Doc Holliday

As a Gopher fan, I've enjoyed reading the discussion here. Don't know if anybody has ever followed him, but there's a blogger called Frank The Tank (https://frankthetank.me/) who's pretty knowledgeable when it comes to all things expansion. If you have the time, read some of his stuff. It would be interesting to see what he thinks of North Dakota as a one sport affiliate member. Like it has been said here, Johns Hopkins & Notre Dame were pretty clean additions in the sense that there wasn't much involving BTN. I think both the Big Ten & North Dakota are going to do what benefits them. That could involve joining the conference. I think the hockey programs in the Big Ten would be on board with North Dakota. I think the talk of going to UMD & Omaha would be more threats than anything & that's not what the conference would want. UMD & Omaha are good hockey programs, but they are not North Dakota, at least when it comes to college hockey name & brand. Overall, I would think that the Big Ten has a pretty good grasp of the possibility of schools wanting to add hockey. If North Dakota is added, the Big Ten could still add 2 more teams if schools decided to go that route. They probably could even add 4 to make it 12 teams. I see zero chance of Purdue or Indiana ever wanting to add hockey. I think any worry about North Dakota being shunned by the Big Ten if some schools took the steps to add hockey is unlikely. I don't think the TV angle is as big a factor for the Big Ten. Advertising helps, but it isn't the driving factor to what makes the BTN succeed; it's when it gets put in homes & markets. Getting BTN on standard cable packages in the Washington DC & New York market is what drives the real money (just the fact that BTN is on standard cable in New York justifies Rutgers, regardless of any football or basketball success. Rutgers plus all the Big Ten alumni in New York was the combo for that). I think the Big Ten does see potential with the conference tournament though. Michigan & Michigan State may not like it, but I think they realize that potential of a yearly conference tournament, in St. Paul, with Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Dakota is a plus for the conference. The WCHA Final Five was the perfect storm & cannot be duplicated unless all things go back to the way they were. But since it's not coming back, I think the conference sees that they can get at least part of that. As for the hockey component, I think you'll be surprised. The games Minnesota has had with Ohio State have been pretty good hockey to watch. Penn State plays a fun style to watch & they have the resources and desire to want to be good. Simply adding North Dakota back in to 4 regular games a season is going to make Gopher fans happy. You know your history with Wisconsin. And other than this year, the games with Michigan have been awesome & intense. MSU needs to rebuild, but they've won a title more recently than any Big Ten team has so they clearly can do it. As for Notre Dame, they're an Edina graduate program & I think they'll be fun. I think the vast majority of us wish things were how they used to be. But that ship has sailed. I really thing, long term, both North Dakota & the Big Ten would benefit from this if it happened.

Gotcha. My bad.

It seemed like UND always had 6 guys on the ice, and I mean that in a good way. Whenever the Gophers were coming out of the zone, it always seemed like it took great effort to get it out, and then there were still 3 guys back, making any offense difficult. The Gophers are really good at a guy jumping into the play when they hit the blue line, hitting a trailer for a good shot. There was hardly any of that opportunity. UND had the ice tilted in the 3rd I thought, especially the last half. I thought it was pretty even the first two periods with both having great scoring chances and both having some sustained zone time.

For gfhockey and Dave Berger claiming there was too many men on the ice for the goal, they're wrong. Great game by North Dakota. I'm pretty sure that every Minnesota fan (minus those that just cheer because it's a thing to do if they're in a game like this) knows that it sometimes comes down to a bounce that determines this stuff. I know I was holding on for dear life every single time UND unloaded another shot in the 3rd.

I think the difference is the "make a weekend trip of it" factor. UND fans come down usually for the whole weekend and have tickets, so they'll go to a hockey game. Minnesota fans are local and most likely working during the Thursday. I honestly think it would be similar if a tourney was in Grand Forks and North Dakota wasn't playing until Friday night. The Thursday night game would get more people than at Xcel, but I'd be surprised if any Thursday afternoon local game not involving your team would be heavily attended. I was a little shocked that the OSU/MSU game didn't have some more people. Not like a sellout or even half full in the lower bowl, but at least a few more people not dressed like dark green seats. I do think over time, PSU will develop a following. Michigan has a few hardcores and mostly bandwagon. MSU is a basketball school that cares some; OSU is a football school that doesn't care at all. Wisconsin isn't even as hardcore as they were 10-15 years ago. I think over time, what the Big Ten would hope for is the local alumni bases to build a following. MSU & OSU have them in the Twin Cities; just have to start caring. It will never be what Minnesota & North Dakota had, but over time, I think yesterday will be just looked at as a bad day. The Final Five was a unique event that was pretty much foolproof; enough local teams that one of them would always be there, usually most of them there, and good alumni bases for half of the conference. Asking any conference tournament to duplicate what the F5 had is pretty much an impossible task.

+1 It's like Bjustad & the entire team only offered brief glimpses of what they could potentially be. That missed opportunity in the final seconds of the 3rd probably summed up his season: Almost.

As a Gopher & Minnesota fan, all I can say is "at least I'm used to heartbreaking, kick in the groin losses." I do disagree, Sagard, though about Wilcox overplaying. He had no shot on that one. One & Done lesson learned, I have a hard time seeing North Dakota losing in this region now. Although I won't shed a tear if you lose, good luck anyway!

