Versus and another with NBC. ESPN is also said to be trying to finaly woo them back. So your wrong right there.

High school hockey is not college or pro hockey, not even remotely close to a fair comparison. It's apples and oranges. Our country can't get enough football but high school football isn't watched on TV, does that mean college and pro football do not sell??

You clearly do not have any understanding of how the BTN works or how it makes money. The BTN is not funded through the traditional ad space revenue model. It makes the majority of it's money ($440 million last year by the way) from subscriber fees. Those subscriber fees are higher or lower depending if the subscriber lives in the state of a Big Ten school or not. Anything that will drive more subscribers (like college hockey would in several Big Ten states) drives larger revenues for the network and increases it's footprint. Further the subscriber has to subscribe for an all or nothing package when you have it because of the tiers it's shown on in the cable and satellite companies. Your idea of "signifcant" is skewed by the traditional revenue mdel of old time TV, that is no longer the gauge of significance economically for the conference. But that said, TV ratings prove folks in Iowa actually watch Badger and Minnesota hockey on TV at a much larger rate thanthey do things like women's basketball or college Lacrosse.

You keep making statements about this subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of and you have no research or fact to back your statements up. If you had any working knowledge of the BTN, the conference or the landscape off college sports and it's revenue model you'd realize how uninformed your statements are.

Lastly, I would much rather see Wisconsin -vs- PSU than watch Wisconsin-vs-Michigan Tech. With the new model I will get that AND I will still get Wisconsin-vs-UND. Gophers-vs-UND might say hockey to you and that's fine, Gophers-vs-UND likely won't go away anytime soon even with a BTHC but those other schools aren't marketable enough to hold the Gophers in the WCHA when the BTHC comes a knockin and you are goign to need to embrace that or stop watching college hockey I guess because it's a done deal. As Barry Alvarez said it is just a matter of how mcuh it will cost to buy out the schools from their exisitng conferences and what exact year it will start. They have a good guess son the dollar amount and they also have a guess on the year 2014. Bookmark this page, you'll want it for reference when everything I've said comes true.

My my, we get a bit testy.........when tested, don't we?

You can't possibly think you can hold up VS. and an extremely light NBC contract against the contracts that other sports (baseball, football, basketball) have on major national networks. Face it........hockey doesn't fly on a regular basis on the major national networks. (and any obscure rumors of "woo-ing" don't count. Are you kidding me?) If you cannot understand that, we were done LONG ago, here.
In case you happen to concede that, let's continue. You are making some HUGE assssssssumptions, here. Absolutely, I realize the BTN makes their money via subscriber fees, but even they are wise enough that you don't throw ANYTHING on the network and EXPECT those subscriber fees to just keep coming in. "What's on BTN tonight, dear? Oh, women's field hockey again? WHY do we subscribe to this pile of junk, anymore? Where is the basketball?"
Why would you think merely starting a Big Ten hockey conference is like finding lost money? Where is the additional revenue stream that college hockey didn't have prior? Oh that's right, folks are just going to continue to subscribe to BTN regardless of what is shown. And BTN will hold steadfast in broadcasting hockey regardless of the viewership numbers.
Yep, you have it all figured out.
Good luck with all that.

[MNHockeyFan]

In our area (with Comcast) BTN is not a separate subscription - you don't have to pay extra for it if you subscribe to the expanded cable lineup that they're a part of. Even though FSN does a great job covering Gopher hockey the team would certainly reach a much wider potential audience if they were to move to BTN (think Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania - huge populations).

My fear as a Gopher fan and FSN viewer is that we wouldn't get to see as many games as we do now. I'm a season ticket holder so I'm mainly concerned about many of the away games (especially non-conference) not being on TV.

[JSR]

First of all the NHL has two network contracts, one with Versus and another with NBC. ESPN is also said to be trying to finaly woo them back. So your wrong right there.

High school hockey is not college or pro hockey, not even remotely close to a fair comparison. It's apples and oranges. Our country can't get enough football but high school football isn't watched on TV, does that mean college and pro football do not sell??

You clearly do not have any understanding of how the BTN works or how it makes money. The BTN is not funded through the traditional ad space revenue model. It makes the majority of it's money ($440 million last year by the way) from subscriber fees. Those subscriber fees are higher or lower depending if the subscriber lives in the state of a Big Ten school or not. Anything that will drive more subscribers (like college hockey would in several Big Ten states) drives larger revenues for the network and increases it's footprint. Further the subscriber has to subscribe for an all or nothing package when you have it because of the tiers it's shown on in the cable and satellite companies. Your idea of "signifcant" is skewed by the traditional revenue mdel of old time TV, that is no longer the gauge of significance economically for the conference. But that said, TV ratings prove folks in Iowa actually watch Badger and Minnesota hockey on TV at a much larger rate thanthey do things like women's basketball or college Lacrosse.

You keep making statements about this subject that you clearly have zero knowledge of and you have no research or fact to back your statements up. If you had any working knowledge of the BTN, the conference or the landscape off college sports and it's revenue model you'd realize how uninformed your statements are.

Lastly, I would much rather see Wisconsin -vs- PSU than watch Wisconsin-vs-Michigan Tech. With the new model I will get that AND I will still get Wisconsin-vs-UND. Gophers-vs-UND might say hockey to you and that's fine, Gophers-vs-UND likely won't go away anytime soon even with a BTHC but those other schools aren't marketable enough to hold the Gophers in the WCHA when the BTHC comes a knockin and you are goign to need to embrace that or stop watching college hockey I guess because it's a done deal. As Barry Alvarez said it is just a matter of how mcuh it will cost to buy out the schools from their exisitng conferences and what exact year it will start. They have a good guess son the dollar amount and they also have a guess on the year 2014. Bookmark this page, you'll want it for reference when everything I've said comes true.

My my, we get a bit testy.........when tested, don't we?

You can't possibly think you can hold up VS. and an extremely light NBC contract against the contracts that other sports (baseball, football, basketball) have on major national networks. Face it........hockey doesn't fly on a regular basis on the major national networks. (and any obscure rumors of "woo-ing" don't count. Are you kidding me?) If you cannot understand that, we were done LONG ago, here.
In case you happen to concede that, let's continue. You are making some HUGE assssssssumptions, here. Absolutely, I realize the BTN makes their money via subscriber fees, but even they are wise enough that you don't throw ANYTHING on the network and EXPECT those subscriber fees to just keep coming in. "What's on BTN tonight, dear? Oh, women's field hockey again? WHY do we subscribe to this pile of junk, anymore? Where is the basketball?"
Why would you think merely starting a Big Ten hockey conference is like finding lost money? Where is the additional revenue stream that college hockey didn't have prior? Oh that's right, folks are just going to continue to subscribe to BTN regardless of what is shown. And BTN will hold steadfast in broadcasting hockey regardless of the viewership numbers.
Yep, you have it all figured out.
Good luck with all that.

Who's getting tested? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

First off I see now you are trying to skew and mislead because you realized our original statement was wrong. Let me repost your origianl statement:

NHL cannot get a network contract because of this

That is definitive statement right there, which I proved wrong. They do in fact have a contract, actually two contracts. Now you've backpedaled and are trying to bring in other sports and are further backpedaling by using things like "major national networks" and "regular basis". I never once argued that. You made a definitive statement I proved that definitive statement wrong. Pure and simple. If you cannot admit that then yes, apaprently we are done.

Secondly, no one is saying that college hockey will double BTN's revenues. That is obsurd. What BTN will do and what BTN knows it can do is offer additional programming that will further cement itself as the provider of Big Ten college sports on TV and give it better programming than it has now in the time slots that college hockey generally occupies giving the BTN slightly increased viewership in those time slots, giving it some more subscribers in the form of hard core college hockey fans and bringin in fringe subscribers across the USA. No one said it was going to be the NFL however it is additional revenue within a product they'll have ownership over that they currently do not have now. Also, don't forget the revenue sharing of the monies brought through the national tournaments that right now the Big Ten gets NONE of because those teams currently belong to conferences outside the Big Ten. It is no coincidence that (aside from UND) that all the "Big Ten" team who currentl play D1 hockey are also amongst the most profitable, and best attendance colelge hockey teams in the nation. Last year the BTN did $440 million in total revenue of which the conference gets to keep 50% of that. Even if all college hockey did was increase total revenue by $10 million (a drop in the bucket by the way and easily predictable as it actually makes more than that currently outside the BTN) it is worht it to the conference to bring in the $5 mill it would keep and disperse to it's conference members (you don't think an extra $500,000 per school that they don't have now is not meaningful?????) In otherwords college hockey had the revenue stream but the Big Ten conference doesn't get any of it, they want to capture it for themselves, and possibly increase it slightly. OR did you forget that little linch pin nugget?

[JSR]

In our area (with Comcast) BTN is not a separate subscription - you don't have to pay extra for it if you subscribe to the expanded cable lineup that they're a part of. Even though FSN does a great job covering Gopher hockey the team would certainly reach a much wider potential audience if they were to move to BTN (think Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania - huge populations).

My fear as a Gopher fan and FSN viewer is that we wouldn't get to see as many games as we do now. I'm a season ticket holder so I'm mainly concerned about many of the away games (especially non-conference) not being on TV.

