Big Ten Hockey Official: Now About Logistics

Submitted by Brian on March 21st, 2011 at 3:43 PM

 psu_jerseyanthonytscherne

As expected, the Big Ten was all like "yoink," announcing it will begin play in 2013 when Penn State moves into its new arena. I laid out the reasons I think this is a good move for college hockey as a whole (as long as measures to prevent smaller CCHA teams from folding are taken) in an earlier post, but there are still a ton of variables to work out.

Items follow.

Configuration

Western college hockey schools will probably look like this in 2013:

WCHA

  • North Dakota
  • St. Cloud
  • MSU-Mankato
  • Minnesota-Duluth
  • Bemidji State
  • Colorado College
  • Denver
  • Alaska-Anchorage
  • Michigan Tech
  • Nebraska-Omaha

With three of college hockey's premiere schools and another three or four regular tourney contenders the WCHA will be fine. The two Big Ten schools finished fifth and seventh this year and were swept out of the playoffs in the first round. As far as the product on the ice goes, they'll be fine.

CCHA

  • Miami
  • Notre Dame
  • Western Michigan
  • Ferris State
  • Lake Superior State
  • Northern Michigan
  • BGSU
  • Alaska-Fairbanks

As long as ND and Miami stick around it's a viable conference with at least two bids every year and possibly a third when WMU/Ferris/Northern are having a good year. Finances might be tighter but I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make—it's not like anyone in the CCHA was getting more than peanuts from FSD.

Bowling Green, FWIW, seems to be past the bit where they threaten their lone national championship program:

"Our member schools have a commitment to hockey, so we'll figure this out."
Christopher was quick to reiterate that the news does not shake Bowling Green's commitment to its hockey program.

"When we went through the process a couple of years ago, we put our stake in the ground that we were going to sponsor a strong hockey program," he said. "I'm not concerned about this news affecting the future of hockey at Bowling Green.

With eight teams everyone in the league can play four against each other and still maintain 28-game conference schedules, or they can cut it back a bit.

Big Ten

  • Michigan
  • Michigan State
  • Minnesota
  • Wisconsin
  • Ohio State
  • Penn State

The Big Ten has announced teams will play four games against the other five opponents, leaving 14-16 nonconference games available depending on whether or not the Big Ten takes advantage of exemptions for travelling to Alaska.

Despite small school fans wailing about how they're doomed, Michigan is the only(!) Big Ten school to make the tournament the last two years. The year before that Ohio State was the only addition, squeezing into the last at large slot and getting clunked by BU. You have to go back to 2008 to find more than two Big Ten teams in the tourney*.

*[Michigan was a 1 and made the Frozen Four; Minnesota, MSU, and Wisconsin were all threes. Minnesota went out right away, and the other two made it to the second round.]

Conference tourney: how does it do?

WCHA teams currently play in St. Paul. CCHA teams currently play in Detroit. Big Ten teams would probably do neither. They could alternate between the X, the Joe, and… uh… Pittsburgh I guess. Or they could put it in Chicago, a location that's as close to central as you can get and features throngs of Big Ten grads.

Or… you know… the thing is… right now the CCHA tourney is a three week affair. With six teams you could play three best two-of-three series on home ice. That provides 10-15 probably-sold-out games. A four-team tourney after a first round provides 8-10 games, four of which are going to be at a neutral-ish site hosting doubleheaders. It seems like abandoning the neutral ice would provide more money and a better championship structure.

College hockey is addicted to hypothetically neutral ice, but will it be enough to overcome doubling your playoff revenue?

TV: Yes, please

Hockey loves HD and I'm betting most Michigan hockey fans used to cameras from the 70s that make everything look underwater almost gasped the first time they saw a BTN hockey production. I remember it myself—a road game against OSU with a picture so sharp it could skate. The main asset from the fan's perspective is the prospect of ten road games on BTN.

Getting to ten road games is kind of a hike, though. Basketball teams rarely play on Friday, so you can televise a Friday game of the week, but what happens on Saturday at 8:00? What do you do when two teams are playing simultaneously? There are three options:

  1. Many games are not televised on BTN.
  2. BTN deploys its bonus feeds.
  3. Games move for TV.

#2 seems ideal but probably costs more money than it brings in. #1 could make the TV situation worse than it is right now.

#3 would be weird but I think it's manageable. They can probably massage the schedule such that there are rarely three conference series on the same weekend. Unfortunately, getting two games on Friday would require one starting at 7:30 Eastern, and the other at 9 Central. That's going to hurt attendance.

