I guess I disagree...part of what makes the WCHA and CCHA such competitive
leagues is that everyone else is out to get Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Michigan, and Michigan State, because they're in the Big Ten and "get all
the resources" instead of NMU, UMD, etc...The CCHA without Michigan,
Michigan State, and Ohio State is meaningless to the media; the WCHA
without Minnesota & Wisconsin is meaningless except perhaps in Denver (and
Grand Forks, but that's not exactly a top-20 media market).

No, in my mind GROWING college hockey means making decisions like adopting
Alabama-Huntsville into your league, even if it means extra travel, in
order to keep the program viable.  To get Kentucky, or Syracuse, or
Nebraska (-Lincoln), or other high-profile schools that might make sense,
you've got to keep your beachheads in place and solid.  (And don't think
I'm blaming the CCHA entirely over the UAH fiasco, I think Hockey East
shares some of the blame too as the smallest conference, for not helping
develop a solution.)

Mike Abegg




btoberman wrote:
> If you want college hockey to grow, then the Big Ten Hockey Conference
> is a great step forward.  The WCHA will do just fine without us.  This
> does not mean schools like CC and RPI are going to become less
> competitive.  It just means the Big Ten schools are going to beat up
> more on each other.
>
> Brad
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 15:10, Carol White
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> And here comes the BIG TEN Hockey Conference.... I can see it all
>> now....
>> NOT happy if that actually happens.  I like having Michigan
>> Technological
>> University in our league!!!
>>
>> Carol
>> GO Gophers!!!
>