On Sat, 4 May 1996, J. Michael Jackson wrote:
> Everyone
> should consider their reaction to the Ivies being told not to play each
> other each season before getting up in arms if the Big 10 decides to give
> themselves a full complement of games.
>
> J. Michael Jackson
>
 
That is the thing though.  ". . .if the Big 10 decides to give themselves
a full complement of games."  That implies it is in the hands of the Big
Ten to decide.  Which brings up the issue of the Big 10/11 breaking away
from their current conference affiliations. People in the Big 10/11 want to
see their teams play other Big 10/11 teams.  That is natural, and by all
means maybe they need to set up more non-conference games accordingly.
But setting up a "full complement of games" seems to imply the Big 10/11
hockey conference would be better than what they have.  I've pointed this
out before, and still firmly believe it to be true.  If the Big 10/11 runs
off to play with itself, they will not enjoy the same success
collectively that they did divided in two conferences.  They will
not make for an unbeatable conference.  The remaining conferences will
continue to be competitive, and possibly become even better.  Since the
Big 10/11 would not likely get as many of its schools in the NCAAs,
(compared to how many it gets in with the schools being in two conferences)
that leaves other schools with more opportunities to get in.  That improves
records, and winning attracts recruits.  Particularly those from Canada
and elsewhere.  That allows the rest of the hockey world to become
stronger, not weaker.  If the Big 10/11 schools are happy with that
arrangement, fine.  Then in 20 years the hockey world will wind up
looking at a Big 10/11 hockey conference in a way similar to how the world
looks at it in football. That is to say, they would be a well respected
conference , internally competitive to an extreme, with a couple of teams
ranked high nationally, that hasn't won a national title in how long?
(speaking of football of course)
Right now the Big 10/11 schools have what the football conference thinks
about from time to time.  That is the ability to dominate (now and then)
more than one conference (as they are currently divided between two), and
without beating each other up constantly, they place more teams in
contention for national titles, than they would in a single conference.
 
I hear well intentioned statement that say all of college hockey would
gain by having a Big 10/11 conference, that it would bring more
attention to the sport.  I would counter argue that the sport gets better
attention, that is more valuable because the Big 10/11 schools are
divided between two conferences.  More teams get seen, that would not
always attract the attention otherwise.  It shows that there is more to
sports than the Big 10/11.  It shows people that there is more to the
sport than the traditional powers in athletics.  If anything what helps
attract people to Hockey is just that.  They don't shrug and see the same
old names, dominating everything.
 
I have the utmost respect for the Big 10/11, and fully understand the
reasons why the dream of a hockey conference is appealing to the heart.
But I don't agree with the logic.  I think it is a dream that will
persist, but won't go anywhere.  Because they (the coaches and ADs,
particularly the coaches)  would have to give up what they have now.
And I think they value what it is they have, and that they know they are
better off, as is college hockey in general, by keeping the setup they
have.  There is room for change, and I'm sure new arrangements will come
about to allow for more interaction within the Big 10/11 schools that do
play hockey.  Meanwhile all of college hockey will continue to gain from
having good teams to play, and the media attention that comes from
playing them, but beating them as well.
 
Nathan W.L. Boyle
BGSU
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.