|
PAC10
Aug 24, 2010 12:35:46 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Aug 24, 2010 12:35:46 GMT -5
Early feedback is for Michigan and Ohio State to play in separate divisions, thereby moving their annual contest up to late October/early November.
Presumably, Penn State would play Ohio State in the final game of the season, and also Michigan-Michigan State.
Thoughts on UM-MSU to close out the regular season?
|
|
|
PAC10
Aug 25, 2010 11:38:23 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Aug 25, 2010 11:38:23 GMT -5
A nice brief article regarding why money matters so much in college athletics today. espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/14890/big-ten-schools-among-few-making-profitOf particular note locally, The Big Ten schools generally outpace the other BCS schools in regards to the number of varsity sports offered. The article mentions Ohio State offering 36 varsity sports. I read on Frank the Tank's blog that Nebraska offers the most varsity sports in The Big XII with 21 sports, but will either be in 11th or 12th place in The Big Ten. I also recall that The SEC lags far behind The Big Ten in the number of varsity sports offered. I believe the Pac-10 is in the range of The Big Ten (especially the California schools), but I'm not sure. This means that each Big Ten football program (and we'll give a nod to men's basketball, too) has to carry more weight than their competitors in other BCS conferences. With the downturn in the economy, these athletic programs are facing some difficult choices. Either maximize revenue (and "sell your soul" in doing so), or start cutting programs. I know that the schools will do everything they can to not cut a program, so I fully expect the landscape to continue to change. More musical chairs in conferences, more changes to scheduling and Bowl arrangements and the BCS in general. And I don't think the Big Ten is done expanding... I think we're looking at 6-12 months for another two schools to announce they are joining.
|
|
|
PAC10
Aug 26, 2010 11:11:28 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Aug 26, 2010 11:11:28 GMT -5
Thoughts on UM-MSU to close out the regular season? I guess it's okay, but we all know who Michigan's main rival is, and they don't wear green and white. To end the season without a Michigan-Ohio State game is like ending a marathon by tying your shoes together for the final 100 yards. I know people try to make the Michigan-Michigan State rivalry bigger than it really is, but let's be honest. How many times in the past has Michigan and Michigan State had Big-Tenelve Championship-caliber teams in the same season? Not even close compared to Michigan-Ohio State. If they are going to end the season with Michigan-OSU battle, then begin the season with it. Anything else takes away every shred of luster.
|
|
|
PAC10
Aug 26, 2010 22:21:37 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Aug 26, 2010 22:21:37 GMT -5
To be fair, the Spartans have historically started strong and closed out the season poorly after the Michigan game. So while MSU might not have been a national championship contender, they are often still in strong contention for a bowl when the two squads meet.
Oddly, since D'Antonio and RichRod arrived, they've switched roles, in that MSU has not fallen apart after the Michigan game, while Michigan has clearly struggled down the stretch.
Personally, I'm not sure what to do about the UM-MSU game. It seems like a no-brainer to make it the final game of the season, but this game would be overshadowed by Ohio State-Penn State and probably Nebraska-Iowa. I'd prefer to see the Michigan-Michigan State game have an opportunity to be the Big Ten Game of The Week. There will eventually be ten weeks in the Big Ten Season. Obviously, anytime Michigan, OSU, PSU, or UNL matchup with each other, it will be the Game of The Week. And next would likely be any of those teams playing Wisconsin or Iowa, but I've got to think the UM-MSU game is right there with a big Iowa or Wisconsin game. If TPTB are smart, they will spread out their marquee games.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 1, 2010 10:22:44 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 1, 2010 10:22:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 2, 2010 9:27:11 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 2, 2010 9:27:11 GMT -5
