Washington to possibly join the Big Ten

Donate To GopherHole
Sparlimb said:
Oregon already said they'd have a Div 1 hockey arena built within 2 years of joining the Big Ten. So wouldn't surprise me if Washington did too.
Click to expand...
noamfromm said:
While I appreciate teams like Lindenwood, Augustana and LIU Brooklyn making the jump to D1; getting teams like UW, USC, Oregon and a Illinois would really help college hockey.
Click to expand...
Iowa would be another good one.

And they already have the arena built. They play volleyball in it now and it also hosts a minor league hockey team. https://dailyiowan.com/2020/09/09/x...tar-attraction-for-iowa-corridor-communities/

No idea if they (Iowa) have any interest, and they just cut some programs using the covid excuse (Coyle pulled the same trick).
 
Last edited:

Gopher_In_NYC said:
Cal is a state school btw, so same potential jeopardy attached to UCLA is still there
Click to expand...
If both were invited, suddenly all concern about "student wellbeing" would melt away like a snowman in Tahiti.

The concern has always been about financial damage to Berkeley due to lowering the value of the PAC for the remaining schools.
 

noamfromm said:
While true citing that MSU, Michigan and Notre Dame were in the wcha as recently as 1980 and spent 10 years with the Sioux and Bulldogs doesn't seem relevant.

Adding those two teams would create two good series for the gophers, but that doesn't answer the question about why the Big Ten would want to share revenue with or travel to those locations?
Click to expand...
Traveling to Duluth and GF is no different for Big Ten hockey teams than traveling to Mpls. They likely charter, since they have so much gear to bring along.

Revenue share would be a minuscule fraction for being just a hockey affiliate member. They wouldn't get any football money.
 


Gophers_4life said:
Traveling to Duluth and GF is no different for Big Ten hockey teams than traveling to Mpls. They likely charter, since they have so much gear to bring along.

Revenue share would be a minuscule fraction for being just a hockey affiliate member. They wouldn't get any football money.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how, it's still the fact that they are travelling there. For PSU they are then adding two 1000+ mile flights they currently don't have.
 


Gophers_4life said:
Rabid fanbases, great arenas.

I really doubt a ton of casual folks are tuning into a regular season college hockey match on TV, if you can even find such a thing outside of regional networks.

It's the fanbases that are tuning in.
Click to expand...
If I am a weaker member in big ten hockey why do I want to bring in two teams that are better than me? Someone needs to take losses in a conference and it would likely lead to it making it harder for those teams to compete nationally and in the conference. Additionally if I am North Dakota and UMD why do I want to give up being a top dog in the NCHC? Texas and OK moved for money, if you're right and there is no money this move makes little sense.
 

Live in the now said:
If your referring to the hockey it’s not worth the money for the fans around here. Final five was probably the coolest sports event around. I loved college hockey and now I hardly watch it.
Click to expand...

Then you don't love college hockey. Sorry. You love an event. If you loved hockey you would still watch the game has not changed just the opponents. And I would rather watch most of the Big Ten over a lot of the WCHA teams that people seem to pretend they liked watching play. (but no one ever went to the arena to watch)

You also don't remember how it really was you are looking back with rose colored glasses. The only reason the Final Five made money was the Gophers. If the Gopher Fans didn't buy tickets it would have been a very empty arena. (in person attendance sucked the years the Gophs didn't make it...I know I worked it at its peak and attended at its worst) The WCHA was dying long before the Big Ten they just kept trying to find ways to put Band-Aids on a broken arm. There were too many teams (making scheduling a mess) and the vast majority of them needed the Gophers to come to town just to fund their program. Hell Denver fans I know (hardcores) truly thought when the Big Ten hit they were done for because their athletic department needed those games against Minnesota and Wisconsin. (see also: The Minnesota Teams and Colorado College not to mention UAA) The WCHA was bloated and dying and needed to split but since no teams wanted to give up rivalries they just kept kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile the super-bloated CCHA was even worse and Michigan and MSU wanted out. (Red despised having to play all the Yooper schools) All they needed was an excuse and Penn State gave it to them.

What is happening with USC and UCLA is not the same...I may not like it but it does enhance the brand. Expanding the WCHA past 10 teams killed it because it was so top heavy and college hockey is a niche version of a niche sport.
 

