I'd call BS on the report in the OP's post. Reading through it, this is completely wishful thinking on the part of Bowling Green. (It's kind of like when a local MWC writes something about how the Pac-12 ought to add that local MWC school.) The NCHC is a deep brand name league (at least in the college hockey realm) and has only existed for a couple of weeks. Schools like Miami are NOT leaving that league for a weaker rendition of the CCHA. There is nothing in that report that makes sense for anyone involved except for Bowling Green (which is the audience that the report is geared toward).

Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

(11-02-2013 09:06 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I guess the TV contract the NCHC has isn't enough to offset the additional travel costs for Miami (OH) and Western Michigan.

If the MAC were serious about forming a hockey conference, it really needs a fourth school from within the MAC to make it "theirs". At six MAC schools, the MAC wouldn't have to mess with affiliate members, although one or two may not hurt given that thee of the six full members would have new varsity hockey programs.

Not that this would happen, but this would make the most sense for everyone involved (*new varsity program):

NCHC (6)
Colorado College, Denver, MN-Duluth, St. Cloud State, NE-Omaha, North Dakota

WCHA (10)
Alaska, AK-Anchorage, Air Force, Bemidji State, Minnesota State, Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Iowa State*, Colorado*

MAC (6)
Western Michigan, Miami (OH), Bowling Green, UAH, Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech

Atlantic Hockey (8)
Canisius, Mercyhurst, Sacred Heart, RIT, Niagara, Robert Morris, American International, Bentley

Hockey East (12)
Boston College, UConn, Maine, UMass, UMass-Lowell, Merrimack, New Hampshire, Northeastern, Notre Dame, Providence, Vermont, Rhode Island*

Ivy League (6)
Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Yale

Patriot League (10)
Army, Holy Cross, Boston University, Colgate, Navy*, Clarkson, RPI, St. Lawrence, Union, Quinnipiac

Big Ten (8)
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska*, Illinois*

The ECAC is not breaking up and BU is not leaving HE, so forget about those. I'd say that Quinnipiac might be open to leaving the ECAC, but it would only be for HE, and I don't see any further openings in the near future,

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

id like to nominate frank the tank for biggest genius on this board

(11-02-2013 09:02 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I'm not sure if Miami would go for this. The new NCHC is a deep conference with a good TV deal, I'm not sure if a reborn CCHA would have the same clout as that. It would if OSU, Michigan, and Michigan State came back, but obviously that's not happening.

Yeah, this doesn't seem to make sense from the Miami University-point of view.

Miami's established themselves as a "top-tier college hockey" school of late. You guys want to maintain that --- and I think that's easier to do by playing the likes of Denver, CC, Duluth and North Dakota instead of joining a regional CCHA. The likes of Bowling Green Robert Morris and Canisius aren't very sexy and besides, they can always be played OOC.

Didnt Syracuse drop mens and womens swimming when the womens hockey team went varsity? did one have anything to do with the other? I thought i read somewhere it did

(11-03-2013 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

id like to nominate frank the tank for biggest genius on this board

One thing to note, $100 million is what the Penn State of BOT required as proof of sustainability before going ahead and approving to add a D1 Hockey program.

That figure is at least a magnitude more than what a MAC or ACC school might need to show. The biggest issue I think is working Men's Hockey into the Title IX structure. That scares off most schools right away and Men's Hockey usually has to draw 2500 to be profitable which was a concern at Ohio when fans were requesting the sport to be added. The AD didn't think Hockey would draw more than 1500.

The school can have money for athletics like Syracuse but its always a revenue in/revenue out consideration for each sport individually and Hockey is a difficult sport to get enough revenue to cover operating costs.

(11-03-2013 07:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

id like to nominate frank the tank for biggest genius on this board

One thing to note, $100 million is what the Penn State of BOT required as proof of sustainability before going ahead and approving to add a D1 Hockey program.

That figure is at least a magnitude more than what a MAC or ACC school might need to show. The biggest issue I think is working Men's Hockey into the Title IX structure. That scares off most schools right away and Men's Hockey usually has to draw 2500 to be profitable which was a concern at Ohio when fans were requesting the sport to be added. The AD didn't think Hockey would draw more than 1500.

The school can have money for athletics like Syracuse but its always a revenue in/revenue out consideration for each sport individually and Hockey is a difficult sport to get enough revenue to cover operating costs.

syracuse already has the facilities, local fan support, & regional rivalries to support hockey. maybe its because they dont wanna invest in a sport that directly competes with basketball?

