I decided to answer some of my own question.  I looked up hockey rinks in the Iowa City area.  The University of Iowa IceHawks play at the Coral Ridge Ice Arena.  They also play in Cedar Rapids.  Their schedule includes teams from Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin.  They play in the Mid-America College Hockey Association as part of the ACHA.  It looks like they may have two men's teams and a woman's team.  Iowa's team was established in 1974.

http://www.hawkeyeshockey.net/

The current Illinois team has been playing hockey since the mid-1950s.  There was a varsity team around WWII.  They are a member of the Central States Collegiate Hockey League in the ACHA.

http://www.illinihockey.com/

As I keep looking it seems like most if not all of the Big Ten schools have club teams, including those with varsity teams.  So I think I will stop here on looking for club teams.  Eventually I found a Wikipedia article on the ACHA so that would just be easier to reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACHA

One critical item maybe the size of the ice arena to be able to support the program through ticket sales.  For instance, the Frank Southern Ice Arena at Indiana seats 700.

Thank you,

Doug Peterson


-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Oct 31, 2013 10:53 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Possible FF locations for 2015 (and beyond)
>
>Hopefully the table below does not become too scrambled.  I thought I would look at the number of sports each current Big Ten school is supporting.  Four schools have both men's and women's ice hockey.  The other two schools both have women's field hockey.  I am not sure if there is any sort of correlation there or not.
>
>Do any of the other schools have a competitive and long-time club hockey team?  Personally I think it is unlikely the other schools are going to add a non-revenue generating men's sport.  They may also need to add a women's sport if they would end up with some sort of proportionality problem.  Hockey teams are not small.
>
>                Men's   Women's
>Has Both Men's & Women's Hockey			
>Ohio State      18      19
>Penn State      15      14
>Minnesota       11      12	
>Wisconsin       11      12	
>			
>Has Men's Hockey			
>Michigan        13      14
>Michigan State  11      12
>			
>Has No Hockey			
>Iowa            10      12	
>Indiana         10      12
>Nebraska        9       13	
>Illinois        9       10      
>Northwestern    8       11
>Purdue          9       9	
>			
>Ohio Statue includes Spirit program for men and women.
>Illinois includes women's Cheerleading.
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Doug Peterson
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: "J. Michael Neal" 
>Sent: Oct 31, 2013 6:39 AM 
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Subject: Re: Possible FF locations for 2015 (and beyond) 
>
>Or, it could be that they thought the value of having a conference sport was determined by absolute rather than relative numbers.  There's no evidence that "majority" is the reasoning behind the figure of six for starting a conference sport.  And indeed, there is at least one very good rationale for why six was the magic number without any regard to what percentage of the conference that entailed: six is the number of teams a conference must have in order for the NCAA to award an autobid.
>
>So you're really just casting about for a reason to sneer rather than actually providing any insight as to what the Big 10 was thinking.
>
>
>On 10/31/2013 12:31 AM, Bob Griebel wrote:
>
>
>Oh, I presume the BTHC, once started, is here to stay, and you're probably right about the finite "at least six" threshold.  But if "six" was established when the Big Ten = 10 and merely hasn't been updated, it makes the coming result seem even more distortive of what was probably once intended as a "majority of conference schools" threshold.  
>
>Hopefully, more members will elect to add varsity hockey.  I'd hoped someone here might offer some useful scuttlebutt about which schools are closest.  At various times, I've heard Iowa or Illinois, but I have no idea.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>On 10/30/2013 11:39 PM, J. Michael Neal wrote:
>
>So, you assume that the people running the Big 10 would invest what it takes to start up a hockey conference without noticing that a rule would cause that all to be wasted in a couple of years?  Or do you think it might be the case that they made sure that the rule said that six teams are needed to form a conference, rather than stating that it must be a majority? 
>
>Based on a conversation I had years ago with someone who had worked in the conference offices, it's the former, not the latter. 
>
>On 10/30/2013 11:10 PM, Bob Griebel wrote: 
>
>On 10/30/2013 10:04 PM, John Edwards wrote: 
>
> and I think Chicago is likely - particularly if the B1G 10* is behind it. 
>
>*-calculations made using Base 6. 
>
>
>Hmmm, but by the time a potential Chicago Frozen Four rolls around, the Big 6/14ths Hockey Conference may be obsolete.  When Penn State's upgrade to varsity hockey satisfied the Big 10's own rule that a Big Ten Conference must be created for any sport in which half the Big Ten schools participate, 6/12 = 50%.  But after Maryland and Rutgers come aboard, 6/14 will equal 42.8571429%. 
>
>And who knows who's yet to come aboard.  There are schools in other time zones where broadcast sponsors would be delighted to benefit from expanding market coverage.  Does the Big Ten have a minimum threshold dissolution rule? 
>
>Bob 
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>J. Michael Neal
>
>I've opened the box and I've touched the treasures of the earth
>They're buried on the island far away
>And I'm here in England with the map burning my pocket
>Dreaming of diamonds..
>Such a blinding secret to bear.