(04-02-2014 09:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  how does a conference decide to sponsor a sport? does it need approval by majority of members? can a school opt out? I dont think BC would be too keen on leaving hockey east for a start up acc hockey league

I believe 4 teams in a sport mean the conference sponsors it. I don't think anyone can opt out. BC would probably try to facilitate a "merger" between the ACC & HE before they were forced out of HE.

Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Who else would car about hockey other than hockey fans? Hockey east is the best hockey league by many accounts. It would take awhile for schools that dont currently sponsor hockey to become one of the best leagues. Unlike the b10 whose teams already sponsored Hockey the ACC would be starting form scratch

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

They wouldn't and that's the point, they would rather stay in hockey east than go into a new conference with 2 or more new teams who will play worse than most division III teams for a decade.

You need 6 teams in any sport for an auto-bid. The ACC only has 5 in lacrosse so there is no auto-bid there.

(04-02-2014 09:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  how does a conference decide to sponsor a sport? does it need approval by majority of members? can a school opt out?

Its up to the conference bylaws how it makes the decision ... the NCAA requires four schools playing the sport for the conference to sponsor sports other than BBall and FBS Football, and six schools for an automatic bid to the conference champion in the NCAA championship in the sport ...

... but its not automatic that every conference with four or more schools in a sport has to sponsor that sport.

For example, the Big Ten had five hockey schools for years, but the Big Ten by-laws specify that six schools have to play a sport before the conference will sponsor it, so Big Ten hockey wasn't started until Penn State got their big donation to start up DI ice hockey.

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

No doubt BC benefits financially from the ACC, but that brand hasn't helped BC in its other sports (see basketball coach hiring process). There is no chance BC would voluntarily leave Hockey East for the ACC, and the fact that you dont think people know about the league speaks to your interest in hockey and not the leagues brand. Right now, BC has several cross town rivals, and competive teams in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and, hopefully soon, CT. You don't give that up unless you have to.

(04-04-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

No doubt BC benefits financially from the ACC, but that brand hasn't helped BC in its other sports (see basketball coach hiring process). There is no chance BC would voluntarily leave Hockey East for the ACC, and the fact that you dont think people know about the league speaks to your interest in hockey and not the leagues brand. Right now, BC has several cross town rivals, and competive teams in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and, hopefully soon, CT. You don't give that up unless you have to.

I do know college hockey to a great degree - started following it when my college, NAU had a DI team. But I am talking about the casual fan. HE may mean something to the rabid fan, but not to anyone else.

When you are in a conference, you give and get. Unless you are Notre Dame, then you just get.

So if Pitt, Syracuse, VA and UNC all started DI teams, with no place to go, and the conference voted to sponsor it - what is BC and ND going to do - withdraw from the ACC (ND might)?

(04-04-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

No doubt BC benefits financially from the ACC, but that brand hasn't helped BC in its other sports (see basketball coach hiring process). There is no chance BC would voluntarily leave Hockey East for the ACC, and the fact that you dont think people know about the league speaks to your interest in hockey and not the leagues brand. Right now, BC has several cross town rivals, and competive teams in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and, hopefully soon, CT. You don't give that up unless you have to.

Whaler, I agree that BC would prefer not to leave HE for just the reasons you stated. That said, make no mistake, if the ACC ever desired to form a hockey league and BC was required to be the anchor of the fledging conference, it would readily do so. The ACC $$'s are just too significant and, it would need to protect foootball, which is the #1 sport at BC (regardless of the elite status of the BC hockey program).

Regarding your other comment about the ACC not "helping" BC with the MBB hiring process - with all due respect, I think that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of BC (which, IMO, a lot of your fellow Uconn fans seem to have, as well as others).

The hierarchy of sports at BC is:
#1 Football
#2 Hockey
#3 Basketball

FB is by far a critical priority for BC. When it went off the rails in the Spaz era, alarm bells sounded and BC brought in the perfect coach for the program - a passionate visionary who has established a distinct culture at BC as well as being a prolific recruiter. He has resurrected the BC program far sooner than any of us thought he would (although he will have a challenge this year as the last effects of the Spaz era recruiting are felt). Most of us feel very good about where BC is heading from a FB perspective.

Hockey - what do you do for a program that is pretty much unanimously considered to be the premier college hockey program in the country? You leave it alone.

