Notre Dame Considers Not Going It Alone
- Thread starter ruralgopher
- Start date
DiehardGopher
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I want to see Texas in the B10 for two simple and selfish reasons. Firstly, imagine all of those high school athletes watching B10 football on the B10 network; it can only help recruiting in one of the biggest football states. Secondly, I want to see all those texas boys cry when they have to come to the frigid north to play a game in mid-november at TCF.
I have 3 things to say here:
1) Notre Dame has a hockey team. That's a good thing.
2) Notre Dame is beatable in football. That's a good thing.
3) Notre Dame sucks and my hatred is indescriminative enough for them to join wisc, iowa, and mich. That's a good thing.
1) Notre Dame has a hockey team. That's a good thing.
2) Notre Dame is beatable in football. That's a good thing.
3) Notre Dame sucks and my hatred is indescriminative enough for them to join wisc, iowa, and mich. That's a good thing.
Why? I'm no hockey expert, but ouldn't ND stay in their hockey conference? Joining the Big Ten wouldn't push them into the WCHA...
MrGopher
The Anti-Sioux
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,640
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
There exists a substantial group of people who see the Big Ten as a future hockey conference. I don't agree with them, personally, but they do have one or two compelling arguments.
Gopher07
Captain of Awesome
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 9,008
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 38
Yeah, the word is if the Big Ten could get one more D-1 hockey team (thus giving them the six they would need to start a conference, with Minn, Wisc, Mich, MSU, OSU, +1) there would be a lot of pressure to get a Big Ten league. Not sure it needs to happen, although having a hockey league with a nationally-recognizable name (like Big Ten) would probably help the sport as a whole in the long run.
Another problem for ND
Right now ND is in the Big East for all sports but football. If the B10 expands along with other movements in conferences, the Big East may fold and ND would be left High and Dry. They would have a problem getting into another conference for just their non football programs. Money aside they will then need another conference with the same deal the Big East gave them.
Right now ND is in the Big East for all sports but football. If the B10 expands along with other movements in conferences, the Big East may fold and ND would be left High and Dry. They would have a problem getting into another conference for just their non football programs. Money aside they will then need another conference with the same deal the Big East gave them.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
The $22 million isn't all from the Big Ten Network. That is the slice of the pie each school gets from all TV revenue. The addition of the Big Ten Network simply gave the conference a boost to this level and the ability to chart their own course when it comes to adding to that total (via adding new teams in untapped TV markets).
Answer
If ND leaves they won't fold but if the B10 expands and take Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt (not for sure but ND has to consider this) and then other Big East teams decide to jump ship the conference could fold. If not it would have changed enough that ND may not think it is adequate for all their men and womens non football sports.
Any way ND has many things to consider. Consequences if they do or if they don't.
If ND leaves they won't fold but if the B10 expands and take Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt (not for sure but ND has to consider this) and then other Big East teams decide to jump ship the conference could fold. If not it would have changed enough that ND may not think it is adequate for all their men and womens non football sports.
Any way ND has many things to consider. Consequences if they do or if they don't.
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
I think dpdoll may be right on this. As I understood it, the Big East has 2 TV deals (one for football and one for basketball). However, I'm not sure if all the conference schools see part of that football money or not. If they don't then the loss of schools like Rutgers/Syracuse could hurt the football schools who depend on that football TV deal for revenue. However, the Marquette's/Georgetown's of the conference really wouldn't see anything change from the status quo. There are some major assumptions being made by me here though.
EDIT: Slight clarification. What I'm saying is that its possible that there might still be a Big East in the above scenario. However, I could see it looking radically different (e.g. only the non-football schools remain).
EDIT: Slight clarification. What I'm saying is that its possible that there might still be a Big East in the above scenario. However, I could see it looking radically different (e.g. only the non-football schools remain).
Hates Monikers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,973
- Reaction score
- 629
- Points
- 113
Also, keep in mind that cable networks like the BTN have two revenue streams: advertising, which is based on viewership, as well as cable subscriptions, which is based on how many homes have it on their cable package, regardless of how many people actually watch it.
