One step closer to Big Ten Hockey Conference

[no97]

Once again....if hockey is sooooooooo popular, why is it a struggle to find a college hockey broadcast?

A struggle? You aren't looking very hard then:

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle ... =205008124

http://www.cbscollegesports.com/press/2 ... hockey.php

http://www.bsubeavers.com/mhockey/news/103/3157/

Not to mention if you've got satellite:

2010-11 FSN Rocky Mountain University of Denver Hockey TV Schedule

All times listed are Mountain and subject to change

Date, Opponent, Time

Fri., Oct. 15 Boston College, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Oct. 22 Wisconsin, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 5 Colorado College, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 19 Bemidji State, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 26 Lake Superior State, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Dec. 31 Northern Michigan, 6:00 p.m.
Fri., Jan. 21 Alaska Anchorage, 7:30 p.m.
Sat., Jan. 22 Alaska Anchorage, 7:00 p.m.
Sat., Feb. 5 Colorado College, 7:00 p.m.
Fri., Feb. 18 Michigan Tech, 7:30 p.m.
Sat., Feb. 19 Michigan Tech, 7:00 p.m.
Fri., Mar. 4 St. Cloud State, 7:30 p.m.

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/m-hocke ... sched.html

http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/pre ... ep29tv.php


But, yeah, no one's televising college hockey, and there's no money to be made off it...

[WayOutWest]

Once again....if hockey is sooooooooo popular, why is it a struggle to find a college hockey broadcast?

A struggle? You aren't looking very hard then:

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArticle ... =205008124

http://www.cbscollegesports.com/press/2 ... hockey.php

http://www.bsubeavers.com/mhockey/news/103/3157/

Not to mention if you've got satellite:

2010-11 FSN Rocky Mountain University of Denver Hockey TV Schedule

All times listed are Mountain and subject to change

Date, Opponent, Time

Fri., Oct. 15 Boston College, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Oct. 22 Wisconsin, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 5 Colorado College, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 19 Bemidji State, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Nov. 26 Lake Superior State, 7:30 p.m.
Fri., Dec. 31 Northern Michigan, 6:00 p.m.
Fri., Jan. 21 Alaska Anchorage, 7:30 p.m.
Sat., Jan. 22 Alaska Anchorage, 7:00 p.m.
Sat., Feb. 5 Colorado College, 7:00 p.m.
Fri., Feb. 18 Michigan Tech, 7:30 p.m.
Sat., Feb. 19 Michigan Tech, 7:00 p.m.
Fri., Mar. 4 St. Cloud State, 7:30 p.m.

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/m-hocke ... sched.html

http://www.hockeyeastonline.com/men/pre ... ep29tv.php


But, yeah, no one's televising college hockey, and there's no money to be made off it...

"Lakeland Public Television"????????????????
Seriously?
Oh my!

[no97]

Once again....if hockey is sooooooooo popular, why is it a struggle to find a college hockey broadcast?

A struggle? You aren't looking very hard then:

http://www.bsubeavers.com/mhockey/news/103/3157/

http://www.uwbadgers.com/sports/m-hocke ... sched.html

"Lakeland Public Television"????????????????
Seriously?
Oh my!

Um, yeah, Lakeland PTV. What's exactly funny about that? BSU has a better TV package than every college hockey team in the state not named the Gophers. Read the article I posted again - you can watch Beaver hockey on Dish Network, DirecTV and the Minnesota Channel, which is available on most cable systems in the state and across North Dakota, with overlap into Wisconsin, South Dakota and Iowa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Channel

Plus every game is in HD. Compare to Wisconsin (click above). They have only 15 of 22 home games on TV. The Badgers have 5 road games available, while BSU has 4-5 (UND on the Fighting Sioux Sports Net/Midco Sports Channel and one of their two at Denver and at least one of the two at Wisconsin)

Or, compare to UMD:

http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-mens-h ... &page=news

That's over-the-air to only NE Minnesota.

