The last 11 months have seen seismic shifts in the NCAA Division I hockey landscape. What do all the changes mean for the future of the sport?

By Kevin Kurtt

Let’s Play Hockey Editor

The college hockey landscape shifted on Sept. 17, 2010. That day, Penn State University announced an $88 million gift from Terry and Kim Pegula to add hockey as a Division I varsity sport. The college hockey world was forever changed - not immediately, of course, but the addition of the Nittany Lions to college hockey sparked a chain of events in the past 11 months that has altered the look and the future of the sport.

The college hockey landscape shifted again on March 21, 2011. That day, the Big Ten announced the establishment of hockey as an official conference sport. Once Penn State announced the creation of the newest puck program, the Big Ten now had the required six teams to create a college hockey conference. So, in 2013-14, Penn State will join fellow hockey-playing schools in the Big Ten.

With the addition of the Big Ten, two major college conferences are set to lose their marquee programs. The WCHA will be without Minnesota and Wisconsin, while the CCHA will bid adieu to Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State. Combined, those five programs have won 23 NCAA Championships and appeared in the national tournament 121 times.

The college hockey landscape shifted in a big way on July 9, 2011. That day, five schools from the WCHA (Denver, Colorado College, Minnesota Duluth, Nebraska-Omaha, North Dakota) and one from the CCHA (Miami) announced the creation of the National College Hockey Conference (NCHC). Like the Big Ten, the NCHC would open for play for the 2013-14 season, leaving the WCHA and CCHA on life support without the majority of its premier programs.

Since then, the college hockey landscape seems to shift a little more each day with rumors and official announcements of more movements within the sport. On July 20, the WCHA announced that Northern Michigan would leave the CCHA in 2013-14, thereby giving the WCHA the required six teams. Just last week, the CCHA announced that it had met with representatives Canisius, Mercyhurst, Niagara and Robert Morris to explore the opportunities of the four current members of Atlantic Hockey joining the CCHA.

Likewise, rumors persist about the future of CCHA schools Notre Dame, Western Michigan and Alaska. The Fighting Irish are looking to leave the league in favor of either Hockey East or the NCHC, Western Michigan has been lobbying to join the NCHC, even creating a Web site (whywestern.com) to tout its virtues, and the Nanooks may be looking to join fellow state school Alaska Anchorage in the WCHA. Meanwhile, Minnesota State-Moorhead is exploring whether or not to create a Division I hockey program, further altering the college hockey landscape.

Where does all of this leave college hockey? Right now, Division I men’s hockey in 2013-14 will have 59 programs in seven conferences. In many ways, the changes have resulted in more questions. The following is a look at two of the most popular questions.

Will the changes result in the expansion of college hockey or the death of programs already in trouble?

The schools and conferences involved in the recent shuffling posit that the changes in the college hockey landscape may present new opportunities for the expansion of the sport at the Division I level. Most notably, there are now six Big Ten schools (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue) that have a conference that is ready, willing and able to accept them should they ever add hockey to their athletic department. Perhaps that incentive alone is enough for more Big Ten schools to explore the possibility of joining the hockey world.

In addition to the Big Ten, the creation of new conferences and the uncertainty as to the future of leagues like the CCHA and WCHA has perhaps opened the door for schools to consider adding hockey.

“We think it could grow hockey,” Nebraska-Omaha coach Dean Blais said told Brad Elliott Schlossman of the Grand Forks Herald. “We’re hoping it could grow hockey. There are teams like Moorhead State who have been talking about joining (the college hockey ranks). There are teams like Iowa State. Penn State did it in a year. It can happen. We’re hoping it does.”

The list of schools that have been rumored to be at least a little interested in expanding into hockey is long and, most likely, inaccurate. Schools like Iowa State, Syracuse and Rhode Island have long been mentioned as top candidates to add the sport, while Minnesota State-Moorhead is the most recent school to dip its toes into the college hockey pool. At a press conference on July 15, MSU-Moorhead announced that the school is about 40 percent toward a goal of raising $37 million for an endowment to fund the addition of NCAA Division I hockey at the university.

