new super conference (NCHC)

by **Tee09** » Sat 5/12/12 7:46 pm

Composer wrote:Or to put it in terms the sue can understand:

23 > 17

I don't think sue fans can count that high, even if they get naked.

by **dlw4gophers** » Sat 5/12/12 10:26 pm

Armadillo wrote:Point-by-point time.

NOBODY likes what's coming, but we've had to accept it. Our being pissed off isn't going to change anything, so why waste the bile? As for who's to blame, again it comes down to four main culprits: Wisconsin (particularly Barry Alvarez) for pushing a Big Ten Hockey Conference because he's an absolute ignoramus when it comes to hockey, Penn State for demanding a BTHC instead of just going with the damn flow and joining the CCHA like they should have, and UND/DU for stabbing the WCHA in the back.

You should not say nobody. I embrace the BT Hockey conference and am looking forward to playing Div. 1 programs in the new conference. Many of you are to young to remember the old WCHA when Michigan and Michigan State were part of it. These will be great rivalries. The biggest thing that people will miss IMHO is the ease of attending conference road games. Learn to accept it. BB and Football fans make there way to big ten road games, prove that you are the die hard hockey fan that you say you are and travel to the big ten games.

by **dryfly** » Sat 5/12/12 10:58 pm

dlw4gophers wrote:
Armadillo wrote:Point-by-point time.

NOBODY likes what's coming, but we've had to accept it. Our being pissed off isn't going to change anything, so why waste the bile? As for who's to blame, again it comes down to four main culprits: Wisconsin (particularly Barry Alvarez) for pushing a Big Ten Hockey Conference because he's an absolute ignoramus when it comes to hockey, Penn State for demanding a BTHC instead of just going with the damn flow and joining the CCHA like they should have, and UND/DU for stabbing the WCHA in the back.

You should not say nobody. I embrace the BT Hockey conference and am looking forward to playing Div. 1 programs in the new conference. Many of you are to young to remember the old WCHA when Michigan and Michigan State were part of it. These will be great rivalries. The biggest thing that people will miss IMHO is the ease of attending conference road games. Learn to accept it. BB and Football fans make there way to big ten road games, prove that you are the die hard hockey fan that you say you are and travel to the big ten games.

Same here.

by **Hammy** » Sun 5/13/12 12:09 am

Armadillo wrote:
bearpaw28 wrote:Hopefully playing 20 conf games will allow them to play an awesome non-conf schedule (but I doubt it will include AA, Michigan Tech., Northern Michigan, Fairbanks too often).

Try "never," which is the biggest tragedy of this whole mess.

Tragedy? That's slightly over dramatic I'd say.

The likes of Northern Mich. and UAF are rarely played as it is given we only have 6 of 34 games that are non-conference in our current league. I respect Tech because of their history but I'm not going to consider it some horrible thing not to play them as much. I certainly won't miss UAA. Dull games were often the norm there. With a larger non-conference schedule to fill out in the future (14 games vs. only 6 right now), we'll still get some of those types of teams at times anyway.

by **Hammy** » Sun 5/13/12 12:15 am

gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

by **Hammy** » Sun 5/13/12 12:19 am

Viking wrote:
SiouxFanatic wrote:
Armadillo wrote:NOBODY likes what's coming, but we've had to accept it. Our being pissed off isn't going to change anything, so why waste the bile? As for who's to blame, again it comes down to four main culprits: Wisconsin (particularly Barry Alvarez) for pushing a Big Ten Hockey Conference because he's an absolute ignoramus when it comes to hockey, Penn State for demanding a BTHC instead of just going with the damn flow and joining the CCHA like they should have, and UND/DU for stabbing the WCHA in the back.

Fact is, your school played a part in the whole college hockey realignment whether they wanted to or not they still did. They are just as culpable as the other schools you mentioned. But of course, how can I possibly say this? The whole perceived innocence has been firmly embedded.

That's like blaming a shooting victim for getting shot.

If playing a part equates to doing what the conference wants because it is your bread and butter for sports in general, then I guess we're guilty.

The reality is anybody with a brain (which excludes some UND fans I guess) can see the difference between the two situations. The Gophers had little choice given how important the Big Ten relationship is. UND and DU didn't have to answer to that. They just screwed their fellow conference members over in an attempt to try to keep up with the Joneses.

by **bearpaw28** » Sun 5/13/12 12:22 am

dlw4gophers wrote:
Armadillo wrote:Point-by-point time.

NOBODY likes what's coming, but we've had to accept it. Our being pissed off isn't going to change anything, so why waste the bile? As for who's to blame, again it comes down to four main culprits: Wisconsin (particularly Barry Alvarez) for pushing a Big Ten Hockey Conference because he's an absolute ignoramus when it comes to hockey, Penn State for demanding a BTHC instead of just going with the damn flow and joining the CCHA like they should have, and UND/DU for stabbing the WCHA in the back.

You should not say nobody. I embrace the BT Hockey conference and am looking forward to playing Div. 1 programs in the new conference. Many of you are to young to remember the old WCHA when Michigan and Michigan State were part of it. These will be great rivalries. The biggest thing that people will miss IMHO is the ease of attending conference road games. Learn to accept it. BB and Football fans make there way to big ten road games, prove that you are the die hard hockey fan that you say you are and travel to the big ten games.

I'm old enough to remember the old WCHA...and when you campare it to the new Big Ten... it consisted of MN, WI, Mich, Mich State, Michigan Tech (gone), Denver (gone) CC (gone) UMD (gone) North Dakota (gone) and Notre Dame (gone). It broke up LARGELY because of the high cost of travel.

dlw4gophers...your comments remind me of something Barry Alvaraz would say at this point...and Barry wouldn't know what a hockey puck was (and couldn't find one) if it was stuck between his butt cheeks.