So now we have OSU-PSU-Wisc-Pur-Ill-Ind and UM-NE-Iowa-MSU-NU-Minn. While it was a rambling post, I'm pretty happy that I nailed the divisions a month ago, and I'm happy with the choices that they made. It's not in stone yet, but it appears that they are looking at 9 games in 2015. It cannot be accomplished logistically any time before that. Once they go to 9 games, they can add back a few of the rivalry games that were lost. Specifically, Wisconsin could add back Iowa or get their desired rivalry with Nebraska, or add a short road trip to Northwestern. Penn State might want MSU, Iowa, or Minnesota back permanently. Iowa-Illinois and Purdue-Michigan are a couple of other minor rivalries to look at, too. After thinking about it, I don't mind having UM-OSU the last game of the season, even if they meet again a couple of weeks later. Odds are that they won't meet more than once or twice a decade, and if they do, it would still be a great story line. Otherwise, I think the divisions look fine from Michigan's standpoint. Regarding MSU, I think they did well in a couple of ways. They got their number one rival in their division in Michigan. They got their desired road trip to Northwestern for their many alums that live in (and want to travel to) Chicago. They got a protected game cross-division with Indiana, which it sounds like they wanted for recruiting, as a minor rivalry game, for a nearby road trip, and also Indiana has been the Big Ten's weakest team for the last 15 years. MSU also drops Penn State the last weekend of the season. Penn State had MSU's number, and while D'Antonio has done a marvelous job getting State to finish the season stronger, getting a weaker opponent the last game helps MSU. The only negative for MSU is that their next road game to Northwestern is going to be the weekend before Thanksgiving in 2012. Not the ideal weekend to plan a trip to Chicago. Also of note for 2011 scheduling: The season kicks off 10/1 with the marquee game being Nebraska at Wisconsin, with MSU at OSU, and Illinois-Northwestern on the undercard. The next week sees Nebraska's first home game: Ohio State. Iowa at Penn State is also a big one. Week Three is relatively light, which allows Michigan-Michigan State to have the spotlight to themselves. This is excellent news for both programs. Although, MSU has a bye before Michigan, so expect some extra trickery up the Spartans sleeves. The next three weeks have a couple of decent games in there, but none that really move the needle nationally. The final three weeks of the season in 2011 are just huge. Nebraska-Penn State overshadows everything else on 11/12. Nebraska-Michigan and Penn State-Ohio State on 11/19. Part of me wants these two games on different days, because each one demands national interest. Based on history, though, these two matchups are expected to have the most influence on each division title, so it does make it interesting that it could be for all the marbles on the next-to-last game of the season. Also, it will make for one hell of a double header for The Big Ten and for college football fans. Interestingly, in 2012 both matchups will still be on the same day, but in Week 5, not week 8. I wonder if ABC made that request, so they can own a full day of college sports. Finally, OSU-UM ends the season. Not counting OSU and UM, the next biggest divisional games on the entire season are also played on the final weekend: Neb-Iowa and PSU-Wisc. These games are to be played over Thanksgiving weekend. Again, I'd like to see these games split up, as fans of college football will be forced to miss one of these three, unless they do something goofy and have one of these games moved to Friday (which is not unheard of, as Texas and Texas A&M have traditionally played on the day after Thanksgiving).
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 2, 2010 11:21:20 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Sept 2, 2010 11:21:20 GMT -5
So now we have OSU-PSU-Wisc-Pur-Ill-Ind and UM-NE-Iowa-MSU-NU-Minn. While it was a rambling post, I'm pretty happy that I nailed the divisions a month ago, and I'm happy with the choices that they made. That's why we keep you around.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 20, 2010 12:20:24 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 20, 2010 12:20:24 GMT -5
Another interesting move in The Big Ten: Penn State is adding varsity hockey. If you follow the money, this is a huge tipping point for college hockey. Seriously. This is the "assassination of Archduke Ferdinand" level of domino getting knocked over. frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/big-ten-expansion-hits-the-ice/and www.uscho.comHere's what this does for college hockey: 1. Penn State is the 59th D-1 college hockey team, and the sixth Big Ten team with a college hockey team. There are currently 5 conferences, but The Big Ten Hockey Conference will be formed soon enough (they needed 6 teams). Perhaps as early as 2014-15. The BTHC will likely be the #1 conference talent-wise, but it will far and away be the #1 conference when you talk about name-brands, tv numbers, tickets sold, traveling fanbases, and political power. Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have half a century of success as top programs, and for the average football or basketball fan, these are the four biggest names in hockey. Ohio State has been very good recently, and has built up their name over the last decade, too. North Dakota, Maine, BC, BU, Denver... these are all tremendous hockey programs, but they don't draw in viewers or ticket sales the same way. 2. The formation of the BTHC will put college hockey on the TV map. At a bare minimum, there will be a Friday night game of the week broadcast nationally on The Big Ten network, that will feature highly ranked brand-name teams, with big alumni followings. However, there could be more. It's possible that ESPN or even NBC want to do a Game of the Week with the BTHC. And if it gets onto ESPN, you can expect to see regular updates of college hockey on Sportscenter. Also, you could see every other Big Ten hockey game on the overflow Big Ten channels as well, and there could be some strong-arming of non-conference tv rights going to The Big Ten (like if UM or MSU wants to schedule a series with Ferris St or Western, those schools need to agree that the tv rights go to the Big Ten packages. 3. The Big Ten schools are already competing for national championships, and recruit internationally, but this is an even bigger recruiting advantage. And may be a recruiting advantage for US College hockey over the juniors and minors and Canadian College Hockey. 4. In the state of Pennsylvania, hockey development has been on an upswing over the last 10-15 years, and across the state they are developing NHL talent. Not as much as Michigan or Minnesota or the northeast, but it is booming. This gives a tremendous outlet for those youths to have a legitimate stepping stone, and will grow the sport of hockey.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 20, 2010 22:15:29 GMT -5
Post by reghartner on Sept 20, 2010 22:15:29 GMT -5
Side note.
As of now the ACC has a lacrosse conference with only 4 teams. Virginia, Duke, UNC and Maryland. They are the smallest conference but by far the most powerful. 60 D1 teams and most of the conferences have 7-9 teams. 7 Conferences with the Big East (Syracuse, ND, Georgetown) and The Ivy League (Princeton and Cornell) being the next best 2 as far as star power goes.
As of now the Big 10 only has 2 schools with Varsity Lax. OSU (in the ECAC) and PSU (Colonial League). Michigan has a "Varsity Club" that has more funding than most D1 schools, but has not made the leap (yet). MSU used to have a varsity program, but it was guy in 1996 because of title 9. To balance the male/female participation numbers Merrily Dean Baker cut men's lacrosse and gymnastics and added women's crew (thank you c***).
Anyway. In all the talk of big 10 expansion I was kind of hold out hope that if Michigan went varsity and we added 1 of ND/Rutgers/Syracuse that would give us 4 teams and we could have a Big 10 lacrosse league. Add in that Northwestern has the strongest women's program in the country and PSU/OSU also have women's teams. I was thinking it might not be TOO far fetched for NU to add a men's team and a school like MSU to add in both programs as they try to expand the athletic department.
So the dream would be a Big 10 League of: OSU PSU Michigan MSU NU Syracuse/ND/Rutgers
That's not going to strike fear in anyone's heart or be a power conference by any means, but it would give the BTN something to show in the spring. It would also help establish the game in a growing area and show the east coast blue bloods that we're serious about lax in the midwest. Not to mention adding ND or Syracuse would be pretty good for basketball (if nothing else so that Mike Brey would have to eat that shit sandwich he made with his "if we wanted an easy schedule we'd play in the Big 10" comments.
