Time for U.S. College Hockey to leave the NCAA?
- Thread starter Corso
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
Please enlighten me and everyone else your plan on men's and women's hockey at the college level leaving NCAA sanctioning? Because posting a statement and finishing it off with a question makes this comparable to an idiotic, clickbait, Buzzfeed news article
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
There might be an argument that college football is big enough to pull out of the NCAA by itself and operate itself seperately, but I don't really see a situation where college programs risk any sort of NCAA retaliation that'd assuredly come from smaller earning hockey programs trying to chart their own quasi-outlaw path. Doing so would likely be a deathknell for their other sports. Maybe that makes sense for a very small number of schools, but the programs with the money and resources necessary to meaningfully do this likely would have more to lose with their other programs suffering as a result of conference and NCAA backlash.
Jeesh... you're insufferable. The guy posted a legitimate news article for discussion. As it relates to hockey, there are tons of pros and cons to such a move, but heaven forbid anyone ever talks about anything you're not interested in, or talks about something that you don't think will happen.
Can U.S. Soccer’s Support Kick Year-Round College Model Into Gear?
U.S. Soccer, the Big Ten and ACC are exploring the idea of launching a 32-team pilot program for two-semester men's college soccer.
www.sportico.com
Does anyone really care what posters of his ilk really think.... probably not.
The NCAA is going through massive changes and we have to ask, what will the impact on hockey be and perhaps there is a better way forward than to be tied to an organisational structure that views the sport as an afterthought.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
For what it's worth, Matt Brown is a well sourced writer when it comes to college sports finances and realignment. Certainly above Buzzfeed level of writer, but I digress.
That being said, as it relates to college hockey - no. College hockey is one of the few sports in the college pyramid that is still relatively intertwined with the NCAA system. The movements and desires of regents and the like in football centered campuses don't really apply to hockey focused schools - and even if they do intertwine, like some of the B1G schools, they are essentially staying pat, and if anything, left typical hockey conferences to strike it out under the supposed branding power of the Big Ten.
Now, if college hockey was much more spread out across the country like CFB and CBB were, instead of concentrated in pockets of the midwest and northeast, I could see an argument. But not at the stage the sport is at. Especially when you consider that the balance of power between the CHL/major junior hockey and the NCAA/college hockey is actively being fought, and could likely end up finished in one another's favor depending on how things shake out in the next five years, and also how much state and federal legislation on international athletes and NIL wipe the board clean.
Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
I read the link. It doesn't relate in any realistic way to men and women's hockey at the NCAA level. Hence why I asked what your actual plan for college hockey would be. Because nothing in the article says anything feasible.
The potential actions won't much sway college hockey which is extremely intertwined with the NCAA system. Schools are too small, conferences are exclusively hockey-only save for the Big 10 (which barely has enough members to operate), too concentrated in the north and northeast, the fact that major juniors exists.
The guy says "looking at you, hockey" without acknowledging any of the above.
So I repeat my question. Please enlighten me: what is your plan and how it will be successful?
If a topic of conversation is the discussion of a scenario not backed by anything factual or at its core is completely nonsensical, it's not worthy. There are people on this site who actively discuss an imminent announcement of the NHL's expansion to Houston. There are a number of things which make something conversation worthy. This thread doesn't have it. What the OP is suggesting is an absolutely nothingburger.
A lot of big schools are in the ACHA. Penn State was the National Champion a couple of times before moving to the NCAA.
JMCx4
#91 and counting ...
I'm not sure how you quantify "A lot of big schools", but the current Top 25 teams in the ACHA Men's 1st Division rankings have very few schools that I'd consider big. It looks like the W1 Division rankings represent more large schools, but not a number that I'd describe as a lot.
Uneducated question, is NCAA hockey actually that popular and does it generate meaningful revenue?
I'm not sure how you quantify "A lot of big schools", but the current Top 25 teams in the ACHA Men's 1st Division rankings have very few schools that I'd consider big. It looks like the W1 Division rankings represent more large schools, but not a number that I'd describe as a lot.
ASU used to be there, Pitt is a pretty big school, etc. NYU is there mainly because NCAA wouldn't let them go Division I in hockey while being Division III in all other sports. Just saying its an option for schools who don't like the NCAA.
Its not like football or basketball obviously. The bigger programs (the Boston schools) probably generate a few million a year. Not sure if its above baseball or not.
JMCx4
#91 and counting ...
A school's AD or other administration would have to be desperate (or just plain stupid) to consider ACHA a reasonable option vs. just dropping their ice hockey program(s).
