HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Ludicrous, They belong in the Big Ten!!!! That's MN & WI's conference. Why would they stay??? Staying would be Ludicrous. Now the Big ten needs the IRISH.

old goalie85 wrote:Ludicrous, They belong in the Big Ten!!!! That's MN & WI's conference. Why would they stay??? Staying would be Ludicrous. Now the Big ten needs the IRISH.

Wha...???
Who says?
The hockey program has a long history in the WCHA and has been a keystone program there.
And if MN & WI "belong in the Big Ten", how do you figure Notre Dame does?

no97 wrote:

JSR wrote:I can read and you keep making references to how strong the WCHA is but whiloe it has strong teams it has ALOT of weak teams too. I used MI Tech as a point of illustrating a weak team in the conference.

Wait - what? You think the WCHA has a lot of weak teams? Really? The WCHA is without question, the deepest, most balanced conference (D-I men's) in the country. Hell, 12th place Tech beat Denver the second to last week of the regular season; 11th place MinnState pushed Denver to OT in the play-offs and beat UMD late in the regular season and Notre Dame at their holiday tourney; 10th place BSU beat UNO in their first rd. series, beat UMD at the Final 5 and also beat Union who went to the NCAA's. Should I go on? No other conference can claim such victories for their "bottom feeders."

Now that I have a few more minutes to elaborate, check out the RPI for this year:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/

Note that the WCHA has all but MTU (54) and MSUM (31 - just outside the top half) in the top half of all teams in the country. To compare to the other top conferences, note that:

Hockey East has half of its 10 teams in the top half and half in the bottom half, including UML (55) and UMA (51) in the bottom 10. The CCHA has 6 in the top half, and 5 in the bottom half. The ECAC? 6 in the top half and 6 in the bottom half. AHA - not even fair. 1 in the top half and 11 in the bottom half.

Tell me again how the WCHA has a LOT of weak teams? Dope.

[/quote]Lastly...all those gopher haters out there. Kind of interesting the Gophers beat 3 of the 4 teams in the Frozen Four this season. Their record was 3-2-2 against those teams, which shows the gophers arent far off. If Ness is the only player they lose then I look for the gophers to have a solid team next season. Holl and Alt are superstars in the making.[quote]

Big deal. The wild beat Vancouver two times and Van only lost 18 games this year. Both times were by 4 goals on top of that. They also beat Detroit and San Jose twice. So they played with the top 3 teams in the west. Let me guess, they aren't that far off?
My guess is you were on spring break when the Gophers hosted AA at home. I won't ruin the outcome for you in case you tivo'd it but I will give you a hint, they are far off.
They also lost there top 4 scorers and top 3 scoring D. I thought I read somewhere that they lost over 50% of their scoring? My guess is there will be some guys leaving sooner or later. Bjugstad is the big returing scorer and he was able to compile 20 points with some huge weekends against tech and bemidji.

Wehrs - buh bye...and please dont come back
Barriball - Did he ever HUSTLE in his 5 years here?
Hoeffel - Kids are taught in pee wee's not to slap your stick on the ice
Fairchild - Did he ever get better?

The two best players when the season ended were Bjugstad and Hansen. Hands down! I will take my chances with Holl, Alt, Schmidt, Marshall, and Student. I can also live with these forwards; Condon, Hansen, Haula, Bjugstad, Budish, Matson, and Ambosz. Do I think they are gonna win the ncaa or wcha...No! However, I think they will be an improved team with that group of players. I have no idea who the captains are but I think Matson and Hansen would be great captains. The one thing the team has lacked is leadership.

As for your comparison to the wild...they also play 46 more games. Are you telling me that the gophers didnt look when they beat North Dakota? One month ago the Wild wasnt far off either...Were they? Werent they up to the 7th spot at one time. Might have even been the 6th spot. So, at that point they werent far off.