Of course, it all comes down to money. The college hockey landscape wouldn’t have shifted this significantly if not for the program- and arena-funding donation of the Pegulas to Penn State. Likewise, MSU-Moorhead wouldn’t have held a press conference if they hadn’t made substantial progress toward establishing a hockey program.

As any hockey parent will profess, hockey isn’t cheap. Similarly, any college athletic director will admit that sponsoring a Division I hockey program isn’t cheap, either. Expansion in places like Iowa State or Syracuse won’t just happen because fans want it to happen; expansion will happen if schools and athletic departments are able to find the money to feasibly support a college hockey program.

And don’t forget about Title IX. For most schools, adding men’s hockey would likely require the addition of another women’s program to come in compliance with the law requiring gender equity in every educational program that receives federal funding.

MSU-Moorhead athletic director Doug Peters said the changing college hockey landscape gave the school the “best opportunity” to add programs, while school president Edna Szymanski perhaps best summed up the current state of college hockey when she said, “In chaos there is opportunity.”

While Szymanski may be correct, there’s another side to that coin. The recent chaos has not only presented opportunities for schools to explore expanding into college hockey; it has also exposed opportunities for programs in financial difficulty to explore getting out of the sport.

Bowling Green only recently got its program back from the brink of possible contraction, while smaller schools such as Lake Superior State and Ferris State are now faced with a conference on shaky ground and the loss of guaranteed games against Big Ten foes. While the CCHA is actively looking to strengthen the league by adding teams, the loss of marquee programs like Michigan and Michigan State could very well mean a loss of revenue for the smaller programs in the conference - revenue that those schools rely on to keep their hockey programs alive.

Then there’s Alabama-Huntsville, the only independent program in college hockey. The Chargers have been searching for a conference since College Hockey America dissolved in 2010 - getting rejected by the CCHA in 2009 - and look to be on the outside looking in during all of the recent shuffling in the college hockey world. If there’s one program that is on life support right now, it’s Alabama-Huntsville.

To be fair, the Charger program was in trouble long before the recent changes in college hockey, but if UAH continues to be an outsider in the new-look landscape, it may spell doom for college hockey’s southernmost program.

Could the loss of big-name conference opponents and the subsequent loss of revenue result in the contraction of college hockey programs? That remains to be seen. Most of the smaller schools have gone on record as saying they are committed to maintaining their hockey programs, but the past 11 months have taught us that anything can happen in the college hockey world.

What are the main positives and negatives for college hockey as a whole after all of changes to the sport’s landscape?

Aside from expansion and contraction of college hockey, some good and some bad could come during this era of change. 

With the creation of the Big Ten and the NCHC, fans, recruits and parents can expect to see increased exposure to college hockey in the form of regular nationally televised games. Make no mistake, the Big Ten pounced on the opportunity to add college hockey, giving its lucrative Big Ten Network another attractive programming option to sell to its sponsors and fans.

Likewise, the athletic directors in the NCHC have said that several national outlets have expressed interest in broadcasting the new league’s games. Versus (soon to be re-branded as NBC Sports), is rumored to be the strongest candidate to televise NCHC contests.

Ken Schott of The Daily Gazette recently reported that “Versus is discussing the possibility of televising regular-season college hockey games, beginning in January. What conferences would be involved, or what night the games would be shown (either Friday or Saturday) is unclear right now.”

Getting more college hockey games on national television would obviously be a major positive to come out of all the changes to the sport.

“For Fighting Sioux fans, I expect that we’ll find ourselves in position where every game we play will be on TV, which is huge,” North Dakota athletic director Brian Faison told the Grand Forks Herald.  “Television certainly brings some revenue, but the reality is that the exposure, whether it be for recruiting or projecting back to our alumni, is important.”

