|
Post by virginian on Mar 1, 2011 15:35:04 GMT -5
D-I hockey for Oakland is a great idea but there are issues as well as advantages.
Issues
1. Cost - Hockey is the second most expensive sport to fund after football. If there are Title IX issues, founding a women's program doubles the costs. Both Findlay and Wayne State folded programs within the last few years.
2. Conference affiliation - Entrance into the CCHA is not a given. They turned down WSU before the program folded and have since rejected a successful UA-Huntsville program. Years ago UM-Dearborn had a successful D-I program that folded. People I know claim that UM-Ann Arbor killed the program to diminish recruiting competition. If true, wouldn't UMAA do the same to a school only an hour away.
Don't count on a Big Ten Hockey Conference making an appearance, even with Penn State starting a D-I program. A Big Ten Cup is far more likely, as most Big Ten teams already play each other. A bit of scheduling and you have all of the advantages of a conference without the hassles of lost rivalries and trying to fill non-conference schedules of the members of a 6 team conference.
Advantage
Hockey is a great spectator sport and Oakland is located in the center of the US hockey universe. Done right, it can become a revenue sport. This may be an argument in favor of hockey over track and field, which has never been and will never be a revenue sport.
|
|
|
Post by rsd on Mar 4, 2011 23:51:36 GMT -5
2. Conference affiliation - Entrance into the CCHA is not a given. They turned down WSU before the program folded and have since rejected a successful UA-Huntsville program. Years ago UM-Dearborn had a successful D-I program that folded. People I know claim that UM-Ann Arbor killed the program to diminish recruiting competition. If true, wouldn't UMAA do the same to a school only an hour away. The on-campus rink is a requirement for CCHA entrance and not only did Wayne State not have an on-campus rink, they never had a permanent rink anywhere. I do not know enough about UA-Huntsville or UM-D to say anything factual beyond UM-AA would have no pull in dealing with OU's potential hockey team, as OU is not a part of the UM school system.
|
|
|
Post by virginian on Mar 5, 2011 12:18:44 GMT -5
But UM does have pull in the CCHA, which was my point. OU can found whatever program it chooses but admission to the CCHA will depend on whatever the local members decide.
|
|
|
Post by blackandgold on Mar 21, 2011 16:46:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 21, 2011 21:34:45 GMT -5
I think the CCHA will be OK. ND is staying. And with only 6 teams, you can only play so many conference games.
|
|
|
Post by ouguy on Mar 21, 2011 22:00:15 GMT -5
If Alaska would somehow leave the CCHA travel wouldn't be bad at all, probably less than our club team does now. That trip to Alaska has to be pretty terrible though.... I'm for OU moving to division 1 in varsity hockey. Obviously we'd get killed the first few years but I think it wouldn't be half as big of a money pit as football (which I'm against) and I think we could have decent attendance provided we could play on campus or very close. Im worried the CCHA wouldn't accept us, which means we'd be possibly without a home...
|
|
|
Post by virginian on Mar 22, 2011 12:43:57 GMT -5
I think the CCHA will be OK. ND is staying. And with only 6 teams, you can only play so many conference games. This actually empowers the remaining CCHA & WCHA members. They could set up scheduling agreement with each other and freeze out the Big Ten clubs. I expect the cache of having OSU, UM, MSU, etc. in their houses will keep the CCHA schools scheduling them. Perhaps a merger is in the offing, a Midwest/West mega-conference with two divisions. This is probably good news for UAH, which was denied admission to the CCHA. There will be some openings in both the CCHA and WCHA now.
|
|