It's the loss of the traditional (Denver, North Dakota, CC, Michigan Tech and UMD) and local the (SCSU and Mankato) CONFERENCE RIVALRIES for the Gophers that will be missed...what most people will miss the most has nothing to do with ease of attendance to :censored:

road games...ROAD GAMES will still be on FSN or the BTN...which is how most fans watch them anyway.

by **Hammy** » Sun 5/13/12 12:42 am

I think the difference for some of us is we know the games in the future conference will be meaningful and the rivalries will develop in time. Of course it won't immediately equal what we lost. It takes time to develop to build those things up to that level. But it will happen.

I really could care less about the loss of conference games with the UMDs, SCSUs of the world. Just because we aren't in the same conference, it won't mean they won't want to beat us any less than they want to now. The circumstances behind the games will change but the desire to beat the other guy won't.

UND is probably the only team we'll play significantly less. Unfortunate but that's the way it goes. Beyond that, I really don't see any real major loss of rivalries because we'll still play some of those other teams.

by **Slap Shot** » Sun 5/13/12 1:19 pm

bearpaw28 wrote:It's the loss of the traditional (Denver, North Dakota, CC, Michigan Tech and UMD) and local the (SCSU and Mankato) CONFERENCE RIVALRIES for the Gophers that will be missed...what most people will miss the most has nothing to do with ease of attendance to road games...ROAD GAMES will still be on FSN or the BTN...which is how most fans watch them anyway.

That's super and probably agreeable to many. That still doesn't mean it's UM's fault for what started and kept the ball rolling toward the BTHC.

by **Greyeagle** » Sun 5/13/12 2:30 pm

Hammy wrote:UND is probably the only team we'll play significantly less. Unfortunate but that's the way it goes. Beyond that, I really don't see any real major loss of rivalries because we'll still play some of those other teams.

It's a bigger loss for UND.
/arrogance.

:biggrin2:

by **Greyeagle** » Sun 5/13/12 2:32 pm

SiouxFanatic wrote::roll: Fact is, your school played a part in the whole college hockey realignment whether they wanted to or not they still did. They are just as culpable as the other schools you mentioned. But of course, how can I possibly say this? The whole perceived innocence has been firmly embedded.

If anyone would know about "perceived innocence" it's the Whioux.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 9:53 am

I know people like to blame Penn State but I still think that is misguided. They didnt even have to ask to form a BTHC the second they had the money it was a done deal. It was well known Michigan and State wanted out of the CCHA (and of course Ohio state would follow them) and Sconnie felt the same way about the WCHA. (Alvarez wanted the BTHC) All that needed to happen was a sixth Big Ten team start up and it was game on. If Penn state had said "But we want to join AHA or the CCHA" it would have made zero difference just like Minnesota saying they didnt support the BTHC didnt matter. So what is Penn State to do, tell the Big Ten they dont want in?

About 5 years ago there was a bunch of us who started pushing for realignment. Conferences were too bloated and it was not only effecting scheduling but it was watering down the PWR because there just wasnt enough OOC games to get any sort of real measure using statistical analysis. 99% of you said no way, that tradition is more important than anything else. Some of us even used the BTHC as a possible outcome and it was laughed off because the BTHC is a USCHO meme. When the WCHA went to 12 teams and when the CCHA refused admittance to UAH we warned again that without some serious rejiggering of the conferences this could all go sour. Still almost all of you scoffed. And now here we are. The worst of all worlds...all for the sake of trying to save traditions you had no chance of saving.

by **ScoobyDoo** » Mon 5/14/12 11:30 am

Handyman wrote:And now here we are. The worst of all worlds...all for the sake of trying to save traditions you had no chance of saving.

I have a hard time with your transition to "worst of all worlds". Us Flatlanders who didn't want realignment knew exactly what would happen and it has. I don't see it as "worst of all worlds" at all. I see it as inevitable.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 12:34 pm

I do because it ended up solving nothing. The Big Ten will only let in Big Ten schools, the Butthurt Hockey Conference will only let in those they deem elite enough for the five people in Denver to care about and the Conference of Misfit Toys is pretty full up.

If realignment had happened back before all this it could have made things more even...this is just terrible.

by **ScoobyDoo** » Mon 5/14/12 12:54 pm

Handyman wrote:I do because it ended up solving nothing. The Big Ten will only let in Big Ten schools, the Butthurt Hockey Conference will only let in those they deem elite enough for the five people in Denver to care about and the Conference of Misfit Toys is pretty full up.

If realignment had happened back before all this it could have made things more even...this is just terrible.

Yes and no.

As soon as you include the BTHC into your solution this becomes the inevitable result. The best scenario was to have the BTHC and keep the CCHA and the WCHA intact the way they were. Instead you had the Butthurt folks decide they were more important than anything else and form their own little clique sending the WCHA and CCHA into disarray and very close to being an Atlantic Hockey equivalent from a competitive standpoint.

I knew UND couldn't control themselves and I was right.

by **Handyman** » Mon 5/14/12 12:58 pm

Well most of us didnt want the BTHC as a solution, but we knew the longer this took the more inevitable it became. Too many BT schools wanted it and those that didnt like us had no real power anyways. (who has more cache in the Big Ten Michigan or Minnesota)

I knew UND had a massive inferiority complex but I never thought they would do this. They didnt need to they would have been the Big Kahunas in the New WCHA. Now they are out of sight and out of mind.

by **Rtn2GoldCountry** » Mon 5/14/12 5:20 pm

ScoobyDoo wrote:As soon as you include the BTHC into your solution this becomes the inevitable result. The best scenario was to have the BTHC and keep the CCHA and the WCHA intact the way they were. Instead you had the Butthurt folks decide they were more important than anything else and form their own little clique sending the WCHA and CCHA into disarray and very close to being an Atlantic Hockey equivalent from a competitive standpoint.

I agree things should have stayed like this at least for a few years to see what would happen once the B1G TEN was formed. I think the NCHC schools made their decision too quickly, they seem to have assumed the worst and acted with a lack of patience and planning.

Handyman wrote:
I knew UND had a massive inferiority complex but I never thought they would do this. They didnt need to they would have been the Big Kahunas in the New WCHA. Now they are out of sight and out of mind.

It amazes me that UND has so much pull over the rest of the schools and they just seem to follow them blindly. They now have to create interest in a new league that is not too different from the one they have helped establish. With this new ref announcement by the B1G TEN, the NCHC is even further behind the ball. They could score a girl's number while wearing a dress and still not be even with the B1G TEN. Condolence Five NCHC, the first of many.

by **bearpaw28** » Mon 5/14/12 8:17 pm

Rtn2GoldCountry wrote:
ScoobyDoo wrote:As soon as you include the BTHC into your solution this becomes the inevitable result. The best scenario was to have the BTHC and keep the CCHA and the WCHA intact the way they were. Instead you had the Butthurt folks decide they were more important than anything else and form their own little clique sending the WCHA and CCHA into disarray and very close to being an Atlantic Hockey equivalent from a competitive standpoint.

I agree things should have stayed like this at least for a few years to see what would happen once the B1G TEN was formed. I think the NCHC schools made their decision too quickly, they seem to have assumed the worst and acted with a lack of patience and planning.

Handyman wrote:
I knew UND had a massive inferiority complex but I never thought they would do this. They didnt need to they would have been the Big Kahunas in the New WCHA. Now they are out of sight and out of mind.

It amazes me that UND has so much pull over the rest of the schools and they just seem to follow them blindly. They now have to create interest in a new league that is not too different from the one they have helped establish. With this new ref announcement by the B1G TEN, the NCHC is even further behind the ball. They could score a girl's number while wearing a dress and still not be even with the B1G TEN. Condolence Five NCHC, the first of many.

This is the crux of the debate ....once the BIG TEN hockey conf. became a reality (Penn State added hockey so a hockey conf. HAD to be IMMEDIATLEY established to give the BTN a little extra programming (to go along with Womens BB, Womens softball), etc...and mark my words..they will want Monday and Wednesday hockey games in a few years because to hell with traditional 2 game weekend series...Big Ten Basketball doesn't so it that way!!!).

So with WI and MN leaving...(and no longer mattering from a WCHA standpoint)...the question facing the remaining WCHA teams became...what to do next ...and BEST for WHO?

Obviously the leaders at Denver and ND already considered (whether right or wrong) themselves BIG Kahunas in the old WCHA...didn't like MN or WI bolting (regardless of the reasoning) and decided (albeit in an underhanded manner) to stake out and try to put together a conf. that they felt was similar in conf size and caliber of teams..ie...cut the bottom feeders out (like the Big Ten did in a de-facto manner...where Penn State is the only immediate bottom feeder)...and in the end they fell short when Notre Dame dumped them - because they wanted TV exclusiveness (with NBC SN) and then settled on 8 teams. Obviously UMD and SCSU wanted to be with the more established teams (if nothing else for gate receipt purposes...and dumping the very expensive road trip to AA).

We don't have to like any of this...but thinking things were going to stay the same in the WCHA (minus MN and WI) was wishfull thinking...time was ripe for change for MANY reasons...and happened...bitching about it and pointing fingers at the NCHC...and taking potshots at the Whioux...is entertaining...but doesn't change the fact that the establishment of the BIG TEN hockey conference (which I concede was inevitable)...still started the chain of events that got us to this point...whether you like it or not.

by **dryfly** » Mon 5/14/12 10:22 pm

bearpaw28 wrote:We don't have to like any of this...but thinking things were going to stay the same in the WCHA (minus MN and WI) was wishfull thinking...time was ripe for change for MANY reasons...and happened...bitching about it and pointing fingers at the NCHC...and taking potshots at the Whioux...is entertaining...but doesn't change the fact that the establishment of the BIG TEN hockey conference (which I concede was inevitable)...still started the chain of events that got us to this point...whether you like it or not.

Said it before - say it again - they had the chance to really shake things up - merge the remaining CCHA and WCHA into one monster super conference with divisions and inter-divisional play - big time pro like playoff structure - they blew it. Small schools think small.

by **brianvf** » Tue 5/15/12 12:59 am

bearpaw28 wrote:We don't have to like any of this...but thinking things were going to stay the same in the WCHA (minus MN and WI) was wishfull thinking...time was ripe for change for MANY reasons...and happened...bitching about it and pointing fingers at the NCHC...and taking potshots at the Whioux...is entertaining...but doesn't change the fact that the establishment of the BIG TEN hockey conference (which I concede was inevitable)...still started the chain of events that got us to this point...whether you like it or not.

by **WPoS** » Tue 5/15/12 6:42 am

Handyman wrote:About 5 years ago there was a bunch of us who started pushing for realignment.

watch out, Handy is the hidden Commish of college hockey...best kept secret on the planet till he tips his hand on a Gopher message board. Who would have know we were privy to such greatness?

W

by **team22tank** » Tue 5/15/12 8:06 am

WPoS wrote:
Handyman wrote:About 5 years ago there was a bunch of us who started pushing for realignment.

watch out, Handy is the hidden Commish of college hockey...best kept secret on the planet till he tips his hand on a Gopher message board. Who would have know we were privy to such greatness?

W

It is a little place called HandyLand!

by **Bertogliat** » Tue 5/15/12 8:44 am

gopherguy13 wrote:
Melvin wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:
Armadillo wrote:"NCHC: We're not that bad!"

"The NCHC: We're better than the new WCHA!"

To be honest with you, that comment is true, regardless where the conference tourney is, the NCHC is going to be a good conference and the nWCHA is going to be like AHA West.

I know it's true, it was a jab at the NCHC. (i.e. They're clearly not the "super conference" they envisioned when they were trying to get Notre Dame to join.)