Hi MnFan, actually you do pay for it. Actually the subscriber fee to teh BTN is actually HIGHER because of it. You probably live in a state that is home to a Big Ten school. Hence the BTN is carried on the expanded basic cable. However, how it works is this. Yes BTN is included in expanded basic cable package but technically that package price was actually increased by the cable company across the baord to cover the cost of the subscriber fees it pays to BTN. Yes, the cable company pays the subscirber fees to BTN, not you driectly. Roughly how it works is, where BTNN is found on expanded basic (basically Big Ten footprint states) the BTN charges roughly 70 cents per month per subscriber. So if Comcast has 100,000 expanded basic cable subscribers in your cable viewing area, BTN charges Comcast roughly $70,000 per month to host the BTN on Comcasts expanded basic network fo channels. Comcast in turn passes that cost onto it's subscribers. Ever seen your cable bill go up once your "contract" period is over, or ever see costs vary from year to eyar within a cable company, it's becasue just about every channel it carries on expanded basic has a subscriber fee associted with it, some are as alittle as 2 cents a month some, like ESPN can be as much as $2 per month. Depends on the channel and the area it's being offered in. Youa re correct that in some areas BTN is only offered on extra Tiers of channels like say a "sports" tier that you pay extra for. BTN actually makes less per subscriber on those deals, usually only about 17 cents per subscriber. BTN is usually offered on the higher Tiers in states that do not have a Big Ten school within the state. Also, the "additional" BTN channels that offer the "other games' not being shown on the main BTN channel are also found on those higher sports tier deals. So if you do live in a Big Ten school state and you buy the "sportss tier" your cabel company offers then you'd get the other BTN channels in addition to the main one, so BTN can actual double dip on folks who do that. Hope that clarifies that you do pay a subscriber fee even when it's on your expanded basic lineup it's just mashed up with all the other channels and not itemized like ti feels like with the premium channels.

[WayOutWest]

....blah....blah.....blah..........nonsense.........conjecture..........indignance........

::::: YAWN ::::::

[JSR]

I don't have the ability to admit when I am wrong. Nor the skills to debate properly on subjects outside my grasp.

Moving on. We'll bookmark this and revisit later though

[MNHockeyFan]

Hi MnFan, actually you do pay for it. Actually the subscriber fee to teh BTN is actually HIGHER because of it.

I agree, but note that I said you don't have to pay extra for it separately. This is what Comcast wanted to do when they were negotiating with the BTN, but ultimately it got included in whatever they now call their expanded package that most customers have. If they didn't do it this way, the majority of Comcast customers would not have subscribed which is why BTN held out as long as they did.

Not very important to this discussion, as the main point is that if the Big Ten gets going with their own hockey conference BTN will almost surely televise many of the games, and this will broaden the exposure base to many potential viewers. Not saying that a big percentage will watch regularly, but even a small percentage of many more millions of potential viewers means more advertising dollars and revenues flowing back to the participating schools. Football is on a totally different scale, but I believe this (increased TV exposure and ad revenues) played a big part in Nebraska joining the Big Ten.

[WayOutWest]

Moving on. We'll bookmark this and revisit later though

Do you think we'll still have the internet then?
Do you think you'll still really care?

I think I'll just continue to enjoy WCHA play in the meantime.
You keep throwing pennies into the fountain, though.

[ACTUALFORMERPLAYER]

If the CCHA and the WCHA are cut apart by a BTHC looking to make extra cash it would eventually lead to no cash.
The WCHA and the CCHA are dependant upon the large schools and their fan bases to fund operations. There is a reason the WCHA does not rotate the site of the Final Five.
Anyway you look at it the remaining D-1 schools would have to form a conference or two small confernces. If the Mankato's and St Cloud's are not playing Minnesota will hockey be financially solvent for them?
The BTHC might end up with a super conference that kills the other schools programs. If they lose programs from what is a very small total would college hockey cease to exist? College hockey would be a great cash cow for the Big 10 network having 6 teams rotate playing each other all winter.
Minnesota is the State of Hockey yet because of ratings and sponsors the T-Wolves bump the Gophers or Wild every time there is a TV conflict.
This entire idea has nothing to do with money or what is best for college hockey. It is a power trip by some idiots (Alvarez and Delaney) who just want a BTHC because they can.

[MNHockeyFan]

This entire idea has nothing to do with money or what is best for college hockey.

I think it has everything to do with money, nothing more.

[no97]

This entire idea has nothing to do with money or what is best for college hockey.

I think it has everything to do with money, nothing more.

