PDA

View Full Version : WCHA adding Bemidji State and Nebraska-Omaha starting in 2010-2011



BleedGopher
06-26-2009, 01:23 PM
http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/gophers/2009/06/26/u-mens-puck-neb-omaha-bemidji-state-to-join-wcha/?location_refer=Homepage:PromoScroller:Blogs

Go Gophers!!

SelectionSunday
06-26-2009, 02:29 PM
Glad to hear this, especially for the folks in Omaha. When I was at the CWS a couple weeks ago, the city was really fired up about getting Dean Blais as their head coach. I get the feeling UNO thinks they have a chance to truly be big-time now that Blais is aboard.

Lincoln gopher
06-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Great news, I will get to see Gopher hockey in person a whole lot easier now.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-26-2009, 08:37 PM
just not a fan of the direction the WCHA is going in and the teams now making up the league. bemidji state? alaska-anchorage? michigan tech? nebraska-omaha? the league and the old rivalries are just getting too watered down for my taste.

would much rather play in the same conference as wisconsin, michigan, michigan state, ohio state, notre dame and see illinois and penn state start up D1 hockey at their schools since they already have a tradition of youth hockey and have had NHL franchises for a long time.

being in the business of keeping some of these second or third-tier hockey programs afloat should not be the business of schools like minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, michigan state.

Border Gopher
06-26-2009, 10:37 PM
just not a fan of the direction the WCHA is going in and the teams now making up the league. bemidji state? alaska-anchorage? michigan tech? nebraska-omaha? the league and the old rivalries are just getting too watered down for my taste.

would much rather play in the same conference as wisconsin, michigan, michigan state, ohio state, notre dame and see illinois and penn state start up D1 hockey at their schools since they already have a tradition of youth hockey and have had NHL franchises for a long time.

being in the business of keeping some of these second or third-tier hockey programs afloat should not be the business of schools like minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, michigan state.

Sweet. So you'd rather there was just like 30 teams and 3 different power conferences? Yeah, that'd be great. Let's take away opportunities for kids, not create them.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-27-2009, 12:17 AM
Sweet. So you'd rather there was just like 30 teams and 3 different power conferences? Yeah, that'd be great. Let's take away opportunities for kids, not create them.

i would be okay with that. i believe there would be far better college hockey to watch if there were fewer teams because those remaining would be the ones with the tradition and who are/always have been on solid financial and foundational footing. i don't have any emotional connection to the nebraska-omaha's, bemidji states, alaska-anchorage, alaska-fairbanks, michigan techs, northern michigans, ferris states, western michigans, bowling greens of the world, so if those teams went away at some point i wouldn't shed a tear over it.

just how i feel. and i grew up playing competitive hockey at a long established hockey high school so i am not just saying this from an uninformed, rube standpoint. again, it is just how i feel about the over-saturation of what seem to be small-time college hockey programs cropping up and needing life-support from major conferences/teams to even stay afloat.

TheDinkytowner
06-27-2009, 09:33 AM
Why does Neb-Omaha have a team while Neb-Lincoln doesn't? (you know, the Huskers, with its alumni base, financial resources, name recognition, etc.) The two schools are 30 minutes apart, so what's the deal? Seriously, Gophers-Huskers would be a must-see game! I have no desire to watch us play Omaha or Bemidji.

bigmwc
06-27-2009, 12:38 PM
i would be okay with that. i believe there would be far better college hockey to watch if there were fewer teams because those remaining would be the ones with the tradition and who are/always have been on solid financial and foundational footing. i don't have any emotional connection to the nebraska-omaha's, bemidji states, alaska-anchorage, alaska-fairbanks, michigan techs, northern michigans, ferris states, western michigans, bowling greens of the world, so if those teams went away at some point i wouldn't shed a tear over it.



That seems extremely selfish. A team can't build tradition if they can't play games, pull upsets, and win championships. How did college hockey even start expanding since no one had tradition built? I don't think YOUR emotional connection has anything to do with the other fans of these programs looking to build tradition.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-27-2009, 12:46 PM
That seems extremely selfish. A team can't build tradition if they can't play games, pull upsets, and win championships. How did college hockey even start expanding since no one had tradition built? I don't think YOUR emotional connection has anything to do with the other fans of these programs looking to build tradition.

i don't really care if it is selfish. so be it. just trying to look at the state of college hockey from an unemotional, fact based standpoint, which i am not sure you are doing. there are too many small-time teams that are not able to sustain their programs and increasing the number of those types of progams is the wrong direction for college hockey to be headed in.

TheDinkytowner
06-27-2009, 01:11 PM
I think small programs need to be together in their own conferences. Is there any other sport where this mixing happens? Any? Women's pole vaulting? Nope, that's Big10 still.

No Nebraska Huskers, but Nebraska-Omaha? Makes no sense.
No Colorado Buffs, but Colorado College? Makes no sense.
No Penn State, but Alabama-Huntsville? Pure insanity with crazy on top.

This is partly a result of not having enough big programs, and I think the current setup encourages small programs and discourages big ones. Bemidji State's only chance to play with the big boys is in hockey, not basketball and not even even track&field. Meanwhile, what incentive does Penn State have to start hockey if it will be stuck in a conference full of schools that its students don't care much about?

I think a Big10 (and later Big East) conference would be the best thing ever for college hockey.

Lincoln gopher
06-27-2009, 01:30 PM
I think small programs need to be together in their own conferences. Is there any other sport where this mixing happens? Any? Women's pole vaulting? Nope, that's Big10 still.

No Nebraska Huskers, but Nebraska-Omaha? Makes no sense.
No Colorado Buffs, but Colorado College? Makes no sense.
No Penn State, but Alabama-Huntsville? Pure insanity with crazy on top.

This is partly a result of not having enough big programs, and I think the current setup encourages small programs and discourages big ones. Bemidji State's only chance to play with the big boys is in hockey, not basketball and not even even track&field. Meanwhile, what incentive does Penn State have to start hockey if it will be stuck in a conference full of schools that its students don't care much about?

I think a Big10 (and later Big East) conference would be the best thing ever for college hockey.
Speaking of why UNO and not UNL, I am sure Title IX has as much to do with it as anything. UNL doesn't know what hockey is, no facility. UNO had facility options.

TheDinkytowner
06-27-2009, 02:10 PM
Speaking of why UNO and not UNL, I am sure Title IX has as much to do with it as anything. UNL doesn't know what hockey is, no facility. UNO had facility options.


UN-Omaha has the same Title IX obligations as the Huskers, only a much smaller budget. If UNO is willing to suck it up while UNL isn't, there MUST be a bigger reason than money, right?

Culture? I find it hard to believe that Omaha is so much more hockey crazy than Lincoln, 30 mins away, just like U. of Denver has a team and Colorado doesn't (30 mins away). Do Colorado, Pitt, Northwestern, Marquette, Rutgers, Villanova etc. not know what hockey is? Those are all much bigger hockey towns than Omaha, WITH facilities available, and they still don't have teams. Why?

Sacred Heart plays D-1 with a 1,000 seat arena, American International has a 1,200 seat arena, those are just the first 2 I clicked on. The Huskers have the cash to build a 1,000 seat hockey arena tomorrow if they wanted to......so it's got to be something else.

Again, my hunch is that small schools want to play hockey because it's their ONLY chance to play in a major conference with the big boys and raise their profile, so they're willing to pay whatever the costs and roll the dice. What's the Cornhuskers incentive to join the WHCA, so they can play St. Cloud and Alaska?

Now if there was a BigXII hockey conference in place I bet they'd seriously consider starting a program (UN-Lincoln, Colorado, Iowa State, Mizzou (St. Louis is a big hockey town), maybe Kansas or Kansas State)

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-27-2009, 02:43 PM
UN-Omaha has the same Title IX obligations as the Huskers, only a much smaller budget. If UNO is willing to suck it up while UNL isn't, there MUST be a bigger reason than money, right?

Culture? I find it hard to believe that Omaha is so much more hockey crazy than Lincoln, 30 mins away, just like U. of Denver has a team and Colorado doesn't (30 mins away). Do Colorado, Pitt, Northwestern, Marquette, Rutgers, Villanova etc. not know what hockey is? Those are all much bigger hockey towns than Omaha, WITH facilities available, and they still don't have teams. Why?

Sacred Heart plays D-1 with a 1,000 seat arena, American International has a 1,200 seat arena, those are just the first 2 I clicked on. The Huskers have the cash to build a 1,000 seat hockey arena tomorrow if they wanted to......so it's got to be something else.

Again, my hunch is that small schools want to play hockey because it's their ONLY chance to play in a major conference with the big boys and raise their profile, so they're willing to pay whatever the costs and roll the dice. What's the Cornhuskers incentive to join the WHCA, so they can play St. Cloud and Alaska?

Now if there was a BigXII hockey conference in place I bet they'd seriously consider starting a program (UN-Lincoln, Colorado, Iowa State, Mizzou (St. Louis is a big hockey town), maybe Kansas or Kansas State)

all great points. what you described above IS the direction that college hockey SHOULD be trying to move in and not what is happening right now. if they want even less relevance in the world of college sports, casual fans minds, and TV then keep propping up teams like alaska-anchorage, alaska-fairbanks, bemidji state, nebraska-omaha, alabama-huntsville, bowling green, niagara, michigan tech, ferris state, etc.

NDSU Bison
06-27-2009, 03:19 PM
North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Denver, Colorado College, Michigan and Michigan St. should make their own elite conference.