As was said, a 6th current Big Ten hockey team would be huge in returning to a Big Ten hockey conference. There are admittedly pros and cons from both perspectives, but I prefer to see it happen (at least in the next 10-15 years). With 5 current schools, the 12th Big Ten school will be a pivotal factor in this.
For example, Penn St has openly said they want to play D-I hockey. However, this will not make them money if they are playing in some random eastern conference against your Quinnipiacs, Niagaras, and RPIs. If the Big Ten conference reformed, however, Penn St could thrive like the other schools, when drawing your Minnesotas, Michigans, and Wisconsins. Illinois has looked into having a team as well, meaning we could see 8 teams in the end.
JoeDirt
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,170
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
if this scenario played out, have you heard what would happen with NoDak, St. Cloud, Mankato, Duluth, Bemidji? Would they start their own conference?
A Big10 Hockey conference is the worst idea ever. It would KILL college hockey, as a lot of smaller programs would be forced to fold because of the revenue they would lose from not playing a Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, or Michigan State multiple times every year.
Also, our biggest rival in hockey is North Dakota, and I believe our University has a policy that schools with American Indian nicknames (they have been deemed "hostile and abusive" by the late scumbag Myles Brand) will not be played unless they are in conference or in NCAA championship events/tournaments. Losing those series against the Sioux every year would be terrible for both programs and college hockey as a whole.
There are lots of reasons to want Notre Dame in the Big Ten, but making a Big10 Hockey Conference is definitely not one of them.
Also, our biggest rival in hockey is North Dakota, and I believe our University has a policy that schools with American Indian nicknames (they have been deemed "hostile and abusive" by the late scumbag Myles Brand) will not be played unless they are in conference or in NCAA championship events/tournaments. Losing those series against the Sioux every year would be terrible for both programs and college hockey as a whole.
There are lots of reasons to want Notre Dame in the Big Ten, but making a Big10 Hockey Conference is definitely not one of them.
In the Big East the 8 football schools split the football revenue (about $13 million or $2.5 mil per school- if you're scoring at home, every Big Ten school made about $9 million more than the entire Big East conference combined!) and the 16 basketball schools share the hoops revenue (about $20 million, or $1.25 mil per school. Thanks to the B10 Network Joel Maturi just found that much money in his office couch cushions).
MrGopher
The Anti-Sioux
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,640
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I wish NCAA football was much more standardized in terms of conference structure.
There are 120 teams. Make 10 conferences, 12 teams each, 2 divisions each. Every conference plays a championship game. These games will all take place on the same weekend. National title contenders must win their conference in order to compete for a national title, and all conference champs will get a shot at the national title.
I'm sick of these pesky independents, complaints about the fairness of championship games, huge time gaps between regular season and bowl season. Mostly I'm sick of money and politics getting in the way of having some degree of consistency and fairness in NCAA football.
There are 120 teams. Make 10 conferences, 12 teams each, 2 divisions each. Every conference plays a championship game. These games will all take place on the same weekend. National title contenders must win their conference in order to compete for a national title, and all conference champs will get a shot at the national title.
I'm sick of these pesky independents, complaints about the fairness of championship games, huge time gaps between regular season and bowl season. Mostly I'm sick of money and politics getting in the way of having some degree of consistency and fairness in NCAA football.
highwayman
Knows Less Than PJ Fleck
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 8,056
- Reaction score
- 1,760
- Points
- 113
Let's make it clear right now. There will NEVER be a Big Ten hockey conference. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Even at Michigan, it is a non-revenue sport. Mch, MSU, and OSU are in the CCHA because it is a bus league. NDame as well. Fairbanks pays for them to travel to Alaska.
There are only three NCAA schools that hockey is truly a revenue sport: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. After that, it is small profit or break-even at best, even at Michigan.
Hey, I'm a big Gopher booster, but Minnesota is very provincial about Gopher hockey. Outside the borders of NoDak, Wisc, and Minn, college hockey is an afterthought. Not one Big Ten school will be willing to (re-)band together and form a Big Ten hockey conference. There is so much to lose and very, very little to gain but perhaps a new logo...
dpodoll68
Elite Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 19,323
- Reaction score
- 971
- Points
- 113
I don't know why I'm speaking up here, as I couldn't care less about hockey, but this statement is false.
