new conferences good for college hockey?

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:24 am

Gopher Blog wrote:I'm not really sure why there is a ton of focus on current performance anyway. Things are hardly going to look the same 5 years from now. Some teams get better, some take a step back.
That's exactly my point. I was responding to JSR's bragadoccio over the OSU program's strength, which he used to postulate that they would be a force in the BTHC. It didn't take them long to go completely south.
Gopher Blog wrote:As I mentioned earlier, Osiecki is a good coach just wrapping up Season #2 of a rebuilding project. I am sure he'll have them in pretty good shape in a few seasons.
This is just more speculation. I am sure OSU will be a decent program at certain points, for given periods of time. I would not make such a prediction based on their current head coach, however. Ignoring the fact that he posted 1 win in the last 16 games would be silly. And I would NEVER assume that the program would enjoy any more success, on the ice, than any other D1 hockey program, even the small school programs that some like to pass off as not being in OSU's "league."

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:57 am

Osiecki was the key behind Wisconsin in their best years. Everybody knows it. Yes, Eaves can coach too but Osiecki was UW's version of Guentzel. I see little reason to think he can't eventually replicate a lot of his success w/ the Badgers as the head coach at OSU.

Yes, it is speculation. But you could say that about just about every team looking down the road. Even the ones who are going well now. I highly doubt UMD is going to be as good three years from now as they were this year or last year. Their history has shown a program that has short spurts of success mingled in with relatively lengthy periods of mediocre or worse teams. It's not like it has been all great under Sandelin and their recruiting has taken steps back since they lost Rohlik (ironically enough... lost him to Osiecki/OSU).

Even the most prestigious programs have their brief periods of pain. It's just that those types of programs have such strong recruiting power that those issues happen much less and for short periods of time.

Osiecki and OSU have the kind of brand recognition to bring in good recruits over the long haul. Rohlik as his top assistant certainly will help too as he is a good recruiter. I don't see their chances of being a good team in a few years as being any less than some teams who are "good" in the moment.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:04 pm

Gopher Blog wrote: I don't see their chances of being a good team in a few years as being any less than some teams who are "good" in the moment.
Nor do I.
Nor do I believe their chances of being better than teams who are "good" in the moment, are any better, either.
They'll be in the mix, with most the other D1 programs...........big............and small.
They don't represent a step-up in competition, for anyone, over where they are now.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:21 pm

I like the fact that OSU has a large budget in athletics. That usually means investment. So I think they have a better than average shot down the road. They do have far too large of an arena and that hurts the atmosphere but there is much more to like than not there.

Personally, I love the changes. The Gophs will have more non-conference flexibility than they have now (6 games now vs. 14 in the future), they'll see some good Big Ten competition mixed in with the BC/BU, Notre Dames, etc of the world... and we'll also maintain competition with the other local D1 teams (via all MN event at XCel, etc). That's a pretty sweet deal in my eyes. 8)

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:15 am

Gopher Blog wrote:I like the fact that OSU has a large budget in athletics. That usually means investment. So I think they have a better than average shot down the road. They do have far too large of an arena and that hurts the atmosphere but there is much more to like than not there.

Personally, I love the changes. The Gophs will have more non-conference flexibility than they have now (6 games now vs. 14 in the future), they'll see some good Big Ten competition mixed in with the BC/BU, Notre Dames, etc of the world... and we'll also maintain competition with the other local D1 teams (via all MN event at XCel, etc). That's a pretty sweet deal in my eyes. 8)
That's one view, albeit a bit egocentric. There are definite negatives. This is not a win for all.
But, that has been covered in this thread, already.

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:18 am

WayOutWest wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote:I'm not really sure why there is a ton of focus on current performance anyway. Things are hardly going to look the same 5 years from now. Some teams get better, some take a step back.
That's exactly my point. I was responding to JSR's bragadoccio over the OSU program's strength, which he used to postulate that they would be a force in the BTHC. It didn't take them long to go completely south.
Gopher Blog wrote:As I mentioned earlier, Osiecki is a good coach just wrapping up Season #2 of a rebuilding project. I am sure he'll have them in pretty good shape in a few seasons.
This is just more speculation. I am sure OSU will be a decent program at certain points, for given periods of time. I would not make such a prediction based on their current head coach, however. Ignoring the fact that he posted 1 win in the last 16 games would be silly. And I would NEVER assume that the program would enjoy any more success, on the ice, than any other D1 hockey program, even the small school programs that some like to pass off as not being in OSU's "league."
Here we go again with WoW's use of the word "speculation".... For those uninformed, according to WoW the formation of the BTHC was just "speculation" as well even though the rest of the free world knew for a fact it was happening..... LOL..... also, lay off the grammar/spellcheck police thing when your own message board grammar is an abomination in and of itself. It's a message board so I do not get on people generally for grammar and spelling, though I do over reading comprehension which is still clearly eluding you on many levels...