(Also I know it wouldn't work to just kick out Alaska Anchorage but I think the WCHA should replace them with a greater asset in MSUM. Alaska Anchorage is too far away no one attends the games there is no rivalry. If MSUM was to replace them, more people would be able to watch games hockey games. Location Location Location, I guarantee you that every MSUM home game against UND and U of M game would sell out. Also Bemiji St., St. Cloud, Duluth are all with in reasonable driving distance to attract fans. Also the UP center is newer built in 2008 and much better arena than what AA has. Although UP only holds 5,000 to AA 6,000. Of course this is nothing but a pipe dream because I don't think MSUM will ever get D1 hockey. Just a thought)

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-27-2009, 06:49 PM
North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Denver, Colorado College, Michigan and Michigan St. should make their own elite conference.

(Also I know it wouldn't work to just kick out Alaska Anchorage but I think the WCHA should replace them with a greater asset in MSUM. Alaska Anchorage is too far away no one attends the games there is no rivalry. If MSUM was to replace them, more people would be able to watch games hockey games. Location Location Location, I guarantee you that every MSUM home game against UND and U of M game would sell out. Also Bemiji St., St. Cloud, Duluth are all with in reasonable driving distance to attract fans. Also the UP center is newer built in 2008 and much better arena than what AA has. Although UP only holds 5,000 to AA 6,000. Of course this is nothing but a pipe dream because I don't think MSUM will ever get D1 hockey. Just a thought)

your second paragraph completely contradicts your first sentence! ;)

Lincoln gopher
06-28-2009, 08:07 AM
UN-Omaha has the same Title IX obligations as the Huskers, only a much smaller budget. If UNO is willing to suck it up while UNL isn't, there MUST be a bigger reason than money, right?

Culture? I find it hard to believe that Omaha is so much more hockey crazy than Lincoln, 30 mins away, just like U. of Denver has a team and Colorado doesn't (30 mins away). Do Colorado, Pitt, Northwestern, Marquette, Rutgers, Villanova etc. not know what hockey is? Those are all much bigger hockey towns than Omaha, WITH facilities available, and they still don't have teams. Why?

Sacred Heart plays D-1 with a 1,000 seat arena, American International has a 1,200 seat arena, those are just the first 2 I clicked on. The Huskers have the cash to build a 1,000 seat hockey arena tomorrow if they wanted to......so it's got to be something else.

Again, my hunch is that small schools want to play hockey because it's their ONLY chance to play in a major conference with the big boys and raise their profile, so they're willing to pay whatever the costs and roll the dice. What's the Cornhuskers incentive to join the WHCA, so they can play St. Cloud and Alaska?

Now if there was a BigXII hockey conference in place I bet they'd seriously consider starting a program (UN-Lincoln, Colorado, Iowa State, Mizzou (St. Louis is a big hockey town), maybe Kansas or Kansas State)

UNO is no different than ST Cloud, Duluth, North Dakota and so on. Hockey is their only D1 sport. I don't know why they chose hockey as their sport other than interest. I have lived in Lincoln for over 25 years now and the difference in hockey culture is huge, believe me or not. At times Omaha has supported UNO, an USHL team, and a minor league team. Lincoln thinks about one thing and one thing only-football. Football is the headline in the paper 4 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Hell, their basketball team barely makes money at the D1 level. Their USHL team has been successful, started out with years of sellouts, serving alcohol is a big part of the interest when the Stars started, but now just the core fans show up. That is about it for hockey in Lincoln.

UNL will not spend money on a hockey arena of any size. UNL has been discussing a new basketball arena for several years now and they can't pull the trigger on it. They continuely put money into football facilities, because that is where the interest is. You mention they would play if the some of the Big 12 schools formed a conference, again I seriously doubt Iowa State, Missouri, and the Kansas schools have any interest in hockey what so ever. It is basketball and football in Big 12 country and baseball for a few that carries the interest of the fans. Colorado and Iowa State didn't even have the money or interest to keep college baseball.

OmahaGopher
06-28-2009, 09:30 AM
UN-Omaha has the same Title IX obligations as the Huskers, only a much smaller budget. If UNO is willing to suck it up while UNL isn't, there MUST be a bigger reason than money, right?

Culture? I find it hard to believe that Omaha is so much more hockey crazy than Lincoln, 30 mins away, just like U. of Denver has a team and Colorado doesn't (30 mins away). Do Colorado, Pitt, Northwestern, Marquette, Rutgers, Villanova etc. not know what hockey is? Those are all much bigger hockey towns than Omaha, WITH facilities available, and they still don't have teams. Why?

Sacred Heart plays D-1 with a 1,000 seat arena, American International has a 1,200 seat arena, those are just the first 2 I clicked on. The Huskers have the cash to build a 1,000 seat hockey arena tomorrow if they wanted to......so it's got to be something else.

Again, my hunch is that small schools want to play hockey because it's their ONLY chance to play in a major conference with the big boys and raise their profile, so they're willing to pay whatever the costs and roll the dice. What's the Cornhuskers incentive to join the WHCA, so they can play St. Cloud and Alaska?

Now if there was a BigXII hockey conference in place I bet they'd seriously consider starting a program (UN-Lincoln, Colorado, Iowa State, Mizzou (St. Louis is a big hockey town), maybe Kansas or Kansas State)

Not sure if you forgot, but the Omaha Mavericks play in the Qwest Center Omaha, which seats ~16,800 for hockey. That said, I don't think there is really any worry about the facilities not being there for Nebraska-Omaha (although, they will need to get something sorted out in the upcoming years for their practice facilities, etc.).

I agree with some of the sentiment on here about wanting to have just a "Big Ten" league and dropping some of these other schools from the league, but that isn't reality and probably won't happen for some time. I think Bemidji and Omaha are great fits for the WCHA and are both going to be good fits for The U and for Gopher fans... Two more teams and away game spots that are within a six-hour drive of The Cities -- should keep travel costs low for the team. The inclusion of Omaha will help WCHA teams attract more of the Omaha youth hockey players, as it has been growing in recent years. Omaha has 1.2 million people living within 50 miles of the city center.

I for one cannot wait to watch the Gophers come to town, so I can cheer on the Maroon and Gold! Then, have Becky come to town and root for the Mavs. It's going to be a lot better than watching Ferris State and the other MAC teams that are in the CCHA.

Ski-U-Mah!

TheDinkytowner
06-28-2009, 12:55 PM
Lincoln Gopher:

I believe you that Omaha likes its hockey, but isn't Omaha also made up of almost 100% Husker supporters and/or alumni? If hockey fans in Omaha had the option of driving 30 minutes and supporting their beloved Huskers play hockey, or staying in Omaha and watching UNO, why not go watch the team you grew up rooting for in every other sport?

I agree with you that a BigXII conference is a longshot, I was just dreaming. And I see why UNL and Colorado don't invest in basketball, because it's tough for them to win recruiting battles against Kansas, Mizzou, Texas and OU. But the difference between basketball and hockey is that both UNL and Colorado could field some competitive hockey teams, very quickly, simply on the recruiting power of name recognition alone. Play for the Huskers or Buffs, or play for Mankato? I think I've made my decision.


Omaha Gopher:

I was aware of the arena, but my point was in response to why UN-L doesn't have a team, due to no facilities and no hockey culture in Lincoln. My point was that even if UN-Lincoln DID have new facilities and DID have a hockey culture, it still might not have a team. Why? Because it's a major university, and the current college hockey structure provides little incentive for major universities to join, while smaller universities have lots of incentives.

The schools I listed are MAJOR universities, WITH facilities, WITH hockey culture, that still don't have teams (Colorado, Pitt, Rutgers, etc), while the small schools down the street DO have teams (Colorado College). Why? What's stopping them? My theory is that MAJOR schools don't see a benefit from D1 hockey, because their only conference options are filled with non-traditional opponents, while SMALLER schools see D1 hockey as a unique way to raise their profile and play with the big boys, because the BCS conference structure doesn't exist.

How else do explain the bizarre fact that Penn State doesn't have a teams but Alabama-Huntsville does?

If someone else has a better theory as to what the hell is going on, I'm more then open to hearing it.

A Big 10 hockey conference would be a first step in providing a real incentive for Penn State, Illinois, maybe even Iowa and Northwestern to make the move.

Omega015
06-28-2009, 02:49 PM
The incentive would be if a school could make money by adding hockey, and most must not think they can. I would imagine hockey would be by far the most expensive non-revenue sport... so if there are no crowds, then there is no way you'll see a program.

This article does a good job of talking up the WCHA and why it is the place to be:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/132339616

TheDinkytowner
06-28-2009, 03:36 PM
The incentive would be if a school could make money by adding hockey, and most must not think they can. I would imagine hockey would be by far the most expensive non-revenue sport... so if there are no crowds, then there is no way you'll see a program.

This article does a good job of talking up the WCHA and why it is the place to be: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/132339616


Thanks for the link.

You say "no crowds, no way you'll see a program" but then please explain how "American International" manages to field a D1 team that averaged 207 fans per game last year (yes, two hundred seven).

I think the most telling quote from that article is from Maturi: "And the great thing about college hockey is that where else in college sports can you have a Minnesota with a $74 million budget competing against a Colorado College with 2,000 students and a ($6 million) budget, and they can beat you?"

Lincoln gopher
06-28-2009, 05:05 PM
[QUOTE=TheDinkytowner;70744]Lincoln Gopher:

I believe you that Omaha likes its hockey, but isn't Omaha also made up of almost 100% Husker supporters and/or alumni? If hockey fans in Omaha had the option of driving 30 minutes and supporting their beloved Huskers play hockey, or staying in Omaha and watching UNO, why not go watch the team you grew up rooting for in every other sport?

I agree with you that a BigXII conference is a longshot, I was just dreaming. And I see why UNL and Colorado don't invest in basketball, because it's tough for them to win recruiting battles against Kansas, Mizzou, Texas and OU. But the difference between basketball and hockey is that both UNL and Colorado could field some competitive hockey teams, very quickly, simply on the recruiting power of name recognition alone. Play for the Huskers or Buffs, or play for Mankato? I think I've made my decision.

The Husker fans from Omaha don't drive 45 miles to Lincoln for anything but football. They don't support Husker basketball or baseball. They support Creighton in basketball. It is amazing to me how many people in Omaha support Husker football and Creighton basketball. For something like this to happen at Nebraska, the athletic department and to have some interest and there is none. Its not that UNL and Colorado don't invest in basketball, it's that there is no fan interest, so they can't even make money on the sport. I do understand the point you are making about hockey, I just think that Nebraska is a terrible example of a school that should have hockey.

Omega015
06-28-2009, 06:04 PM
Thanks for the link.

You say "no crowds, no way you'll see a program" but then please explain how "American International" manages to field a D1 team that averaged 207 fans per game last year (yes, two hundred seven).

I think the most telling quote from that article is from Maturi: "And the great thing about college hockey is that where else in college sports can you have a Minnesota with a $74 million budget competing against a Colorado College with 2,000 students and a ($6 million) budget, and they can beat you?"

American International fields a D1 team because the rules allow them to...and it's probably their only D1 sport. Most college hockey teams are their school's only D1 sport. I believe there are only 13 schools that play D1 football, basketball, and hockey (Minnesota, Wisky, Mich, Mich St, tOSU, Notre Dame, BC, Uconn, Army, BGSU, Miami, Air Force, Western Michigan)... If you look at that list, most of those schools are mediocre in all of their sports at best.

For a big school, the incentive to add D1 hockey would only be to make money. Schools don't add non-revenue sports. The only school that I think may be able to add hockey and be really successful would be Penn State. But, as my link shows, their is nobody looking to break up the WCHA because it is the ultimate power and revenue conference.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-28-2009, 07:45 PM
American International fields a D1 team because the rules allow them to...and it's probably their only D1 sport. Most college hockey teams are their school's only D1 sport. I believe there are only 13 schools that play D1 football, basketball, and hockey (Minnesota, Wisky, Mich, Mich St, tOSU, Notre Dame, BC, Uconn, Army, BGSU, Miami, Air Force, Western Michigan)... If you look at that list, most of those schools are mediocre in all of their sports at best.

For a big school, the incentive to add D1 hockey would only be to make money. Schools don't add non-revenue sports. The only school that I think may be able to add hockey and be really successful would be Penn State. But, as my link shows, their is nobody looking to break up the WCHA because it is the ultimate power and revenue conference.

have to disagree. i would have to believe over time that schools such as illinois, penn state and perhaps even an iowa (i cringe) could field men's hockey programs that would be bigger revenue generators than existing sports they support such as: gymnastics, soccer, rowing, track & field, etc.

Omega015
06-28-2009, 08:38 PM
Illinois and Penn State have established club teams, but there's a big difference between fielding a competitive club team and generating revenue as a D1 sport. Without a TV deal or a big conference tournament, there is very little revenue in college hockey. If there was revenue, schools would have teams. The fact is that college hockey is popular in Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts and has very little interest in the rest of the country. There are also Title IX issues to consider, which makes adding new sports a little more complicated.

GopherGod
06-29-2009, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=TheDinkytowner;70744]Lincoln Gopher:

I believe you that Omaha likes its hockey, but isn't Omaha also made up of almost 100% Husker supporters and/or alumni? If hockey fans in Omaha had the option of driving 30 minutes and supporting their beloved Huskers play hockey, or staying in Omaha and watching UNO, why not go watch the team you grew up rooting for in every other sport?

I agree with you that a BigXII conference is a longshot, I was just dreaming. And I see why UNL and Colorado don't invest in basketball, because it's tough for them to win recruiting battles against Kansas, Mizzou, Texas and OU. But the difference between basketball and hockey is that both UNL and Colorado could field some competitive hockey teams, very quickly, simply on the recruiting power of name recognition alone. Play for the Huskers or Buffs, or play for Mankato? I think I've made my decision.

The Husker fans from Omaha don't drive 45 miles to Lincoln for anything but football. They don't support Husker basketball or baseball. They support Creighton in basketball. It is amazing to me how many people in Omaha support Husker football and Creighton basketball. For something like this to happen at Nebraska, the athletic department and to have some interest and there is none. Its not that UNL and Colorado don't invest in basketball, it's that there is no fan interest, so they can't even make money on the sport. I do understand the point you are making about hockey, I just think that Nebraska is a terrible example of a school that should have hockey.


I agree completely with you Lincoln Gopher and then throw in the fact that Omaha and Lincoln have a heated competitition with one another for everything, whether it be the university, high school state championships, etc. I know that John Breslow had talked about throwing in several million towards an ice arena attached to the proposed new basketball arena in the Haymarket district of Lincoln, but we will see if they can actually get the funding for the new basketball facility first. I think atleast at this time it makes sense for UNO to be the only hockey team in Nebraska as they already have one of the nicest arenas around in the new Qwest Center and would be self destructive for the University of Nebraska system to put a team in Lincoln to compete for the fans of the state against one of their own schools. You have to throw UNO a bone on something that they don't have to compete again UNL on to give them a chance.

TheDinkytowner
06-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Omega, I hate to rip your posts, but I think you're off on pretty much everything.



American International fields a D1 team because the rules allow them to...and it's probably their only D1 sport.

Before you said "with no crowds, no way you'll see a program." So big schools need crowds, but small schools don't? American International averaged 207 (two hundred seven) fans per game last year and 173 fans/game the previous year.

Here are some random teams attendance figures (finding club attendance is difficult, but I think Penn State and Illinois both average anywhere from 1 to 3 thousand based on some articles out there)

CLUB TEAMS:
-East Carolina (400/game) http://www.ecuicehockey.com/recruits.php
-Missouri State (800/game) http://missouristatehockey.com/history.php
DIVISION II TEAMS:
St. Thomas (586/game)

What if St. Thomas wants to join the WCHA? Or maybe Hamline, or Carleton? No crazier than Bemidji State or Moorhead, and certainly much more local interest. Big 10 conference would be our ticket of that mess.



Most college hockey teams are their school's only D1 sport.

Incorrect. There are 58 D-1 hockey teams. At least 34 play D-1 basketball (and likely more D1 sports).

(Air Force, Army, UConn, Holy Cross, Sacred Heart, Notre Dame, Michigan, Miami, Ohio State, Western Michigan, Michigan State, Bowling Green, Niagara, Robert Morris, Yale, Cornell , Princeton, Dartmouth, Harvard, Quinnipiac, Colgate, Brown, Boston University, Northeastern, New Hampshire, Vermont, Boston College, UMass, Maine, Providence, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Denver, and soon North Dakota)



I believe there are only 13 schools that play D1 football, basketball, and hockey Minnesota, Wisky, Mich, Mich St, tOSU, Notre Dame, BC, Uconn, Army, BGSU, Miami, Air Force, Western Michigan... If you look at that list, most of those schools are mediocre in all of their sports at best.

??? Who's mediocre in "all their sports"? Maybe W. Michigan and a couple others, but Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, UConn, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Boston College, are not. If that's what you meant, it's incorrect.



Illinois and Penn State have established club teams, but there's a big difference between fielding a competitive club team and generating revenue as a D1 sport.

Penn State and Illinois are more popular as club teams than quite a few current D1 programs, and would be very attractive to conferencs. IIRC, Penn State and Illinois currently average MUCH more than American-International's 207 (perhaps as much as 2 or 3 thousand). Someone posted here earlier that his Illini friend told him club hockey is the 3rd or 4th most popular sport on campus.



The fact is that college hockey is popular in Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts and has very little interest in the rest of the country.

Somewhat true, but that doesn't explain why American-International--in MASSACHUSETTS--averages a pathertic 207 (two hundred seven) fans per game.....while Alabama-Huntsville, which doesn't even play D1 basketball, averages 2,600 fans/game which is more than Air Force, Michigan Tech, Bemidji, UConn, and a bunch of others.




There are also Title IX issues to consider, which makes adding new sports a little more complicated.

No dice. American International and Sacred Heart have the same Title IX obligations as Penn State and Illinois, with even smaller budgets and worse attendance.

Omega015
06-29-2009, 02:25 PM
I got this off the Navy website... they approved funding for a hockey arena a few years ago:

Ask the AD -- Ice Hockey
Q: An April 8, 2004 article on USCHO.com mentioned the Naval Academy recently received funding for a new hockey arena. This appears to be a big step in the direction of hockey becoming a varsity sport at the Naval Academy. In a previous response to a similar question, you said "...the two biggest hurdles we have to cross are finding appropriate resources and an adequate facility." With the facility problem out of the way, what else stands in the way? Is there a possibility of fielding an NCAA Division I hockey team for the 2005-06 season? I would be interested in any information you can give me on your progress. Thank you. - asked by: Lance Wheeler -

A: Lance, the biggest hurdle we have is generating the annual resources necessary to sustain a competitive Division I hockey program. The operating budget can be close to half-a-million dollars for travel, uniforms, equipment, staff, supplies, and other related expenses. One thing we don't want to do is field a varsity team without a chance to succeed.