Word said:
Don't want to get too much into the hockey debate because this is the football board, but really the only reason the hockey stuff changed is because Penn State added hockey. Once you had 6 Big Ten Schools you had to join the Big Ten hockey conference. It's how it works for all sports in the Big Ten. It wasn't really just a money thing (except maybe for Penn State).

I will also say I just think college hockey isn't what it used to be nation-wide. The addition of more D1 teams has diluted the talent pool.
Click to expand...

This is literally not true. The "6 team rule" was never a thing and has been debunked about a zillion times over the years. 6 teams was the minimum needed to sponsor but there was no trigger. The reason it happened was Barry and Red wanted it, MSU and PSU did as well so they had the votes. Minnesota voted against it not that it mattered.

(this info comes from people inside the hockey office at the time)
 




Dave H said:
Then you don't love college hockey. Sorry. You love an event. If you loved hockey you would still watch the game has not changed just the opponents. And I would rather watch most of the Big Ten over a lot of the WCHA teams that people seem to pretend they liked watching play. (but no one ever went to the arena to watch)

You also don't remember how it really was you are looking back with rose colored glasses. The only reason the Final Five made money was the Gophers. If the Gopher Fans didn't buy tickets it would have been a very empty arena. (in person attendance sucked the years the Gophs didn't make it...I know I worked it at its peak and attended at its worst) The WCHA was dying long before the Big Ten they just kept trying to find ways to put Band-Aids on a broken arm. There were too many teams (making scheduling a mess) and the vast majority of them needed the Gophers to come to town just to fund their program. Hell Denver fans I know (hardcores) truly thought when the Big Ten hit they were done for because their athletic department needed those games against Minnesota and Wisconsin. (see also: The Minnesota Teams and Colorado College not to mention UAA) The WCHA was bloated and dying and needed to split but since no teams wanted to give up rivalries they just kept kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile the super-bloated CCHA was even worse and Michigan and MSU wanted out. (Red despised having to play all the Yooper schools) All they needed was an excuse and Penn State gave it to them.

What is happening with USC and UCLA is not the same...I may not like it but it does enhance the brand. Expanding the WCHA past 10 teams killed it because it was so top heavy and college hockey is a niche version of a niche sport.
Click to expand...
I just miss the rivalry games I guess and loved the 5. The home and homes, all the Minnesota teams playing each other. And even the game times. Always Friday and Saturday. It guess I just miss the traditions. Be like messing with the high school tourney if that makes sense. And all the years of the 5 even without the gophers I’ve never seen such weak crowds as at the big 10 championship. Not even close. You make good and valid points but I just miss it.
 

Dave H said:
This is literally not true. The "6 team rule" was never a thing and has been debunked about a zillion times over the years. 6 teams was the minimum needed to sponsor but there was no trigger. The reason it happened was Barry and Red wanted it, MSU and PSU did as well so they had the votes. Minnesota voted against it not that it mattered.

(this info comes from people inside the hockey office at the time)
Click to expand...
Call it what you want but you're basically saying we were stuck joining the big ten, right?
 
Last edited:

Live in the now said:
I just miss the rivalry games I guess and loved the 5. The home and homes, all the Minnesota teams playing each other. And even the game times. Always Friday and Saturday. It guess I just miss the traditions. Be like messing with the high school tourney if that makes sense. And all the years of the 5 even without the gophers I’ve never seen such weak crowds as at the big 10 championship. Not even close. You make good and valid points but I just miss it.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 

PMWinSTP said:
With the Kraken, that certainly could be a possibility. Seattle has really embraced hockey. I still don't get why Northwestern and Illinois don't add Mens/Womens NCAA B1G hockey. I know Illinois seriously looked at adding it.
Click to expand...
The Kraken donated a big chunk of the money to save the program at UAA.
 



disco said:
The Kraken donated a big chunk of the money to save the program at UAA.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Wonder why they haven't approached UW as it has a college team in ACHA, and play its home games at the Kraken Commmunity Iceplex, which is Kraken's practice facility. The Iceplex is really nice.
 


noamfromm said:
Regardless of how, it's still the fact that they are travelling there. For PSU they are then adding two 1000+ mile flights they currently don't have.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't be doing three flights a year to Mpls, Duluth, and GF. Not really any difference between those and Madison, either.

noamfromm said:
If I am a weaker member in big ten hockey why do I want to bring in two teams that are better than me? Someone needs to take losses in a conference and it would likely lead to it making it harder for those teams to compete nationally and in the conference. Additionally if I am North Dakota and UMD why do I want to give up being a top dog in the NCHC? Texas and OK moved for money, if you're right and there is no money this move makes little sense.
Click to expand...
If I'm a weaker member of Big Ten football (Illinois, Rutgers), why do I want to bring in two teams that are better than me (USC, UCLA)?