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:38 pm

JSR wrote:.....blather.....
What?
No talk of OSU, JSR?
Avoiding the subject?

Imagine my surprise. :D

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:41 pm

I don't think any move would be without any negative. It is just a matter of gaining more positives... and I believe that will be the case.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:11 am

Gopher Blog wrote:I don't think any move would be without any negative. It is just a matter of gaining more positives... and I believe that will be the case.
So you believe the move represents more positives than negatives for ALL programs. Is that right? Or would you deem the potential overall negative for some smaller programs collateral damage?

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:05 pm

Which smaller programs are we talking about? Are we talking about the teams that are going to make up the next version of the WCHA or which teams?

If you are talking about those "leftover" WCHA/CCHA teams, I think these places are likely to make their adjustments and figure out how to address their challenges in a productive manner. I think there are a lot of smart people at these places.

An argument can certainly be made that the next version of the WCHA will give its members a better chance to compete for the league title as compared to the current WCHA where the same five or six teams usually don't have a legit shot at anything most years. There might be a little more balance in that regard.

If the fan bases at schools start to feel their team actually has a better chance to compete for a league championship, it could be helpful for attendance and ticket revenue. Hard to say for sure until we get there.

Certainly there is a share of "what if" no matter what side you put yourself on. But I have never been of the mindset that you limit yourself out of fear. Few things advance in this world with that kind of thinking. If a team did happen to disappear, it is likely a team that wasn't going to be competitive in the long term anyway.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:25 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:Certainly there is a share of "what if" no matter what side you put yourself on. But I have never been of the mindset that you limit yourself out of fear. Few things advance in this world with that kind of thinking. If a team did happen to disappear, it is likely a team that wasn't going to be competitive in the long term anyway.
Your argument is a bit rosy, and carefree in terms of the smaller programs. It's not about "fear", but rather what is good for the D1 platform, not an individual program. Certainly, programs the size of Minnesota and Wisconsin can take a self-centered approach to things, but such a mindset does not pay homage to the overall platform at all. I have not heard valid arguments highlighting how such a change is good for all teams involved.

Further, the speculation that a team "isn't likely to be competitive in the long term, anyway" is a bit arrogant and irresponsible. You may not care about the smaller programs. That's fine, but a pity. Personally, I don't like the idea of D1 college hockey losing ANY programs. Many of them have very rich histories and great rivalries. How is it a good thing to throw such things away?

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:17 pm

Just remember when these teams disappear, scholarships also disappear, which isn't good for the Mn hockey player.

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:05 pm

How many people in the world have lost their jobs?

If you think it is Minnesota's fault if some of these teams go under or get moved to D 3 you are completely mistaken.

Why wont the ECAC or Hockey East bring in Alabama Huntsville? Are you the same people that are upset about the football conferences changing direction? Do you think Iowa St. will lose football because Texas A and M and Missouri are moving out of the conference.

All your arguments are based on your disappointment in losing out on rivals. Those will continue and if not than new ones will develop.

Penn St. just started up girls hockey. It wouldnt surprise me to see other Big 10 programs begin hockey in the near future. Only time will tell!

Some smaller D1 programs were/are in trouble before any of this happened. And...the new WCHA will help those programs get bigger and stronger. It will give a chance for Tech and Mankato St to build their program up with wins against similar competition.

EVERYONE...EVERY LEAGUE...MENS...WOMENS...is out for money. Why do you think the Big 10 would be any different?

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:10 pm

WayOutWest wrote:Your argument is a bit rosy, and carefree in terms of the smaller programs.
The problem with your commentary is it is littered with worst case thinking that is no more proven than the opinions you try to refute. So I guess it is a matter of we'll have to agree to disagree and let things play out.

I will say that when it comes to discussions around this topic, you remind me a bit like a gambler who keeps chasing the money he already lost... and just inevitably digs himself an even deeper hole in the process.

