CSNbbs

Full Version: Big Ten hockey still struggling, even with Notre Dame
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.
if anybody could make a hockey match slow, it would be the B-10
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Sweet music to my ears! Hockey is a very different sport. ND would be better off in the NCHC. My dream would be to get the three MAC schools (WMU, BGSU, Miami) in the NCHC and add ND.
(11-07-2017 10:36 AM)WesternSkillet Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Sweet music to my ears! Hockey is a very different sport. ND would be better off in the NCHC. My dream would be to get the three MAC schools (WMU, BGSU, Miami) in the NCHC and add ND.

My take away is that the Big Ten Hockey Conference has been hurt by breaking up previous rivalries that fans valued. One approach for the B1G might be to expand from 7 to 8 or 9 schools, adding North Dakota and possibly one more traditional rival valued by the historic powerhouse hockey schools.
Most Wisconsin and Minnesota fans I know aren't fans of Big 10 hockey, the pre 2013 WCHA was so much better and had a lot more fan interest. Wisconsin has comparatively little hockey history with Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, and Notre Dame. Minnesota is the only historic rival we kept in the realignment.

At least Wisconsin appears to be headed back in the right direction with Granato.
The Big Ten hockey conference is about the bigger long-term picture of overall power, branding and prestige that which will eventually rear its head over time. The fact that the New York Times would even have such a long college hockey article in the first place is only because it's the Big Ten involved. This is about taking what has largely been a regional curiosity and making it national.

At the same time, schools like Minnesota have long made waaaaaaaaaay more money off of the Ohio States and Penn States of the world from the Big Ten TV contracts than the other way around. I love hockey, but it's a rounding error by comparison to the obscene amount of dollars that is taken in by football. So, it would be great if Minnesota partisans would stop their whining at some point. They actually do owe a heck of a lot more from a financial perspective (AKA their entire athletic department) to Penn State than they do to North Dakota or the other Minnesota schools, so they should act accordingly and be thankful that they're a member of arguably the most powerful entity in college sports that can largely dictate the rules as opposed to having rules dictated to them.
I wish hockey was a thing in the South
(11-07-2017 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]So, it would be great if Minnesota partisans would stop their whining at some point. They actually do owe a heck of a lot more from a financial perspective (AKA their entire athletic department) to Penn State than they do to North Dakota or the other Minnesota schools, so they should act accordingly and be thankful that they're a member of arguably the most powerful entity in college sports that can largely dictate the rules as opposed to having rules dictated to them.
When were Minnesota’s state of the art hockey facilities built?
(11-07-2017 11:06 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I wish hockey was a thing in the South

South Carolina Stingrays !!

.
ND hockey joining the Big Ten has lessened my interest in ND hockey.

That said, a quick look today at the standings does show ND at 2-0 in conference play (6-3-1 overall), with the Irish beating Ohio State two times last week in Columbus for the opening weekend of conference play.
(11-07-2017 11:13 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 10:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]So, it would be great if Minnesota partisans would stop their whining at some point. They actually do owe a heck of a lot more from a financial perspective (AKA their entire athletic department) to Penn State than they do to North Dakota or the other Minnesota schools, so they should act accordingly and be thankful that they're a member of arguably the most powerful entity in college sports that can largely dictate the rules as opposed to having rules dictated to them.
When were Minnesota’s state of the art hockey facilities built?

Mariucci was built in 1993. Ridder in 2002. The Gophers have had pathetic turnouts for a program that was formerly looked at as their star performer.
(11-07-2017 10:43 AM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]My take away is that the Big Ten Hockey Conference has been hurt by breaking up previous rivalries that fans valued. One approach for the B1G might be to expand from 7 to 8 or 9 schools, adding North Dakota and possibly one more traditional rival valued by the historic powerhouse hockey schools.

I'm inclined to agree. And, I know the Big Ten schools have become better at centralizing and maximizing their money playing each other and having a media outlet for further revenue access, but there's other money not being made there, and it's from the older, traditional methods of foot traffic, ticket sales, and other derivative opportunities.

I remember what the PSU area was like when more regional foes were in the area. It wasn't just University Park prospering from gameday. Now, with some of what comes through (more like, what doesn't), it's not the same. Yes, there's the corporate thing...there's a lack of a pulse downtown and in the surrounding areas, too. Problem is, of course, those places aren't directly on PSU or Big Ten ledgers, but, it's different.