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

Penn State did not have a suitable arena anyway nearby. Their club team arena wasn't DI capable. Schools often don't have an option to add hockey unless they have at least a 4000 seat area on campus or near campus. If they use an off campus rink they often need a practice rink on campus. That criteria wipes out the majority of NCAA schools. Title IX and conference limitations just compound the issue.

(11-03-2013 08:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

id like to nominate frank the tank for biggest genius on this board

One thing to note, $100 million is what the Penn State of BOT required as proof of sustainability before going ahead and approving to add a D1 Hockey program.

That figure is at least a magnitude more than what a MAC or ACC school might need to show. The biggest issue I think is working Men's Hockey into the Title IX structure. That scares off most schools right away and Men's Hockey usually has to draw 2500 to be profitable which was a concern at Ohio when fans were requesting the sport to be added. The AD didn't think Hockey would draw more than 1500.

The school can have money for athletics like Syracuse but its always a revenue in/revenue out consideration for each sport individually and Hockey is a difficult sport to get enough revenue to cover operating costs.

syracuse already has the facilities, local fan support, & regional rivalries to support hockey. maybe its because they dont wanna invest in a sport that directly competes with basketball?

Assuming Syracuse would play in War Memorial Arena?

(11-03-2013 08:32 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 08:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Also, let's remember again that it took the single largest donation in the history of Penn State for *anything* (that includes academics, football, etc.) of over $100 million to finally get a Division I program that has been talked about for 15 years. There are tons of schools that make a world of sense to add hockey on paper (i.e. Illinois first and foremost at this point with its already strong club fan base and an untapped market), but it cannot be emphasized enough how much the startup costs are. When it takes a $100 million donation to start hockey at a school with a preexisting club hockey fan base, sells over 100,000 football tickets per week and makes Big Ten TV money, what hope does a MAC school or even the smaller ACC schools have to starting hockey programs up at this point?

id like to nominate frank the tank for biggest genius on this board

One thing to note, $100 million is what the Penn State of BOT required as proof of sustainability before going ahead and approving to add a D1 Hockey program.

That figure is at least a magnitude more than what a MAC or ACC school might need to show. The biggest issue I think is working Men's Hockey into the Title IX structure. That scares off most schools right away and Men's Hockey usually has to draw 2500 to be profitable which was a concern at Ohio when fans were requesting the sport to be added. The AD didn't think Hockey would draw more than 1500.

The school can have money for athletics like Syracuse but its always a revenue in/revenue out consideration for each sport individually and Hockey is a difficult sport to get enough revenue to cover operating costs.

syracuse already has the facilities, local fan support, & regional rivalries to support hockey. maybe its because they dont wanna invest in a sport that directly competes with basketball?

Assuming Syracuse would play in War Memorial Arena?

yep, or the dome (which is really easy to setup a hockey rink in short time periods)

I think ACC money would be better spent on continuing to try to improve their football product, rather than sinking it into hockey.

As far as building a hockey program from scratch, in a conference that would also be built from scratch (really, ACC hockey?), I think you're underestimating the difficulties.

For example, recruiting pipelines aren't built overnight. Like in hoops and hockey, NHL prospects will want to go to established hockey schools. A small school like Vermont can point to Martin St Louis and Tim Thomas; another small school like Maine can point to Paul Kariya, etc... do you realize the leap of faith an NHL prospect would be taking to commit to Georgia Tech hockey? To play in the city of 5 million that lost the Thrashers? To play against BC, Notre Dame, and then 10 or 12 ACC start up programs?

I would get into more detail, but I don't have the energy right now. Instead, maybe some here could visit CollegeHockeyNews and learn more about this great sport with great traditions, actually look at the teams, their conferences, records, NHL draftees, maybe learn something about college hockey in greater detail.

(11-02-2013 09:29 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(11-02-2013 09:25 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  However, I see plenty of hockey potential in some MAC schools, and I would encourage them to explore some options there. Buffalo could take advantage of the hockey-rich upstate New York region, NIU would be the only DI school in Illinois, OU could even restart it if they had the initial investment. Outside the MAC, Syracuse, St. Louis, and Iowa State strike me as schools with hockey potential.

Thought Buffalo's AD was in favor but he moved to Syracuse.

Moved to UConn actually, so as fate would have it he got his big hockey move.

As some might recall, parts of this scuttlebutt sounds similar to the factual activities of 2 years ago when things were falling apart. Many of the same schools got together to see about coming together to keep the CCHA going, plus UB:

@BruceCiskie
Source: Bowling Green meeting with Niagara, Robert Morris, Canisius, Mercyhurst, and a school currently without DI hockey program.
@BruceCiskie
It's Buffalo, from what I've been told. As my source just said, if they start a program, it's two new programs out of this fiasco.