Basketball is an interesting subject at BC. BC understands they need to be decently good and these past couple of seasons are totally unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. That said, I think the BC Administration looks at what it tales to be an elite program in BB and are not willing to go that route. Yes, they WANT to be successful along the lines of the Skinner era, but, IMO, they are not willing to make the trade-offs to be an elite program.

Football and hockey are different animals. While more challenging, you still can run elite programs and have high level academics (see Stanford, Notre Dame in FB and BC in hockey). BC is quite comfortable with this. Basketball on the other hand, is a whole different universe. Since your are a Uconn fan, let me put this in a different contect. I readily acknowledge that Uconn has an elite MBB program. However attaining that status, has not come without some costs, IMO (something many of your fellow Uconn fans tend to gloss over, IMO). Uconn has been flagged by the NCAA for recruiting violations and tolerated, for an extended time, abysmal graduation and APR rates. IMO, that is not a reflection on the institution as a whole, but it IS a reflection on the trade-offs they have been willing to make in the name of being an elite MBB program.

Bottom line, IMO, BC is not wiling to make these kind of trade offs. Being a member of the ACC has nothing to do with this. BC could have gone out and spent whatever it takes to get a front line coach, promising recruiting "flexibility" in the process. It CHOSE not to do this. That's a big difference. By comparison, IMO, no such trade-offs are needed for FB and hockey. In FB, BC is well on the way back to being a team that will challenge each year for the ACC title.

Again, BC's current performance level in MBB is unacceptable. It knows this. It will fix this. However, it helps to keep in mind what, IMO, are some of BC's objectives before criticizing its coaching process / selection.

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

But on the other hand, many at the WCHA Big Ten powers would have preferred to stay in the old WCHA, even though between the long tradition of all-in at the Big Ten and the commercial appeal of the Big Ten Network, their athletic departments were never going to press the issue hard with their Presidents.

(04-04-2014 03:02 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

No doubt BC benefits financially from the ACC, but that brand hasn't helped BC in its other sports (see basketball coach hiring process). There is no chance BC would voluntarily leave Hockey East for the ACC, and the fact that you dont think people know about the league speaks to your interest in hockey and not the leagues brand. Right now, BC has several cross town rivals, and competive teams in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and, hopefully soon, CT. You don't give that up unless you have to.

Whaler, I agree that BC would prefer not to leave HE for just the reasons you stated. That said, make no mistake, if the ACC ever desired to form a hockey league and BC was required to be the anchor of the fledging conference, it would readily do so. The ACC $$'s are just too significant and, it would need to protect foootball, which is the #1 sport at BC (regardless of the elite status of the BC hockey program).

Regarding your other comment about the ACC not "helping" BC with the MBB hiring process - with all due respect, I think that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of BC (which, IMO, a lot of your fellow Uconn fans seem to have, as well as others).

The hierarchy of sports at BC is:
#1 Football
#2 Hockey
#3 Basketball

FB is by far a critical priority for BC. When it went off the rails in the Spaz era, alarm bells sounded and BC brought in the perfect coach for the program - a passionate visionary who has established a distinct culture at BC as well as being a prolific recruiter. He has resurrected the BC program far sooner than any of us thought he would (although he will have a challenge this year as the last effects of the Spaz era recruiting are felt). Most of us feel very good about where BC is heading from a FB perspective.

Hockey - what do you do for a program that is pretty much unanimously considered to be the premier college hockey program in the country? You leave it alone.

Basketball is an interesting subject at BC. BC understands they need to be decently good and these past couple of seasons are totally unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. That said, I think the BC Administration looks at what it tales to be an elite program in BB and are not willing to go that route. Yes, they WANT to be successful along the lines of the Skinner era, but, IMO, they are not willing to make the trade-offs to be an elite program.

Football and hockey are different animals. While more challenging, you still can run elite programs and have high level academics (see Stanford, Notre Dame in FB and BC in hockey). BC is quite comfortable with this. Basketball on the other hand, is a whole different universe. Since your are a Uconn fan, let me put this in a different contect. I readily acknowledge that Uconn has an elite MBB program. However attaining that status, has not come without some costs, IMO (something many of your fellow Uconn fans tend to gloss over, IMO). Uconn has been flagged by the NCAA for recruiting violations and tolerated, for an extended time, abysmal graduation and APR rates. IMO, that is not a reflection on the institution as a whole, but it IS a reflection on the trade-offs they have been willing to make in the name of being an elite MBB program.