I think people are giving a little too much credit to Notre Dame. They have been good recently and have some good recruits coming, but they are quite a way down the list of historically good college hockey programs. It is a good school with money, but they'd be in the middle of the NCHC conference in terms of hockey relevancy. They have 2 CCHA regular season and 2 CCHA tournament championships. That's it. They don't have the hockey alumni, fanbase, or hardware to make the NCHC a SUPER conference.

It's just a name. A football name.

by **SkiUMahLaw** » Tue 5/15/12 9:20 am

Bertogliat wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:
Melvin wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:
Armadillo wrote:"NCHC: We're not that bad!"

"The NCHC: We're better than the new WCHA!"

To be honest with you, that comment is true, regardless where the conference tourney is, the NCHC is going to be a good conference and the nWCHA is going to be like AHA West.

I know it's true, it was a jab at the NCHC. (i.e. They're clearly not the "super conference" they envisioned when they were trying to get Notre Dame to join.)

I think people are giving a little too much credit to Notre Dame. They have been good recently and have some good recruits coming, but they are quite a way down the list of historically good college hockey programs. It is a good school with money, but they'd be in the middle of the NCHC conference in terms of hockey relevancy. They have 2 CCHA regular season and 2 CCHA tournament championships. That's it. They don't have the hockey alumni, fanbase, or hardware to make the NCHC a SUPER conference.

It's just a name. A football name.

But, if that name were added to North Dakota or Denver, it would give UND and DU some sense of legitimacy and national importance-- something that both are starved for.

Of course, Notre Dame isn't stupid-- they knew that too. If ND couldn't be with Michigan, it makes no sense to try and build hockey excitement in a basketball state by playing North Dakota and Omaha; rather, playing Boston College would at least give some name familiarity to keep building on the investment they had recently made. Nobody else in the NaCHo provides any. So unless UND and DU were going to hand over all the revenues-- and risk control of the conference they needed create because they realized they didn't control the WCHA-- the NaCHo had zero chance of getting Notre Dame.

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 9:43 am

Hammy wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 9:47 am

Bertogliat wrote:I think people are giving a little too much credit to Notre Dame. They have been good recently and have some good recruits coming, but they are quite a way down the list of historically good college hockey programs. It is a good school with money, but they'd be in the middle of the NCHC conference in terms of hockey relevancy. They have 2 CCHA regular season and 2 CCHA tournament championships. That's it. They don't have the hockey alumni, fanbase, or hardware to make the NCHC a SUPER conference.

It's just a name. A football name.

I am going to agree as well, what actually has Notre Dame done in college hockey? They have finished second overall once. They disbanded hockey during the 1980's. Tech has more hockey history than Notre Dame.

by **Hammy** » Tue 5/15/12 9:54 am

Melvin wrote:
Hammy wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

If they really consider themselves to be such great programs, they should be able to handle the same job that the Gophers and UW did for years. Clearly they recognized they could not do the same job. It just exposes UND and DU for what they always did... they rode coattails on a couple of programs that had bigger budgets and larger fan bases (and whose home markets carried the ball for the league).

by **Handyman** » Tue 5/15/12 10:10 am

Melvin wrote:Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

Yeah I am sure you were saying the same thing when Minny and Sconny were doing that :roll:

by **bearpaw28** » Tue 5/15/12 10:12 am

Getting back to a serious question: Hammy...will we be seeing Monday and Wednesday Gopher mens hockey games within 5 years...(to fill out programming time for the BTN)? Just curious on you're thoughts regarding this question.

by **Chris Eckes** » Tue 5/15/12 10:31 am

Melvin wrote:
Hammy wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

by **Hammy** » Tue 5/15/12 10:53 am

bearpaw28 wrote:Getting back to a serious question: Hammy...will we be seeing Monday and Wednesday Gopher mens hockey games within 5 years...(to fill out programming time for the BTN)? Just curious on you're thoughts regarding this question.

Why should we expect them to make that a common occurrence when they've got so many other sports to broadcast that play during weekdays?

Unlike basketball where it is one road game at an opposing school for the season and then go back home, we play a two games. The additional costs of sitting around for a midweek game isn't going to help the bottom line.

by **Bale** » Tue 5/15/12 11:22 am

The X Factor wrote: I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

I think this pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say. There is nothing inherently wrong with the decision that was made, but don't expect to be immune from criticism. The NCHC schools may have done what is best for them, but decision wasn't made in a vacuum and affects other schools. There is going to be some criticism and if you want to make big boy decisions, you have to be ready for the big boy consequences.

by **GrandForksGopher** » Tue 5/15/12 11:39 am

The X Factor wrote:
Melvin wrote:
Hammy wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

by **Handyman** » Tue 5/15/12 2:10 pm

Hammy wrote:
bearpaw28 wrote:Getting back to a serious question: Hammy...will we be seeing Monday and Wednesday Gopher mens hockey games within 5 years...(to fill out programming time for the BTN)? Just curious on you're thoughts regarding this question.

Why should we expect them to make that a common occurrence when they've got so many other sports to broadcast that play during weekdays?

Unlike basketball where it is one road game at an opposing school for the season and then go back home, we play a two games. The additional costs of sitting around for a midweek game isn't going to help the bottom line.

It does seem this doomsday scenario has been coming up a lot of late. I dont see the BTN making that kind of call seeing as they could show repeats of spring football practice on a Wednesday and probably get better ratings.

by **gopherguy13** » Tue 5/15/12 2:14 pm

Melvin wrote:
Hammy wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:UND must really look up to Minnesota and Wisconsin if they thought the WCHA would be so terminally ill (after we left) that they had to go form a whole new conference.

The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Why should DU and UND be expected to shoulder the burden and prop up the other schools?

Like Hammy said, it's not that they should be expected to prop up the WCHA, they just recognized that they couldn't do it like UM and UW could. So they left.

by **thinkbui** » Tue 5/15/12 2:27 pm

Handyman wrote:
Hammy wrote:
bearpaw28 wrote:Getting back to a serious question: Hammy...will we be seeing Monday and Wednesday Gopher mens hockey games within 5 years...(to fill out programming time for the BTN)? Just curious on you're thoughts regarding this question.

Why should we expect them to make that a common occurrence when they've got so many other sports to broadcast that play during weekdays?

Unlike basketball where it is one road game at an opposing school for the season and then go back home, we play a two games. The additional costs of sitting around for a midweek game isn't going to help the bottom line.

It does seem this doomsday scenario has been coming up a lot of late. I dont see the BTN making that kind of call seeing as they could show repeats of spring football practice on a Wednesday and probably get better ratings.

To be fair, I could see *some* midweek games happening between Michigan and Michigan State like they've done in the CCHA by necessity since they are close enough to load onto a bus for a solitary game every now and then. After all being close enough to bus to games was the point when Michigan left the WCHA to form the CCHA with some of our other former conference rivals. Columbus is a stretch because it is about as far from Ann Arbor as Madison is from here, but certainly between Ann Arbor and Lansing is easy since it's like driving to Saint Cloud from here.

by **bearpaw28** » Tue 5/15/12 5:29 pm

I'm not opposed to an occasional Wednesday game during the course of a long season...just as long as the concept of 2 game weekend series remains the Big Ten Conf. norm (which works best for the student-athletes...and I prefer as a fan).

Just have my doubts at this point that the Big Ten Admin. respects the sport of hockey enough to not tinker with it in a way that they perceive benefits BTN programming (schedule).

by **Hammy** » Tue 5/15/12 6:39 pm

The reality is you aren't going to take one game midweek trips out to Happy Valley, Columbus, etc. Not given how spread out the BTHC teams generally are.

by **Rtn2GoldCountry** » Tue 5/15/12 7:04 pm

bearpaw28 wrote:I'm not opposed to an occasional Wednesday game during the course of a long season...just as long as the concept of 2 game weekend series remains the Big Ten Conf. norm (which works best for the student-athletes...and I prefer as a fan).

Just have my doubts at this point that the Big Ten Admin. respects the sport of hockey enough to not tinker with it in a way that they perceive benefits BTN programming (schedule).

Even if the B1G Ten decides to include some games on non-traditional days, I think it will end up being a few per season for each team. 2-3 games per year I would guess. Here is a list of every game the Gophers have played on the B1G Ten Network, which includes the game they played on BTN’s pay-per-event website bigtennetwork.com. I have included the opponents and records just for fun as they do not have too much relevance.

2007-2008 – 4 Games on B1G Ten Network (1-2-1)
Saturday, November 24, 2007 – @ Michigan – L – 1-5
Friday, January 11, 2008 – vs. St. Cloud State – L – 1-3
Friday, February 8, 2008 – @ Denver – T – 1-1
Friday, February 22, 2008 – vs. Wisconsin – W – 4-2

2008-2009 – 4 Games on B1G Ten Network (1-2-1)
Saturday, October 25, 2008 – @ Wisconsin – W – 5-2
Friday, November 28, 2008 – vs. Michigan – L – 3-6
Saturday, November 29, 2008 – vs. Michigan State – T – 4-4
Friday, February 6, 2009 – vs. Wisconsin – L – 2-3

2009-2010 – 3 Games on B1G Ten Network + 1 Game on bigtennetwork.com (2-1-1)
Saturday, November 28, 2009 – @ Michigan State – W – 2-1
* Game shown on bigtennetwork.com
Friday, January 15, 2010 – vs. North Dakota – T – 3-3
Friday, February 19, 2010 – vs. Colorado College – W – 3-0
Friday, March 5, 2010 – vs. Wisconsin – L – 2-3

2010-2011 – 3 Games on B1G Ten Network (2-0-1)
Saturday, November 6, 2010 – vs. Wisconsin – T – 3-3
Sunday, November 28, 2010 – vs. Michigan – W – 3-1
Friday, February 18, 2011 – @ Wisconsin – W – 5-2

2011-2012 – 4 Games on B1G Ten Network (3-1-0)
Saturday, November 5, 2011 – vs. North Dakota – W – 3-2
Saturday, November 12, 2011 – @ Wisconsin – W – 4-1
Saturday, January 7, 2012 – vs. Notre Dame – L – 3-4
Friday, January 27, 2012 – vs. St. Cloud State – W – 2-1

Total of 18 Gopher games on B1G Ten Network + 1 Game on bigtennetwork.com in the 5 seasons BTN launched, which averages to less than 4 games a year. Even if they doubled their coverage they would still be showing 10 Gopher games per year or less. From what most people have said on here, they do not expect BTN to expand the number of games they cover per year, at least not in the early years of the BTHC. This means that a majority of the games should still happen on a traditional Friday or Saturday night, with only a handful of games that could even have the possibility of being moved to fit in with the BTN schedule. Also once the BTCH begins and they have 60 conference games per year to choose from broadcasting, so I imagine they will not choose to broadcast any of the Gopher's (or any other B1G Ten Hockey Team's) non-conference games. So those 14 games each year should be on 7 Friday/Saturday weekend series.

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 8:52 pm

Bale wrote: I think this pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say. There is nothing inherently wrong with the decision that was made, but don't expect to be immune from criticism. The NCHC schools may have done what is best for them, but decision wasn't made in a vacuum and affects other schools. There is going to be some criticism and if you want to make big boy decisions, you have to be ready for the big boy consequences.

And the B1G schools haven't, so is there an unwritten rule that states that only the B1G are allowed to do this?

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 8:57 pm

The X Factor wrote: It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

by **dryfly** » Tue 5/15/12 9:00 pm

Hammy wrote:The reality is you aren't going to take one game midweek trips out to Happy Valley, Columbus, etc. Not given how spread out the BTHC teams generally are.