Last edited:
What type of retaliation could be expected from the NCAA? If all college hockey programs unite under the umbrella of USA Hockey, what impediments to competition may arise concerning NCAA governance or structure???
Do you believe that Illionois or Iowa would pressure the Big10 to levy a fine against the Wolverine football program because the school's hockey program broke away from the NCAA? Do you really believe they give a single iota of thought to it??
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Firstly, "if all college hockey programs unite" is about as big of an "if" as "if all countries stopped fighting we'd have world peace." Sure.... but not going to happen.
Second, you named Illinois, which is part of the Big Ten, which specifically created a sport-realigning hockey conference in an attempt to make money. You'd better believe that the likes of Illinois and Iowa and the Big Ten would absolutely be furious at any hockey program trying to go their own seperate way. They'd arguably the biggest haves to be the most against such a thing, and would be on board with any kind of punishment possible.
As for what retaliatory measures that conferences and the NCAA at large could implement, take your pick. They all make money by making sure that their members toe the line and don't rock the boat too much. Fines, sanctions, loss of scholarships, and any kind of legalese written into media contracts absolutely would be hefted against schools, big and small, for attempting to break away even in relatively smaller money sports.
And while hockey is still second fiddle to the likes of football and basketball, it still makes assorted conferences and the NCAA money, and is deemed important enough to get actually reasonably good amounts of ESPN coverage during its tournament. It's not like we're talking about things that the NCAA doesn't care about, like minnow-sized club programs or sports that the NCAA doesn't seem to care about enough to make a varsity product, like shooting, bowling, and boxing, which have college programs outside the NCAA that some NCAA members have programs for as well.
Last edited:
In NYU's case it was because the NCAA wouldn't let them go Division I in hockey while being Division III in everything else but fencing (I know this because I went there). I can't say why the other schools did it. It maybe because of travel and scheduling. Not every school with big sports have hockey programs like the Big 10 has 7 hockey teams one of which is Notre Dame who isn't in the Big 10 in other sports. So out of 18 teams in the Big 10 only 6 have hockey.
I am not sure that is entirely true, as how much money does Iowa and Illinois receive from the licensing and TV deals generated by the Big10 hockey conference? I would love to know the exact number, but I believe that the amount is but a drop in the proverbial (large) bucket.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Illinois and Iowa make money from BTN which is part of an overall package of all sports, just as assorted NCAA programs make money from national tv deals from packages as well. How much do they get for individual sports doesn't matter, it's the package that's the value. If you unravel that bundle, you drag the overall value of that down.
And even if still a small amount, it's still a small amount that schools like Illinois make for doing nothing. Why would they let that go voluntarily unless they got their beak wet in the process? Even if there's a financial incentive for hockey schools to seperate those programs from the NCAA at large, which I'm not entirely convinced is the case, what incentive do non-hockey schools have at playing nice over their share of revenues declining even a small fraction?
I would argue that the overall impact on revenue from what the BTN garners from hockey is so minuscule to a program like Iowa that they would not embark on a holy crusade to punish the schools whose hockey programs voluntarily left for a more favorable governing structure.
Now we can debate about whether a governing body such as USA Hockey could steer college hockey to calmer waters as opposed to how the NCAA is impacting the game but I'm not going to buy the argument about a potentially declining value for the Big10 due to a hockey exodus since Iowa would care about as much as a dead rat's ass about the "lost revenue" from the Big10 hockey conference.
Yes, I believe it is that minuscule
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
If you believe that it's that miniscule, then why would hockey schools risk their actual money programs for a rogue path in hockey? If the hockey pie is small, then there's no real incentive for hockey programs to get swung off from an already established, and quite vindictive, superstructure like the NCAA.
Either hockey's worth it and therefore the NCAA, existing conferences, and non-hockey schools wouldn't tolerate a breakway, or hockey's not worth it and therefore not even worth the effort to go a seperate way.
Either hockey's worth it and therefore the NCAA, existing conferences, and non-hockey schools wouldn't tolerate a breakway, or hockey's not worth it and therefore not even worth the effort to go a seperate way.
The issue now is the increasing costs for all programs, no matter the sport, due to the increasing professionalization of NCAA athletics. A new governing structure may allow college hockey to deal differently with NIL, the transfer portal, revenue sharing ect ect.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
That'd be sufficiently covered by dropping down to D2 or D3 or by dropping varsity entirely and becoming a club ACHA sport instead, neither of which would be remotely something that the NCAA would be opposed to. Big Ten obviously wouldn't be on board with a Michigan doing that, but overall NCAA has never had an issue with timely reorientation of schools up or down the divisional ladder or outright dropping sports accordingly.