Bottom line, IMO, BC is not wiling to make these kind of trade offs. Being a member of the ACC has nothing to do with this. BC could have gone out and spent whatever it takes to get a front line coach, promising recruiting "flexibility" in the process. It CHOSE not to do this. That's a big difference. By comparison, IMO, no such trade-offs are needed for FB and hockey. In FB, BC is well on the way back to being a team that will challenge each year for the ACC title.

Again, BC's current performance level in MBB is unacceptable. It knows this. It will fix this. However, it helps to keep in mind what, IMO, are some of BC's objectives before criticizing its coaching process / selection.

No doubt, if the ACC creating a hockey league BC would have to join it, or leave the ACC (which there is 0 chance they will do). But they are not going to encourage the ACC to create that league.

With regard to basketball, I think you are being very disingenuous regarding basketball. Your school used Seth Greenberg/ESPN to float Jim Calhoun's name to drum up interest in the job. Then you went after Amaker and couldn't land him. Then you went after Mike Hopkins and couldn't land him either. It was only after a lengthy process that you settled on Christian - not by choice but bye necessity.

(04-04-2014 03:21 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 03:02 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:15 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 12:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 06:54 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Why would BC )and/or ND) want to do that? Hockey East might mean more to hockey fans, but the ACC brand would trump that of any hockey-only conference. The ACC would have an auto-bid right away because it is a multi sport conference.

Because long term, outside of the small number of college hockey fans, no one knows who the hell Hockey East is.

Just like B1G Hockey makes sense to the casual fan, who make now be likely to turn it on, as opposed to WCHA or CCHA hockey.

And, as a member of a conference, BC benefits from the ACC brand in basketball and football, riding the coattails of better brands in those sports. It is perfectly reasonable to expect BC to return the favor if a number of other ACC schools started hockey.

No doubt BC benefits financially from the ACC, but that brand hasn't helped BC in its other sports (see basketball coach hiring process). There is no chance BC would voluntarily leave Hockey East for the ACC, and the fact that you dont think people know about the league speaks to your interest in hockey and not the leagues brand. Right now, BC has several cross town rivals, and competive teams in New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and, hopefully soon, CT. You don't give that up unless you have to.

Whaler, I agree that BC would prefer not to leave HE for just the reasons you stated. That said, make no mistake, if the ACC ever desired to form a hockey league and BC was required to be the anchor of the fledging conference, it would readily do so. The ACC $$'s are just too significant and, it would need to protect foootball, which is the #1 sport at BC (regardless of the elite status of the BC hockey program).

Regarding your other comment about the ACC not "helping" BC with the MBB hiring process - with all due respect, I think that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of BC (which, IMO, a lot of your fellow Uconn fans seem to have, as well as others).

The hierarchy of sports at BC is:
#1 Football
#2 Hockey
#3 Basketball

FB is by far a critical priority for BC. When it went off the rails in the Spaz era, alarm bells sounded and BC brought in the perfect coach for the program - a passionate visionary who has established a distinct culture at BC as well as being a prolific recruiter. He has resurrected the BC program far sooner than any of us thought he would (although he will have a challenge this year as the last effects of the Spaz era recruiting are felt). Most of us feel very good about where BC is heading from a FB perspective.

Hockey - what do you do for a program that is pretty much unanimously considered to be the premier college hockey program in the country? You leave it alone.

Basketball is an interesting subject at BC. BC understands they need to be decently good and these past couple of seasons are totally unacceptable and, frankly, embarrassing. That said, I think the BC Administration looks at what it tales to be an elite program in BB and are not willing to go that route. Yes, they WANT to be successful along the lines of the Skinner era, but, IMO, they are not willing to make the trade-offs to be an elite program.

Football and hockey are different animals. While more challenging, you still can run elite programs and have high level academics (see Stanford, Notre Dame in FB and BC in hockey). BC is quite comfortable with this. Basketball on the other hand, is a whole different universe. Since your are a Uconn fan, let me put this in a different contect. I readily acknowledge that Uconn has an elite MBB program. However attaining that status, has not come without some costs, IMO (something many of your fellow Uconn fans tend to gloss over, IMO). Uconn has been flagged by the NCAA for recruiting violations and tolerated, for an extended time, abysmal graduation and APR rates. IMO, that is not a reflection on the institution as a whole, but it IS a reflection on the trade-offs they have been willing to make in the name of being an elite MBB program.

