WCHA adding Bemidji State and Nebraska-Omaha starting in 2010-2011

Donate To GopherHole
TheDinkytowner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

TheDinkytowner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

GopherGod said:
As great as it sounds in theory there is no way that the Big XII North will ever have hockey.
Click to expand...

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).

GopherGod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

GopherGod said:
Kansas State is not that close to Kansas City either.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 


TheDinkytowner said:
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.
Click to expand...


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...
 

ditt1605 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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
 

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.
 

goober said:
* St Louis is a marginal hockey town at best.
Click to expand...

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.

goober said:
* 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)
Click to expand...

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.
 



TheDinkytowner said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 

goober said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

goober said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

TheDinkytowner said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

ditt1605 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 



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.

TheDinkytowner said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).

ditt1605 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

goober said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


goober said:
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).
Click to expand...

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%).
 

I'll just pick off the easiest one and leave it at that.

trixR4kids said:
St Johns is located in Jamaica Queens. Yeah, I'm sure hockey is really popular there :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

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...
 

New York hockey fans are fine, I just can't imagine there are many in Queens, a relatively poor neighborhood.
 


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.
 

TheDinkytowner said:
No, you can't compare Florida football to Ohio State, Penn State or Illinois hockey.
Click to expand...

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

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

basically every good school out west
Click to expand...

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:
TheDinkytowner said:
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%).
Click to expand...

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
 

goober said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.

goober said:
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):
Click to expand...

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%)
 

trixR4kids said:
St Johns is already screwed trying to get recruits for basketball, imagining them trying to field a hockey team is laughable.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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!!!!!!!
 

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!:)
 

g_manpucker said:
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!:)
Click to expand...

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

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.
 

3 first time posters in 1 thread? Seen it before. Not worth any more of my time.
 

goober said:
That's good. I can't believe I wasted even 5 seconds reading the crap you fucking 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

GophersInIowa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom