ArchyAlum11

Depending on the conference I think that 2500 capacity would be the bare minimum, so long as it has modern broadcast facilities. I'm not sure how the CCHA would come back, the WCHA for all intents and purposes is the CCHA with four Old WCHA holdovers. I'm curious as to which schools would add hockey to keep both conferences intact. Well, I guess the best way is which schools could do this via the ASU route (smaller donation) or the PSU route (Larger donation plus arena). Minnesota Moorhead State University- Dragons - ASU route - They came pretty close to adding hockey a few years ago but were unable to. Now with a better economy and a Republican legislature which is more interested in helping the state universities, Moorhead would probably need less donated capital to start a hockey program. While I think Moorhead could get a Bonding bill passed to build a new arena it would likely be able to use Scheels Arena until it could build its arena, the Sanford Center would be a good template for a Moorhead arena, plus the arena could also host spuds matchups and youth hockey. I am reasonably confident that Moorhead will have D1 hockey in the not too distant future. U of M Crookston- Golden Eagles- (PSU) - This is a long shot, as a community Crookston is quite small when you add in the college student body the town has just over 10,000 people. However, for the sake of argument, Crookston does still have a successful division 2 club, and actually, would have a new and more decent facility that it could play in than ASU's oceanside arena.And actually, it would have the same capacity as Robert Morris.Of course, the downside of a return of Golden Eagle hockey would be that Crookston would be in the shadow of UND hockey, but never say never. Even if they didn't get the money for a new arena, they would still have a serviceable facility to play at. All that said I still think this would be a long shot, a very long shot. South West State University - Mustangs - (ASU) - This one is another longshot, but maybe not as much as Crookston. SWSU has an enrollment of around 9,000 students making it larger than BSU and has a town which is around 13,000 residents, again similar to Bemidji. The school does currently have intermural teams, but I can't find any mention of a club team. This city also has a newly built arena (Red Baron Ice Arena) which has a capacity of 1400, which is the same as Holy Cross College,.this could work in a pinch until funding could be obtained for a new arena. But I think they would only need to build a Ridder Arena-Sized building; it is possible that Read Barron Arena could be augmented to add another side of bleachers and bring up the seating capacity to just under 3000. I think this is still a long shot but not quite as long as Crookston. Winona State Unversity - Warriors - (PSU) - With around 10,000 students and a city of just over 27,000 Winona on paper is probably the best choice for hockey other than Moorhead State. Winona Has an existing ACHA DII club program which seems to generate a good bit of interest on campus.The biggest obstacle Warrior hockey would face is the lack of even minimally acceptable facilities, the team currently plays at Bud King Arena which seats 500, this would not work. Winona would need a brand new facility I think something Similar in size to Sandford Center or Verizon Wireless Center. Though if the Facility was a multipurpose facility designed to host basketball and hockey games, they might find it easier to get funding. Still from what I understand club hockey is still fairly new at Winona, but it's off to a promising start. I'll do the dakotas later...

If they want the sport to grow the best way to do it will be a combination of D2 and D1 schools. Also, I think I'd rather that they have sperate hockey-only conferences. It's a far better than the major conferences trying to add hockey. This would allow conferences to be more region specific and help to decrease travel costs.

FIrst, my mistake I was thinking of Pittsburg State... my mistake. But the rule you are thinking of does not allow schools to play down a level, however, they can play up if the sport is not offered at Division 2 level. If schools couldn't play up for hockey then about a third of college hockey programs wouldn't be able to play. There is also an exemption for Colorado College which plays D1 hockey but is actually a D-3 school in all other sports. http://www.uscho.com/2015/01/09/commentary-without-an-ncaa-tournament-to-play-for-division-ii-teams-are-stuck-in-the-middle/

I don't think they would need to go full D1 to add hockey, as currently there is no Division II hockey sponsored by the NCAA, I think that means that schools can either play up or down if they wanted to add hockey, and even if they needed an exception, it would make sense for the NCAA to grant one, as long as the number of male scholarships does not eclipse the number of women's scholarships then they should be fine.

The Fighting Sioux logo fight was just one microcosm of a larger fight over PC culture, back then we just called PC police or Pissed off Liberal White people, now we'd call them SJW's. As much as I miss the old name and logo and as boring as the new name and logo are it wasn't the right fight. Retiring the nickname was the right call much as I hate to say it.

This really is about trying to push big schools into hockey, It's not about solely helping to grow hockey. I doubt anyone in the NHL or NHLPA would be interested in helping a Moorehead State, Minot State, or Linwood. They care about name recognition and that it. The Great thing about NCAA hockey in its current form is that it doesn't matter if you are a power five school or not, smaller schools regularly bring the pain on the bigger schools and win championships. What they want is a NCAA basketball tournament for hockey where it's all about the big schools and conferences and the smaller schools should just be grateful that they get to lose in the first round to them.