How are they going to replace their top 3 scoring defensemen... Let me see, Fairchild had 6 goals, Wehrs - 3 and Ness - 2. That's 11 goals that they have to replace...Oh my! Average height and weight would be around 5 - 9 and 175 lbs. Small, skilled defensemen are suppose to add offense. I don't see it with those numbers. Go back to being big and physical. Even DeMarchi scored a goal once in a while.

As for the forwards. The only one I'm going to miss is Cepis, and I think Rau will fill his roll nicely.

Now lets just hope The Don can keep the other defections down to a minimum.

The team has been average for four years running. Just so happens that the Senior class was here for all four of those years. Coincidence? Maybe.

Way out there- You still haven't explained to us why Big ten schools would stay in one conference for one sport[ WCHA]. Yet have all other sports together in The Big Ten. Do you love the WCHA that much? I 'm just trying to understand your side. Not trying to be a jerk just trying to understand.

I totally agree with the comments on the Gophers made by Tigers33 and Bodyshots - some good observations there on the players. I think the team joining the Big Ten will be good for everybody and the new conference will be good for college hockey as a whole. And as a longtime season ticket holder I know I'm ready for a change of pace, and maybe the players will respond well to the new challenge also.

Also I believe the WCHA will survive just fine. The only really big question in my mind is where they end up playing the conference playoff tournament. St. Paul has been a huge success over the years. Maybe they'll end up alternating sites, or maybe Grand Forks will end up being the permanent host? Hopefully the demand for tickets remains high enough that a NHL-sized rink is mandatory. That would seem to leave Grand Forks and Denver.

Also, do you think it might make some sense at some point for Michigan Tech to join the CCHA and Alaska (Fairbanks) to move to the WCHA? From a pure geographical standpoint it probably would, but I'm not sure how much it would reduce travel costs as Houghton is not an easy destination for most teams either.

old goalie85 wrote:Way out there- You still haven't explained to us why Big ten schools would stay in one conference for one sport[ WCHA]. Yet have all other sports together in The Big Ten. Do you love the WCHA that much? I 'm just trying to understand your side. Not trying to be a jerk just trying to understand.

Understood.
Sure, it is "cleaner" to have Minnesota and Wisconsin in The Big Ten across all sports. But from a competitive standpoint, nothing beats the WCHA. Why would you want to downgrade the level of competition just to make things "tidy?"
The Gopher hockey program has been part of the WCHA for a long time. There was truly no issue with that. In fact, it has produced some fantastic hockey.........the kind of hockey you are not going to find in the Big Ten conference for MANY years.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Also I believe the WCHA will survive just fine. The only really big question in my mind is where they end up playing the conference playoff tournament. St. Paul has been a huge success over the years. Maybe they'll end up alternating sites, or maybe Grand Forks will end up being the permanent host? Hopefully the demand for tickets remains high enough that a NHL-sized rink is mandatory. That would seem to leave Grand Forks and Denver.

Geographically, St Paul still makes a lot of sense. Omaha's Qwest Center (16,600) is pretty "central" to the remaining teams too.

MNHockeyFan wrote:Also, do you think it might make some sense at some point for Michigan Tech to join the CCHA and Alaska (Fairbanks) to move to the WCHA? From a pure geographical standpoint it probably would, but I'm not sure how much it would reduce travel costs as Houghton is not an easy destination for most teams either.

Houghton is a lot closer to WCHA schools than CCHA schools. Leaving out B1G schools (and Alaska), you're left with:

NMU - 2 hours
LSSU - 5 hours
FSU - 8.5 hours
WMU - 10 hours
Notre Dame - 10 hours
BGSU - 10.5 hours
Miami - 12.5 hours

Or:

UMD - 4 hours
SCSU - 7 hours
BSU - 7 hours
MSUM - 8 hours
NoDak - 8.5 hours
UNO - 12.5 hours
And one flight a year to Colorado

WayOutWest wrote:

old goalie85 wrote:Way out there- You still haven't explained to us why Big ten schools would stay in one conference for one sport[ WCHA]. Yet have all other sports together in The Big Ten. Do you love the WCHA that much? I 'm just trying to understand your side. Not trying to be a jerk just trying to understand.