On a quick google search, I found this data from 2007:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwrV-D-_tTUSpdM2lWCeTdQ
Top 10 Most Profitable D-I College Men's Hockey Programs (2007)
1. Minnesota $4,568,621
2. NoDak $1,947,521
3. Boston $1,734,948
4. Vermont $1,262,874
5. Wisconsin $1,238,362
6. Maine $1,190,577
7. St. Cloud $629,721
8. UMD $619,920
9. Cornell $590,871
10. Color. Coll. $408,066
I don't know for certain, but I would assume that, outside of Minnesota and Wisconsin, the profits from men's hockey make up a large portion of the athletic budget for these schools.
Gopherphile
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 28
i think the more you go over this, the less sense it makes for the big ten to add just one team. you obviously can't add two, so i think the options are adding either one, three or five teams to the mix.
if you went the three team route, you could come up with texas, t a&m (assuming they're part of a texas deal), and nd. you'd have succeeded in many ways but the geographic mix is still out of balance with the texas schools all alone.
if you went the five team route, you could go one of two ways:
a.) texas, t a&m, nd, rutgers, mizzou - you'd have a better integrated conf. geographically and would have picked up "senators" with mizzou and rutgers while opening up the conf to both the south and the eastern seaboard.
b.) texas, t a&m, nd, mizzou and either kansas or oklahoma - not a fan of adding the sooners as they're an sec academic underperforming type, but you'd have linked all the fan bases in the conference with geographic integrity. kansas might be a better fit on paper...
if you went the three team route, you could come up with texas, t a&m (assuming they're part of a texas deal), and nd. you'd have succeeded in many ways but the geographic mix is still out of balance with the texas schools all alone.
if you went the five team route, you could go one of two ways:
a.) texas, t a&m, nd, rutgers, mizzou - you'd have a better integrated conf. geographically and would have picked up "senators" with mizzou and rutgers while opening up the conf to both the south and the eastern seaboard.
b.) texas, t a&m, nd, mizzou and either kansas or oklahoma - not a fan of adding the sooners as they're an sec academic underperforming type, but you'd have linked all the fan bases in the conference with geographic integrity. kansas might be a better fit on paper...
DiehardGopher
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
I thought we were just looking to expand with one more team, has there been talk of adding 3 or even 5?
GoAUpher
Section 246
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,256
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
Some sources mentioned it as a possibility soon after the conference announced expansion was on the table. Haven't heard the conference really push the idea overall, but the rumors of "superconference" moves have been there for a while now from sportswriters, etc.
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,474
- Reaction score
- 209
- Points
- 63
There has mostly been talk about adding one team, but there has been some talk about adding three teams to have two seven team divisions. I doubt three will be added, at least at this time. I think the Big Ten will add one team at some point, and perhaps think about two more a ways down the road.
The idea of the NCAA "standardizing" conferences has a less than zero chance of talking place. The NCAA isn't some cabal meeting in a smoke-filled room, it's made up of the member schools, who would never agree to this - there would never be enough votes for this. Even if there were, you'ld see conference bolting from the NCAA to form their own athletic association.
I know some people want a Big Ten Hockey Conference, but it is unlikely to happen. If there were major schools that were serious about adding hockey, wouldn't they have already done so when there was ample opportunity to join? Penn State could easily have joined the WCHA years ago. Even if a Big Ten hockey conference were to be formed, it would wind up adding several associate members, it would be small for a hockey conference.
The idea of the NCAA "standardizing" conferences has a less than zero chance of talking place. The NCAA isn't some cabal meeting in a smoke-filled room, it's made up of the member schools, who would never agree to this - there would never be enough votes for this. Even if there were, you'ld see conference bolting from the NCAA to form their own athletic association.