I'm not into doing anything half way, and supporting 30 programs at this time is a real stretch on our resources. Taking on the addition of ice hockey would be another stretch, and the money would have to come from existing allocations. Unless we can find a way to generate supplemental funding in a realistic and legitimate way, we're going to have to continue to study ice hockey as a potential varsity sport. I am, however, ambitiously approaching this project in hopes that varsity status could become a reality somewhere down the road.


The AD's answer explains everything... It's all about MONEY.

http://www.navysports.com/ot/ask-the-ad-ice-hockey.html

TheDinkytowner
06-29-2009, 02:45 PM
The AD's answer explains everything... It's all about MONEY.


Somehow Sacred Heart, Holy Cross and American International find the cash.....and their athletic budgets have got to be tiny compared to Navy's. So it looks to be really more about PRIORITIES than money.

D1 hockey seems to be a PRIORITY for more small schools than large schools, due to reasons talked about elsewhere.

FireDaveLee
06-30-2009, 12:43 PM
I think a Big10 (and later Big East) conference would be the best thing ever for college hockey.

A Big East conference would be fantastic......your members would be Notre Dame and????????

I can't wait for the Big XII conference would get fired up as well. And hopefully the SEC will follow suit. I can't wait to watch their brand of hockey with all the SEC speed & athletes.

I will say this only once: a Big Ten hockey conference would be one of the WORST things that could happen to college hockey. I only say "one of the worst" instead of "the worst" so I'm able to leave the door open for such suggestions as "unleash tigers in the rink during the 2nd period" and "change from using a puck to a beach ball."

North Dakota hockey is a bigger rival to Minnesota than anything Ohio State or Michigan State could ever dream of being in any sport, regardless of Big Ten affliation.

TheDinkytowner
06-30-2009, 02:51 PM
A Big East conference would be fantastic......your members would be Notre Dame and????????

What, you can't remember the other 2 Big East members that already have teams???????

3 Big East members already have teams (Notre Dame, UConn and Providence)
5 are in big hockey towns already (Syracuse, Pitt, Villanova, Rutgers, St. Johns)
1 (Marquette) would be good fit. You think their alumni wouldn't love playing UW?

That's 9, and 6 would be probably enough for a conference, seeing as how the CHA only had 4 members in their conference this year.

If Providence has a team, why is it so hard to imagine Georgetown (10), Cincy (11), Depaul in Chicago (12) or Seton Hall in New Jersey (13)?



I can't wait for the Big XII conference would get fired up as well.

The BigXII North isn't totally crazy, but would take time.

Iowa State (1) has already been pushing to go D1. (see link) http://iowastate.scout.com/2/600303.html
Colorado (2) has no excuse not to have a team (CC and Denver next door & Colorodo State looking to do D1)
Mizzou (3) is close to St. Louis (big hockey town)
Kansas (4) (Kansas City market)
K State (5) (Kansas City market)
Nebraska (6) (discussed previously with Omaha having a team)




And hopefully the SEC will follow suit. I can't wait to watch their brand of hockey with all the SEC speed & athletes.

What's your point? Alabama-Huntsville has a D1 team, wouldn't you rather watch the Gophers play the Crimson Tide than some school from Huntsville?



will say this only once: a Big Ten hockey conference would be one of the WORST things that could happen to college hockey.

Only if you're a Mankato or St. Clown fan.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
06-30-2009, 03:01 PM
What, you can't remember the other 2 Big East members that already have teams???????

3 Big East members already have teams (Notre Dame, UConn and Providence)
5 are in big hockey towns already (Syracuse, Pitt, Villanova, Rutgers, St. Johns)
1 (Marquette) would be good fit. You think their alumni wouldn't love playing UW?

That's 9, and 6 would be probably enough for a conference, seeing as how the CHA only had 4 members in their conference this year.

If Providence has a team, why is it so hard to imagine Georgetown (10), Cincy (11), Depaul in Chicago (12) or Seton Hall in New Jersey (13)?



The BigXII North isn't so far-fetched, but would take time.

Iowa State (1) has already been pushing to go D1. (see link) http://iowastate.scout.com/2/600303.html
Colorado (2) has no excuse not to have a team (CC and Denver next door & Colorodo State looking to do D1)
Mizzou (3) is close to St. Louis (big hockey town)
Kansas (4) (Kansas City market)
K State (5) (Kansas City market)
Nebraska (6) (discussed previously with Omaha having a team)




What's your point? Alabama-Huntsville has a D1 team, wouldn't you rather watch the Gophers play the Crimson Tide than some school from Huntsville?




Only if you're a Mankato or St. Clown fan.

or a north dakota sue fan. what their athletic dept and AD is most afraid of is minnesota and wisconsin leaving them for a big ten hockey conference and is why you see many of their fans rail against the creation of one. without minnesota and wisconsin in the WCHA north dakota hockey and really north dakota sports in general become even more of an afterthought everywhere outside of the dakotas and manitoba and they know it. they really don't want a big ten hockey conference to happen.

i would love to see one formed so all of the games can be showcased throughout much of the mid-west and northeast on the BTN.

ditt1605
06-30-2009, 04:05 PM
Big ten conference hockey - 3 good, 2 decent, 6 bad
MI = good team
MN = Good team
WI = good team that sucks
Mi St = decent team
OSU = decent team
IL = bad team
PSU = bad team
NW = bad team
IA = bad team
IN = bad team
P = bad team

WCHA - 5 good, 2 decent, 5 bad
MN= good team
ND= good team
D= good team
CC= good team
WI = good team that sucks
SCSU = decent team
UMD= decent team
UAA= bad team
MSU= bad team
Bem= bad team
UNO = bad team
MT= bad team

obviously, my "grades" are arbitrary and can change from year to year, but I really don't see the argument for a big ten conference based on competition.

based on name recognition, I could see maybe a small argument from a national standpoint. However, hockey is not a national sport. It's a regional sport. We can play warm weather sports outside, but they can't play hockey unless they have an indoor rink.

TheDinkytowner
06-30-2009, 04:53 PM
Big Ten Conference might include Notre Dame, and might NOT include IN, Purdue or NW. IA, PSU or IL might also be better than you think.

GopherGod
07-01-2009, 11:11 AM
What, you can't remember the other 2 Big East members that already have teams???????

3 Big East members already have teams (Notre Dame, UConn and Providence)
5 are in big hockey towns already (Syracuse, Pitt, Villanova, Rutgers, St. Johns)
1 (Marquette) would be good fit. You think their alumni wouldn't love playing UW?

That's 9, and 6 would be probably enough for a conference, seeing as how the CHA only had 4 members in their conference this year.

If Providence has a team, why is it so hard to imagine Georgetown (10), Cincy (11), Depaul in Chicago (12) or Seton Hall in New Jersey (13)?



The BigXII North isn't totally crazy, but would take time.

Iowa State (1) has already been pushing to go D1. (see link) http://iowastate.scout.com/2/600303.html
Colorado (2) has no excuse not to have a team (CC and Denver next door & Colorodo State looking to do D1)
Mizzou (3) is close to St. Louis (big hockey town)
Kansas (4) (Kansas City market)
K State (5) (Kansas City market)
Nebraska (6) (discussed previously with Omaha having a team)




What's your point? Alabama-Huntsville has a D1 team, wouldn't you rather watch the Gophers play the Crimson Tide than some school from Huntsville?




Only if you're a Mankato or St. Clown fan.

As great as it sounds in theory there is no way that the Big XII North will ever have hockey.

I see your points on these schools but there just is not the desire there to have hockey by most of the fans there locally as virtually none of them grew up playing hockey because there were or are no ice arenas there. Lincoln, NE has one single ice arena used by the USHL team and that didn't even exist until approximately 1996, before that no indoor ice in Lincoln and one in Omaha. In order to fund hockey the University of Colorado would probably have to cut some other sports that while not revenue generating sports, they have a history of national level success at such as Skiing and Cross Country. Kansas State is not that close to Kansas City either. For all of these reasons I don't think that there will ever be a large support from the fans and alumni of these schools to have college hockey. Missouri is also over 2 hours away from St. Louis so not going to draw a lot of fans there to attend weekly games.

TheDinkytowner
07-01-2009, 11:57 AM
As great as it sounds in theory there is no way that the Big XII North will ever have hockey.

I said it's a longshot right now, but it's no crazier than Alabama-Huntsville having a D1 team and no crazier than American-International having a D1 team, while averaging 207 fans per game (two hundred seven).


In order to fund hockey the University of Colorado would probably have to cut some other sports that while not revenue generating sports, they have a history of national level success at such as Skiing and Cross Country.

Sure, they might have to make some tough choices at first but it's all about priorities. Interest (and attendance) for men's hockey would surely be higher than men's golf, tennis or any other number of sports. Plus, men's hockey is unique in having the potential to make money for them down the road, something the other sports will never do.


Kansas State is not that close to Kansas City either.

It's about an hour and a half, a little more than Madison to Milwaukee. U. of Kansas is much closer.


Missouri is also over 2 hours away from St. Louis so not going to draw a lot of fans there to attend weekly games.

It's 98 miles to the St. Louis suburbs, and 115 miles to St Louis itself. Plus, hockey is always Friday & Saturday nights, so that's perfect.

ditt1605
07-01-2009, 02:27 PM
Big Ten Conference might include Notre Dame, and might NOT include IN, Purdue or NW. IA, PSU or IL might also be better than you think.


I don't really think it should be called the "big ten" conference if you're going to start off by including at least 2 non-big ten schools (UND, ND). A midwestern conference with some big ten teams and some non-big ten teams should be called something like the central collegiate hockey association or the western collegiate hockey association...

I will agree with you that PSU would have a lot of potential...