Understood.
Sure, it is "cleaner" to have Minnesota and Wisconsin in The Big Ten across all sports. But from a competitive standpoint, nothing beats the WCHA. Why would you want to downgrade the level of competition just to make things "tidy?"
The Gopher hockey program has been part of the WCHA for a long time. There was truly no issue with that. In fact, it has produced some fantastic hockey.........the kind of hockey you are not going to find in the Big Ten conference for MANY years.

Then there's this - Never before have the minimum number of schools (6 - the number required to get an auto qualifier to the NCAA Tourney) in the B1G sponsored hockey. And no other sport with 6 participating B1G members play under a conference banner other than the B1G.

No matter what anyone says, once PSU decided to sponsor hockey, the B1G was a done deal.

no97 wrote: Then there's this - Never before have the minimum number of schools (6 - the number required to get an auto qualifier to the NCAA Tourney) in the B1G sponsored hockey. And no other sport with 6 participating B1G members play under a conference banner other than the B1G.

No matter what anyone says, once PSU decided to sponsor hockey, the B1G was a done deal.

I hear what you are saying, but it was not a "requirement."
And leaving the highly competitive WCHA for a worse, or at the very least, unknown product, is an unfortunate decision for true hockey fans.

WayOutWest wrote:

no97 wrote: Then there's this - Never before have the minimum number of schools (6 - the number required to get an auto qualifier to the NCAA Tourney) in the B1G sponsored hockey. And no other sport with 6 participating B1G members play under a conference banner other than the B1G.

No matter what anyone says, once PSU decided to sponsor hockey, the B1G was a done deal.

I hear what you are saying, but it was not a "requirement."
And leaving the highly competitive WCHA for a worse, or at the very least, unknown product, is an unfortunate decision for true hockey fans.

I never said it was a requirement. I simply stated facts.

All that was really needed (and this was in motion before Penn State - note, summer of '09): http://host.madison.com/sports/college/ ... 06084.html

was for Wisconsin to keep pushing for change. OSU has to be behind this as well, since they are clearly the "forgotten" B1G hockey team. Throw in Mich and MSU looking at the revenue checks from the WCHA Final Five (compared to the CCHA Tourney which draws flies) and licking their chops, and it's easy to see how the BTHC was a slam-dunk. You can dispute the projected TV revenue all you want, but clearly Wisco, OSU and at least one of Mich/MSU were pushing this because of it.

As for your comparison to the wild...they also play 46 more games. Are you telling me that the gophers didnt look when they beat North Dakota? One month ago the Wild wasnt far off either...Were they? Werent they up to the 7th spot at one time. Might have even been the 6th spot. So, at that point they werent far off.

Far off from what? Getting the eight seed? The Wild played the top 3 teams in the west better than anyone in the NHL...but I would still say they are far off. I guess it's what your consider being off from.
I think most people in this state want to see a final four team that contends for a national title. Making the Final Five or barely getting into the NCAA's isn't what most people expect. Getting home ice the last weekend of the season is really not what most fans are looking for? In no way am I saying they are losing great players but they are losing almost all of their scoring. There senior class wasn't very impressive but they would have an even tougher season without the scoring they did. Bjugstad and Hansen tore it up against the two least talented teams in the WCHA and Hansen had a penalty shot goal against AA which happened to be the only goal their forwards scored that weekend. I bet they will rack them up next year. They are losing 24 points in fairchild which is what all the returning D have combined. Again I am not saying he was great at all but dont prepay for your 2012 final 4 tickets based on who is replacing him.
Far off in my opinion is having a coaching staff that doesn't get much out of your players, D-men who don't do a very good job playing D and get pushed around, and forwards who don't score very much. Take that with zero grit or an intimidation factor like UND has and youre far off. When your goalie is your MVP and has a 92% save percentage but your still avg...you've got a ways to go.

no97 wrote:Throw in Mich and MSU looking at the revenue checks from the WCHA Final Five (compared to the CCHA Tourney which draws flies) and licking their chops, and it's easy to see how the BTHC was a slam-dunk. You can dispute the projected TV revenue all you want, but clearly Wisco, OSU and at least one of Mich/MSU were pushing this because of it.