Instead. We got Nebraska.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 21, 2010 9:40:27 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 21, 2010 9:40:27 GMT -5
A couple of points. First, the Big Ten wants Notre Dame. They will go to 14 schools (or more) if Notre Dame says "we want in". Who knows what dominos need to fall for ND to join a conference, though. Second, I believe that if The Big Ten decides to go to 14 without ND, that the most likely next invites would be Maryland and Rutgers. Rutgers wants in. For the Big Ten, they bring excellent academics, a large alumni base, the State of New Jersey, and they also solidify the Philly market and gain a toehold in New York City. The problem is that their football is historically shitty, albeit it has risen to mediocre today. And their basketball is useless. Maryland is in transition with a new President (or Chancellor, whatever), and AD. Once they get their internal affairs in order, they'll be able to take a strong look at what The Big Ten can offer over and above the ACC. Maryland is a geographic outlier in the ACC, and would also be one in The Big Ten. And they would be sacrificing their existing rivalries. However, the Big Ten might be more appealing than the ACC for two reasons. One, the ACC has a very clear centralized political power in the North Carolina schools (and UNC-Duke in basketball), while the Big Ten has much more of a one-for-all-and-all-for-one relationship. Two, The Big Ten can give Maryland a shitload more money. As for what they offer The Big Ten, the Maryland football program is historically mediocre, but is piss-poor right now. However, they bring an excellent basketball program, excellent academics and research, The State of Maryland, the Baltimore and DC markets, a little bit of Virginia, geographic access to Washington DC Senators who hand out research dollars and funding and can investigate things like BCS anti-trust and steroids, and a nearby rival for Penn State. As for Lacrosse: ND, Maryland, and Rutgers all have varsity teams. So if it is two of those three added, then you now have four varsity lacrosse teams. I'm not sure if there is a minimum number needed for the Big Ten to sponsor a conference. But... Lacrosse is seen as a sport that can make money on TV. Especially in the spring, when BTN needs programming inventory. It pales in comparison to men's basketball, which is a fraction of what football brings, but so is hockey, baseball, and women's basketball. But there are select regions and teams that have followings, and this will make money for The Big Ten. And therefore... A Big Ten Lacrosse Conference shown on The Big Ten Network (in the spring, where they NEED programming) the TV money may be enough to get a school over the hump to committing to a varsity program. Like Michigan and Ohio State football fans subsidize Northwestern and Indiana football, and like Indiana and Michigan State basketball fans subsidize Nebraska and Penn State basketball, and like Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey fans will subsidize Penn State hockey, it would follow that Maryland and Rutgers Lacrosse fans might be subsidizing Michigan and Michigan State lacrosse. It's obviously a much lower scale, but it is something. Also, in many cases, starting up a Lacrosse team is relatively inexpensive. Scholarships and Coaching and travel costs are constants, but infrastructure and field costs are relatively cheap (see: $88 million endowment to fund Penn State hockey). A final note. Last year, The Big Ten did have initial discussions with Bowling Green, Western Michigan, and Miami OH about joining a new Big Ten Hockey Conference. michiganhockey.net/?p=732 Therefore, if for some reason The Big Ten did decide they wanted to to add a few one-sport only schools to join a BTLC, they might go ahead and invite a school or two.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 22, 2010 12:12:22 GMT -5
Post by theforty on Sept 22, 2010 12:12:22 GMT -5
1. Penn State is the 59th D-1 college hockey team, and the sixth Big Ten team with a college hockey team. There are currently 5 conferences, but The Big Ten Hockey Conference will be formed soon enough (they needed 6 teams). Side note: Is it possible the Big Ten hockey conference would invite ND to join? ND is in the CCHA, is it not?
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 23, 2010 10:52:27 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 23, 2010 10:52:27 GMT -5
Side note: Is it possible the Big Ten hockey conference would invite ND to join? ND is in the CCHA, is it not? Notre Dame is in the CCHA. And this is an intriguing question. I don't think it will happen but it is possible for a couple of reasons. First, as I mentioned, The Big Ten already broached the subject of inviting a few schools into The Big Ten on a one-sport basis. Second, and this is a bit of a conspiracy theory, this could be a trial-balloon for the Big Ten-Notre Dame relationship. This would, in my opinion be the sole reason that Notre Dame would get an invite. As part of somebody's scheme to get ND into The Big Ten. It could be The Big Ten itself trying to grease the wheels, and it could be Jack Swarbrick (Notre Dame AD) or the ND President trying to ease the alumni into The Big Ten. Two notes about ND Head Coach Jeff Jackson. First, his resume is tremendous. He's got ND in national championship contention today. His