Might do Tue-Thur home and away between Minn-Wisco or Mich-MSU or Mich-OSU... if the expected TV market would justify the travel. Be a bus trip and not that long or expensive.

by **Armadillo** » Tue 5/15/12 9:12 pm

Melvin wrote:Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

The Gophers played a whopping six non-conference road games in the three seasons between MSU going D-1 and their admission to the WCHA: two in Detroit against Michigan and Michigan State, two at Yost/Munn, and two at Boston College. Yet by your own goal-post moving admission, the Gophers played MSU-M two of the three seasons at Mariucci, and Bemidji at Mariucci the year before they joined. Don't act all high-and-mighty like UND was the friggin' savior or something.

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 9:34 pm

Armadillo wrote:The Gophers played a whopping six non-conference road games in the three seasons between MSU going D-1 and their admission to the WCHA: two in Detroit against Michigan and Michigan State, two at Yost/Munn, and two at Boston College. Yet by your own goal-post moving admission, the Gophers played MSU-M two of the three seasons at Mariucci, and Bemidji at Mariucci the year before they joined. Don't act all high-and-mighty like UND was the friggin' savior or something.

I guess you didn't read my post very well.

Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gophers playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

Your team didn't travel to either place, while the team you malign did. Your team played them in the John.

by **Slap Shot** » Tue 5/15/12 9:42 pm

Armadillo wrote:
Melvin wrote:Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

The Gophers played a whopping six non-conference road games in the three seasons between MSU going D-1 and their admission to the WCHA: two in Detroit against Michigan and Michigan State, two at Yost/Munn, and two at Boston College. Yet by your own goal-post moving admission, the Gophers played MSU-M two of the three seasons at Mariucci, and Bemidji at Mariucci the year before they joined. Don't act all high-and-mighty like UND was the friggin' savior or something.

His handle is Melvin for a reason. Pretty sure UM was paramount in MSUM and BSU being admitted into the WCHA, but we can't mention that.

by **Armadillo** » Tue 5/15/12 9:43 pm

Melvin wrote:Your team didn't travel to either place, while the team you malign did. Your team played them in the John.

The horror.

by **Melvin** » Tue 5/15/12 9:46 pm

Slap Shot wrote:His handle is Melvin for a reason. Pretty sure UM was paramount in MSUM and BSU being admitted into the WCHA, but we can't mention that.

Yeah, I guess the other schools didn't play a part at all eh? :confused2:

by **Slap Shot** » Tue 5/15/12 9:49 pm

Melvin wrote:
Slap Shot wrote:His handle is Melvin for a reason. Pretty sure UM was paramount in MSUM and BSU being admitted into the WCHA, but we can't mention that.

Yeah, I guess the other schools didn't play a part at all eh?

I didn't think I said anything of the sort, just like you didn't say they impeded their growth and admittance. Right?

by **brianvf** » Tue 5/15/12 11:16 pm

What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years? :lol:

by **SiouxFanatic** » Tue 5/15/12 11:55 pm

brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

I got a very good chuckle out of that comment as well. Especially since he was being serious. :lol:

by **The Rube** » Wed 5/16/12 12:21 am

I think we should all blame Air Force for leaving the CHA. That's what started it all.

Follow the results, folks, you'll see the timeline unfold, clear as day. :lol:

Kidding, but it's a fun concept.

by **Bale** » Wed 5/16/12 8:16 am

Melvin wrote:
The X Factor wrote: It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

I've always found it interesting how UND fans can use the "the Gophers did it first, so it's not a big deal now" or "we just reacted to the situation". It's amazing how UND is never responsible for anything, they only "react". Again, if your school wants to make big boy decisions, it's time to act like a big boy and accept the responsibility and potential backlash.

by **Melvin** » Wed 5/16/12 8:51 am

SiouxFanatic wrote:
brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

I got a very good chuckle out of that comment as well. Especially since he was being serious.

Seriously, I thought that was a moronic comment... You guys seem to forget that Gopher fans have a whole different reality; the college hockey world revolves around the UofM...

by **Tee09** » Wed 5/16/12 8:56 am

Melvin wrote:the college hockey world revolves around the UofM...

Glad that you understand that now.

by **Chris Eckes** » Wed 5/16/12 9:03 am

Melvin wrote:
The X Factor wrote: It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

For a fanbase that touts history as much as the Whioux do, you really don't know much about the history of college hockey in the region. Read up on it. You'll see how integral John Mariucci and the University of Minnesota were in expanding college hockey in Minnesota.

Again, I'm not saying that it was necessary for UND or DU to "do what was right" for college hockey. They did what was right for themselves and themselves only, and that's a legitimate choice. Disappointing given the history of the only hockey team I care about and their legacy of giving back to the community, but legitimate.

by **SkiUMahLaw** » Wed 5/16/12 9:10 am

Melvin wrote:
The X Factor wrote: It was John Mariucci's vision that basically led to the creation of the other Minnesota D1 schools... the U has always used its hockey program as a way to grow the game and provide opportunities for lots of kids to play D1 hockey. I guess they shouldn't be EXPECTED to shoulder the burden, but it would have been something that could be seen as "giving back" to the college hockey community. Instead, UND and DU chose the selfish route - which is an okay choice for them to make - but because of that choice don't expect anyone else to bow down at the NaCHo altar. The choice exposed those schools for what they care about - themselves only. I hope they reap what they sowed.

Yeah when Minnesota was doing home and home series with BSU before the became a member of the WCHA; right? Wait, What? That's right they didn't... UND did. Like the Gopher playing Mankato in Mankato before they got into the WCHA, oh that's right, that didn't happen either.

Nice try...but you're flat out incorrect.

UMN played BSU in Bemidji (when BSU was a D-I program) before UND did. The Gophers played in the Glas on October 14, 2000, winning 9-3. UND first played there on March 2, 2001. Minnesota played a 1 game home and home for BSU in 2000-2001, traveling to Bemidji before the return trip to Mariucci later that season. To their "credit", UND did host BSU for a two game set in Grand Forks back in 1999-2000, however.

Keep in mind that UMN also had long-standing commitments to play Michigan and Michigan State even back then, so there was very little room on the schedule to work with, and Minnesota found what it could as soon as BSU announced it was going D-I. But because of the Mariucci Classic and College Hockey Showcase, from 2002-2003 no room was available.