Understood.
Money over substance. Top notch.
There's a term for someone who sells themselves for money.

way out west...

Get over it!! Things are driven by money. If you havent figure that out then you are in denial. If you arent a gopher fan then you shouldnt care this much, and if you are a gopher fan then just get over it.

Why do you think there are bowl games for football? MONEY...If they could make more money by doing a playoff system then they would. Why do you think they increased to 68 teams and might increase to 96? MONEY...Why do you think the Twins werent on charter cable, dish, and mediacom last night? MONEY...Why do you think the NFL is in lockout mode? MONEY...

Give it a rest

no97 wrote:

no97 wrote:

JSR wrote:I can read and you keep making references to how strong the WCHA is but whiloe it has strong teams it has ALOT of weak teams too. I used MI Tech as a point of illustrating a weak team in the conference.

Wait - what? You think the WCHA has a lot of weak teams? Really? The WCHA is without question, the deepest, most balanced conference (D-I men's) in the country. Hell, 12th place Tech beat Denver the second to last week of the regular season; 11th place MinnState pushed Denver to OT in the play-offs and beat UMD late in the regular season and Notre Dame at their holiday tourney; 10th place BSU beat UNO in their first rd. series, beat UMD at the Final 5 and also beat Union who went to the NCAA's. Should I go on? No other conference can claim such victories for their "bottom feeders."

Now that I have a few more minutes to elaborate, check out the RPI for this year:

http://www.uscho.com/rankings/rpi/d-i-men/

Note that the WCHA has all but MTU (54) and MSUM (31 - just outside the top half) in the top half of all teams in the country. To compare to the other top conferences, note that:

Hockey East has half of its 10 teams in the top half and half in the bottom half, including UML (55) and UMA (51) in the bottom 10. The CCHA has 6 in the top half, and 5 in the bottom half. The ECAC? 6 in the top half and 6 in the bottom half. AHA - not even fair. 1 in the top half and 11 in the bottom half.

Tell me again how the WCHA has a LOT of weak teams? Dope.

no97, you are taking things out of context. I have no issues at heart with the WCHA. My responses were within the context of disputing Wayoutwest's claims that tOSU, MSU and PSU were weak teams that would make the new BTHC conference a vastly inferior conference to the "new" WCHA that will be without WI and MN. If you would have read the whole thread you might have understood the context of my comments better. No need to call names, that is for inferior posters like wayoutwest

WayOutWest wrote:

old goalie85 wrote:Way out there- You still haven't explained to us why Big ten schools would stay in one conference for one sport[ WCHA]. Yet have all other sports together in The Big Ten. Do you love the WCHA that much? I 'm just trying to understand your side. Not trying to be a jerk just trying to understand.

Understood.
Sure, it is "cleaner" to have Minnesota and Wisconsin in The Big Ten across all sports. But from a competitive standpoint, nothing beats the WCHA. Why would you want to downgrade the level of competition just to make things "tidy?"
The Gopher hockey program has been part of the WCHA for a long time. There was truly no issue with that. In fact, it has produced some fantastic hockey.........the kind of hockey you are not going to find in the Big Ten conference for MANY years.