TheDinkytowner
07-01-2009, 02:40 PM
I don't really think it should be called the "big ten" conference if you're going to start off by including at least 2 non-big ten schools (UND, ND). A midwestern conference with some big ten teams and some non-big ten teams should be called something like the central collegiate hockey association or the western collegiate hockey association...I will agree with you that PSU would have a lot of potential...

This post doesn't make any sense to me. Who said North Dakota? I didn't. And Notre Dame would be a maybe.

7 Big Ten teams + (maybe) Notre Dame = ??? Conference

goober
07-02-2009, 10:57 AM
Two quick points:

* St Louis is a marginal hockey town at best. Yes, they had good attendance for the Blues this year (around 18,000 in a 19,000 seat building), but they are a few years removed from averaging closer to 12,000. What changed? They were good this year. Also, St. Louis has failed as a college hockey town before - St. Louis University (an all D-I University) dropped hockey back in the '70's. Why would it all of a sudden support the college game now?

* Putting Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and maybe Notre Dame all in the same conference means that they would beat up on each other all year. They all can't finish above .500 (let alone with a record good enough to make the Tourney), but you are looking at a pretty good group of schools right there. Notre Dame was near the #1 school in the country all last year, Michigan is Michigan, Minnesota is always good, Wisconsin almost always contends and MSU is usually in the mix for a NCAA bid too. Now, all of a sudden, only one (auto bid) or two or maybe three of these schools would make the NCAA Tourney, rather than potentially all of them making it if they are spread out into two diferent conferences. Does that seem like a good idea?

Now, from that standpoint, I don't think a Big 10 Hockey Conference would be the end of college hockey as we know it. A WCHA that consisted of UAA, BSU, CC, Denver, MSUM, SCSU, UMD, UNO, NoDak and MTU would be able to still compete with a BTHC (and still have quality teams NoDak, CC, Denver) in it. The CCHA (NMU, LSSU, FSU, WMU, MU, BGSU, Notre Dame (?), UAF, UAH), however, might be hit a bit hit harder, with just Notre Dame (if they stayed) and Miami (OH) as the recent stronger teams.

TheDinkytowner
07-02-2009, 12:35 PM
* St Louis is a marginal hockey town at best.

I disagree on St Louis (you'll notice Boston's NHL team has also had some big swings in attendance) But either way, it's still 1,000 times better than Alabama-Huntsville, which obviously has a D1 team.


* Putting Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and maybe Notre Dame all in the same conference means that they would beat up on each other all year. They all can't finish above .500 (let alone with a record good enough to make the Tourney)

I see your concern, but college basketball has the exact same problem with the 6 BCS conferences and dozens of little conferences, and it works OK. The selection system might need to be tweaked, but it could be done.

goober
07-02-2009, 12:57 PM
I see your concern, but college basketball has the exact same problem with the 6 BCS conferences and dozens of little conferences, and it works OK. The selection system might need to be tweaked, but it could be done.

But you're missing the point. In BCS (which, I'm assuming you're refering to football, but even if you're talking basketball it's not a fair comparison either), you've got several strong conferences. In hockey, you'd be talking about creating one mega conference (Big 10), and several mid majors. That doesn't work (even though you would think being the "big dog" is a huge advantage).

Let's look at these scenerios:

Football - Big 10, SEC, Big 12, etc. All have top schools that compete year in and year out (Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, LSU, Oklahoma, etc.) for the national title. They each also have their doormats (Indiana, Vandy, Baylor) - even if they might change from one year to the next.

Basketball - Same deal SEC, Big 10, ACC, etc. Those top schools are there (Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, Gonzaga) have their bottem feeders to feed upon each year.

Hockey - Same can be said in the current WCHA. Minnesota, NoDak and Denver beat up on Michigan Tech and Alaska-Anchorage. Boston University and Northeastern in Hockey East beat up on Providence and Merrimack. Michigan and Notre Dame beat up on Bowling Green and a down Michigan State.

Now, if you create a Big 10 hockey conference, Hockey East and the remaining CCHA and WCHA would have an advantage of beating up on their "lower tier" teams, while the Big 10 would have, traditionally strong schools like Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin only have Ohio State (they've had a few nice finishes in the CCHA, but certainly don't have the tradition of the other four) to beat up on (plus, either Notre Dame, the defending CCHA Champ, and/or start-up teams at the other schools - Penn State/Illinois/etc).

TheDinkytowner
07-02-2009, 01:44 PM
In BCS you've got several strong conferences. In hockey, you'd be talking about creating one mega conference (Big 10), and several mid majors. That doesn't work

The ratio of big conferences to little ones would be similar to basketball.

Hockey: 1 major, 4 minors (some better then others)
Basketball: 6 majors, 20+ minors (some better than others)

College basketball, if it wanted to, could easily become just like college hockey by dispersing all the major schools into the minor conferences and watering them all down. It would be more fair but also less interesting.


Now, if you create a Big 10 hockey conference, Hockey East and the remaining CCHA and WCHA would have an advantage of beating up on their "lower tier" teams

Perhaps, just like Memphis, Gonzaga and Xavier currently have an advantage of beating up their lesser league opponents. That's the price of forming "elite" conferences.

Also, since a Big Tenconference would only have 7 or 8 members, there would be extra non-conference games to schedule some patsies.

ditt1605
07-02-2009, 02:17 PM
This post doesn't make any sense to me. Who said North Dakota? I didn't. And Notre Dame would be a maybe.

7 Big Ten teams + (maybe) Notre Dame = ??? Conference

Sorry, I wasn't clear that I was using those 2 (UND, ND) as examples only. Those would have been my guesses as the additional non-big ten teams if they were going to form a conference.

I figured the only way a 10 team BT conference would work was if you had the 5 current BT teams, add 3 more BT teams and then add 2 other non-BT teams. I picked a 10 team conference because I just don't see a 10 team or less conference happening these days.

goober
07-02-2009, 02:55 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear that I was using those 2 (UND, ND) as examples only. Those would have been my guesses as the additional non-big ten teams if they were going to form a conference.

I figured the only way a 10 team BT conference would work was if you had the 5 current BT teams, add 3 more BT teams and then add 2 other non-BT teams. I picked a 10 team conference because I just don't see a 10 team or less conference happening these days.

And that IS, really, the only way it would work (i.e., add three new crappy Big 10 schools, like Penn State, Illinois and Iowa), and then MAYBE it would work, because the existing good teams would have someone to beat-up on for a while (and what would be the point of adding non-BT schools?).

And Dinkytowner, it's not about the ratio, it's about the TEAMS IN YOUR CONFERENCE! If every school in the SEC was as good as Florida at football (and there were maybe one or two other schools in the rest of the country as good as Florida), it would be a bad thing. It's better that Florida is in the SEC, Oklahoma is in the Big 12, USC is in the Pac 10 and Ohio State is in the Big 10.

You can't convince me that putting, basically every good school out west in one conference is a good idea. Even 5 of the national top ten schools in one six or eight team conference is bad. Especially when there are only 58 teams playing D-I hockey (unlike football, where there are 238 BCS and FCS schools; or basketball, where there are 347 D-I schools). You have to realize that comparisons between hockey and football/basketball are almost impossible, because they are not even close to the same thing.

trixR4kids
07-02-2009, 03:28 PM
I don't know where to start other than to say that the people who want a big ten conference for hockey most likely know very little about college hockey and its tradition. Breaking up the WCHA might be the single worst idea ever. One thing a lot of you are forgetting is that all of these schools have had chances to start a hockey program and they haven't whether its due to money, not enough interest, title 9 etc. Making a big ten conference isn't just going to magically make college hockey grow and if anything it will alienate the fans it already has.


What, you can't remember the other 2 Big East members that already have teams???????

3 Big East members already have teams (Notre Dame, UConn and Providence)
5 are in big hockey towns already (Syracuse, Pitt, Villanova, Rutgers, St. Johns)
1 (Marquette) would be good fit. You think their alumni wouldn't love playing UW?

St Johns is located in Jamaica Queens. Yeah, I'm sure hockey is really popular there :rolleyes:.






What's your point? Alabama-Huntsville has a D1 team, wouldn't you rather watch the Gophers play the Crimson Tide than some school from Huntsville?

What difference does it make? Both teams would suck and are located in markets where hockey isn't very popular.



Only if you're a Mankato or St. Clown fan.

Or if you're a gopher fan who actually knows something about the sport. These small rivals may not seem to be a big deal but in my opinion they're far more interesting to watch than us vs Ohio State, Michigan, MSU etc (two of which we play every year anyhow and Ohio State is one of our OOC teams we schedule every so often).


Big ten conference hockey - 3 good, 2 decent, 6 bad
MI = good team
MN = Good team
WI = good team that sucks
Mi St = decent team
OSU = decent team
IL = bad team
PSU = bad team
NW = bad team
IA = bad team
IN = bad team
P = bad team

WCHA - 5 good, 2 decent, 5 bad
MN= good team
ND= good team
D= good team
CC= good team
WI = good team that sucks
SCSU = decent team
UMD= decent team
UAA= bad team
MSU= bad team
Bem= bad team
UNO = bad team
MT= bad team

obviously, my "grades" are arbitrary and can change from year to year, but I really don't see the argument for a big ten conference based on competition.

based on name recognition, I could see maybe a small argument from a national standpoint. However, hockey is not a national sport. It's a regional sport. We can play warm weather sports outside, but they can't play hockey unless they have an indoor rink.