previous two stops were guiding the US National Development Program in Ann Arbor, and winning two national championships in the mid-90's while at LSSU (and playing in the CCHA). ND will be pretty good for a while. Second, he's got some political sway. He is the son-in-law of Michigan State Hockey Legend, former coach, and former AD Ron Mason. If you JUST look at hockey, though, there are probably more reasons NOT to invite Notre Dame, though. Right now, a 6 team league seems perfect for maximizing these concerns: an attractive home schedule, an attractive TV package, getting 4 or 5 powers into the tournament, and minimizing the destruction of other conferences and rivals. You need six teams in a conference to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. So the BTHC will have six teams; they don't need another team to reach the magic number of six. Next, UM, MSU, Minn, Wisc, and Ohio State still want to be playing in the NCAA tournament every year, and you need to have some easily winnable games to make it. Four "gimmes" against Penn State is nice, but the other 16 conference games will all be brutal. Adding ND to a BTHC might push the schedule over the edge to "ridiculous", so that even if these six schools were legitimate top 10 teams (which is possible), one or two deserving teams might miss the tournament due to a brutal schedule, and lesser teams from other conferences would get in. [BTW, right now, MSU and Minnesota hockey are .500 clubs, which is a historic low for them. We're talking Michigan football 2009. They will be back.] Also, unless you play an unbalanced schedule, it will be tougher to preserve some of the existing rivalries. Keeping UM and MSU on the schedule for Ferris, LSSU, Northern and Western is important for those schools, and I don't think UM and MSU want to completely abandon them, if at all possible. Wisc, Minn, OSU have similar issues. Finally, while the ND Brand name would surely do something for the prestige of the BTHC, ND hockey is a much lower level of importance to ND alums and fans than it is at Michigan, or MSU, or Minnesota. So it's not likely to draw viewers or add subscriptions like it would in the existing states.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 24, 2010 10:28:37 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 24, 2010 10:28:37 GMT -5
Michigan-Alabama appears to be happening in Dallas at JerryWorld to kick off the 2012 season. This is tremendous if it happens. The rumor is that Jerry Jones is desperate to make a splash with a big game and to fill his stadium with additional events, and after some back and forth, he blew away Michigan with a boatload of cash. UM would be the "home team" and apparently make more money playing in Dallas than a home game in Ann Arbor. Crazy.
Who knows how Michigan will look in a couple of years, but maybe the money is right. It's great for college football to have more of these games and less games like Michigan-Delaware or MSU-Northern Colorado. I have heard that between TV and everything else, that a "home-and-home" between a couple of superpowers makes about the same money for each school over two years as scheduling two cupcakes. The problem is obviously that it can really mess up your national championship hopes. Interesting to see if the trend goes towards more big games.
Michigan would have a killer road schedule that year, with a "neutral" game against Alabama, and at Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Ohio State. Michigan State and Iowa would be the marquee home games.
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 27, 2010 12:14:45 GMT -5
Post by theforty on Sept 27, 2010 12:14:45 GMT -5
Side note: Is it possible the Big Ten hockey conference would invite ND to join? ND is in the CCHA, is it not? Notre Dame is in the CCHA. And this is an intriguing question. I don't think it will happen but it is possible for a couple of reasons. First, as I mentioned, The Big Ten already broached the subject of inviting a few schools into The Big Ten on a one-sport basis. Second, and this is a bit of a conspiracy theory, this could be a trial-balloon for the Big Ten-Notre Dame relationship. This would, in my opinion be the sole reason that Notre Dame would get an invite. As part of somebody's scheme to get ND into The Big Ten. It could be The Big Ten itself trying to grease the wheels, and it could be Jack Swarbrick (Notre Dame AD) or the ND President trying to ease the alumni into The Big Ten. Two notes about ND Head Coach Jeff Jackson. First, his resume is tremendous. He's got ND in national championship contention today. His previous two stops were guiding the US National Development Program in Ann Arbor, and winning two national championships in the mid-90's while at LSSU (and playing in the CCHA). ND will be pretty good for a while. Second, he's got some political sway. He is the son-in-law of Michigan State Hockey Legend, former coach, and former AD Ron Mason. If you JUST look at hockey, though, there are probably more reasons NOT to invite Notre Dame, though. Right now, a 6 team league seems perfect for maximizing these concerns: an attractive home schedule, an attractive TV package, getting 4 or 5 powers into the tournament, and minimizing the destruction of other conferences and rivals. You need six teams in a conference to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. So the BTHC will have