Edit: MN also scheduled MSU for the 1997-1998 year, albeit at Mariucci, in advance of the WCHA. MSUM went D-I independent in 1996-1997, and was WCHA admitted beginning 1998-1999, but MN only was allowed to have four nonconference games in 1996-1997, which were filled by the Mariucci Classic and College Hockey Showcase. So no room to do much of a home and home in that time period. So while UND may have played in Mankato in 1996-1997, I wouldn't necessarily go patting yourself on the back; MN made those contracts for the Mariucci Classic and College Hockey Showcase well in advance of Mankato's announcement to be D-I, and again, MN got them on the schedule as soon as practicable.

by **Five-HoleFrenzy** » Wed 5/16/12 9:26 am

UND and DU's leadership is on display for everyone to see with the NotSoHotCHo conference. It speaks for itself.

When any of the schools like Denver, CC, UMD, SCSU, UND, etc are part of a major division 1 conference in ALL SPORTS then maybe we can compare what went went down for UW, UM, UMN, OSU, MSU when Penn State added hockey to the decision these schools made to leave the WCHA. No matter how much it was joked about the BTHC was inevitable, the NotSoHotCHo...Not so much.

And the whole puesdo surprise at the mention of the leadership position that Minnesota and Wisconsin has in the WCHA like this doesn't exist is...Well,let's just say it isn't surprising coming from flickertail follwerers.

by **SiouxFanatic** » Wed 5/16/12 10:14 am

Five-HoleFrenzy wrote:And the whole puesdo surprise at the mention of the leadership position that Minnesota and Wisconsin has in the WCHA like this doesn't exist is...Well,let's just say it isn't surprising coming from flickertail follwerers.

Swing and a miss. Nice try but that wasn't even the point of why the comment was hilarious. The fact that Minnesota and Wisconsin has/had an important role in the current WCHA is irrefutable. But the perceived "shouldering the burden" of the current WCHA? That's just downright comical. :lol:

Though it isn't surprising since it came from a Gopher follower. :wink:

by **Handyman** » Wed 5/16/12 11:46 am

brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

The same one UND and DU were going to have to shoulder in the New WCHA. It was one of your idiot fans (Melvin) that made the original comment brian trying to make it seem like the Whioux and DU were going to have to be Atlas. We just flipped it on him :lol:

by **Five-HoleFrenzy** » Wed 5/16/12 2:18 pm

Look, however you say it, and apparently it can be quite funny if you say it in a certain way, two membership institutions were key in their leadership of the WCHA. When circumstances dictated their leaving that leadership would and should have come from UND and DU. They simply moved on and took on that role with the formation of a new conference.

Probably just me as a jaded Gopher fan but I find hilarity in the Whioux and the Pionearsighteds attempt to "shoulder the burden" in the the formation of the super conference. And for more chuckles, Whiouxville please vote no on the 12th.

by **brianvf** » Wed 5/16/12 4:31 pm

Five-HoleFrenzy wrote:And the whole puesdo surprise at the mention of the leadership position that Minnesota and Wisconsin has in the WCHA like this doesn't exist is...Well,let's just say it isn't surprising coming from flickertail follwerers.

What kind of leadership does UMN and UW provide to the WCHA that UND and DU do not?

by **Slap Shot** » Wed 5/16/12 4:59 pm

brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

Yup, I checked and I didn't see that being said either by a Gophers fan either. Good job being a, "Mevlin".

by **Greyeagle** » Wed 5/16/12 5:12 pm

Melvin wrote:
SiouxFanatic wrote:
brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

I got a very good chuckle out of that comment as well. Especially since he was being serious.

Seriously, I thought that was a moronic comment... You guys seem to forget that Gopher fans have a whole different reality; the college hockey world revolves around the UofM...

by **brianvf** » Wed 5/16/12 8:07 pm

Slap Shot wrote:Yup, I checked and I didn't see that being said either by a Gophers fan either. Good job being a, "Mevlin".

You must not have checked very hard...being that it was mentioned at least 3 times on this page alone by Gopher fans.

Hammy wrote:The leadership at UND and DU knew they couldn't handle the shouldering the burden in the WCHA the same way the Gophers and UW did all these years.

Hammy wrote:If they really consider themselves to be such great programs, they should be able to handle the same job that the Gophers and UW did for years.

gopherguy13 wrote:Like Hammy said, it's not that they should be expected to prop up the WCHA, they just recognized that they couldn't do it like UM and UW could. So they left.

by **gopherguy13** » Wed 5/16/12 9:56 pm

brianvf wrote:What exactly is this burden that UMN and UW shouldered by themselves for the WCHA all these years?

If there is no burden to be shouldered, then the WCHA should have been just fine without UM and UW. So why did UND and DU leave?

by **brianvf** » Thu 5/17/12 12:47 am

gopherguy13 wrote:If there is no burden to be shouldered, then the WCHA should have been just fine without UM and UW. So why did UND and DU leave?

I won't pretend to know the exact reasoning as to why DU and UND wanted to form a new conference, but I've seen plenty of people mention quality of play (the current B10 and NCHC are much tougher leagues than the WCHA...which could be good/bad for some of these schools that are used to winning in the WCHA and CCHA), the potential for better administration and officiating (it can't get much worse, can it? :wink:

), etc.

Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Regardless, count me as one Sioux fan who wishes that the WCHA would have remained as-is once the B10 starts league play.

by **gopherguy13** » Thu 5/17/12 1:14 am

brianvf wrote:
Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Keeping the damn league afloat! Without us, apparently it dies! :mrgreen:

edit for Bale: WCHA clearly not "dead". Figure of speech. :good2:

by **WPoS** » Thu 5/17/12 6:46 am

brianvf wrote:
gopherguy13 wrote:If there is no burden to be shouldered, then the WCHA should have been just fine without UM and UW. So why did UND and DU leave?