No97, Right here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Wayoutwests complete ignorance and denial. My comments were not meant to insinuate that teh WCHA was weak, far from it but rather merely illustrate that the BTHC conference is not an "unproven" commodity or "weak" either. Right now the nothing beats the WCHA, sure, but within that comment you have to include WI and MN, take them out of that equation and add those other teams and you have a very different equation. Every school (save PSU) is a proven commodity. My point was other than the "unknown" that is PSU the other five are all better than or as good as anything in the WCHA and you actually helped prove my point by providing the number for Mich Tech and others. There are not as many teams in the new BTHC but the top five are all pretty competitive programs so I disagree with wayoutwest completely in his inane thinking that the competition level will be somehow inferior to the WCHA. There are not as many teams so it's tought o compare apples to apples but I would put WI, MI and MN against the top 3 WCHA teams any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I would put MSU against the mid level teams any day of the week and tOSU I would put against the lower mid WCHA teams any day of the week and my point was that while PSU is an unknown I doubt they'll be any better or worse on AVERAGE than a Mich Tech. And when you consider that by 2020 (not that far off) you could be looking at Notre Dame, Illinois, Indiana and possibly Iowa joining the fray you have the makings of a pretty nice conference long term that will likely surpass the WCHA and become the premier conference in college hockey within a relatively short period of time (10 to 15 years tops which is not long, I've been watching college hockey alot longer than that so that is a short time).

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote:As for your assertion that "Michigan has some history, but most of it is ancient" ..... what universe do you live in? They are one of the top CCHA teams most every year, they make the NCAA tourney pretty consistantly, they have won the most NCAA titles in the history of D1 with 9, true their most recent title was 1998 but that does not make them ancient history.

9 titles. Plenty good. No dispute.
8 of them prior to 1967. That would constitute "most."
Or, perhaps you might want to get back to math class, junior.

"one of the top CCHA teams most every year" - Sure, and you are one of the smartest guys..........in your dorm room.

Here is a nice piece from a hockey sports writer on Michigan:

Every year North Dakota and Michigan are fighting for their respective conference championships and high in the rankings. They have combined for 12 Frozen Fours since 2001, counting this season.

Apparently you have a very NARROW view of what consitutes good hockey and a what consitutes relevance within the hockey community. It's not JUST NCAA titles, if that is all that matters then lets throw out everyone with 6 or less, yeah that's a good idea........

JSR wrote:...and my point was that while PSU is an unknown I doubt they'll be any better or worse on AVERAGE than a Mich Tech. And when you consider that by 2020 (not that far off) you could be looking at Notre Dame, Illinois, Indiana and possibly Iowa joining the fray you have the makings of a pretty nice conference long term that will likely surpass the WCHA and become the premier conference in college hockey within a relatively short period of time (10 to 15 years tops which is not long, I've been watching college hockey alot longer than that so that is a short time).

Yeah, sure.
I can't wait to tune in the big Indiana vs. Iowa hockey tilt.
That one ought to be a thriller............by........oh...........2035?

JSR wrote: Apparently you have a very NARROW view of what consitutes good hockey.....

Not so much. But, don't take MY word for it.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/3/21 ... ege-hockey

WayOutWest wrote:http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/3/21 ... ege-hockey

No offense to you WayOutWest, but that Brian @ BCI is a biased Boston College, moron.

PuckU126 wrote:No offense to you WayOutWest, but that Brian @ BCI is a biased Boston College, moron.

He has come great points, actually.
And if you are going to use bias and lack of intelligence as a barometer for what is offerred up on this board, why do you not object to JSR's posts?

WayOutWest wrote:

JSR wrote: Apparently you have a very NARROW view of what consitutes good hockey.....

Not so much. But, don't take MY word for it.

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2011/3/21 ... ege-hockey

Aside from the biased opinions offered by the author. How exactly did this article in anyway respond to my statement of your narrow view on how good Michigan is?

Reading comprehension is not your strong, hasn't been from day one on this thread. I love how you try and back track and redirect every single time you are proven wrong, which is ALOT by the way. It is funny watching someone with your lack of intelligence spin though

JSR wrote:Aside from the biased opinions offered by the author. How exactly did this article in anyway respond to my statement of your narrow view on how good Michigan is?

Dear Bright Eyes,
I never said Michigan was never a bad hockey club. In fact, much the opposite. And, this thread is not about that narrow a focus. Further, it is not all about you.
You may believe the earth revolves around you, but that would naturally be expected from someone of your stature.
Is school out already, today?