We might start seeing a fair number of series that go Saturday-Sunday—a quick look at the basketball schedule doesn't show anything pressing most Sundays and even most Saturdays could hypothetically squeeze two hockey games in. If you have at least two teams playing nonconference series every week you could hypothetically broadcast every conference game if the only overlap is on Saturday.

Further realignment?

The conferences above seem viable to me, but they might not be done shuffling. I'm not sure how much credence to put in rumors that the WCHA will seek to poach Miami and ND since those teams are very far away from the WCHA core (Miami's shortest road trip would be 681 miles to Michigan Tech, longer than Miami's longest current conference trip) and travel costs would seem to eat up more money than either team would get from increased attendance at their nice, new, very small arenas.

I don't think the CCHA is going to take another look at Huntsville since the same ruthless cost-benefit equation that saw UAH denied when UNO left still applies, but when Niagara left the CHA they wanted to get into the CCHA and only grudgingly accepted entrance into Atlantic Hockey. AH has a cap on the number of scholarships you can award significantly below the NCAA's max of 18, and as a result a Niagara program good enough to twice get NCAA at-large consideration has fallen off the national radar. Niagara would bolt for the CCHA in a hot second if the conference would take them. If the CCHA wanted another team, Robert Morris would be the most likely candidate. They're located in Pittsburgh.

The most likely outcome seems to be the status quo above, but I'd watch those AH schools.

Further expansion?

If we don't get that AH move, college hockey finally has some spots for new teams to come in. I'm not sure any Big Ten teams would add hockey without a crazy rich guy donation similar to Penn State's but there's been a steady stream of smaller schools that start up, find that there's nowhere to go, and then evaporate. Now you might see a Wayne State stick in the CCHA.

Let's play for stuff

fa-cup

The FA Cup

One of the most exciting aspects for Michigan hockey is the prospect of getting 14-16 nonconference games, allowing Michigan to play BC, BU, North Dakota, and other teams they have a history with on the regular. On the other hand, I've played too much Football Manager to not look on that massive schedule gap as an opportunity to add silverware to college hockey. This seems like a fantastic opportunity to add a cup competition for Michigan-ish schools.

Unfortunately, NCAA scheduling regulations mean that everyone always tries to play the maximum number of games and that makes structuring a competition between seven teams awkward, as does the geography, as does the presumably very large CCHA conference schedule. We can either add BGSU or Notre Dame, or both and boot Tech since Tech has the GLI and is always terrible.

Assuming the latter:

1. Create groups of four by splitting the Big Ten teams and the UP teams and dividing the other four up randomly. Example group: Michigan, Lake Superior, Ferris State, BGSU.

2. Michigan and MSU play home and home series against the non-UP teams early in the season and alternate home and away with whichever UP team is in their bracket yearly.

3. The CCHA teams set up their scheduling such that teams in the same group play an early conference series. In the example above, LSSU-FSU, LSSU-BG, and FSU-BG would all take place before Christmas.

4. At the end of this process you have four teams having played each other round-robin twice. Pick the top two teams World Cup-style. These teams move on to the Joe to play a traditional college hockey tournament that probably replaces the GLI. (Issue: what about teams not selected? They wouldn't want to leave two games on the table but the only teams that would have an opening are the other teams in the tourney, most of which are other teams in their conference. Maybe you could get the NCAA to exempt the finals? This would lead to more of these tourneys, which would be cool.)

End result:

  • Assuming no more GLI, Michigan and MSU spend six nonconference games playing old conference foes.
  • Noncon-restricted CCHA teams spend two games each against MSU and UM, which helps mitigate losing those old rivalries.
  • The GLI gets way more interesting.
  • You're creating a banner that means something.

I know Tech started the GLI in the 50s and they think it's really important but they've been so, so terrible for so long that the tournament's way less than it should be.

Comments

lhglrkwg

March 21st, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^

I think this will shift college hockey in favor of the B1G schools. Cocky WCHA fans thing they will continue to be God's-chosen-hockey-conference but think about how hockey is growing in the US and how many households can get the BTN.  On friday nights, kids in California will be able to catch Minnesota-Michigan at Yost on tv. East coast kids can watch Ohio State-Wisconsin from the Kohl Center. Maybe even Canadian kids will be able to watch Big Ten games on the Big Ten's own stinkin network. I think you'll see the average talent level in the Big Ten rise above that of the WCHA or Hockey East.

