Isn't Nebraska-Omaha the school that is dropping football for financial reasons? Maybe this alignment is detrimental to an already-strapped athletic program and someone else's maximization could be the destruction of the program, and therefore his job.
You asked.
If you want to get right down to it, and it's a topic I've avoided getting into, it's this:
Universities believe that Varsity Athletic Programs are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND VITAL.This was shown during the most recent round of NCAA Basketball Tournament negotiations, which I'll get back to in a minute.
There are 346 schools playing Div 1 Mens basketball, and (guessing) that 75 of them have the football program pay for the other sports. The other schools may or may not have a profitable football program and/or basketball program, but not one that covers multiple other sports programs.
For these other ~275 Universities and Colleges, the money given to them by the NCAA basketball Tournament money is what pays for most other varsity sports at these schools.Therefore, when the last NCAA Basketball Tournament TV Contract was ending, it was pretty well known that CBS was greatly overpaying for the Tournament TV rights. The NCAA was not going to get the same amount of money for the "same" tournament from CBS (or ESPN, etc.). The Universities spoke loudly and clearly and pretty much unanimously: To hell with what is best for men's college basketball and the tournament and history and integrity and fairness. We cannot afford to lose money, because we will have to cut varsity programs.
So just to state this more clearly another way, it's been determined that PRETTY MUCH EVERY SCHOOL has chosen to protect it's revenue base regardless of the consequences to an individual money-making sport.And that is what the Big Ten schools are doing right now. Protecting and/or Maximizing it's revenue base to protect it's current sports. And if possible, add some varsity sports.
Now let's look at how college hockey fits in here. The six Big Ten schools have found a huge revenue source for college hockey, via The Big Ten Network. I've heard estimates that each school will make at least $1M from the 40 BTN TV games. (If anyone else knows if the math adds up, that would mean $6M from 40 games, or roughly $150,000 in revenue per game. That seems high to me, but there may be peripherals like pre/post game shows, coaches shows, repeats, etc.)
Yes, the money will be concentrated in the hands of The Big Ten schools, and yes, there will be a (smaller) financial hit to the "smaller" schools, and it may be enough of a hit to make some teams fold.
But what it comes down to is this: Should the AD and President at the University of Michigan be more concerned with (a) Bowling Green men's ice hockey, or (b) Michigan men's lacrosse?
Because $1M in revenue added to a school can pay for a lower cost varsity sport. Or, perhaps at Ohio State and Penn State, can make the hockey team self-sufficient, instead of needing football to subsidize it.
As for the "already strapped athletic program" argument, here's where things sit for current conference mates on Big Ten schools in college hockey:
The Big Ten schools are going to go from playing 28 conference games to 20 conference games. They will still keep some of their existing rivalries with the smaller schools. However, for a Ferris State, which probably got roughly 12 home games each against Michigan and Michigan State over the last decade, that number may drop to 5-8 over a decade each. The other revenue hits to the CCHA: The Fox Sports Detroit TV contract was mostly based on having Michigan or Michigan State play in every televised game, so that will go from "small" to "negligible". And the Conference Tournament at Joe Louis revenue will probably go from "small" to "negligible" or "negligible" to "slight loss". Yes, these schools will take a hit from losing the power teams that brought money to the conference.
But, looking around college hockey, here's how this will affect teams:
There are five hockey conferences today. In the East, Hockey East is the powerhouse, ECAC is the mid-major, and Atlantic Hockey is the weakest conference. They will be basically unaffected by the news, although I'll get back to Atlantic Hockey in a minute.
The WCHA is the power in the West, and will go from 12 to 10 teams. With the loss of Minnesota and Wisconsin, it will hurt, but the WCHA will remain strong. Denver and North Dakota are premier programs (like Michigan, Minnesota, etc.) that headline the league, and they are still grouped pretty well regionally, with 4 teams in Minnesota, 2 teams in Colorado, 1 each in Nebraska, North Dakota, Michigan, and Alaska.
The general thought around college hockey is that initially, the new WCHA, The Big Ten, and Hockey East will all be about on par with each other as far as talent. And also, that no WCHA team is really in danger of folding from this news. Yes, the smaller schools in the WCHA won't want to see Minn and Wisc leave, but there hasn't been any concern about schools folding their teams.
Back to Atlantic Hockey: They are 12-team Eastern based conference, except for Air Force, which is in Colorado. There's a general assumption that Air Force would be a natural to slide into the WCHA for travel reasons.
One more item before I get to the CCHA. There is one independent school in college hockey: Alabama-Huntsville. The CCHA didn't want them, and no other conference had an opening. Under the new world order, assuming Air Force goes to the WCHA, you would now have 11 teams in the WCHA, 11 in Atlantic Hockey, and 8 in the CCHA. There are now 3 conferences much more interested in Alabama-Huntsville joining.
Now for the CCHA. They would go from 11 to 8 schools, and is the one conference where there is concern over the direction.
Notre Dame, Miami, Western Michigan, Northern Michigan, and Alaska (Fairbanks) are considered to be safe from folding. Bowling Green and Lake Superior State are the two that are supposedly on shaky ground. Ferris State somewhere in the middle.
I will admit that a doomsday scenario of BGSU, LSSU, and Ferris folding, and one or two schools leaving for the WCHA, would leave 3-4 schools stuck in neutral.
By the same token, an 8-team CCHA would still be ahead of ECAC as far as talent and relevance to college hockey. Notre Dame and Miami are top-12 programs, and a good start to any conference.
Now the other thing that naysayers don't want to mention... while there are some long term college hockey relationships and rivalries that will be changed/damaged, THIS IS THE FREAKING BIG TEN we are talking about. You know, the one which sponsors TWENTY-FIVE other sports. The oldest Division 1 college athletics conference. The conference that leads the nation in academic, research, and athletic performance AND collegiality. There will be synergy and efficiency by dealing with your brother institutions.