How about SCSU or MSU Mankato. Those two schools have been traditionally been broadcast locally on Charter cable, but not state-wide either.

So, remind me again what's so funny about Lakeland PTV (especially considering the fact they just spent > $200,000 to upgrade equipment for HD sports broadcasts*)?


* Oh, and tell me again how no one spends any money on televising college hockey... That $200,000 must be play money, and the equipment must be imagined.

[WayOutWest]

Um, yeah, Lakeland PTV. What's exactly funny about that? BSU has a better TV package than every college hockey team in the state not named the Gophers.
Compare to Wisconsin (click above). They have only 15 of 22 home games on TV. The Badgers have 5 road games available, while BSU has 4-5 (UND on the Fighting Sioux Sports Net/Midco Sports Channel and one of their two at Denver and at least one of the two at Wisconsin)

Or, compare to UMD:

http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-mens-h ... &page=news

That's over-the-air to only NE Minnesota.

How about SCSU or MSU Mankato. Those two schools have been traditionally been broadcast locally on Charter cable, but not state-wide either.

So, remind me again what's so funny about Lakeland PTV

Thank you for fortifying my point.
Hockey is just not popular enough for significant broadcasting of any kind.
If a college hockey perennial powerhouse like Wisconsin has trouble getting significant interest/play in broadcasting all it's games, what would make anyone believe that a move to a BigTen hockey conference is going to flip the switch and suddenly make such viable?
There simply is no proof that there would be any more interest generated.

[JSR]

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.

It's a struggle to find a college hockey broadcast?? Not for me, once the season starts there is college hockey on my TV every single weekend, between FSN, ESPN, ESPNU, CCBS, NHL Network, BTN and local channels, Friday and Saturday and lots of rebroadcasts on Sunday. Maybe you need a different cable system?

[JSR]

Um, yeah, Lakeland PTV. What's exactly funny about that? BSU has a better TV package than every college hockey team in the state not named the Gophers.
Compare to Wisconsin (click above). They have only 15 of 22 home games on TV. The Badgers have 5 road games available, while BSU has 4-5 (UND on the Fighting Sioux Sports Net/Midco Sports Channel and one of their two at Denver and at least one of the two at Wisconsin)

Or, compare to UMD:

http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-mens-h ... &page=news

That's over-the-air to only NE Minnesota.

How about SCSU or MSU Mankato. Those two schools have been traditionally been broadcast locally on Charter cable, but not state-wide either.

So, remind me again what's so funny about Lakeland PTV

Thank you for fortifying my point.
Hockey is just not popular enough for significant broadcasting of any kind.
If a college hockey perennial powerhouse like Wisconsin has trouble getting significant interest/play in broadcasting all it's games, what would make anyone believe that a move to a BigTen hockey conference is going to flip the switch and suddenly make such viable?
There simply is no proof that there would be any more interest generated.

Actually that is not why all the Wisconsin games are not broadcast. Ther eis significant interest in the Wisconsin games and their broadcasts. The reason not all are found on TV is because a big web company purchased the exclusive rights to those games to webstream them. There is not problem it;s jsut a brave new world with different media outlets vying for the broadcasts rights. You actually see it in colelge basketball. Do you really think there isn't enough desire for ALL of Wisconsin's games to be broadcast on TV, but they all are not, why, becasue some are being webstreamed, it's happening in most college sports in the effort to integrate the web and TV cultures more and more. Sorry man, you really need to do more research, you just keep "saying" things because you think they are true but they just are not and you have no factual knowledge or research to back your stance up. Others on here clearly do. Admitting you are wrong insted of continuing to fight a losign battle would go a long way.

[MNHockeyFan]

Sorry man, you really need to do more research, you just keep "saying" things because you think they are true but they just are not and you have no factual knowledge or research to back your stance up. Others on here clearly do. Admitting you are wrong insted of continuing to fight a losign battle would go a long way.

Hopefully WayOutWest will come to realize his positions on these issues are WayOutThere.