But this hypothetical seems to be oriented to retaining D1 attention, revenues, and talent while dropping D1 oversight and ingrained revenue sharing.
I just don't buy a realistic scenario where advocates remotely get what they like about D1 hockey without losing way more in the process, all in a fashion that risks their actual moneymaking endeavours.
Seems about as likely as the occassional howl for a Canada-centric pro hockey alternative to the NHL or any other outlaw league remotely having a chance at unseating MLB, NBA, or NFL you sometimes hear every now and then.
But this hypothetical seems to be oriented to retaining D1 attention, revenues, and talent while dropping D1 oversight and ingrained revenue sharing.
I just don't buy a realistic scenario where advocates remotely get what they like about D1 hockey without losing way more in the process, all in a fashion that risks their actual moneymaking endeavours.
Seems about as likely as the occassional howl for a Canada-centric pro hockey alternative to the NHL or any other outlaw league remotely having a chance at unseating MLB, NBA, or NFL you sometimes hear every now and then.
Its not that easy to be in different levels for different sports in the NCAA. Back in the 90s when the old Big East made their football push, Georgetown, St Johns, and the other schools that had D-3 football programs had to move to Division 1-AA (now FCS). That's why NYU is in ACHA.
As far as BTN network goes, yes hockey is generally just filler programing outside of football season and around basketball.
College hockey has the same problem as college baseball in that the best players of college age are generally already in a pro system. Maybe letting guys go to college out of juniors or letting guys sign with NHL teams but keep playing in college (on the condition they can't leave once a season starts) would strengthen the game.
What amount of revenue is meaningful? That might be the bigger question. The conferences, hockey schools, and NCAA would all likely have differing answers I'd think.
The NCAA makes a few million from the NCAA Hockey tournament, so I'd be curious to know the total value of hockey-related incentives that are distributed to hockey schools through the NCAA. The NCAA distributes money to schools and conferences from a handful of distribution funds, but outside the Big Ten, everyone else in college hockey is negatively impacted, because single sport conferences and schools that are primarily division 2 or 3 do not qualify for some or any of the distribution buckets. Given that single sport conferences don't get NCAA voting rights either, it would be hard for the NCAA to make an argument, imo, and why would there be retribution when FB is so clearly being treated differently? If the concept of college hockey breaking away was to be floated, and if the NCAA or non-hockey Big Ten members showed that they actually cared, then the hockey schools would, at-minimum, be in a position to negotiate for increased revenue distribution or improved representation in regard to NCAA Governance.
If college hockey left the NCAA, the biggest benefit is that there would be a more well-coordinated, nimble, and focused governing body that could more effectively work to grow the game, both financially and geographically.
The smaller schools or conferences could benefit because they could potentially receive new or increased payouts from the national tournament.
All hockey schools would see a benefit from an increase in the quantity of both regular season and tournament games. While the frozen four could remain the same, the format and potentially the quantity of games in the earlier rounds could change. The existing regional format could be replaced, with something like the top 8 seeds hosting a best of 3 quarterfinal. With that change for the quarter finals, the first round would also be tweaked and additional tournament slots could be made available through the implication of bye's (a first round by for every team added to the tournament, so between zero and eight).
Enacting change under the current NCAA governing model is nearly impossible. Breaking off from the NCAA would make the introduction of a format like the one above much more likely, because hockey schools would actually benefit when tournament revenues and income increase. Coaches of smaller schools don't currently want to play NCAA tournament games in home arena's, but that line of thought would probably change if it meant additional revenue and additional tournament access/slots. An additional slot could even be saved for independent schools to support both expansion of new teams and those who are stranded in purgatory without a conference.
The NCAA does nothing to market hockey, and the frozen four is currently buried on ESPN+ and ESPNU for pretty much all tournament games except for the frozen four. The timing of the NCAA tournament could also get pushed back a little bit so that the final four is less off a conflict, and/or college hockey could also work with a new sports network that doesn't have such a crowded TV schedule at that time of the year. Hockey schools don't currently get a payout from TV anyway, and ESPN does nothing to market college hockey, either during the year or during the post season as it is. With a focus on marketing the game of HOCKEY, and if any effort at all was put into getting more games on linear TV in Canada, it wouldn't be that difficult to improve the current TV situation.
The NCAA doesn't even provide anything to support College Hockey Inc. They can go _ themselves.