I think declaring a site and higher seeds hosting is a good starting point for discussion. The problem I see is reserving buildings. Multi-purpose venues are not going to want to block off a weekend that realistically, has more chance of NOT hosting a regional than of hosting. You can't tell the Pepsi Center that they need to tell the Nuggets/ Avs that they have to be on the road that weekend because CC, Denver or Air Force “might” host a hockey regional. But I don't think it's an awful idea. I personally like the idea of #1 seeds host, but the other three schools are guaranteed a certain number of tickets (10% I guess for each school) blocked off. My thought: Keep it at 16 team, but just do two arenas. Example: the Midwest & West regional are both played at Xcel, but one of the regions is a Thursday/Saturday while the other one is a Friday/Sunday. The Frozen Four has a day off, why not allow it for the regions? Yeah, it may be harder for some fans to travel because it requires days off, etc., but it seems to not be a problem for basketball fans that travel. Also, I think more people may be inclined to travel knowing that they can get walk up tickets and attendance may be better, especially for the Thursday & Friday sessions. Saturday may not be bad, but Sunday will struggle. However, it already struggles. I also think more venues may be interested in bidding if they know that they're going to get more games. I just feel like more fans would be willing to travel. In the west, you could have Xcel, St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Denver, Milwaukee. With the east, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, Albany etc. If you just want to go with the current arenas in the rotation and not go NHL venues, the attendance #’s probably suggest that it may be a good idea at this point in time. I do think something needs to be changed.

I'm talking about filling the barn for the postseason tournament, not for home games. I said from the onset that the only economically viable solution I saw for a postseason tournament for the new conference was for it to be held in Grand Forks. I was simply responding to those saying that a neutral site could work. I don't see it. Big Ten attendance...in terms of conference games or the tournament? I don't see much change for home games. If attendance changes, it will be due to the new ticket point/seat donation policy being brought in the next few years more than due to the Big Ten conference. Michigan & Michigan State aren't exactly no name programs...and Ohio State & Penn State interest will increase. Large alumni bases in the Twin Cities. As for the tournament, I think it could get a bit dicey. Cute comment about how long before games aren't telecasted due to lack of interest. The BTN broadcasts women's field hockey, track & field & gymnastics. Hockey isn't going off the air on the BTN.

It's not just about not having a lack of Sioux fans; you're now responsible for filling 75% of the barn and television ratings regardless of who's there. The Final Five, for the most part, was pretty fool proof; there was a 99.999999% chance that either Minnesota, Wisconsin or North Dakota, or a combo, was going to be present. Now, the only relevant fan base for producing revenue (sorry, but UNO isn't there) has what, a 60-70% chance of being there?

Different ball game. As much as Sioux fans filled Xcel for the Final Five, the golden egg of the Final Five always was Minnesota fans that would buy tickets. Toss in the fact that you're losing Wisconsin, St. Cloud & Mankato fans now not purchasing packages (Mankato not nearly as big, but they're still an hour away and had good turnout in 2003) and suddenly, A LOT more tickets must be sold. I'm guessing any new tournament format would most likely involve 4 teams. You now have only 4 games max (if you have a 3rd place game). Less games & less ticket buyers. And this isn't even throwing in the television factor. Sorry, but my guess is that A) FSN isn't going to broadcast it, or B) You'll have much less in television money, especially with Minnesota not invovled. The "Minnesota Rule" wasn't about attendance as much as it was television driven by FSN. The conference tourney was going to be difficult when MN & WI left. Difficult, but doable, IMO. Now, a Final Four where the closest team involved is 2-1/2 to 3 hours away from Xcel, and never a guarantee that you're going to be there because it would be much more difficult to get to St. Paul than before in the WCHA? I'll give Sioux fans all props in the world the moment they show up in full spirit for a conference tournament involving CC, DU, Miami & Omaha in the name of just wanting to watch good college hockey. Other sites than Xcel? Pepsi Center? You'd have the same problem the moment the four teams involved are North Dakota, UMD, Miami & Nebraska-Omaha, only magnified because there actually are North Dakota fans that would go to a conference tournament in Minnesota not involving the Sioux. Can't be said for Denver. The conference tournament is going to be difficult for the Big Ten; they're proposing top seed hosting for the time being. Huge problem in that revenue would be much different if MN or WI was host compared to MI or MSU. The biggest difference is the brand name of the Big Ten, something the "Super Six" won't have.

Personally, I'm fine with North Dakota doing what they feel is in their best interests. They're responsible for themselves, not holding other programs a float. My problem with the new league is I question if it will make more money than the WCHA minus MN & WI would....travel expenses are going to be greater, a TV deal won't net as much as most in the new conference think, and there's also the question about the postseason tournament. With the new conference, the only real economically viable solution that I see is holding it in Grand Forks every year, something I'm sure the other league foes would be "thrilled" with. Obviously those in charge at NoDak & DU have thought about the economics much more than I or any Sioux fan has, but I have trouble seeing economics thrive any more than the WCHA minus MN & WI would.

It, at least, would be more accurate than laying blame at the hands of purely Minnesoat & Wisconsin.

Um....no. No, it wasn't. They left because of Big Ten conference rules. Deep down, Barry Alvarez may have been fine with not being in bed with Minnesota state schools coming to Kohl Center instead of the Ohio State's & Michigan's, but it doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things. Big Ten rules won out.

That's fine, you can have your opinion regarding who's helped Bemidji more and you probably have evidence on your side.....just saying that it's incorrect that Minnesota had never visited Bemidji before this past March.