[WayOutWest]

Actually that is not why all the Wisconsin games are not broadcast. Ther eis significant interest in the Wisconsin games and their broadcasts. The reason not all are found on TV is because a big web company purchased the exclusive rights to those games to webstream them. .

Wow. That must be SOME big web company to outbid local networking.
Was it Google? Yahoo? Who?
I bet that was SOME bidding war, huh?

I can get webstreamed high school games locally too. Big deal "Brave new world?" Not yet. Webstreaming is more than a bit raw, to date, and also has a very small following.

Come see me when your office becomes excited about filling out their college hockey NCAA championship bracket, and the family is settled in to watch the title game, with every other family on the block, on national television.
In the meantime, enjoy your webstream broadcast and keep dreaming about the day when hockey reaches the kind of viewership levels that other major college sports enjoy. That day may come, but I think we'll all grow old waiting. I love hockey, and honestly I wish it was more accessible. It's just not there.........yet.

Sorry, but YOU have to realize that hockey in general, and particularly college hockey, has little draw. There is no pot-o-gold to be found there......as much as you might have convinced yourself there is.

Come see me when your office becomes excited about filling out their college hockey NCAA championship bracket, and the family is settled in to watch the title game, with every other family on the block, on national television.
In the meantime, enjoy your webstream broadcast and keep dreaming about the day when hockey reaches the kind of viewership levels that other major college sports enjoy. That day may come, but I think we'll all grow old waiting. I love hockey, and honestly I wish it was more accessible. It's just not there.........yet.

[MNHockeyFan]

I love hockey, and honestly I wish it was more accessible. It's just not there.........yet.

WayOutWest, if you "love hockey" I think you need to get out more and see more games for yourself! High school and college games are great in person. If you are a fan like me I'm sure you'll spread the word - what a great game it is.

I think we all know that the game at any level does not translate that great to TV, which is part of what holds back the ratings for all levels of hockey, NHL included. Still, overall, it's pretty much of a regional sport and TV ratings reflect this. But there is a core group of dedicated fans (me and many others included) that will watch on TV when the match-up looks interesting and we can't see the game in person.

The important thing to remember is this: if sufficient ratings are not there, the games will not be televised, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, or via the web. And for most interested viewers, we'll continue to have choices as long as the broadcasters (whatever medium) are making a profit. Otherwise they wouldn't bother, which is the way it should be.

Look at the choices that are available to you, and make your own decisions. That is the beauty of a free marketplace. But don't forget to attend as many games as possible in person, because hockey will always be more exciting that way.

[WayOutWest]

I love hockey, and honestly I wish it was more accessible. It's just not there.........yet.

WayOutWest, if you "love hockey" I think you need to get out more and see more games for yourself! High school and college games are great in person. If you are a fan like me I'm sure you'll spread the word - what a great game it is.

I think we all know that the game at any level does not translate that great to TV, which is part of what holds back the ratings for all levels of hockey, NHL included. Still, overall, it's pretty much of a regional sport and TV ratings reflect this. But there is a core group of dedicated fans (me and many others included) that will watch on TV when the match-up looks interesting and we can't see the game in person.

The important thing to remember is this: if sufficient ratings are not there, the games will not be televised, whether it be on broadcast TV, cable, or via the web. And for most interested viewers, we'll continue to have choices as long as the broadcasters (whatever medium) are making a profit. Otherwise they wouldn't bother, which is the way it should be.

Look at the choices that are available to you, and make your own decisions. That is the beauty of a free marketplace. But don't forget to attend as many games as possible in person, because hockey will always be more exciting that way.

MnHockeyFan - I think you got the wrong idea. I am not bashing hockey or hockey broadcasting at all. And I do attend Gopher and high school games all the time. Nothing better!!!!! I would rather watch a bantam level hockey game, in person, than an NHL game broadcast any day. I even play hockey in a highly organized adult hockey league.
My only point was that hockey broadcasting is not very marketable. It just doesn't generate nearly the kind of viewership to make it a "cash cow" for anyone, including the Big Ten. That might be unfortunate, but it is what it is. I'm looking forward to watching the FSN Gopher hockey broadcast tonight, after missing last night's to attend a high school football game. I'm a big fan, but also a realist.