Let me just ask this question - what is your definition of "best for college hockey?"* And, what version of college hockey? The current form, or the form from 20 years ago, or the version from 20 years from now?

First off, if I'm Minnesota or Wisconsin or Michigan, why do I care if a few or even several other D-I teams from the area drop the sport? Let's take a very pessimistic view and say that 10 schools drop hockey in the wake of a Big 10 Hockey Conference. That leaves (in the west) the 6-team BTHC, and 8 W/C-CHA teams (plenty for one conference); plus still all the AHA, ECAC and HEA out east. Now, I'm not advocating 10 schools dropping hockey, but if they can't survive, how good a program are they anyway?

Second, do you really think that "college hockey" will be the same in 20 years as it is today? 20 years ago, Lake Superior State was a national power, winning 3 nat'l titles in 7 years. Since the mid-'90's? Only 3 winning seasons. Plus, since that time, there have been two new conferences formed, and one die.

All I'm saying is that anyone that thinks that there is no chance of a BTHC is simply in complete denial. Things change, it's almost impossible to predict, and all we can do is go on reliable information. Right now, it looks like that reliable info is pointing towards a BTHC soon (in the next five years). Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't, but as I said, to simply dismiss the possibility is very shortsited.


* And to follow up this point, why should any individual team care about what's bext for "college hockey?" Any university president or AD who puts the needs of the sport above those of their own school should be immediatly fired. Look at, say, Bemidji State. What was best for "college hockey?" To keep the CHA alive, so that there were spots for any team that is intersted in starting up to have a conference to join. Insted, they sought membership in the WCHA. Was that best for "college hockey," or best for BSU?

[JSR]

If the CCHA and the WCHA are cut apart by a BTHC looking to make extra cash it would eventually lead to no cash.
The WCHA and the CCHA are dependant upon the large schools and their fan bases to fund operations. There is a reason the WCHA does not rotate the site of the Final Five.
Anyway you look at it the remaining D-1 schools would have to form a conference or two small confernces. If the Mankato's and St Cloud's are not playing Minnesota will hockey be financially solvent for them?
The BTHC might end up with a super conference that kills the other schools programs. If they lose programs from what is a very small total would college hockey cease to exist? College hockey would be a great cash cow for the Big 10 network having 6 teams rotate playing each other all winter.
Minnesota is the State of Hockey yet because of ratings and sponsors the T-Wolves bump the Gophers or Wild every time there is a TV conflict.
This entire idea has nothing to do with money or what is best for college hockey. It is a power trip by some idiots (Alvarez and Delaney) who just want a BTHC because they can.

Which is why Delaney is smart enough to be negotiating with the WCHA and CCHA for contractual scheduling rights between the three conferences when the BTHC is created. It won;t kill college hockey. People are afraid of change, we get that but this won;t kill anything and it COULD make it even better.

[JSR]

This entire idea has nothing to do with money or what is best for college hockey.

I think it has everything to do with money, nothing more.

Let me just ask this question - what is your definition of "best for college hockey?"* And, what version of college hockey? The current form, or the form from 20 years ago, or the version from 20 years from now?

First off, if I'm Minnesota or Wisconsin or Michigan, why do I care if a few or even several other D-I teams from the area drop the sport? Let's take a very pessimistic view and say that 10 schools drop hockey in the wake of a Big 10 Hockey Conference. That leaves (in the west) the 6-team BTHC, and 8 W/C-CHA teams (plenty for one conference); plus still all the AHA, ECAC and HEA out east. Now, I'm not advocating 10 schools dropping hockey, but if they can't survive, how good a program are they anyway?

Second, do you really think that "college hockey" will be the same in 20 years as it is today? 20 years ago, Lake Superior State was a national power, winning 3 nat'l titles in 7 years. Since the mid-'90's? Only 3 winning seasons. Plus, since that time, there have been two new conferences formed, and one die.

All I'm saying is that anyone that thinks that there is no chance of a BTHC is simply in complete denial. Things change, it's almost impossible to predict, and all we can do is go on reliable information. Right now, it looks like that reliable info is pointing towards a BTHC soon (in the next five years). Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't, but as I said, to simply dismiss the possibility is very shortsited.


* And to follow up this point, why should any individual team care about what's bext for "college hockey?" Any university president or AD who puts the needs of the sport above those of their own school should be immediatly fired. Look at, say, Bemidji State. What was best for "college hockey?" To keep the CHA alive, so that there were spots for any team that is intersted in starting up to have a conference to join. Insted, they sought membership in the WCHA. Was that best for "college hockey," or best for BSU?

Great post.