I know some people want a Big Ten Hockey Conference, but it is unlikely to happen. If there were major schools that were serious about adding hockey, wouldn't they have already done so when there was ample opportunity to join? Penn State could easily have joined the WCHA years ago. Even if a Big Ten hockey conference were to be formed, it would wind up adding several associate members, it would be small for a hockey conference.
A lot of schools used to have DI hockey teams but dropped them. Part of this has to do with Title IX, part has to do with the expense of the equipment and facilities in areas of the country where the support for the sport isn't always there. It just doesn't pay to keep around another expensive mens varsity sport unless you're going to make enough money to support it and another womens varsity program.
maxwellsmart
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2009
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Let's make it clear right now. There will NEVER be a Big Ten hockey conference. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Even at Michigan, it is a non-revenue sport. Mch, MSU, and OSU are in the CCHA because it is a bus league. NDame as well. Fairbanks pays for them to travel to Alaska.
There are only three NCAA schools that hockey is truly a revenue sport: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. After that, it is small profit or break-even at best, even at Michigan.
Hey, I'm a big Gopher booster, but Minnesota is very provincial about Gopher hockey. Outside the borders of NoDak, Wisc, and Minn, college hockey is an afterthought. Not one Big Ten school will be willing to (re-)band together and form a Big Ten hockey conference. There is so much to lose and very, very little to gain but perhaps a new logo...
Let's make it clear right now. Most times posters who emphatically state "Never" end up eating their words at some point down the road. You said it not once, but four times. From the contents of your post, my guess is that you don't understand much about the nature of college hockey in the U.S. You've completely discounted the popularity of the sport in the eastern states and posted completely erroneous information about hockey as a revenue sport. If you know something the rest of the hockey community doesn't please provide supporting information.
RodentRampage
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,474
- Reaction score
- 209
- Points
- 63
Hockey is relatively big in the northeastern and north central states, but for major schools that don't have hockey what's to stop them from creating a new conference? If they don't want to play with D-III schools, they can just start programs of their own, and create a new conference. Even among hockey fans support for a Big Ten conference isn't that high.
They would remain as the WCHA. C'mon -- No Dak, Denver, and CC are stable, solid programs. All 4 Minnesota based schools will have support, so long as they are competitive to a modest level (this is MN, we love hockey). The fact that college hockey is expanding... (yes, this is true) confirms that a new conference is due up soon. Why not a Big Ten conference? 1) there used to be one, 2) we're on the bubble for having enough teams, 3) a major conference adding hockey will encourage more major schools to upgrade their programs. Don't think for one moment that it's only Minn, Mich, and Mass schools playing hockey. There are many, many schools with hockey, just not at the D-I level where they would be noticed.
To answer your question -- The WCHA is at 10 teams, 12 next year. Take out MN and WI, and it's still at 10 with STRONG fan support and it is the top conference in the country. It would still be one of the best without us.
Let's make it clear right now. There will NEVER be a Big Ten hockey conference. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Even at Michigan, it is a non-revenue sport. Mch, MSU, and OSU are in the CCHA because it is a bus league. NDame as well. Fairbanks pays for them to travel to Alaska.
There are only three NCAA schools that hockey is truly a revenue sport: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. After that, it is small profit or break-even at best, even at Michigan.
Hey, I'm a big Gopher booster, but Minnesota is very provincial about Gopher hockey. Outside the borders of NoDak, Wisc, and Minn, college hockey is an afterthought. Not one Big Ten school will be willing to (re-)band together and form a Big Ten hockey conference. There is so much to lose and very, very little to gain but perhaps a new logo...
This entire post is inaccurate, as proven by a previous poster. Hockey is much stronger than people think. It just needs someone to play the shepherd and lead the NCAA to a traditional level. Enter the Big Ten.
I think the biggest move would be the Big Ten gaining a 6th and 7th school in hockey, and a major eastern conference doing the same. If both made a jump, it would be huge for college hockey. For now, only the Big Ten can consider the move. We used to have a Big Ten conference though... it will happen again, so long as funds support it. The NHL is growing, and American players are gaining ground -- and they start at the NCAA level. Even ESPN is carrying NCAA hockey highlights now...
All I'm saying is keep the door open and give it 10-15 years.