[MNHockeyFan]

MnHockeyFan - I think you got the wrong idea. I am not bashing hockey or hockey broadcasting at all. And I do attend Gopher and high school games all the time. Nothing better!!!!! I would rather watch a bantam level hockey game, in person, than an NHL game broadcast any day. I even play hockey in a highly organized adult hockey league.
My only point was that hockey broadcasting is not very marketable. It just doesn't generate nearly the kind of viewership to make it a "cash cow" for anyone, including the Big Ten. That might be unfortunate, but it is what it is. I'm looking forward to watching the FSN Gopher hockey broadcast tonight, after missing last night's to attend a high school football game. I'm a big fan, but also a realist.

OK, fair enough, I agree that hockey on TV will not usually draw big ratings. But keep in mind that there are dozens of cable TV channels that target audiences that are much narrower than hockey, and yet they somehow manage to survive just fine. If FSN was not making money telecasting almost every game the Gophers play, both home and away, they wouldn't keep on doing it year after year. I bet THEY aren't looking forward to the formation of a Big 10 conference - at least 20 of the games (4 each against Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State) will likely be lost to BTN.

[WayOutWest]

OK, fair enough, I agree that hockey on TV will not usually draw big ratings. But keep in mind that there are dozens of cable TV channels that target audiences that are much narrower than hockey, and yet they somehow manage to survive just fine. If FSN was not making money telecasting almost every game the Gophers play, both home and away, they wouldn't keep on doing it year after year. I bet THEY aren't looking forward to the formation of a Big 10 conference - at least 20 of the games (4 each against Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State) will likely be lost to BTN.

Agreed, but FSN is not big time broadcasting. And even FSN has been known to show those Gopher games on a tape delayed basis, if there are conflicts with a T-Wolves game. The whole premise of some posters, here, is that a Big Ten hockey conference is going to be a cash cow for the BTN. There is just no evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. The BTN won't be printing money if the Big Ten manages to throw together a hockey conference. Such would not be a magic pill that would draw oodles of new fans to the sport, just because they'd be able to broadcast some games on the BTN. And given the number of basketball games that the BTN broadcasts during the winter, I am afraid college hockey would take a back seat to them. (i.e. tape delays at best)
Honestly, I think FSN does a pretty good job with the Gopher broadcasts. From a Gopher fan's perspective, given the potential conflicts on the BTN, one should be careful for what wishes. I'd rather see MOST the Gopher broadcasts LIVE. That may be hard to come by, on the BTN.

[no97]

Agreed, but FSN is not big time broadcasting(1). And even FSN has been known to show those Gopher games on a tape delayed basis, if there are conflicts with a T-Wolves game. The whole premise of some posters, here, is that a Big Ten hockey conference is going to be a cash cow for the BTN. There is just no evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. The BTN won't be printing money if the Big Ten manages to throw together a hockey conference. Such would not be a magic pill that would draw oodles of new fans to the sport, just because they'd be able to broadcast some games on the BTN. And given the number of basketball games that the BTN broadcasts during the winter, I am afraid college hockey would take a back seat to them. (i.e. tape delays at best)
Honestly, I think FSN does a pretty good job with the Gopher broadcasts. From a Gopher fan's perspective, given the potential conflicts on the BTN, one should be careful for what wishes(2). I'd rather see MOST the Gopher broadcasts LIVE. That may be hard to come by, on the BTN.

At least we're getting somewhere in this discussion. I agree with some of what you say, however:

(1) The Big 10 Network, which I gather, you consider is "big time broadcasting," is no more big time than FSN. First off, Fox owns the Big 10 Network. Second, FSN syndicates out Gopher hockey broadcasts to other FS (enter regional designation) channels. Plus, the Gophers get picked up on the Fox College Sports channel. When you consider that the BTNetwork is mostly in the central part of the country only, it's likely a wash when it comes to potential eye-balls.