This post might be the worst yet. For one you're comparing teams that while they may be "bad" currently, they have shown that they can compete and upset teams in the WHCA final five as well as make the big tournament. Obviously Minn State isn't going to be a powerhouse when they lose most of their recruits from MN to us, UND, UW, UMD etc. However they still played us in one of the best series of hockey I have ever witnessed two years back in a series that had like 8 overtimes. To simply dismiss them as bad and compare them to teams that don't even have a D1 team yet (Penn State, Ill, the majority of the big ten) is simply idiotic. Michigan Tech is another example as they may not be good currently but they have won national championships in the past (only 2 less than us). I'm inclined to agree with the guy that said splitting up the WCHA is about as good of an idea as having tigers on the ice at half time.

Also Bemidji generally wins their small conference every year and beat the second best team in college hockey last year to get to the final four. I'd say they deserve to be in the WCHA even though I was perfectly happy with it staying at ten teams.


Also I'm not sure why people are so adamant about making a big ten conference for hockey. If it's because you think hockey is somehow going to grow by doing this then you're probably wrong, and if it does grow it will be negligible.

TheDinkytowner
07-02-2009, 03:35 PM
the only way it would work (i.e., add three new crappy Big 10 schools, like Penn State, Illinois and Iowa), and then MAYBE it would work. If every school in the SEC was as good as Florida at football (and there were maybe one or two other schools in the rest of the country as good as Florida), it would be a bad thing.

Yes, Penn State, Illinois and maybe Iowa are needed for a BT conference, that has always been stated. Nobody is talking about starting a BT conference tomorrow.

No, you can't compare Florida football to Ohio State, Penn State or Illinois hockey.

No, not ALL "elite" programs would be in ONE conference. Boston College, Boston University, North Dakota, Denver, and a couple others like Maine, NH, CC are considered "elite" or close to it.



Even 5 of the national top ten schools in one six or eight team conference is bad. Especially when there are only 58 teams playing D-I hockey (unlike football, where there are 238 BCS and FCS schools; or basketball, where there are 347 D-I schools).

Like it or not, baskeball has a higher concentration of top programs in fewer conferences.

A basketball "top 50" (50/347) is roughly equivalent to a hockey "top 10" (10/58) given the number of teams.

At least 40 of the top 50 basketball programs (80%) are in 6 of 31 basketball conferences (20%). 4 of the top 10 hockey programs (40%) would be in 1 of 5 hockey conferences (20%).

TheDinkytowner
07-02-2009, 03:48 PM
I'll just pick off the easiest one and leave it at that.


St Johns is located in Jamaica Queens. Yeah, I'm sure hockey is really popular there :rolleyes:.

You're right, New York hates hockey. But Alabama-Huntsville is located in Huntsville, Alabama. There's no chance in hell they'd have a D1 team.

Oh wait...

trixR4kids
07-02-2009, 03:55 PM
New York hockey fans are fine, I just can't imagine there are many in Queens, a relatively poor neighborhood.

TheDinkytowner
07-02-2009, 04:00 PM
New York hockey fans are fine, I just can't imagine there are many in Queens, a relatively poor neighborhood.

Right, and South Central Los Angeles (USC) is poor as well.

trixR4kids
07-02-2009, 04:04 PM
What's your point? Hockey is a sport played by people who are fairly well off and it gains a following from those types generally speaking. St Johns is already screwed trying to get recruits for basketball, imagining them trying to field a hockey team is laughable. Not to mention I'm sure someone has suggested they start a hockey team and they chose not to for whatever reason. It's not like attendance is the only thing to take into consideration and I'm not convinced that they would gain a large following for hockey. Obviously the ADs of most of these schools feel the same way.

edit: Lol didn't know USC has a hockey team, shows how relevant they are. YEAH GUYS LETS GET MORE TEAMS!!!!111

I think breaking up the big ten conference for football, basketball and everything else and making a WCHA conference would be a better idea.

goober
07-03-2009, 06:52 AM
No, you can't compare Florida football to Ohio State, Penn State or Illinois hockey.

Wow, re-read my post. I never compared those things. At all. Way to miss the point :rolleyes:

No, not ALL "elite" programs would be in ONE conference. Boston College, Boston University, North Dakota, Denver, and a couple others like Maine, NH, CC are considered "elite" or close to it.

Again, re-read. Slow down if you have to. I said, and I quote,


basically every good school out west

Should I break that down for you? Okay - "basically every" - this means almost ALL, but not ALL - "school out west" - in college hockey, that means schools west of New York. Got it? Never did I say that ALL "elite" schools would be in ONE conference. :rolleyes:

Like it or not, baskeball has a higher concentration of top programs in fewer conferences.

A basketball "top 50" (50/347) is roughly equivalent to a hockey "top 10" (10/58) given the number of teams.

At least 40 of the top 50 basketball programs (80%) are in 6 of 31 basketball conferences (20%). 4 of the top 10 hockey programs (40%) would be in 1 of 5 hockey conferences (20%).

Um, no. Check the final RPI from last year (I'll give you a minute - BTW, you won't have to get past, like the 20th ranked team to find 10 different conferences, and I count 18 different conferences in the top 50):

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/weeklyrpi/2009MBBrpi1.html

TheDinkytowner
07-03-2009, 09:18 AM
Okay - "basically every" - this means almost ALL, but not ALL - "school out west" - in college hockey, that means schools west of New York. Got it? Never did I say that ALL "elite" schools would be in ONE conference. :rolleyes:

You also said "if every school in the SEC was as good as Florida at football it would be a bad thing." That implies that every school in a BT hockey conference would be the equivalent of Florida football. I simply pointed out that OSU, PSU and IL hockey would not be near that level.


Check the final RPI from last year (I'll give you a minute - BTW, you won't have to get past, like the 20th ranked team to find 10 different conferences, and I count 18 different conferences in the top 50):

If you check your link, it still turns out that close to 80% of the top 50 RPI programs are from the 6 Major Conferences. (even though RPI from 1 year is not a great measure)

Top 50 Basketball = Top 10 Hockey (based on 347 bball and 58 hockey teams)

6 Major BBall Conferences out of 31 total conferences = 20% Major Conferences (40 of the top 50 programs, or 80%)
1 Major Hockey Conference out of 5 total conferences = 20% Major Conferences (4 of the top 10 programs, or 40%)

TheDinkytowner
07-03-2009, 09:30 AM
St Johns is already screwed trying to get recruits for basketball, imagining them trying to field a hockey team is laughable.

More laughable than Alabama-Huntsville?

More laughable than American-International and its 207 fans per game average? (two hundred seven)

More laughable than Providence? (fellow Big East bottom feeder for basketball)

More laughable than Sacred Heart and others?

Not really.

trixR4kids
07-03-2009, 01:09 PM
I don't really care if they want to add a team or not. I'm sure it's already come up once or twice and they said no. If they added a team and it got fans then fine whatever.

But there's no reason to break up the WCHA as that would probably be the most retarded idea ever.

Also why is the basis for comparison a team with 207 fans per game? Yeah, by adding a lot of schools that get about 500 fans per game college hockey is really going to grow!!!!!!!

g_manpucker
07-03-2009, 02:51 PM
Considering that hockey doesn't get the same kind of backing from the NCAA as football and basketball its hard to compare the three. In every sport a different conference dominants in that sport. Football its the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 10. In bouncy ball its the ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten. I know that I mentioned the Big Ten in both those sports but the conference could give a rip for hockey. If Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State didn't have long hockey traditions they would have become title 9 victims by now. As for any other college in the Big Ten that have club teams its because the colleges don't want hockey or couldn't afford it anyway. Coming from the state of Iowa I know for a fact that Iowa State and Iowa want nothing to do with D1 hockey...football, basketball, and wrestling are king and Iowans generally don't care too much about hockey, I didn't until I moved to Minnesota and now its all I think about. Breaking up the WCHA would be the biggest mistake in college hockey only second to starting a Big Ten conference in hockey. I think a WCHA in college football would ruin the landscape of college football, I would be afraid of the Gophers losing to UMD in the battle for the keys to the boat game!:)

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
07-03-2009, 05:25 PM
Considering that hockey doesn't get the same kind of backing from the NCAA as football and basketball its hard to compare the three. In every sport a different conference dominants in that sport. Football its the SEC, Big Ten, and PAC 10. In bouncy ball its the ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten. I know that I mentioned the Big Ten in both those sports but the conference could give a rip for hockey. If Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State didn't have long hockey traditions they would have become title 9 victims by now. As for any other college in the Big Ten that have club teams its because the colleges don't want hockey or couldn't afford it anyway. Coming from the state of Iowa I know for a fact that Iowa State and Iowa want nothing to do with D1 hockey...football, basketball, and wrestling are king and Iowans generally don't care too much about hockey, I didn't until I moved to Minnesota and now its all I think about. Breaking up the WCHA would be the biggest mistake in college hockey only second to starting a Big Ten conference in hockey. I think a WCHA in college football would ruin the landscape of college football, I would be afraid of the Gophers losing to UMD in the battle for the keys to the boat game!:)

sorry, but this statement is so contradictory to itself and patently false that it is not even funny.

trixR4kids
07-04-2009, 02:39 AM
It's pretty evident that the big ten doesn't consider hockey very important though. For OSU, MSU and Michigan it's obvious that hockey just fills in time when football isn't being played. At the U, UND and many other WCHA schools that is far from the truth. Those 3 schools may have had good hockey tradition but it's far from being the main focus of those schools. My point is that even with those 3 schools, who would be our major rivals in the big eleven, none of them would match the rivalry of us vs St Cloud, UND, CC, Denver or even UMD. And no, I wouldn't rather see us vs the university of Colorado, or Penn State or whatever. These are our main rivals in hockey and breaking up the best conference in college hockey to make one for the big eleven is a horrid idea.