six teams; they don't need another team to reach the magic number of six. Next, UM, MSU, Minn, Wisc, and Ohio State still want to be playing in the NCAA tournament every year, and you need to have some easily winnable games to make it. Four "gimmes" against Penn State is nice, but the other 16 conference games will all be brutal. Adding ND to a BTHC might push the schedule over the edge to "ridiculous", so that even if these six schools were legitimate top 10 teams (which is possible), one or two deserving teams might miss the tournament due to a brutal schedule, and lesser teams from other conferences would get in. [BTW, right now, MSU and Minnesota hockey are .500 clubs, which is a historic low for them. We're talking Michigan football 2009. They will be back.] Also, unless you play an unbalanced schedule, it will be tougher to preserve some of the existing rivalries. Keeping UM and MSU on the schedule for Ferris, LSSU, Northern and Western is important for those schools, and I don't think UM and MSU want to completely abandon them, if at all possible. Wisc, Minn, OSU have similar issues. Finally, while the ND Brand name would surely do something for the prestige of the BTHC, ND hockey is a much lower level of importance to ND alums and fans than it is at Michigan, or MSU, or Minnesota. So it's not likely to draw viewers or add subscriptions like it would in the existing states. I think the biggest hang-up is the odd number of teams, and ideally the league would want an even number for scheduling purposes. If the Big Ten would want to add ND for Hockey, I wonder if they would consider adding Nebraska-Omaha to get to 8 teams, as Nebraska-Omaha is part of the University of Nebraska. Just a crazy thought. The competitiveness would be tough, but it isn't as if there aren't strong conferences in other sports, and in general it is believed that strong conference play tends to lead to strong post-season play. The aim of this really wouldn't be to get the B10 Network into more homes, it would be to get ND and the Big Ten closer together to try to get ND to join in other sports (read football).
|
|
|
PAC10
Sept 28, 2010 0:23:27 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 28, 2010 0:23:27 GMT -5
I think the biggest hang-up is the odd number of teams, and ideally the league would want an even number for scheduling purposes. If the Big Ten would want to add ND for Hockey, I wonder if they would consider adding Nebraska-Omaha to get to 8 teams, as Nebraska-Omaha is part of the University of Nebraska. Just a crazy thought. The competitiveness would be tough, but it isn't as if there aren't strong conferences in other sports, and in general it is believed that strong conference play tends to lead to strong post-season play. The aim of this really wouldn't be to get the B10 Network into more homes, it would be to get ND and the Big Ten closer together to try to get ND to join in other sports (read football). The odd number of teams - for now - would not be a big deal. The general assumption is 20 conference games and 14 or 16 non-conference games (I learned that I was slightly mistaken earlier... schools are allowed 34 regular season games, but games in Alaska don't count towards the total. More than half of the WCHA and CCHA will play in Alaska this year, so 36 is common). With a 20/14 or 20/16 split, The Big Ten will probably prefer that the non-conference games are spread out, so there is always a decent TV game on Friday and Saturday night. Also, in college hockey, there's pretty much no rhyme or reason regarding conference and non-conference games. It's not like college football or college basketball, where except for a goofy bye week, once the conference schedule starts, that's all you play. Michigan's 2nd and 3rd games of the year this year are conference games, which is common. From what I understand, Nebraska-Omaha has nothing to do with Nebraska-Lincoln. They are separate schools, but in the same system. Not unlike UM-Dearborn has (had?) their own varsity teams. Or Wisconsin-Green Bay, etc. I agree that tougher conference play is desirable... and The Big Ten Hockey Conference will be getting it. The schedule will be tougher and also more interesting. The players will be better for it, and the teams that make the playoffs will be better prepared. However, there is a balance, too. You still need to make the tournament. Only 16 of 58 schools will make it; and the last 2 or 3 teams are usually not rated in the top 16. So it is pretty tight when you are fighting for spots 12, 13, and 14. Michigan hasn't missed the tournament in over 20 years, and MSU, Minn, and Wisc are probably going to the tourney 70-80% of the time over the last 20-30 years. Ohio State is at about 50% since around 1998. Getting four of six teams into the tournament should be a reasonable expectation, based on past history. With plenty of moderate (not easy) non-conference games it can happen. But if you schedule mostly conference games, I can almost guarantee you'd only be looking at 2 teams that make it. As for Notre Dame, I understand that there are different factions that have different beliefs. Part of me thinks it will never happen, but part of me thinks that there is a bit of a "wearing them out" process that will slowly chip away at the concerns and arguments against joining The Big Ten. Joining a Big Ten Hockey Conference would be one small step.
|
|