Also, WCHA fans rival SEC fans in terms of delusional conference loyalty. "My team is .500 in conference because we're in the [AWESUM CONFERINCE]. If we were in your conference we'd 50 billion and 0!!"

erik_t

March 21st, 2011 at 6:56 PM ^

I didn't say the WCHA played fantastic hockey this year or any other. I said the WCHA played  hockey I really care about this season. I hope the distinction is obvious. Go ask someone in the state of Washington how much they cared about their Cougars and Huskies playing for the 2008 Apple Cup (combined record going into the game: 1-20).

 

It's about the rivalry, not the record.

lhglrkwg

March 21st, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^

and i am mostly referring to NoDak / Denver / CC / etc fans who say "we dont need UM or Wisky! we'll be the worlds greatest conference without them!"

and im not sure where the point about the apple cup was going but I actually don't think people in washington cared about the apple cup that year. is that the right answer?

but seriously, i wasnt talking about you at all

Mgobowl

March 21st, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^

1. Why is Michigan Tech in the WCHA rather than the CCHA? Similarly, why is Alaska-Fairbanks in the CCHA? From a logistics standpoint I would have them flipped.

2. RE: Let's Play for Stuff - Rather than just automatically add ND or BGSU every year (assuming keeping Tech), why not keep it similar to the GLI and select any random team from the country? I think that would add interest to the scenario, however it could potentially complicate the logistics depending on the team selected.

lhglrkwg

March 21st, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^

Michigan, Notre Dame, and MSU all used to be in the WCHA.  IIRC, Michigan, Notre dame, and MSU were upset with some kind of shady recruiting that Denver (?) was doing back in the day. I think it might've been something related to having freshman who were as old as 35. The WCHA didn't do anything to resolve the issue so those 3 schools defected to the upstart CCHA. I suppose Michigan Tech didn't care much

Alton

March 21st, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^

No, you have conflated 2 episodes that occurred about 20 years apart.  In 1958, Minnesota and Michigan and maybe 1 or 2 other schools dropped out of the Western Intercollegiate Hockey League (WIHL) over Denver's practice of signing Canadian Junior hockey players with expired eligibility in the Canadian Junior Leagues ("overage Canadians", as they were always called by the objecting schools).  The objecting schools did not consider these Canadians as legitimate college students, and so refused to play Denver.

After a year of all of the western schools playing as independents, they agreed to a truce of sorts and formed the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (WCHA)--note the "association" rather than "league."  Schools could still set their own schedules, but there was a tournament at the end of the season to determine the NCAA representatives from the west.  Minnesota did not play Denver until the late 1960s.  The WCHA claims the WIHL's history--they claim that they were created in 1951--but they are wrong.  The WCHA was created in 1959.

The reason Michigan, Michigan State, Michigan Tech (yes, Michigan Tech) and Notre Dame left the WCHA for the CCHA in 1981 was the skyrocketing expense of travel, a severe local recession, and the fact that the CCHA had established itself as a viable alternative in this part of the country.  It didn't have anything to do with Denver's recruiting practices.  Michigan Tech changed its mind in 1984 and re-joined the WCHA, along with original CCHA member Northern Michigan.  Northern Michigan returned to the CCHA in 1997.

saveferris

March 22nd, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^

Also, Michigan Tech, despite being in Michigan, is geographically much closer to most of other schools in the WCHA.  MTU probably wouldn't expect to see much of a financial windfall in their travel expenses by emigrating to the CCHA.

vegasjeff

March 21st, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^

I like forming our own league a lot, on its own, but there is a possible extra benefit for other sports.

I know Notre Dame says it wants to stay independent in football, but I think Big Ten Hockey is another strong piece of leverage for the Domers to reconsider their opposition to joining the B10.

Emarcy

March 21st, 2011 at 7:20 PM ^

to purge the abomination of reffing that is shegoes, count me all in!  After all, the big ten should have higher standards than the worst ref ever.  Shegoes down!

Alton

March 21st, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^

The Big Ten record book (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/genrel/auto_pdf/10-11-records…), page 55, says that Michigan has already won 5 Big Ten Hockey Championships--1960/61, 1961/62, 1963/64, 1967/68, 1968/69.  These are official championships recognized by the conference. 

Michigan also won the Big Ten Conference Tournament in hockey during the 1968/69 season (http://www.augenblick.org/chha/t_btn_01.html).  I say we should hang these 6 banners right now.

 

Will Vereene

March 22nd, 2011 at 11:01 AM ^

With this not being in effect until 2013-2014 season, there's plenty of time for those other B1G schools to get on the wagon. I am sure that there's plenty of Iowa and Indiana hockey players that would kill for the the chance to play in the B1G and improve their chances on reaching the NHL.

BTW-I am getting used to that unofficial logo, too.