I won't pretend to know the exact reasoning as to why DU and UND wanted to form a new conference, but I've seen plenty of people mention quality of play (the current B10 and NCHC are much tougher leagues than the WCHA...which could be good/bad for some of these schools that are used to winning in the WCHA and CCHA), the potential for better administration and officiating (it can't get much worse, can it? ), etc.

Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Regardless, count me as one Sioux fan who wishes that the WCHA would have remained as-is once the B10 starts league play.

dealing with Whioux fans! DUH!

W

by **Bale** » Thu 5/17/12 7:16 am

gopherguy13 wrote:
brianvf wrote:
Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Keeping the damn league afloat! Without us, apparently it dies!

edit for Bale: WCHA clearly not "dead". Figure of speech.

Haha....thanks for thinking of me!! :lol:

by **Norm** » Thu 5/17/12 8:46 am

gopherguy13 wrote:
brianvf wrote:
Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Keeping the damn league afloat! Without us, apparently it dies!

edit for Bale: WCHA clearly not "dead". Figure of speech.

Look at it this way. Suppose Big 10 hockey never happened. Now suppose for some reason DU and UND leave the WCHA. Do you think MN and Wis would also bolt from the WCHA and form a new "super conference". Highly doubt it.

by **Handyman** » Thu 5/17/12 1:34 pm

brianvf wrote:
Still not sure what these darn UW/UMN shouldered burdens are though.

Well why dont you ask your friend Melvin he seemed to know

by **SiouxFanatic** » Thu 5/17/12 1:52 pm

Norm wrote:Look at it this way. Suppose Big 10 hockey never happened. Now suppose for some reason DU and UND leave the WCHA. Do you think MN and Wis would also bolt from the WCHA and form a new "super conference". Highly doubt it.

Correct. As long as we are talking hypothetical you could sure as hell take it to the bank that if what you mentioned did happen, Wisconsin would bolt to the CCHA to be with the majority of the Big Ten hockey playing schools(they thought of doing as such pre-BTHC formation) which would inevitably once again put Minnesota in a pickle especially if Penn State joined the CCHA under this hypothetical situation.

by **dryfly** » Thu 5/17/12 2:06 pm

SiouxFanatic wrote:
Norm wrote:Look at it this way. Suppose Big 10 hockey never happened. Now suppose for some reason DU and UND leave the WCHA. Do you think MN and Wis would also bolt from the WCHA and form a new "super conference". Highly doubt it.

Correct. As long as we are talking hypothetical you could sure as hell take it to the bank that if what you mentioned did happen, Wisconsin would bolt to the CCHA to be with the majority of the Big Ten hockey playing schools(they thought of doing as such pre-BTHC formation) which would inevitably once again put Minnesota in a pickle especially if Penn State joined the CCHA under this hypothetical situation.

Not really - be no pickle if no BTHC.

You really don't get the pull of the Big Ten over all - it is a football and basketball conference with a lot of other non-revenue sports. We might look at hockey as important but the rest do not - even those who have programs - like UW. See Alvarez as Exhib A. Hockey in the eyes of the rest of the league is right up there with baseball and wrestling - behind women's basketball - in importance.

So if Wisco had gone and joined the CCHA and even if Penn State joined the CCHA - if no BTHC had formed we'd have been left to do whatever we wanted and probably would have stayed WCHA and just scheduled Wisco regularly like we do UMich and MSU. OSU and PSU - no huge emotional ties to either.

The BTHC changed everything.

by **Rtn2GoldCountry** » Thu 5/17/12 3:37 pm

I really think that the teams in the current WCHA/CCHA teams should have been prepared for MN, WI, MI, MSU, and OSU to leave long before the BTCH, or even the Penn State move to Division 1, were even announced. I always wondered how many more teams would be needed for the B1G to add hockey because for so many years 5 of 11 teams had hockey. Any single sport conference should be prepared for its members to leave, if the members have the opportunity to play in the conference that the majority of their other sports play in. I guess i'm just surprised that the WCHA/CCHA did not see this coming, although maybe they did and their is just nothing they can do about it. One question, can teams just move conferences any time they want to, and their are no contracts that teams sign with individual conferences? I feel like the WCHA should have made UNO and BSU sign contracts to commit to playing in the league for X amount of years before letting them in the league, if they could have that is.

by **bearpaw28** » Thu 5/17/12 6:34 pm

dryfly wrote:
SiouxFanatic wrote:
Norm wrote:Look at it this way. Suppose Big 10 hockey never happened. Now suppose for some reason DU and UND leave the WCHA. Do you think MN and Wis would also bolt from the WCHA and form a new "super conference". Highly doubt it.

Correct. As long as we are talking hypothetical you could sure as hell take it to the bank that if what you mentioned did happen, Wisconsin would bolt to the CCHA to be with the majority of the Big Ten hockey playing schools(they thought of doing as such pre-BTHC formation) which would inevitably once again put Minnesota in a pickle especially if Penn State joined the CCHA under this hypothetical situation.

Not really - be no pickle if no BTHC.

You really don't get the pull of the Big Ten over all - it is a football and basketball conference with a lot of other non-revenue sports. We might look at hockey as important but the rest do not - even those who have programs - like UW. See Alvarez as Exhib A. Hockey in the eyes of the rest of the league is right up there with baseball and wrestling - behind women's basketball - in importance.

So if Wisco had gone and joined the CCHA and even if Penn State joined the CCHA - if no BTHC had formed we'd have been left to do whatever we wanted and probably would have stayed WCHA and just scheduled Wisco regularly like we do UMich and MSU. OSU and PSU - no huge emotional ties to either.

The BTHC changed everything.

BINGO...it's what started the ball rolling. In addition, I agree with everything you said about the attitude of MOST Big Ten schools regarding hockey...and while I feel a BTHC (was arguably inevitable)...it just doesn't sit well with me compared to the OLD WCHA.

Who is online