Cratter

Seems like everybody's name has been thrown out but UND's.....cause we don't play nice. #waterbottles #handshakes

So they are trying to tear the NCHC apart....bastards!

Karma for UND's penalty shot vs UMD.

The title should read: "WCHA (and B1G) Commissioner Pushing For Conference to Stay Relevant." The NCHC outdrew both conferences combined, they'll politely decline the invite. Wonder what the Saturday's attendance will finally be when UND plays the night game for the Trophy? (I'm sure more than the 11,600 they had this year.)

Wow. That's some low standards. The B1G is currently tied for third this year with one team in the NCAA's. So summarize in a decade (or less) the B1G should be consistently better than the (new) WCHA vs about even as they are now....big improvements ahead. You do bring up good points though. HE and the NCHC teams will be hard to consistently beat. I get what ya mean though.... The current system HE & NCHC + big drop off = all the other conferences. The future system HE & NCHC & B1G, then a drop off.

Goaltending. Nobody knows how Cam will handle pressure from "big games." We've all seen it before.

This sounds familiar....oh yeah.

BIG adding UND would be good for them two fold: 1) The obvious answer: UND is college hockey. 2) It systematically weakens (one of) its strongest competitor, the NCHC.

Add Notre Dame to make MIchigan (and MSU) happy... Add UND to make Minnesota (and Wisconsin) happy?

#ManInTree is trending on twitter. Dude climbs tree in downtown Seattle. Draw crowds, blocks traffic, Rescue and news crews covering it live...about five hours in now. http://komonews.com/live/event

I like the idea of Air Force. I'm sure the other CO schools wouldn't mind either.

Now the BIG has two teams in the tournament.

Because the conference would be the exact same as it would have been in the WCHA minus Anchorage and Tech. Theres no need to start a new conference to shun two schools.

Adding Bemidji and Mankato would be admitting the NCHC failed.

No way ASU doesn't end up in the Big Ten.

When the D has the puck inside the blue line (not counting pp of course) isn't that a risky play that could easily lead to a turn over and breakaway? And thus the reason it's rarely passed to them in the zone.

Didn't really want to start my own thread, but I wonder if we are seeing the end of parity and college hockey as we know it. With paying student athletes, you have to think a lot of these smaller public schools won't be able to afford it. Might be a lot more one and done's from the WCHA, and hurt some of Hockey Easts public schools? One would think private schools would be more likely to afford FCOA. Private schools represent 10 out of the 16 teams this year in the tournament. This could be a record? (maybe its not a rise of the east vs west but a rise of the Private schools? 7 out of the last 8 National Champions...of course lots of private schools in the East, but Hockey East Conference is split 50/50...). in short, this is could be good news for the BIG, oh and getting rid of 21 year old freshman.

At least Northeastern will have to take a flight unlike a lot of those other Hockey Easters. BC has been pretty dominate at Worcester lately: 12-1 in their last 13 games there.

The other math: Any given year (with a field of 16 teams), the odds of losing to the National Champion by "two degrees at most," is 66.66%.

I think the cut off has passed but next time you can "host a watch party." http://www.undalumni.org/s/1652/02-alumni/index.aspx?sid=1652&gid=2&pgid=1492&cid=3357 Edit: noon wednesday is the cut off according to their twitter. UND_Alumni ‎@UND_Alumni If you're looking to host a watch party for @UNDmhockey this weekend, register it with us by 12 p.m. Wednesday! http://UNDalumni.org/watch

Hopefully Cam brings his A game.

Maybe it's just me, but at this point it sorta felt like "a third place game."

That's what I was pointing out. Lowering spending is a good way to save money and wouldn't be coming from anyone. Again why is it all of a sudden coming out of taxpayers dollars? 4% actual cuts not coming from taxpayers but 5% hypothetical cuts (or revenue) when times are good = comes from taxpayers? The 5% is a hypothetical that wouldn't actually happen when this year when the budget is already being cut by 4% because they screwed up their guessing. It just has to happen by either reducing expenses 5% or saving those increased revenues 5% for 40 years...one time any 40, doesn't have to be consecutive (equivalent to saving $30 a week for a person making $19 an hour.).....at which time the State of North Dakota would never in the history of its life have to ever guess again what revenue would be. It would have an actual dollar amount it can use on a rotating two year basis. It would reduce the peaks and valleys in the budget, So this would happen less as one ND legislator put it: North Dakota General and Special Fund in 2009: $5.6 Billion Six years later: $12 Billion. ......I refuse to believe there wasn't an easier way to "soften the blow" so "less families and children" are hurt....North Dakota did some good things with the "Rainy Day fund"....but they could have done more. Expenses and revenue would still be the same over a two to three year rolling average. But it gives time to adjust (months and years) vs (days and weeks).

Not sure what this means...is the current 4% budget cuts coming from the taxpayers? In the example it was "savings." Never said anything about making people pay more money.