Good point I suppose increase funding would be a more accurate term, basically, reverse the cuts they forced all the ND universities to make, but that would likely only come from increasing or additional taxes. Which won't happen.

ND Legislature would need to actually find a way to raise more revenue to fully fund the university system, not likely to happen anytime soon especially after the very public loss of women's hockey.

Even the liberal faculty hated him, of course, they probably hate Kennedy on principal since he was a Republican but Kelly they actually hate because he was incompetent.

If you need a safe space you don't belong at college or at least at UND send those pathetic losers off to California. I really wish that UND would follow the example of the University of Chicago and take a strong stance against safe spaces and manditory trigger warnings. I truly dispise the sjw menials that have infested college.

Its a personal perspective thing and I have, to be honest, I generally could care less about basketball. I personally prefer the older typeface I think it has a more timeless college look where as the new typeface looks like something off 1990's digital watch, it looks like it's trying to be futuristic which makes it dated and cheesy. Again my personal opinion.

Yeah really not a fan of that for hockey.

For me, I think the bigger issue with the new jersys will be the typeface that they are using rather than the actual hawk itself. I think the fact that they are using it as just a shoulder patch logo it for the best, aside from all the people who still viemently hate the new logo and name, the logo itself just dosn't really work as a primary. But personally the part that would really kill this jersy for me is the super modern typface, I perfer the more classic block style that UND currently uses, to me the new typface looks like somthing from a 90's digital watch. I am curious if that was part of the orginal SME design or if that was one of Ed's changes? http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/4255974-und-mens-hockey-team-have-new-jerseys-next-season

Rebranding things like changing the logo and typeface are a bit easier than changing the whole nickname. That said they are not likely to dump any money into right now with a budget shortfall. Changing the nickname is an unrealistic goal for the foreseeable future, changing the logo and typeface is completely possible in 5-10 years time depending on the budget situation.

You also need to keep in mind that back then college sports were truly just an extracurricular activity, they weren't big business like they are today. Changing a name was a lot easier, there was less worry about. No trademarks, stakeholders, and much less the Cry Bullies and SJW's that infest college campuses now. We are stuck with the nickname for the long haul and the logo for the foreseeable future. Much More sensible Idea would be to float an alternative logo in a 5 -10 years similar to the Bennett Brien logo started as just an alumni center logo. Though to be honest its not so much the actual hawk that I dislike now, it's more the typestyle, I am not a fan of the super modern font.

True, looking at it purely from a hockey program standpoint but depending on where the funding is coming from you have to sell it as more than a hockey specific facility. If you want to get state or local government to help foot the bill they are going to want to be able to use it for concerts and conventions rather than just college hockey. That is where the conference rooms and ballrooms come in.

Unless its full membership to the Big ten, then forget it there is no reason to trade the NCHC for a subpar hockey conference with declining numbers. Since I can hear a few of you saying "But what about big ten network revenue?" as an affiliate member Notre Dame get $0.00 from the big ten network, moving to the big ten as hockey affiliate. If the people running big ten hockey actually knew anything about hockey then they would realize that they are trying to get North Dakota to leave the Best hockey league in NCAA hockey for the 2nd worst league in college hockey, and either try and convince the big ten to add UND as a full member, or look for more poachable teams, MNSU or MTU would probably be willing to jump ship on the WCHA.

A valid point to be sure. Personally, I would be all for a modest tax increase if it meant better funding all the institutions, even if the athletic programs in question still were cut. The sSmaller schools I'm sure could use the additional funding, but even UND and NDSU could use those funds to renovate various campus buildings and systems, to say nothing of funding more research. However, ND would likely never vote for this.

I mostly just looked at the student to facility ratio, and proximity to other schools. But you have really only a few choices in this option, either increase revanue (More taxes). Cut programs at all the insitutions, or cut one or more of the other institutions

I would say that it goes way beyond hockey, cutting the womens hockey program is just a synmptom of the fact that it's time to trim the colleges.

UND isn't being given a whole lot of options of this. Womens hockey is unfortunatly an expensive program that makes very little money, that is generally the problem with womens sports as a whole compareed to mens sports, like basketball and football and in the case of many schools, hockey. However I think that the University system would be better off if it looked to close of the smaller university and colleges in the state system that simply seem to be too small to justify the expense. My closure list would be as follows. 1.Mayville State University 2. Valley State University or Dickinson State Univeristy 3.Dakota College in Bottineau 4.Williston State College 5. Lakes Region State College

Of course the tiny hostle and offensive irish guy fears Johboy more than Jennifer Aniston with a shot gun and four leaf clover.

I'm pretty sure he was joking.