I pulled this little nugget off of a college hockey blog today.  I think this is a bad idea for the future of college pucks, but it looks like the Big Ten Network is pushing for this and it may happen.  too much at stake for the smaller D1 programs

There was serious talk in college hockey circles that Penn State, a Big Ten member school, would make a decision to field a Division I team in May of this year. Obviously, that didn’t happen — but the talk was loud enough for anyone who knew the situation to hear it, and it’s still a strong possibility. The addition of Penn State would bring to six the number of Big Ten teams playing college hockey, six being the magic number to force the Big Ten member schools to vote on a Big Ten hockey conference.

There is pressure by the Big Ten Network for the current Big Ten member schools with Division I hockey programs — Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State and Wisconsin — to play each other more regularly, so that the network can show the games and make more money. There’s even talk of having some sort of Big Ten hockey hardware, some sort of trophy for the member teams, which would require that each plays each other, every season.

In theory, more Big Ten hockey play has some merit; the name recognition of the schools involved could heighten the profile of college hockey. The scheduling, however, is difficult for all of the Big Ten schools involved, given their current conference obligations and the number of teams playing.

While heightening the profile of the sport through Big Ten Network exposure is something that may help all of college hockey, don’t think for a minute that the Big Ten Network — or the Big Ten, for that matter — gives a fig about anything other than its own bottom line. Go to the Big Ten Network’s Web site and find a press release dated Dec. 20, 2006, the release that talks about the Network’s offices and studios in Chicago. Accompanying the release is a photo of five executives, each holding athletic equipment: a soccer ball, a volleyball, a football, a basketball and a baseball glove. There is no hockey puck, no stick, no mask — natural, perhaps, because there is as yet no Big Ten hockey conference, but so metaphoric in terms of the sport we college hockey fans love.

There is no Big Ten hockey conference — yet. Make no mistake about how the Big Ten Network plays in this. While college athletics should be about student-athletes, and everyone involved in college athletics knows people — coaches, administrators, faculty — that do their best to make sure that college athletics is about student-athletes, it’s all about money, plain and simple, to the people who can profit from it, and the Big Ten Network would make much more money from a Big Ten hockey conference than it possibly can from two WCHA teams and three CCHA teams whose schools are otherwise affiliated with the Big Ten and who occasionally play each other.

And were the Big Ten to force its league on two current WCHA and three current CCHA members, the results would be detrimental to all of college hockey, make no mistake about that. For the two leagues where there are already haves and have-nots because of the differences in the make-ups of the schools, think of what would happen if the haves depart.

How would it be detrimental to hockey?  I'd like to see UW play Michigan, MSU and OSU more often.

I realize that the BT would make more money, but I still forsee the Denvers and North Dakotas of the world being competitive and winning their fair share.  Wouldn't the "haves" knocking heads all season will help the "have nots"?  Do the other schools only draw when they're playing the Badgers, Buckeyes, Gophers, Spartans or Wolverines?

What I wonder about is why PSU is being recruited to start a hockey team (though I welcome it) when there's another school out there that already has hockey and who the BT craves to be a partner with--Notre Dame.  Maybe the BT can steal the Irish from the BE with a more attractive hockey package?  It would at least be a point in the BT's favor.

thebiga:

I'd like to see UW play Michigan, MSU and OSU more often.

And therein, lies the answer to your question.  The unique conference affiliations of the big ten programs within college hockey is what provides the attendance boost for the bemidji's, colgate, and lake superior states of the worlds.  outside of regional rivalries (ie Denver/CC), the big ten teams put the most fannies in the seats and thus drive revenue and survival of some of the smaller school programs.  I believe college hockey is on life support as it stands right now with a full conference (college hockey america) folding at the end of this year and at least one program going belly up the past three seasons.  If the big ten voted to add hockey, it would definately create a chasm of haves (BTHC, Boston Schools, UND, CC) and have nots.  This would not be good for the overall health of the sport.

thebiga:

What I wonder about is why PSU is being recruited to start a hockey team (though I welcome it) when there's another school out there that already has hockey and who the BT craves to be a partner with--Notre Dame.  Maybe the BT can steal the Irish from the BE with a more attractive hockey package?  It would at least be a point in the BT's favor.

Penn State and Illinois both have very solid club programs and would be naturals to add hockey to their D1 lineup.  Overcoming the Title IX implications is a whole nother animal.  If the idea of adding hockey to lure notre dame to the Big Ten is the end goal, I say go for it.  However, as stated above, the impact on college hockey as a whole would be very detrimental

Title IX is easy.  Bring in a Women's Hockey Program and make Women's Rugby Varsity.   A Big 10 Hockey League would be great.

Yes to more Big Ten matchups...No to a Big Ten Hockey conference.

The WCHA is nice blend of hardcore small schools where this is the only game "in town."  And the Big Time universities.  The conference is strong and thriving.

It would be a mistake to pile those big schools into one tiny conference where most of OSU, MSU, UM, UW, and the U would not challenge for a postseason tournament spot.  Not to mention a conference needing 8 schools at least to be interesting (IMO).

Keep 'em apart except for a holiday tournament thing unless and until hockey grows substantially on a national level (don't see it happening in my lifetime).

Good points on creating a Big 10 Hockey League.

I think a Big 10 tournament during the Holidays or maybe even before the conference tournaments would be great.  With 5 teams it could be accomplished in a long weekend.  Use National Seeding:  First match: 4 v. 5.  Winner 4 v. 5 plays 1.  2 v. 3.  Championship game.

I think the tournament should be put at the end of the year, before the conference tournaments.  Too often, Wisconsin and other programs have key players away on touring teams over the holidays.  And I think at the end of the year, it could help everybody's strength of schedule component of the rankings for the national tournament.

puddyellow:

Yes to more Big Ten matchups...No to a Big Ten Hockey conference.

The WCHA is nice blend of hardcore small schools where this is the only game "in town."  And the Big Time universities.  The conference is strong and thriving.

It would be a mistake to pile those big schools into one tiny conference where most of OSU, MSU, UM, UW, and the U would not challenge for a postseason tournament spot.  Not to mention a conference needing 8 schools at least to be interesting (IMO).

Keep 'em apart except for a holiday tournament thing unless and until hockey grows substantially on a national level (don't see it happening in my lifetime).

Totally agree.

kegman:

Title IX is easy.  Bring in a Women's Hockey Program and make Women's Rugby Varsity.   A Big 10 Hockey League would be great.

lol.  not sure what you meant by this.  I hope you weren't referring to UW, who has a powerhouse Womens Hockey Team.  Make sure the rugby team has tear away jerseys.  lol