While college hockey will be getting increased exposure, it really just means the “haves” in the Big Ten and NCHC will be benefiting, while the “have nots” in the CCHA and WCHA will be scrambling for the leftovers. Fair or not, it’s a reality in the world of major college athletics.

Ryan Clark of The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead pulled no punches in his assessment of the new realities of college hockey entering the dog-eat-dog world of big-time Division I sports. “People care about big name teams in any sport. College hockey is no different. Die hard and casual fans want to know how Minnesota, North Dakota, Boston College and Boston University are doing. No one is really going into deep, dark depression because Lake Superior State, Ferris State and Michigan Tech aren’t on TV.”

While Clark makes a good point, schools like St. Cloud State, Minnesota State and Western Michigan are now at a competitive and financial disadvantage solely because fewer of their games will appear to a nationally televised audience.

Is the increased national exposure good or bad for college hockey? It depends on your perspective.

While there are clear winners and losers in terms of national exposure, the shifts in the college hockey landscape may have resulted in a more level playing field for all of college hockey.

Obviously, the strongest programs, both traditionally and recently, now reside in three conferences - the Big Ten, the NCHC and Hockey East. Schools in those conferences will be fighting amongst themselves for their league’s automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament and battling the rest of college hockey for the limited number of at-large bids. The addition of two new conferences to college hockey will mean two more automatic bids, but it also means the number of at-large bids will shrink from 11 to nine to complete the 16-team national tournament.

Meanwhile, the smaller schools in the CCHA and WCHA will suddenly find themselves in a league in which all of the teams are on even ground. Beginning in 2013-14, teams like Northern Michigan, Bemidji State and Ferris State will be vying with teams more like themselves as opposed to trying to unseat perennial powers like Michigan, Denver and Minnesota just to make the NCAA Tournament.

When Bemidji State and RIT made their Cinderella runs to the NCAA Frozen Four in 2009 and 2010, they did it by earning the automatic bid out of College Hockey America (now defunct) and Atlantic Hockey, two lower-tier conferences. From there, the Beavers and Tigers pulled off upsets of Notre Dame, Cornell, Denver and New Hampshire - all giants of the college hockey world.

Thanks to the conference shuffling, there are now 12 schools between the CCHA and WCHA whose odds at gaining an NCAA automatic bid increased significantly. And once a team makes the tournament, anything can happen.

The playing field looks to level out for the smaller schools in 2013-14 ... on the ice. Off the ice, however, the playing field has shifted to the big boys in the “power conferences.”

Sources of revenue will likely dry up for the smaller schools in the CCHA and WCHA, while the Big Ten and NCHC programs will reap the rewards of national television contracts and conference tournaments. It’s another reality in the world of big-time college athletics, but it’s something that, up until the past 11 months, hasn’t really been seen in college hockey.

While schools like Minnesota and Wisconsin will enjoy the sizable annual check from the Big Ten Network, as well as any revenue gained from the Big Ten’s postseason tournament, the leftover schools in the WCHA will be left without their cash cow in the WCHA Final Five. In a July 16 article in the New York Times, Minnesota State athletic director said that the annual conference tournament at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul generates from $80,000 to $110,000 for each conference team. The Mavericks’ share provided close to 20 percent of the budget for men’s hockey, Buisman said.

Attendance at both the Final Five and at regular season games also may drop significantly once the WCHA loses its big draws in Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin. Schools like St. Cloud State and Minnesota State regularly charge more for games against the Gophers and Fighting Sioux, using the demand for those games as another consistent source of revenue. The same holds for CCHA teams charging more for games against Michigan.

Come 2013-14, smaller schools in the WCHA and CCHA will suddenly be forced to keep pace with their costs without guaranteed conference games against marquee teams, while also losing the significant revenue from postseason conference tournaments.

Along the same lines, scheduling becomes a major factor in the new-look college hockey landscape. With a quartet of six-team conferences coming in 2013-14, teams in each conference will likely play one another four times during the regular season for a total of 20 games. That leaves 14-16 nonconference games for schools in all four conferences to schedule.