TheDinkytowner
07-04-2009, 10:13 AM
3 first time posters in 1 thread? Seen it before. Not worth any more of my time.

trixR4kids
07-04-2009, 12:08 PM
That's good. I can't believe I wasted even 5 seconds reading the crap you ****ing morons post here. I've covered college hockey professionally for over a decade, and the absolute stupidity that has come from most of you (especially you dinky-towner) in unbelievable. Enjoy your site, I'm done with you.

It's no wonder that the organization of the sub forums go as such:

gopher football
gopher bouncyball
other gopher sports (including the one you guys know nothing about)

There's a reason we're first time posters and it's not because the wealth of hockey knowledge here is amazing by any means.

GophersInIowa
07-04-2009, 11:34 PM
I'm bet if you asked all Gopher fans who follow the hockey program consistently, most would say they would rather stay in the WCHA than try to come up with some Big Ten hockey conference. Like it's already been mentioned, I'd much rather watch the Gophers play UMD or St. Cloud St. than Ohio State or Michigan St.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
07-05-2009, 04:45 PM
I'm bet if you asked all Gopher fans who follow the hockey program consistently, most would say they would rather stay in the WCHA than try to come up with some Big Ten hockey conference. Like it's already been mentioned, I'd much rather watch the Gophers play UMD or St. Cloud St. than Ohio State or Michigan St.

i played high-level competitive hockey growing up, continue to follow college hockey fairly close and have watched/attended gopher hockey games since i was 5 years old and i have to say that i completely disagree with your sentiments.

i love watching the gophers play their fellow big ten teams each year in ohio state, michigan state, michigan. far more than watching them play non-big ten schools like st. cloud, minnesota state, CC, denver. a big ten hockey conference would be a great thing.

g_manpucker
07-05-2009, 06:25 PM
sorry, but this statement is so contradictory to itself and patently false that it is not even funny.

Okay that one sentence didn't make much sense but I stand behind the rest of it. I don't think the Big Ten will undertake a hockey conference because they are THE conference in the north part of the U.S. for football and basketball. Wrestling is the next biggest sport in line and that isn't going away with the TWO biggest and most prolific figures in the history of amatuer wrestling attached to Big Ten schools, Dan Gable-Iowa and Cael Sanderson-Penn State. Enough with the Big Ten and lets look at the WCHA.

As a Gopher fan and hockey player you can honestly say that when they play the Susies, Landcows, or Jan Brady (I am intentionally leaving out Becky because she is in the Big Ten)that you don't love beating up on them and dispise losing to them? Denver is a NATIONAL powerhouse in the college hockey world so playing against them is playing one of the best every year. Having these average (UMD, MSU-Mankato, Colorado College) and less than average (UNO, Bemidji State, Alaska-Anchorage) in the WCHA is exciting because they can and have beat very good teams...Bemidji made it to the Frozen Four this year with some exciting play, UMD won the McNaughton Cup with great play against top tier teams.

I believe that a Big Ten hockey conference would benefit Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State more than the rest because the CCHA is not Hockey East or the WCHA which are the traditional hockey power conferences.

trixR4kids
07-05-2009, 06:52 PM
i played high-level competitive hockey growing up, continue to follow college hockey fairly close and have watched/attended gopher hockey games since i was 5 years old and i have to say that i completely disagree with your sentiments.

i love watching the gophers play their fellow big ten teams each year in ohio state, michigan state, michigan. far more than watching them play non-big ten schools like st. cloud, minnesota state, CC, denver. a big ten hockey conference would be a great thing.

I have a hard time believing that you're telling the truth here but even if you are, you are a part of the vast minority. pucker explained why we love these rivalries and it might have something to do with the fact that we love gopher hockey much more than the gopher sports which are a part of the big ten. That's why I couldn't care less about our rivalry with MSU, OSU and Michigan (two of which we play every single year anyhow).

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
07-05-2009, 09:50 PM
I have a hard time believing that you're telling the truth here but even if you are, you are a part of the vast minority. pucker explained why we love these rivalries and it might have something to do with the fact that we love gopher hockey much more than the gopher sports which are a part of the big ten. That's why I couldn't care less about our rivalry with MSU, OSU and Michigan (two of which we play every single year anyhow).

why wouldn't i be telling the truth. that comment doesn't make any sense. it is my opinion. can't of hard to not "tell the truth" when it comes to one's personal opinion.

and here is where you and a guy who calls himself "pucker?!?!?" are in the minority son.....there are far more gopher football and basketball fans out there than there are gopher hockey fans. don't get me wrong there are a lot of gopher hockey fans, but no where near as many as there are for true national sports like football and basketball. you assume a lot when you think that everyone in minnesota by default just plain loves hockey. minnesota (when you look at the WHOLE state from north to south) is a football state first, basketball second and hockey thrid. and yes, i am telling the truth here! ;)

Hammy
07-05-2009, 11:00 PM
minnesota (when you look at the WHOLE state from north to south) is a football state first, basketball second and hockey thrid. and yes, i am telling the truth here! ;)

When it comes to overall community involvement around the state, hockey is far and away the dominant sport. There isn't anywhere near the grassroots development here for football and basketball that we have for hockey.

I don't dispute that the Vikings are the #1 show in terms of college/pro teams though.

From a Gopher perspective, Gopher football and Gopher basketball may have more of a fan following than Gopher hockey simply because we are the only D1 teams in the state in those other two sports and the fan base isn't fractured like it is for hockey (given there are five different D1 hockey programs in MN). I know a number of fans of other hockey programs that detest the Gophers in hockey but cheer for the football team and basketball team. But that is mainly because they have no other local option.

The Brewmaster
07-05-2009, 11:24 PM
i played high-level competitive hockey growing up, continue to follow college hockey fairly close and have watched/attended gopher hockey games since i was 5 years old and i have to say that i completely disagree with your sentiments.

i love watching the gophers play their fellow big ten teams each year in ohio state, michigan state, michigan. far more than watching them play non-big ten schools like st. cloud, minnesota state, CC, denver. a big ten hockey conference would be a great thing.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous statement in this thread -- and there are a lot of them. I hate to accuse because I don't know you, but I can't imagine you finding more than 1/1,000 people that might enjoy those watered down, inconsistent and meaningless games more than rivalries in college hockey that actually mean something and that fan bases actuall give a damn about (Gophs v. UND, v. Wisky, v. every MN team). Maybe you hang out with the bizzarro world of Gophers hockey fans, and that's fine, but if you took your opinion for reaffirmation (and actual intellgent and moderated discussion) with the actual Gopher fans of this world at GPL, I think you would find that you and your imaginary friends hold a minority view in line with [trying to think of something 'readers' on GH can relate to...] those pining to keep Monson over his eventual replacement.

If you enjoy football and basketball more than hockey, that's fine, just don't make baseless conclusions that prove precisely how little you know about the sport at the U. As true Gophers, we all support all of the institution's athletic endeavors and, ultimately, it's not a contest betwixt programs. However, people like you that go off half-cocked without a shred of proof or support for your claims are only harming things. The WCHA is as great to college hockey as the Big Televen is to college football. Leave it alone and encourage the administators to do the same -- for the good of the U.

See you at GPL for further discussion where your BS won't pass the sniff test.

trixR4kids
07-06-2009, 12:03 AM
why wouldn't i be telling the truth. that comment doesn't make any sense. it is my opinion. can't of hard to not "tell the truth" when it comes to one's personal opinion.

A lot of people make up their credentials on the internet. You wouldn't be the first nor the last.


and here is where you and a guy who calls himself "pucker?!?!?" are in the minority son.....there are far more gopher football and basketball fans out there than there are gopher hockey fans. don't get me wrong there are a lot of gopher hockey fans, but no where near as many as there are for true national sports like football and basketball. you assume a lot when you think that everyone in minnesota by default just plain loves hockey. minnesota (when you look at the WHOLE state from north to south) is a football state first, basketball second and hockey thrid. and yes, i am telling the truth here! ;)

Hammy made a good point about this and I don't need to repeat it. What I mostly got out of these statements is that there are a lot of fans who like basketball and football who like the big ten. Therefore it should carry over to hockey. This logic really doesn't follow though for the many reasons stated before ie: the vast majority of the people who actually follow college hockey want to keep the WCHA intact. That is just one of the many arguments and you have yet to really counter said arguments. There is no reason to start a big ten conference for hockey considering that you'd alienate the true college hockey fans who are later going to pass this tradition on to others who may not be into the sport as well as their sons and daughters. It is obvious that many others feel the same way which is why the WCHA isn't going anywhere and doing so would be suicide for such a great sport.


minnesota (when you look at the WHOLE state from north to south) is a football state first, basketball second and hockey thrid. and yes, i am telling the truth here!

Jesus Christ this man is serious...

g_manpucker
07-06-2009, 08:10 AM
minnesota (when you look at the WHOLE state from north to south) is a football state first, basketball second and hockey thrid. and yes, i am telling the truth here! ;)

That's why I see all sorts of football tournaments around the state in the fall like pond hockey tournaments in the winter. And it's amazing how many football facilities dedicated to football there are around the state with youth and adult leagues having 2 to 3 seasons of play!

That statement is like saying that Carp is the official gamefish of Minnesota!! Growing up in Iowa I associated two things with Minnesota...Hockey and Walleye. I believe that most people in the state of Minnesota have those things on their minds too.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
07-06-2009, 04:10 PM
That's why I see all sorts of football tournaments around the state in the fall like pond hockey tournaments in the winter. And it's amazing how many football facilities dedicated to football there are around the state with youth and adult leagues having 2 to 3 seasons of play!