You're not really saying that the weak members of a conference should be able to block the conference from getting stronger?

UND and UMD would join Big Ten hockey in a nanosecond, for the prestige. I doubt you really think otherwise.
 


Gophers_4life said:
They wouldn't be doing three flights a year to Mpls, Duluth, and GF. Not really any difference between those and Madison, either.


If I'm a weaker member of Big Ten football (Illinois, Rutgers), why do I want to bring in two teams that are better than me (USC, UCLA)?

You're not really saying that the weak members of a conference should be able to block the conference from getting stronger?

UND and UMD would join Big Ten hockey in a nanosecond, for the prestige. I doubt you really think otherwise.
Click to expand...
They could easily have to go to mpls, duluth, and gf in one season -- it wouldn't be every year but they could.

To your second point Illinois and Rutgers support bringing in those schools for the money. As you pointed out duluth and north dakota aren't bringing in money.

Lastly yes, I do not believe they would join "for the prestige". If they want to win national titles they're better off in the NCHC, they have something like 5 titles since realignment to the big ten's 0.
 


noamfromm said:
They could easily have to go to mpls, duluth, and gf in one season -- it wouldn't be every year but they could.

To your second point Illinois and Rutgers support bringing in those schools for the money. As you pointed out duluth and north dakota aren't bringing in money.
Click to expand...
You win these points. I agree with you, you've got it correct.

Minn and Wisc are the only "old WCHA" teams, while Mich, MSU, OSU, and ND are "old CCHA" teams, and so would have been Penn St if that old division had stayed.

I agree with you that the "CCHA" teams probably have no interest in doing even one extra (at least) western trip per year.

Would not be bringing in more money. There really isn't much money to be had.

noamfromm said:
Lastly yes, I do not believe they would join "for the prestige". If they want to win national titles they're better off in the NCHC, they have something like 5 titles since realignment to the big ten's 0.
Click to expand...
So wouldn't it be easier for them to win the Big Ten than the NCHC, then? So it would easier to win the national title as a Big Ten member than a NCHC member.

And you're also agreeing that adding UND and UMD would strengthen the Big Ten (not saying you ever said otherwise). That is my only point as to what they "offer" the conference (beyond the obvious selfish point of getting two important rivals back in for Minnesota).


But like you said, why would the "CCHA" teams want to add on those two, have more long trips, just to likely be losing to those programs and make it that much harder to win the conf? Probably not
 


Very interesting topic to consider. I think the addition of Washington is inevitable.
www.seattletimes.com

UW to the Big Ten? What’s on the line isn’t just about football | Op-Ed

Whether the University of Washington athletic program stays in the Pac-12 or moves to the Big Ten, the impacts are far-reaching.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com

I realize there is another thread with the same title but that one is actually about WCHA hockey.
 


Schnauzer said:
Very interesting topic to consider. I think the addition of Washington is inevitable.
www.seattletimes.com

UW to the Big Ten? What’s on the line isn’t just about football | Op-Ed

Whether the University of Washington athletic program stays in the Pac-12 or moves to the Big Ten, the impacts are far-reaching.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com

I realize there is another thread with the same title but that one is actually about WCHA hockey.
Click to expand...
How long before this thread devolves into a conversation about old Gopher hockey rivalries?
 

OP article is Sept 9, and is not based in actual reality.

No point to having this (duplicate) thread.


Mods, please combine this with the other thread.
 



Goldy playing with their dog mascot would be adorable.

It seems to fit perfectly.

I often sort of thought of Washington as the Minnesota of the PAC in a way.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Goldy playing with their dog mascot would be adorable.

It seems to fit perfectly.

I often sort of thought of Washington as the Minnesota of the PAC in a way.
Click to expand...
except for success in hockey -- especially their lack of success against former WCHA and current NCHC teams like North Dakota and Duluth
 

Washington should start a new hockey team and join the NCHC

Oops! Let me post that in the other one, too
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom