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.
|