(2) The Big 10 does not have basketball game on Friday nights:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big ... ceonly.pdf

Could this lead to games on days of the week other than Fri/Sat? Possibly. Note the conference never has Monday night basketball either. It could also lead to Saturday afternoon games. Also remember that the Big 10 Network has alternate channels available to televise games in individal markets (i.e., a Gopher hockey game is on in Minnesota, while a Penn State basketball game is on in Pennsylvania).

[JSR]

Agreed, but FSN is not big time broadcasting(1). And even FSN has been known to show those Gopher games on a tape delayed basis, if there are conflicts with a T-Wolves game. The whole premise of some posters, here, is that a Big Ten hockey conference is going to be a cash cow for the BTN. There is just no evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. The BTN won't be printing money if the Big Ten manages to throw together a hockey conference. Such would not be a magic pill that would draw oodles of new fans to the sport, just because they'd be able to broadcast some games on the BTN. And given the number of basketball games that the BTN broadcasts during the winter, I am afraid college hockey would take a back seat to them. (i.e. tape delays at best)
Honestly, I think FSN does a pretty good job with the Gopher broadcasts. From a Gopher fan's perspective, given the potential conflicts on the BTN, one should be careful for what wishes(2). I'd rather see MOST the Gopher broadcasts LIVE. That may be hard to come by, on the BTN.

At least we're getting somewhere in this discussion. I agree with some of what you say, however:

(1) The Big 10 Network, which I gather, you consider is "big time broadcasting," is no more big time than FSN. First off, Fox owns the Big 10 Network. Second, FSN syndicates out Gopher hockey broadcasts to other FS (enter regional designation) channels. Plus, the Gophers get picked up on the Fox College Sports channel. When you consider that the BTNetwork is mostly in the central part of the country only, it's likely a wash when it comes to potential eye-balls.

(2) The Big 10 does not have basketball game on Friday nights:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big ... ceonly.pdf

Could this lead to games on days of the week other than Fri/Sat? Possibly. Note the conference never has Monday night basketball either. It could also lead to Saturday afternoon games. Also remember that the Big 10 Network has alternate channels available to televise games in individal markets (i.e., a Gopher hockey game is on in Minnesota, while a Penn State basketball game is on in Pennsylvania).

Finally someone with knowledge of the subject. Thank you no97, for the record Fox owns 50% of the BTN, the Big Ten cofnerence owns the other 50%.....

Also, Wayoutwest completes ignores all the points being made. First of NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE compared hockey viewership to basketball or footballl etc.... and no one expects hockey to EVER reach that level of viewership (atleast not anytime even remotely soon). I think it was also clearly illustrated that it does not need to be a "cash cow" like football to be a viable interest and wanted commodity for BTN. Also, as no97 poitns out, BTN has multiple regional channels so they can air multiple games simultaneouldy depeniding on the market you are currently in. They do it for basketball, soccer, wommen's bball and football already, most certainly they'd do the same for hockey. Lastly you again miss the point entirely regardign webstreaming. Basketball has good ratings, it's a wanted commodity and every game for most Big Ten teams is "marketable" for BTN purposes. Yet strangley anywhere from 1 to 4 games per year is webstreamed only isntead of being shown on the network it'self. Hmmm, why is that, think think think, why would that be Seriously, how deep do you intend to dig this hole wayout. You just keep "sayin" stuff and again you keep getting sot down with fact and research and data meanwhile you just "say stuff" with no knowledge, no numbers, no research and no data just becuase you think it. FYI, your thoughts are WRONG.

[WayOutWest]

Also, Wayoutwest completes ignores all the points being made. First of NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE compared hockey viewership to basketball or footballl etc.... and no one expects hockey to EVER reach that level of viewership (atleast not anytime even remotely soon). I think it was also clearly illustrated that it does not need to be a "cash cow" like football to be a viable interest and wanted commodity for BTN. .