Minnesota, for one, has been proactive in planning for the uncertain future. In a July 20 article in the St. Cloud Times, the Gophers are in preliminary discussions with St. Cloud State, Bemidji State and Minnesota State about playing nonleague games and an all-Minnesota tournament on an annual basis. The Gophers also plan to talk with Minnesota Duluth about a similar arrangement with the Bulldogs.

“We have 14 nonleague games to work with and our goal is to play those (four) teams every year,” Minnesota coach Don Lucia said. “It would be good for our program, all the other programs and for the state of Minnesota. I think it’s a win-win for everyone, for our fans and the proximity of playing each other. We should continue playing each other.”

Scheduling arrangements like this are crucial for the leftover teams in the WCHA and CCHA.

“We’re still going to be playing the Gophers,” St. Cloud State coach Bob Motzko said. “We’re still going to be playing North Dakota and our friends in the region. We’re going to have to support each other.”

If college hockey is to survive in places like Bemidji, Sault Ste. Marie, Bowling Green and Mankato, supporting each other is essential. Though the big boys in the Big Ten and NCHC are in new conferences largely for reasons of self-interest, they know that supporting the smaller schools in the conferences they just left will be vital. It’s important for the individual programs (in terms of scheduling, travel costs, maintaining rivalries) and it’s important for college hockey as a whole.

Still, so many questions remain for all the teams involved in the college hockey shuffle. How will recruiting be impacted in both the power conferences and the lower-tier conferences? With a likely loss of revenue for schools that rely on men’s hockey to fund their athletic department, what will be the effect on other sports? What happens to the women’s hockey programs in the new-look world of college hockey?

How is the NCHC going to make money with increased travel costs and the loss of revenue from the WCHA Final Five? With schools in small population centers and smaller alumni bases, will a television deal for the NCHC make sense for national outlets? Where will Notre Dame end up when the college hockey shuffle finally finishes?

The college hockey landscape has seen seismic shifts in the past 11 months. Will the landscape shift again in the next two years? Stay tuned.

The College Hockey Shuffle

College hockey in 2011-12

WCHA (12 teams): Alaska Anchorage, Bemidji State, Colorado College, Denver, Michigan Tech, Minnesota, Minnesota Duluth, Minnesota State, Nebraska-Omaha, North Dakota, St. Cloud State, Wisconsin

CCHA (11): Alaska, Bowling Green, Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Miami, Michigan, Michigan State, Northern Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Western Michigan

Atlantic Hockey (12): Air Force, American International, Army, Bentley, Canisius, Connecticut, Holy Cross, Mercyhurst, Niagara, RIT, Robert Morris, Sacred Heart

Hockey East (10): Boston College, Boston University, Maine, Massachusetts, Merrimack, New Hampshire, Northeastern, Providence, UMass Lowell, Vermont

ECAC (12): Brown, Clarkson, Colgate, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Quinnipiac, Rensselaer, St. Lawrence, Union, Yale

Independent (1): Alabama-Huntsville

College hockey in 2013-14 (as of 8/3/11)

Big Ten (6): Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin

NCHC (6): Colorado College, Denver, Miami, Minnesota Duluth, Nebraska-Omaha, North Dakota

WCHA (6): Alaska Anchorage, Bemidji State, Michigan Tech, Minnesota State, St. Cloud State, Northern Michigan

CCHA (6): Alaska, Bowling Green, Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Notre Dame, Western Michigan

Atlantic Hockey (12): Air Force, American International, Army, Bentley, Canisius, Connecticut, Holy Cross, Mercyhurst, Niagara, RIT, Robert Morris, Sacred Heart

Hockey East (10): Boston College, Boston University, Maine, Massachusetts, Merrimack, New Hampshire, Northeastern, Providence, UMass Lowell, Vermont

ECAC (12): Brown, Clarkson, Colgate, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, Quinnipiac, Rensselaer, St. Lawrence, Union, Yale

Independent (1): Alabama-Huntsville