With that the AHA comish mentioned UB too:
If the four teams were to leave Atlantic Hockey, [AHA commissioner Bob] DeGregorio said the league would not immediately look to add replacement teams, but it wouldn't be out of the question.

"What I would urge the directors to do is always keep the door open," DeGregorio said, adding that the league would take interest if schools like Rhode Island, Navy or even the University at Buffalo added Division I programs. "If they were to leave, we'd be at eight, [a] very workable number. … My urge to the directors would be to take the eight, redo the schedule, redo the playoff format."

UB's statement confirmed talks:
“The University at Buffalo athletic department has been in conversations with established Division I hockey conferences to examine the possibility of returning our hockey program. While we are flattered to have these discussions there are several things that would need to occur both fiscally and within conference alignments for this to work for UB at this time.”

But then BGSU announced its move to WCHA which quieted the AHA teams on their dream of a new CCHA. BGSU's prez then mentioned "there will be a resolution with (University at) Buffalo" regarding a possible start-up team to join WCHA as well. But the potential league costs, and not having rivals Niagara and Canisius in that league, made UB step away.

(11-02-2013 07:22 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.sent-trib.com/bgsu-sports/fla...y-10-30-13

A report from the Bowling Green newspaper says BGSU may withdraw from the WCHA, Miami and WMU from the NCHC, and Robert Morris, Niagara, Canisius, Mercyhurst and maybe Ferris State my join them in a reborn CCHA.

Atlantic Hockey may get either St Anshelm, Rhode Island, or Navy to replace the AHA teams. The WCHA would survive with 8, provided the Upper Peninsula teams stay. The NHCH would be at six, and maybe add Iowa State, Colorado as new teams or be forced to add Minn St-Mankata and Bemidji St.

No way this happens... Sorry all of these teams could have done this last year.

maybe the b10 did indeed punch a hole through the wall in hockey. maybe by putting them on the BTN & having a power conference pick up the sport they have single handedly done more for the sport in the last 2 years & over the next 3 years than what the sport has done for itself on the college level in 25-30 years

2 mill per school is a lot of money and maybe every other school wants to catch a piece of the pie

Maybe the nchc just expands to 10 to ease travel, throw in Northern Michigan and Michigan Tech? OR jumping to 12 with two 6 team divisions could help.

(11-04-2013 12:40 AM)billyjack Wrote:  I think ACC money would be better spent on continuing to try to improve their football product, rather than sinking it into hockey.

As far as building a hockey program from scratch, in a conference that would also be built from scratch (really, ACC hockey?), I think you're underestimating the difficulties.

For example, recruiting pipelines aren't built overnight. Like in hoops and hockey, NHL prospects will want to go to established hockey schools. A small school like Vermont can point to Martin St Louis and Tim Thomas; another small school like Maine can point to Paul Kariya, etc... do you realize the leap of faith an NHL prospect would be taking to commit to Georgia Tech hockey? To play in the city of 5 million that lost the Thrashers? To play against BC, Notre Dame, and then 10 or 12 ACC start up programs?

That question should be brought to the Big 10, not me.

Minn and Mich will continue to get all the homegrown recruits they want, even if play Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, and Illinois.

North Dakota recruiting hasn't been effected by being in the NCHC (yet). They still have NW Minn, Winnnipeg (Toews), W Can, California, and they still can recruit a U18 or eastern player.

The mortal enemy of college hockey is major juniors, not college expansion. UND has lost several players to those leagues that signed with UND earlier. Canadian Major Juniors are at war with US college hockey.

(11-04-2013 10:48 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Maybe the nchc just expands to 10 to ease travel, throw in Northern Michigan and Michigan Tech? OR jumping to 12 with two 6 team divisions could help.

The NCHC will expand, but with name schools in the PAC12, MWC, Big 12, or MAC. NMU and MTU simply don't have enough eyeballs, though they have history.

theres no way the power schools have trouble building a recruiting pipeline, especially a b10 one. they can offer better academics, from a better known school, and an athletic department that has a lot more resources for its general student population and student athletes. plus they are a lot more likely to get on tv with the conf. networks coming about.

the only athletes they will lose to the smaller schools are the ones who want to be at a small school, they want to stay local, or maybe they want to go to a "hockey only" school, or that hockey school just has better coaching.

long term i think the smaller hockey schools slowly get rooted out by the big schools with coaching prospects & recruiting. if i was an AD at a small big time hockey school i would be sweating bullets.