You have to admit... you were the one who had commented how the BTHC would not happen when PSU announced a program, how you didn't see MN or UW getting "ripped out of the WCHA" anytime in the foreseeable future, etc. Those opinions turned out to be embarrassingly wrong. So when you sit there in judgment of others, you may want to remind yourself that your track record on discussions revolving around this topic have generally been off the mark.
Personally, I don't like the idea of D1 college hockey losing ANY programs. Many of them have very rich histories and great rivalries. How is it a good thing to throw such things away?
I asked you who you define as the "smaller programs" that you feel are at risk. Who are you considering in this boat? You use the term "many of them"... well who qualifies as "them" that are so at risk? :?:

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:19 pm

mulefarm wrote:Just remember when these teams disappear, scholarships also disappear, which isn't good for the Mn hockey player.
And which teams would those be? Or are you just going to use generalities too and not back it up with specific (and legitimate) possibilities?

JSR
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:47 am

WayOutWest wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote:Certainly there is a share of "what if" no matter what side you put yourself on. But I have never been of the mindset that you limit yourself out of fear. Few things advance in this world with that kind of thinking. If a team did happen to disappear, it is likely a team that wasn't going to be competitive in the long term anyway.
Your argument is a bit rosy, and carefree in terms of the smaller programs. It's not about "fear", but rather what is good for the D1 platform, not an individual program. Certainly, programs the size of Minnesota and Wisconsin can take a self-centered approach to things, but such a mindset does not pay homage to the overall platform at all. I have not heard valid arguments highlighting how such a change is good for all teams involved.

Further, the speculation that a team "isn't likely to be competitive in the long term, anyway" is a bit arrogant and irresponsible. You may not care about the smaller programs. That's fine, but a pity. Personally, I don't like the idea of D1 college hockey losing ANY programs. Many of them have very rich histories and great rivalries. How is it a good thing to throw such things away?
To think that no current D1 programs won't be lost is plain silly an pollyanna-ish. There are D1 programs that will not likely make it long term no matter what anyone did or did not do. They just are not financially strong enough to sustain hockey at a D1 level long term. By your logic you must feel it a pity and ill-advised that the University of Chicago no longer has a football program at all despite them being an original founding member of the bIg Ten conference, the loss of that program surely spelled doom for D1 football in your mind. You want valid arguments the valid argument is that IF you truly want this sport to grow, to grow enmass and to reach a level of sustainability it is absolutely NECESSARY that the large schools with the name brand recognition and money start fielding teams. Penn State fielding hockey is BETTER for the long term support of college hockey than Michigan Tech, I'm sorry but it's true. Illinois and Indiana and Iowa and Nebraska someday fielding D1 hockey teams is better for the long term sustainability of the sport at the collegiate level than desparately trying to hang on to some rivalry between UMD and Northern Michigan. And FYI, your so called "long standign traditions" are a drop in the bucket of time. 50 years from now when the biggest rivalry in college hockey is STILL MN-WI or BC-BU you can talk about long standing tradition rich rivalries but the fact is most of these "long standing" rivalries don't hold a candle to the 100+ year old rivalries in football as an example and many of those rivalries will be long forgotten and replaced by equally exciting and possibly more passionate rivalries between schools like Iowa and Nebraska that will have rivalries amongst all sports not just hockey (sort of like WI-MN or MSU-UM). The "valid" argument is what is best for the long term of the sport and while it may be "unfortunate" the fact is hockey is a very expensive sport to field and you need big money to field it not memories and wishes. I welcome the new age of college hockey, I can't wait to see the Illinois' or Iowa's of the world field teams and while it probably means some smaller schools will go back to D3 or whatever that probably had to happen then no offense to those up in the U.P. but if someday we have hockey at Iowa but Michigan Tech had to go to D3 to make it happen, I for one will understand why, meanwhile WoW will crying in his cheerios I guess while the rest of us enjoy a better product at better facilities with a larger nationwide audience watching because now schools they recognize and have national fan bases are watchign rather than just regional ones

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:23 pm

Gopher Blog wrote: I will say that when it comes to discussions around this topic, you remind me a bit like a gambler who keeps chasing the money he already lost... and just inevitably digs himself an even deeper hole in the process.

I asked you who you define as the "smaller programs" that you feel are at risk. Who are you considering in this boat? You use the term "many of them"... well who qualifies as "them" that are so at risk? :?:
Wha....??? Gambler? Has someone put something besides fruit juice in your fruit juice?

Look, we are ALL wrong, on this board at some point or another. Yep, I was wrong about the BTHC. That doesn't make it any more of a good idea. And that does not invalidate my thoughts, observances, opinions on everything else. That kind of logic is very irresponsible and ignorant of you.

And some of us were WRONG about OSU being a significant power in D1 hockey. They finished with the most embarrassing streak in all of D1 hockey.
Does that mean JSR is incapable of valid thought? Following your line of logic, you would have to say so.
And you, of course, are never incorrect, right?
Dude.............get over yourself.

And you really don't need me (or anyone else) to spell out which teams may be at risk. You fashion yourself a hockey wonk, right? Start with what will remain in the CCHA and the WCHA. I am sure you will find some programs of interest there.

And we can argue all day about what will happen. It is speculation on both ends. There are no guarantees. JSR seems to believe there are, merely because large school teams like Penn State would be forming new programs to replace smaller school programs. Sorry, but that does not guarantee additional interest and growth in the sport.

I'm not pessimistic. I am realistic, while you and JSR are a bit romantic on this topic. Again, there is no effective proof that the BTHC will be a big win for D1 hockey. Am I wrong, or did you have something of substance, here?
There IS proof, however, that OSU kinda sucked this year, despite the trumpeting of some.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:37 pm

JSR wrote: .....blather..........
Keep diverting, JSR.

Still nothing to say with regard to the great OSU collapse?

Hmmmmm...........too busy eating crow?

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:40 pm

Wayoutwest...You wouldnt be very good in a debate. Round one, two, and three goes to gopher blog.

Give some facts about your opinions. Everything you are saying is mere specualtion.

I am suggesting Nebraska adds hockey, because it is popular in the state/city already. They already have a nice arena that the Lincoln Stars play at. So, it would not shock me if they added hockey.

The teams that may drop hockey are the teams that are probably already struggling financially to begin with.

Its like Jerry Jones hating the revenue sharing plan. When are you going to figure out everything in the world these days is about the bottom line.

What are your thoughts on the added price to the tickets at Mariucci for certain seats? FYI...I hate it. But they are doing it to bring in more money.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:46 pm

Tigers33 wrote:Wayoutwest...You wouldnt be very good in a debate. Round one, two, and three goes to gopher blog.

Give some facts about your opinions. Everything you are saying is mere specualtion.

I am suggesting Nebraska adds hockey, because it is popular in the state/city already. They already have a nice arena that the Lincoln Stars play at. So, it would not shock me if they added hockey.

The teams that may drop hockey are the teams that are probably already struggling financially to begin with.

Its like Jerry Jones hating the revenue sharing plan. When are you going to figure out everything in the world these days is about the bottom line.

What are your thoughts on the added price to the tickets at Mariucci for certain seats? FYI...I hate it. But they are doing it to bring in more money.
If you would remove your nose from between Gopher Blog's cheeks for a while, you may start making some sense............"judge."

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:53 pm

Again, no real facts or actual evidence to support your comments. You come on here running your mouth, and you know less than mite team in our program.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:12 pm

Tigers33 wrote:Again, no real facts or actual evidence to support your comments. You come on here running your mouth, and you know less than mite team in our program.
Try to pay attention.
Just try.

What "facts" were you imagining your snuggle buddies were extolling?
How you imagine yourself as a viable part of this "debate" is unbelievable. JSR's alter-ego, and now Gopher Blog's lap warmer. Nice roles you carve out for yourself.

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:34 pm

You are more pathetic than Duluth East.

I never said I was a big part of this argument. You are the dumbest person on this entire board. I feel sorry for you.

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:36 pm

Tigers33 wrote:Again, no real facts or actual evidence to support your comments. You come on here running your mouth, and you know less than mite team in our program.
Perhaps YOU would like to talk about OSU?

No?

I've got some "facts" for you regarding that part of the thread, but strangely, no one wishes to comment on those at all. It might be the only thing that is entirely non-speculation in this overall thread.

Hmmmm.........it's odd that there is so little interest in that topic, isn't it?

WayOutWest
Posts: 611
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:45 am

Post by WayOutWest » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:39 pm

Tigers33 wrote:You are more pathetic than Duluth East.

I never said I was a big part of this argument.
You're not.
You never were.
You never will be.

And, I am sure Duluth East holds a special place in their hearts for you too.

Locked