GopherBlog:
"... the Big Ten Network is a major cash cow and the more they can expand their broadcasting to sports that consumers care about (especially in this neck of the woods), the better off their bottom line is going to be. "

MuleFarm:
"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. "


Huh. I guess SOMEBODY thinks that broadcasting hockey on the BTN is going to be a financial boon, huh?

[mulefarm]

Also, Wayoutwest completes ignores all the points being made. First of NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE compared hockey viewership to basketball or footballl etc.... and no one expects hockey to EVER reach that level of viewership (atleast not anytime even remotely soon). I think it was also clearly illustrated that it does not need to be a "cash cow" like football to be a viable interest and wanted commodity for BTN. .

GopherBlog:
"... the Big Ten Network is a major cash cow and the more they can expand their broadcasting to sports that consumers care about (especially in this neck of the woods), the better off their bottom line is going to be. "

MuleFarm:
"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. "


Huh. I guess SOMEBODY thinks that broadcasting hockey on the BTN is going to be a financial boon, huh?

Never said it would be a financial boon. I would bet that it will not loose money?

[JSR]

Also, Wayoutwest completes ignores all the points being made. First of NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE compared hockey viewership to basketball or footballl etc.... and no one expects hockey to EVER reach that level of viewership (atleast not anytime even remotely soon). I think it was also clearly illustrated that it does not need to be a "cash cow" like football to be a viable interest and wanted commodity for BTN. .

GopherBlog:
"... the Big Ten Network is a major cash cow and the more they can expand their broadcasting to sports that consumers care about (especially in this neck of the woods), the better off their bottom line is going to be. "

MuleFarm:
"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. "


Huh. I guess SOMEBODY thinks that broadcasting hockey on the BTN is going to be a financial boon, huh?

That is not what either of thsoe statements say AT ALL. The BTN overall is a cash cow for the Big Ten, unless you feel the Big Ten's share of $220 million+ last year is not a considered a cash cow. Hockey will be a nice additional piece to the BTN and it will add revenue, no one said how much but the fact that it would add revenue, would add some additional viewers and subscribers and defnitely wouldn't be a drain on resources makes it a viable commodity. Your mixing and matching things to suit your shortsighted uninformed argument rather than actually reading, understanding and learning. Something you ought to think about.

[MNHockeyFan]

That is not what either of thsoe statements say AT ALL. The BTN overall is a cash cow for the Big Ten, unless you feel the Big Ten's share of $220 million+ last year is not a considered a cash cow. Hockey will be a nice additional piece to the BTN and it will add revenue, no one said how much but the fact that it would add revenue, would add some additional viewers and subscribers and defnitely wouldn't be a drain on resources makes it a viable commodity.

Exactly!

[WayOutWest]

Hockey will be a nice additional piece to the BTN and it will add revenue, no one said how much but the fact that it would add revenue, ....... and defnitely wouldn't be a drain on resources makes it a viable commodity.

Add revenue? No drain on resources? That's a leap of faith, at best.

Your mixing and matching things to suit your shortsighted uninformed argument rather than actually reading, understanding and learning. Something you ought to think about.

Oh, the irony.
And, don't pat yourself on the back too hard. There is nothing to learn from you.

[no97]

FYI - WCHA Commissioner Bruce McLeod said on TV tonight that Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney told him that they intend on starting the Big 10 Hockey Conference in 2014. Take that for what it's worth.

[Gopher Blog]

FYI - WCHA Commissioner Bruce McLeod said on TV tonight that Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney told him that they intend on starting the Big 10 Hockey Conference in 2014. Take that for what it's worth.

WayOutWest probably doesn't think those guys are legitimate sources of information on the topic. Either that or he will want a link to the broadcast McLeod said it on

[no97]

FYI - WCHA Commissioner Bruce McLeod said on TV tonight that Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney told him that they intend on starting the Big 10 Hockey Conference in 2014. Take that for what it's worth.

WayOutWest probably doesn't think those guys are legitimate sources of information on the topic. Either that or he will want a link to the broadcast McLeod said it on

You mean like this?

http://www.denverpost.com/fanmail/ci_16 ... z12RHK5bIp

"Hi Coach, CC fan here. But think it's great that Colorado has two of the top programs in the country. CC-DU games are always fun. My question is: With Penn State adding Division I hockey in the next couple of years, do you think there is a danger of the Big Ten hockey schools breaking away from the WCHA/CCHA to form their own hockey conference?
--Jim, Colorado Springs

What do you think about Penn State starting a Division I program? And what about early conversation that Penn State is trying to lure Wisconsin and Minnesota away from from the WCHA? Does the WCHA need to make some early moves to protect itself? Do you predict some of the same changes in college hockey that we saw in college football?
--Rich

Jim and Rich, the Big Ten Conference has stated their intention to sponsor a Big Ten hockey conference once Penn State officially begins Division I play. It is estimated they would start for the 2014- 2015 season.
All six of the Big Ten hockey schools (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State) will be obligated to play in the Big Ten hockey conference no matter what their loyalties are to their current leagues.

The WCHA is determined to maintain its status as the best college hockey conference in the country. The WCHA is currently reviewing and discussing all future strategies for scheduling and expansion."



Gwoz in the Denver Post do it for ya? Ha, actual sources - who knew?

[JSR]

Hockey will be a nice additional piece to the BTN and it will add revenue, no one said how much but the fact that it would add revenue, ....... and defnitely wouldn't be a drain on resources makes it a viable commodity.

Add revenue? No drain on resources? That's a leap of faith, at best.

Your mixing and matching things to suit your shortsighted uninformed argument rather than actually reading, understanding and learning. Something you ought to think about.

Oh, the irony.
And, don't pat yourself on the back too hard. There is nothing to learn from you.

OMG.... It's not a leap of faith it's simple economics. Very simple actually.

Your other retort doesn't actually even make any sense. I am starting to think I have been bamboozled into arguing with a 12 year old kid. Yikes. Sorry about that kid.

[JSR]

FYI - WCHA Commissioner Bruce McLeod said on TV tonight that Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney told him that they intend on starting the Big 10 Hockey Conference in 2014. Take that for what it's worth.

WayOutWest probably doesn't think those guys are legitimate sources of information on the topic. Either that or he will want a link to the broadcast McLeod said it on

You mean like this?

http://www.denverpost.com/fanmail/ci_16 ... z12RHK5bIp

"Hi Coach, CC fan here. But think it's great that Colorado has two of the top programs in the country. CC-DU games are always fun. My question is: With Penn State adding Division I hockey in the next couple of years, do you think there is a danger of the Big Ten hockey schools breaking away from the WCHA/CCHA to form their own hockey conference?
--Jim, Colorado Springs

What do you think about Penn State starting a Division I program? And what about early conversation that Penn State is trying to lure Wisconsin and Minnesota away from from the WCHA? Does the WCHA need to make some early moves to protect itself? Do you predict some of the same changes in college hockey that we saw in college football?
--Rich

Jim and Rich, the Big Ten Conference has stated their intention to sponsor a Big Ten hockey conference once Penn State officially begins Division I play. It is estimated they would start for the 2014- 2015 season.
All six of the Big Ten hockey schools (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State) will be obligated to play in the Big Ten hockey conference no matter what their loyalties are to their current leagues.

The WCHA is determined to maintain its status as the best college hockey conference in the country. The WCHA is currently reviewing and discussing all future strategies for scheduling and expansion."



Gwoz in the Denver Post do it for ya? Ha, actual sources - who knew?

Huh, what do you know. I think if you page back a few pages in this thread you'll find those exact same statements made by posters in this thread with other sources like the Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez and I think the Minne AD as well..... wayout won;t even believe this, I mean why would he believe his own lying eyes

[WayOutWest]

Your other retort doesn't actually even make any sense. I am starting to think I have been bamboozled into arguing with a 12 year old kid. Yikes. Sorry about that kid.

Highbrow.
Imagine my surprise.