Where it comes to Big Ten hockey...I think they were smart to keep itself small, and maximize the ability to retain rivalries in the non-conference. I'm more inclined to believe that, just like other Big Ten sports, there's a chunk of the season calendar that is conference-only, and that unforgiving stance makes it impossible to retain rivalries. The Big Ten isn't good with the flexibility thing. And it shows. But, who cares when you can fan those bills, right?
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Winning will ultimately follow the money. I.e., if the B1G hockey schools use their TV money to fund high quality facilities and hire the best coaches, they should eventually rise in comparison to other conferences. I have been amazed, for instance, at how quickly B1G has become one of the best lacrosse conferences in the NCAA top to bottom. That said, why not add North Dakota?
(11-07-2017 01:23 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Winning will ultimately follow the money. I.e., if the B1G hockey schools use their TV money to fund high quality facilities and hire the best coaches, they should eventually rise in comparison to other conference. I have been amazed, for instance, at how quickly B1G has become one of the best lacrosse conferences in the NCAA top to bottom. That said, why not add North Dakota?

Because if they add North Dakota, they have to add Montana, EWU and NDSU. Something like that
(11-07-2017 01:23 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Winning will ultimately follow the money. I.e., if the B1G hockey schools use their TV money to fund high quality facilities and hire the best coaches, they should eventually rise in comparison to other conferences. I have been amazed, for instance, at how quickly B1G has become one of the best lacrosse conferences in the NCAA top to bottom. That said, why not add North Dakota?

They need space for Illinois, Rutgers, Iowa, and whoever else decides to add hockey.

Moreover, any affiliate teams need their own cable deal, which Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins have. The B1G won't allow sharing of the BTN receipts.
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Mariucci has become a morgue. Simply doesn't draw recruits interest now.

Duluth and St Cloud have much more passionate crowds and have proven themselves as NHL gateways.
(11-07-2017 03:10 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:23 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Winning will ultimately follow the money. I.e., if the B1G hockey schools use their TV money to fund high quality facilities and hire the best coaches, they should eventually rise in comparison to other conferences. I have been amazed, for instance, at how quickly B1G has become one of the best lacrosse conferences in the NCAA top to bottom. That said, why not add North Dakota?

They need space for Illinois, Rutgers, Iowa, and whoever else decides to add hockey.

Moreover, any affiliate teams need their own cable deal, which Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins have. The B1G won't allow sharing of the BTN receipts.

What does North Dakota want? Is it satisfied in the NCHC or would it be interested in joining the B1G for hockey? The WCHA/CCHA conference alignment is never coming back, so those are the two choices. If North Dakota is happy where it is, it's not worth discussing any further. I am sincerely curious though.
(11-07-2017 03:21 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 03:10 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:23 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 01:01 PM)Shox Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 06:01 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/sports...rence.html

While the Big Ten is better rated this year than last years, the top three rated teams have got to hurt its ego as they are NCHC teams:

1. St Cloud St
2. N Dakota
3. Denver

In the first four years of Big Ten hockey, no national champs, compared to:

1. NCHC 2
2. Hockey East 1
2. ECAC 1

Inter conference winning % so far this season:

1. NCHC .624
2 HE .564
3. B1G .543
4. ECAC .515
5. WCHA .392
6. AHA .260

The B1G has scheduled heavily against Atlantic Hockey so far (while the NCHC hasn't played the AHA yet), so their schedule has been relatively weak to boot.

The top team in Michigan so far is WMU, as the Wolverines and Spartans are still struggling.

Who cares, the B1G doesn't. The only question that matters is if those schools are making more money than they were in the WCHA/CCHA. If the answer is yes then all is according to plan.

Winning will ultimately follow the money. I.e., if the B1G hockey schools use their TV money to fund high quality facilities and hire the best coaches, they should eventually rise in comparison to other conferences. I have been amazed, for instance, at how quickly B1G has become one of the best lacrosse conferences in the NCAA top to bottom. That said, why not add North Dakota?

They need space for Illinois, Rutgers, Iowa, and whoever else decides to add hockey.

Moreover, any affiliate teams need their own cable deal, which Notre Dame and Johns Hopkins have. The B1G won't allow sharing of the BTN receipts.

What does North Dakota want? Is it satisfied in the NCHC or would it be interested in joining the B1G for hockey? The WCHA/CCHA conference alignment is never coming back, so those are the two choices. If North Dakota is happy where it is, it's not worth discussing any further. I am sincerely curious though.

The fans want the NCHC. I suspect our President wants the Big Ten, but it needs to make financial sense, as there is a $2 million exit fee from the NCHC, tournament revenue and CBS sports contract. And Denver and Omaha are in our soon to be all sports league.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are now annual series which our fans love.
(11-07-2017 11:37 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017 11:06 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]I wish hockey was a thing in the South

South Carolina Stingrays !!

.

Columbia used to have a team about ten years ago but they never caught on. If they were still around I’d definitely go as an adult
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's