[JSR]

Moving on. We'll bookmark this and revisit later though

Do you think we'll still have the internet then? Yes
Do you think you'll still really care? I already don't really care that you are in complete denial

I think I'll just continue to enjoy WCHA play in the meantime. As will I, but also knowing the BTHC is imminent.
You keep throwing pennies into the fountain, though.

[WayOutWest]

First off, if I'm Minnesota or Wisconsin or Michigan, why do I care if a few or even several other D-I teams from the area drop the sport? Let's take a very pessimistic view and say that 10 schools drop hockey in the wake of a Big 10 Hockey Conference. That leaves (in the west) the 6-team BTHC, and 8 W/C-CHA teams (plenty for one conference); plus still all the AHA, ECAC and HEA out east. Now, I'm not advocating 10 schools dropping hockey, but if they can't survive, how good a program are they anyway?

If 10 schools drop hockey, that isn't good for the sport. Anything that isn't good for the sport, isn't good for any of the remaining teams.
College hockey has an issue with popularity already. If you take 10 programs away, you hurt a sport that is already struggling.
To say "why do I care if several D-1 teams drop the sport" is extremely short-sighted. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

[observer]

Nice. 5500 junior teams and 30 college ones. Not adding up for me.

[JSR]

First off, if I'm Minnesota or Wisconsin or Michigan, why do I care if a few or even several other D-I teams from the area drop the sport? Let's take a very pessimistic view and say that 10 schools drop hockey in the wake of a Big 10 Hockey Conference. That leaves (in the west) the 6-team BTHC, and 8 W/C-CHA teams (plenty for one conference); plus still all the AHA, ECAC and HEA out east. Now, I'm not advocating 10 schools dropping hockey, but if they can't survive, how good a program are they anyway?

If 10 schools drop hockey, that isn't good for the sport. Anything that isn't good for the sport, isn't good for any of the remaining teams.
College hockey has an issue with popularity already. If you take 10 programs away, you hurt a sport that is already struggling.
To say "why do I care if several D-1 teams drop the sport" is extremely short-sighted. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

You are not going to lose 10 teams just because the BTHC gets created. In other words, the sky is not falling chicken little. It is equaly shortsighted to not see how this can BENEFIT all of college hockey and actually help it grow.

As for your comments about it being a "struggling sport". Here is some data andf info right from the NCAA:

The interest and growth in college hockey in the 1990s and early 2000s was unprecedented.

The continued popularity of college hockey would suggest a growing fan base. The 2009-10 regular season saw two outdoor college games, with more than 38,000 fans on hand at Fenway Park to see Boston College play Boston University and more than 55,000 fans attending the Wisconsin win over Michigan at the Camp Randall Hockey Classic. Next year, Michigan State will play the Wolverines in Michigan Stadium, with more than 80,000 tickets already sold.

All-time Top 10 Frozen Four Attendance

37,592 Wisconsin vs. Boston College Ford Field Detroit April 10, 2010
34,954 Miami vs. Boston College, Wisconsin vs. RIT Ford Field Detroit April 8, 2010
19,432 Michi St. vs. Boston College Scottrade Center St. Louis April 7, 2007
19,327 Minnesota vs. Maine Xcel Energy Center St. Paul, Minn. April 6, 2002
19,323 Minnesota vs. Michigan Xcel Energy Center St. Paul, Minn. April 4, 2002
19,316 Maine vs. New Hampshire Xcel Energy Center St. Paul, Minn. April 4, 2002
18,857 Boston College vs. North Dakota, Michigan St. vs. Maine Scottrade Center St. Louis April 5, 2007
18,659 Minnesota vs. New Hampshire HSBC Arena Buffalo April 12, 2003
18,632 Boston College vs. Notre Dame Pepsi Center Denver April 12, 2008
18,551 Minnesota vs. Michigan HSBC Arena Buffalo April 10, 2003

**In 2007, 2009 and 2010, both semifinals were considered one session.

Do you see a trend just in this decade. Hmmmm......

[WayOutWest]

The interest and growth in college hockey in the 1990s and early 2000s was unprecedented. [/i]

The continued popularity of college hockey would suggest a growing fan base.

Do you see a trend just in this decade. Hmmmm......

While I am quite sure that the interest and growth in college hockey in the 2000's is unprecedented, and "suggests" a growing fan base, such "growth" is only calculated against its history, and I would guarantee that LaCrosse's growth, during this same period, trumps it by a long shot.......by far. So "growth" is a BIT of a misnomer. And you really cannot point to single game attendance figures, either.

Once again....if hockey is sooooooooo popular, why is it a struggle to find a college hockey broadcast?
The BTN would be bankrolling a big risk, if and when they take this on. There is no history of success here.