That statement is like saying that Carp is the official gamefish of Minnesota!! Growing up in Iowa I associated two things with Minnesota...Hockey and Walleye. I believe that most people in the state of Minnesota have those things on their minds too.

you don't see football tournaments all around the state in the fall because that is not how the sport of football is structured here or anywhere else for that matter. you don't play in "tournaments" for football like you do in sports like hockey and basketball. don't be so clueless next time.

second, considering you grew up in iowa and not minnesota i don't really feel there is much need to put a lot of confidence in what you "believe" most minnesotans have on their mind in regards to their sports preferences. hockey is a very niche sport (even in mn) that only a select group of people of a certain income level seem to be able to play at a very high-level all the way through traveling youth hockey, high school and even college (and this is coming from a person who actually played high-level hockey. sounds like you did not). where as football and basketball can be played by just about anyone of any income level. that is why football and basketball are more popular and are played by more people across the entire state of mn than hockey. this is especially true south of the twin cities. and i suspect that there are a lot more people from minneapolis on south than there are people who live north of minneapolis where hockey seems to be much more popular.

trixR4kids
07-06-2009, 09:33 PM
Even if basketball and football are more popular at the non-professional level in this state (which is questionable at best) it isn't really a reason to split up the WCHA and form a big ten conference, which is what we were originally arguing.

GophBen
07-07-2009, 06:42 AM
3 first time posters in 1 thread? Seen it before. Not worth any more of my time.

Why? Word of the stupidity of some of the people in this thread reached GPL. They're trying to offer some semblance of common sense to balance things out.

psych
08-05-2009, 08:53 PM
I realize this thread is a month old, but some of the stuff written in here about Gopher hockey makes me laugh. For people ripping on Alabama-Huntsville, you do realize that they have a fairly rich hockey tradition, right?
Bronco Nagurski (if you even read this thread anymore), I find it very hard to believe (as other true Gopher hockey fans on here) that you actually are who you say you are. Any sensible self-respecting college hockey fan realizes the WCHA is a fantastic conference that features some awesome in-state rivalries as well as bad blood rivalries like UND vs. UMN that aren't seen in other sports. To say watching Ohio State vs. the Gophs is more interesting than UND vs. UMN is asinine at best. In fact, some of us Gopher fans hate UND more than Becky.
Anyways, to clarify another couple incorrect comments on the thread: 1. There is no Division 2 hockey, so the University of St. Thomas is a D3 school, not Division 2. Secondly, UND is D1 in all sports. That's right: every sport.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
08-06-2009, 04:31 PM
I realize this thread is a month old, but some of the stuff written in here about Gopher hockey makes me laugh. For people ripping on Alabama-Huntsville, you do realize that they have a fairly rich hockey tradition, right?
Bronco Nagurski (if you even read this thread anymore), I find it very hard to believe (as other true Gopher hockey fans on here) that you actually are who you say you are. Any sensible self-respecting college hockey fan realizes the WCHA is a fantastic conference that features some awesome in-state rivalries as well as bad blood rivalries like UND vs. UMN that aren't seen in other sports. To say watching Ohio State vs. the Gophs is more interesting than UND vs. UMN is asinine at best. In fact, some of us Gopher fans hate UND more than Becky.
Anyways, to clarify another couple incorrect comments on the thread: 1. There is no Division 2 hockey, so the University of St. Thomas is a D3 school, not Division 2. Secondly, UND is D1 in all sports. That's right: every sport.

1.) ahh i see we have attracted a UND fighting bison fan to the board. congrats and welcome!

2.) go ahead and find it hard to believe (doesn't mean anything to me) that i am who i say i am in regards to playing hockey. i can back up everything i said about the fact that i grew up playing high-level hockey in minnesota. second, just about everything i said in regards to the direction of hockey in minnesota is true. finally, the only people who deep down really seem to love playing the UND fighting bison in any sport (hockey or otherwise) are generally (not always, but generally) people who are orginally from the western or northwestern parts of mn. small part of the state population. i would venture a majority of people in the minneapolis/st. paul area (where most of the state lives) who are more familiar with big ten teams would rather see us play conference hockey against our fellow big ten brethren (michigan, michigan state, ohio state, penn state, illinois) and possibly notre dame as well.

i venture that i am going to make you even more annoyed with this response, so have at it. :D

psych
08-08-2009, 12:08 AM
1.) ahh i see we have attracted a UND fighting bison fan to the board. congrats and welcome!

2.) go ahead and find it hard to believe (doesn't mean anything to me) that i am who i say i am in regards to playing hockey. i can back up everything i said about the fact that i grew up playing high-level hockey in minnesota. second, just about everything i said in regards to the direction of hockey in minnesota is true. finally, the only people who deep down really seem to love playing the UND fighting bison in any sport (hockey or otherwise) are generally (not always, but generally) people who are orginally from the western or northwestern parts of mn. small part of the state population. i would venture a majority of people in the minneapolis/st. paul area (where most of the state lives) who are more familiar with big ten teams would rather see us play conference hockey against our fellow big ten brethren (michigan, michigan state, ohio state, penn state, illinois) and possibly notre dame as well.

i venture that i am going to make you even more annoyed with this response, so have at it. :D

No, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But any true college hockey fan knows UND is a much bigger power than Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Michigan State (even combined). Only Michigan rivals UND in terms of tradition in college hockey. Arguing that the U playing Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, or Michigan is more intriguing than the U playing UND is, as I said before in my opinion, asinine. You of all people (if you are who you say you are) should realize the rich and storied tradition of the two schools, and the pure hatred each has for the other. The U doesn't have nearly as good of a rivalry against Wisconsin as they do against UND.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
08-08-2009, 01:48 PM
No, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But any true college hockey fan knows UND is a much bigger power than Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Michigan State (even combined). Only Michigan rivals UND in terms of tradition in college hockey. Arguing that the U playing Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, or Michigan is more intriguing than the U playing UND is, as I said before in my opinion, asinine. You of all people (if you are who you say you are) should realize the rich and storied tradition of the two schools, and the pure hatred each has for the other. The U doesn't have nearly as good of a rivalry against Wisconsin as they do against UND.

many U of M hockey fans would disagree in respect to our hockey rivalry with wisconsin not being bigger (as you said) than our hockey rivalry with und. i think und fans like to view it that way for some reason, but most u of m fans would disagree. we have been playing wisconsin in sports since the 1800's. not the case with und. the rivalry with wisconsin is much stronger in ALL sports.

MrGopher
08-08-2009, 06:17 PM
I myself, and several people I know (all season ticket holders), definitely hate UND hockey more than wisconsin hockey.

We hate wisconsin just by default.... we have to hate them in everything they do. But the history of the rivalry of our hockey team and UND hockey certainly trumps that.

psych
08-08-2009, 10:10 PM
I myself, and several people I know (all season ticket holders), definitely hate UND hockey more than wisconsin hockey.

We hate wisconsin just by default.... we have to hate them in everything they do. But the history of the rivalry of our hockey team and UND hockey certainly trumps that.

Exactly, thank you MrGopher. Bronko, you're definitely wrong about the Badgers being a bigger rivalry in hockey than the Sioux. The Gophers have something like a 2 to 1 advantage in the series against the Badgers (150-80-18) or something around there, whilst the series against the Sioux is 130-124-12.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
08-08-2009, 11:25 PM
Exactly, thank you MrGopher. Bronko, you're definitely wrong about the Badgers being a bigger rivalry in hockey than the Sioux. The Gophers have something like a 2 to 1 advantage in the series against the Badgers (150-80-18) or something around there, whilst the series against the Sioux is 130-124-12.

i don't listen to anyone who uses the word "whilst"! where do you think we are? london?! ;)

p.s. you and mr. gopher are both wrong! gophers & badgers any day over gophers & und fighting bison. ;)

p.s.s when are you going to admit you are really a und fighting bison fan who accidentally wandered onto this gopher board? i'm waiting! ;)

psych
08-09-2009, 11:01 AM
i don't listen to anyone who uses the word "whilst"! where do you think we are? london?! ;)

p.s. you and mr. gopher are both wrong! gophers & badgers any day over gophers & und fighting bison. ;)

p.s.s when are you going to admit you are really a und fighting bison fan who accidentally wandered onto this gopher board? i'm waiting! ;)

Your post had some real substance. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bronko Nagurski Gopher
08-09-2009, 05:09 PM
Your post had some real substance. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

too funny! man, in case you couldn't tell i really don't give a rip about this conversation. i am just playing with you a little bit. :rolleyes:

apparently sarcasm flies right over your head. but, then again you are from north dakota/root for north dakota, so i am not surprised.

XMan
08-21-2009, 01:59 PM
I am very excited for the addition of the two teams to the WCHA. Bemidgi is a great program (contrary to ditt1605's post....they are not a bad team).

Final Four or not last year, they are a quality program and belong in the WCHA.

Also, I disagree with a Big Ten Hockey conference. The biggest rivalry in college hockey is Minnesota vs. UND.

RodentRampage
08-23-2009, 09:44 AM
Bemidji State moved up to D-I because the D-II championship was eliminated because there were too few teams playing D-II hockey. Moving to D-III wasn't an option, as all of BSU's teams would have to move to D-III, and BSU would have to leave the NSIC and join a new conference. That left moving to D-I or dropping hockey. Bemidji State was a stroing hockey tradition, and they were no more willing to give up hockey than they were to give up their right arms.

Perhaps D-I schools ought to add hockey, but we can't exactly make them do it.