Bottom line, IMO, BC is not wiling to make these kind of trade offs. Being a member of the ACC has nothing to do with this. BC could have gone out and spent whatever it takes to get a front line coach, promising recruiting "flexibility" in the process. It CHOSE not to do this. That's a big difference. By comparison, IMO, no such trade-offs are needed for FB and hockey. In FB, BC is well on the way back to being a team that will challenge each year for the ACC title.

Again, BC's current performance level in MBB is unacceptable. It knows this. It will fix this. However, it helps to keep in mind what, IMO, are some of BC's objectives before criticizing its coaching process / selection.

No doubt, if the ACC creating a hockey league BC would have to join it, or leave the ACC (which there is 0 chance they will do). But they are not going to encourage the ACC to create that league.

With regard to basketball, I think you are being very disingenuous regarding basketball. Your school used Seth Greenberg/ESPN to float Jim Calhoun's name to drum up interest in the job. Then you went after Amaker and couldn't land him. Then you went after Mike Hopkins and couldn't land him either. It was only after a lengthy process that you settled on Christian - not by choice but bye necessity.

Whaler, here are my issues with your second point:

1. What is your basis to claim that BC "used" Seth Greenberg to float Jim Calhoun's name out there? Please show me one credible report (not an "opinion" or blog speculation) that proves this statement.

2. Amaker didn't want to leave Harvard. He didn't interview at BC, nor any of the other many jobs that were open. He has a great (and SECURE) gig at Harvard (where his wife also has a great job) and doesn't want to leave at this time. Not rocket science.

3. BC CHOSE not to hire Hopkins (it wasn't because they could not land him).
http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball...coach.html

This is my issue with some of you guys, your dislike of BC clouds the discussion and you accept as "fact" things which are anything but.

Your last statement is interesting but in a way you might not think. BC selected a coach in line with its objectives for MBB. IMO, had they chosen to pay oh, say $3M/yr. for a coach, with promised recruiting "flexibility", they could have landed someone else. Again, they CHOSE the coaching parameters - and the hire was the logical outcome of those paramaters. Frankly, with those parameters, any search will take longer. Again, not rocket science.

You can spin it however you want, but you got a MAC coach who has never made it past the first game in the NCAA - there is no way this was your first, second, third, fourth or fifth choice (and if it was that is a more significant problem).

(04-04-2014 04:07 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  You can spin it however you want, but you got a MAC coach who has never made it past the first game in the NCAA - there is no way this was your first, second, third, fourth or fifth choice (and if it was that is a more significant problem).

Whaler, again, your missing my point. From everything that has been reported, Christian WAS the ONLY offer BC made. He wasn't the second, third, fourth, or fifth choice. He was the first choice.

FWIW, I think you are looking at this through a Uconn lens. IMO, Uconn has a specific set of priorities when it comes to MBB. BC has different priorities. It wasn't going to pay the $$'s needed, or change its recruiting philosophies to entice a higher level coach. For FB or hockey - different story, IMO. Christian met BC's BB criteria. Don't get me wrong, IF a top-line coach came to BC and said: "Hey, I want a change in my career direction. I like your philosophy and the money is fine"....then, done deal! But that was obviously not going to happen. Christian was the logical result of that process. I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

The hope is that Christian will get BC MBB back to where it was (and, who knows, maybe surprise some people!) and all will be right in the BC sports universe!

Whaler - this article, written by an SU writer, sums up my points above:

http://www.syracuse.com/patrick-stevens/...ian_a.html

Congrats to Union College. That's pretty impressive winning the hockey championship considering they are a non-scholarship school in a mostly non-scholarship conference. That's now two in a row for ECAC Hockey and 3 of the last 4 finals participants.

So the last 2 champions in hockey are Yale and Union ? Wow, how did that happen ?

(04-14-2014 06:54 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  So the last 2 champions in hockey are Yale and Union ? Wow, how did that happen ?

Just guessing, but my money is on "single elimination tournament".

(04-04-2014 04:29 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 04:07 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  You can spin it however you want, but you got a MAC coach who has never made it past the first game in the NCAA - there is no way this was your first, second, third, fourth or fifth choice (and if it was that is a more significant problem).

Whaler, again, your missing my point. From everything that has been reported, Christian WAS the ONLY offer BC made. He wasn't the second, third, fourth, or fifth choice. He was the first choice.

Your evidence does not imply your conclusion ... it would be normal for some coaches to remove themselves from consideration before they ever get to the point of being given an offer.

First choice on their short list is perfectly compatible with anywhere from one to five coaches that would have been preferred never making onto the short list.