bale31
-
Posts
492 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by bale31
-
-
Would it be that far fetched for the Ralph to host the new WCHA?
Seriously, with all of the hard feelings that there are towards UND in this whole thing you think that WCHA would go to the Ralph? I'm not getting into another pissing match about whose fault this all is, but you can't seriously think the WCHA school would want to make money for a school that they feel dropped them high and dry, can you?
Besides, no one from Grand Forks is going to go to a game that doesn't inlude UND when UND is presumably playing a game at the same time. It's also a long ways out of the way for most school's fans to travel. The only school that would benefit is Bemidji.
-
I bet attendance at the WCHA tournament will drop without Minnesota and North Dakota in the league. I think it's safe to say that both of those schools were responsible for most of the fans at the Final Five during the past 10 years or so.
I don't think you're going out on much of a ledge there.
-
1
-
-
Time to consider the option of rotating the location site. BTHC has the X for their tournament in 2014 and 2016. I say we need to move the NCHC tournament to the X in 2015 and 2017 and choose a different location for the even years. The Target Center decision was selected based on the fact that these renovations would be done. I wonder if the NCHC has the option to back out if these renovations don't take place. I sure hope so. Even years at the X, odd years somewhere else like Omaha or Denver.
If you are going to have a college hockey conference that is supposed to be first rate, you can't have the tournament in a building that is 2nd rate at best!!
The WCHA has already locked in the "off years" at both the X and the Joe in Detroit.
-
Instead of being mad at everyone else - have you looked at the school and fans to see what it could have done to put itself in a better postion. MSU was in the best hockey conference in the nation and given the same opportunity as all othe other WCHA schools for the last ten years - what have they done to prove themselves? In addition, I think it is best that you make your judgements in 5/10 years and see how it shakes out. The Gophs are playing political nice - they have something called funding that they need from the State, plus some capital projects they might need the states help with..
Wow, have you not read the previous 2 pages where I repeatedly admitted that MSU could have done more? Although, if you're going to say that I should do that, you lose the right to accuse MN of playing political games until you "make your judgements". I also said that in a few years we MIGHT look back at this and say that it could be for the best. Selective reading at it's best.
-
1
-
-
UND was playing MSU-M when there were first moving up to Division I hockey and while they were getting into the WCHA and traveling to BSU and MSU-M long before any of the other teams were and their fans are still mad at UND about the NCHC. I don't get it, and UND and BSU are going to continue to play after they go to the NCHC. The Chances of Wisconsin or Minnesota going to BSU or Mankato on a regular basis aren't very good.
Coming from the coaches and administration, MN has been first class to work with. So has UND and UMD to a degree have, but not to the extent that MN has. UNO and SCSU are likely going to play us on a yearly (or almost yearly basis) as well. WI, DU and CC are not at all, but that really wasn't all that unexpected. Those are the schools that want nothing to do with any of their former conference mates.
Again, it's not just UND people are annoyed with. It's the entire situation. The fact that UND and DU were the ones that were the figureheads (and by most accounts driving it) is the reason that they are getting the heat. They were the ones that everyone saw smiling at the press conference. They are the ones that are associated with it most due to those facts. MN isn't getting as much because many of us feel they didn't want this to happen and many of already know that Alvarez is a d-bag and has wanted the Big Ten to do this for a long time. I, personally, was caught off guard by the NCHC and reacted very negatively toward it due to the feeling that the WCHA could have been saved, but the schools that left didn't have the will or motivation to make it work. Again, that was their right. They didn't do anything wrong. It just felt as though the NCHC schools were turning their backs on us at the time.
-
It's pretty simple: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.
That's just simply not true. If you want to play the victim card, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with it. It is possible to be critical of an organization without having an ax to grind.
-
I do not know why you are getting down so much on UND, As I recall when Minnesota State first went D1 in the mid 90's UND was one the few WCHA schools that scheduled Mankato. Where was Minnesota when they first went D 1. I was a Puple Cow season ticket holder then and it also seens to me that some of the biggest crowds at the Midwest Wireless Center (Verizon) were when UND played there.
I all fairness, the 3 years that MSU was D1 and NOT a part of the WCHA is a pretty small sample size. As for right now, MN is the school that is committed to helping MSU through the transition period. I also admit that UND is reaching out to MSU for scheduling arrangements. That's been acknowledged by everyone. The reality is, though, that MN has committed to scheduling and coming to Kato for at least the first 2 years after the conference split (and I've heard that a scheduling arrangement for 4 years is being worked on) in addition to the MN Cup.
As for why I'm down on UND, I think you're reading with an assumed bias on my part. Yes, I do hold UND responsible for some of this, but I have also acknowledged on multiple occasions that there are MANY responsible parties. That includes everyone from all the Big Ten schools to the schools that are cutting bait with the NCHC and to a degree the schools that are being left behind (as this was building up to a breaking point for years). My only argument on any of this is that any party (in the case of this thread, UND) didn't have a hand in it and was FORCED to make the actions they did. Yes, the Big Ten started it, but was it really a necessity for any other schools to make a change? Or was it just the cover that was needed to align with schools that were wanted. In any case, the motives from the Big Ten schools and the NCHC schools were the same....additional money. In the Big Ten's case, they thought there was additional money to be made. In the NCHC's case it was to prevent those schools from having to give up earned money. I've been hearing lots of NCHC schools blaming the Big Ten without realizing there was another potential decision to make. it's just that they chose not to.
-
I heard at the Final Five that the Shepherds were going to retire...
All of them or just Big Shep?
-
As I said, this started with Jim Delaney, Barry Alvarez, and the Big Ten Network. The last one (BTN) is also able to be spelled as "$$$$$".
The WCHA without Minnesota and Wisconsin, well, here it is:
So DU and UND make the same "$$$$$" decision Minnesota and Wisconsin did. But DU and UND did it in reaction to the first move.
And that's exactly my point. NCHC schools made the EXACT same decision. Putting all the blame in one place is misguided.
-
2
-
-
So in other words, UND and Denver are just supposed to take what is dished out to them and shut their mouths? Sorry, that ain't how it works. Neither program wanted to get stuck in a watered-down WCHA where the small schools would out-vote them on everything. You might have even had some sort of scholarship cap introduced and it would have passed because most of the schools in the WCHA would benefit from such a rule. Then UND and Denver would have had to live with the cap or leave and there might not be a viable conference option for them. The NCHC came together at this moment in time and you have to jump on board before the train leaves the station.
That's a lot of ifs, ands and buts. I'm not saying that anyone should have taken what's dished out to them. The point is that there were choices to be made and everyone made the choices that were best for their institution at that point in time. That includes the Big Ten schools, the NCHC schools and, to a degree, the WCHA/CCHA schools. No one is immune to the consequences of their decisions.
On the last page and this page you have had 5 entries where you said you were done being mad and people should stop blaming each other. You are still blaiming. It's time for you to stop!!!!!!
I'm not blaming anyone. Again, everyone has made their decisions and that's fine. What I am saying, though, is that the NCHC schools did make a decision that was best for them with a complete disregard for the schools they left behind. The Big Ten isn't the only group that did that, there are a lot of people involved.
The biggest question I have had and I posed to my buddy that's a fan of BSU.... Why is it not okay for the 6-8 schools that formed the NCHC to improve their lot in college hockey, but it’s ok for the B1G to improve their lot? Let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what they’re doing as well. They are marketing it under the guise of having too because they now have six teams in the B1G. It's teams like Wisconsin that didn't want to play the small schools in college hockey. Teams like UND have in the past, they also travel to other parts of the country to play non-conference games when other teams in the WCHA wont.
However, if you noticed Wisconsin was very up front about want to play their B1G brothers more and Wisconsin even entertained joining the CCHA a few years back.
My question is; why is UND, DU, C.C. expected to prop up the rest of the teams in the WCHA when Wisconsin and UMN get a free pass? They are doing the same thing that the aforementioned teams are.
They aren't expected to. You're right, everything changed the day the Big Ten formed. That's not up for debate. My point is and always has been that the NCHC schools did have a decision to make. They made a decision that I may not like, but they had that right and they took that opportunity to push themselves forward (or at least what they think is forward at this point). That's the decision they made, but just because the Big Ten left first, doesn't mean that their hands were forced into making a decision.
I admit, I look at MN different from the rest of the Big Ten schools. In my heart of hearts, I think MN wanted to stay in the WCHA. I think in a perfect world, they would have kept status quo. Unfortunately, they didn't seem to have a real choice in all of this. They have a MUCH bigger picture to keep in mind. Maybe I'm being played by PR and they really couldn't care less, but that's how I'm looking at it. Their actions in supporting MSU since this all happened speak a lot louder than anything that I've seen from any other school. They have gone out of their way to help us through the transition in a financial sense since this was announced. So, yeah, I'm a bit biased towards them, but actions speak louder than words for me. And their actions tell me that they weren't for this change and are trying to help those of us left behind as much as possible.
-
1
-
-
This is funny, disappointed with NCHC, but happy with what Mn is doing with all this? Did I read you correct? Who do you think started all of this!?
I'm disappointed with everyone. The difference in my mind is that the NCHC schools had a choice. MN didn't. They weren't going to be able to damage the other sports at MN just to stay in the WCHA. That's not even a choice. You can say the NCHC schools were backed into a corner and I would disagree. I think they took the easy way out when they saw the opening. Reasonable minds can disagree about this. The fact is, many of us outside the NCHC see a lot more to be unhappy about from the NCHC schools than MN. You can argue that it's unfounded, but again, there is a lot of reasons this happened and it's NOT just the Big Ten. Yes, they started it, but it didn't HAVE to continue on this path forward. It's done.
-
1
-
-
I think it's all a mistake - don't know why - I'll miss the Final Five at St Paul - have they decicded what kind of tournment they are going to have ?
It's funny, one of the best things that I've heard said about this whole thing came from Troy Jutting. His comment was that college hockey is bigger and better than it's ever been before. Change is not necessarily bad, but if you are going to change, you better be damn sure that the change is for the better. Whether this is actually better for the game as a whole is yet to be seen. The jury is still out and we're all just going to have to wait and see. In any case, it's not worth the pissing match of who's right and who's wrong. We can all disagree on who the main culprits are and, frankly, there's probably a bit of truth to everyone's argument.
-
Why do you roll your eyes. If the Big Ten does not come about, there is no NCHC --- period!!!
You're right there is not. There was no requirement for other schools to break of though, was there? I'm guessing no one FORCED the NCHC to form.
Again, I'm not saying that UND was wrong to do what they did. I don't agree with the reasoning, but they didn't do anything wrong. I just wish that people would accept the fact that it didn't have to happen and no one is looking out for anyone else other than themselves....that includes UND. It's OK. College hockey programs have lost their innocence and no one is concerned about the greater good. You're right though, as soon as the Big Ten formed, it was every school for itself. No one is blameless or faultless. It is what it is and this is the new reality. Time to move on and quit placing blame on everyone else. MN had a part in it and can't blame anyone else. WI had a part in it and can't blame anyone else. UND had a part in it and can't blame anyone else. Even the schools in the new WCHA had a part in it and can't blame anyone else. It's over. It's done. Time to move on and quit blaming everyone else.
-
The Mankatos and techs of the world are really the guilty party. They broke up the WCHA and invited a bunch of CCHA teams!
We had no control over the formation of the NCHC, obviously, but the greedy WCHA leftover teams were only looking out for themselves when they added all those non-WCHA teams and RUINED the WCHA.
Certainly the Big Ten and NCHC schools are equally blameless, according to the logic of this thread.
BWAHAHA!! Well played!
-
The Big Ten's "if six play a sport we play in conference" rule is strictly a Big Ten rule. They could've changed their own rules to allow for the traditional hockey conferences to stay together. Instead, they chose Penn State and forming BIg Ten Hockey over the traditional conferences.
The Big Ten looked out for themselves first (as well they should).
Don't be mad at DU, CC, UMD, UNO, UND, et al for doing the same.
I'm well past being mad about it. It's just the reality. I just can't stand when any school (or fans of said schools) that made a jump for a new conference acts like it was everyone else's fault. Everyone had a hand in it and that includes everyone in the NCHC. If you want to blame MN for it, you have to blame your own school for everything that's happened too.
As far as the Big Ten, I don't think that's being realistic. Again, you're asking for a niche sport (and as much as we all love college hockey, it's still a niche sport) to get special rules that no other sport gets. Penn State wasn't going to add a program unless a Big Ten Hockey Conference was formed. Honestly, you can't think that the other 11 conference schools are going to look at Penn State and tell them they are going to look out for other institutions that they aren't affiliated with in a niche sport instead of looking out for Penn State. Penn State will win that battle 100 times out of 100. Asking them to do anything of the sort would defeat the purpose of the Big Ten Conference as a whole.
-
All Minnesota did is roll over for Jim Delaney and Barry Alvarez and the fat Big Ten Network paycheck. The good of college hockey came in at least fourth on the list. MSU-Mankato came in somewhere behind that.
PS - Minnesota is playing nice because they don't need you little guys (BSU, UMD, SCSU, MSU-M) making too much noise to the Legislature in St. Paul. Be sure to pick up the crumbs they leave you.
Really, what was MN supposed to do? Drop out of the Big Ten for "the good of college hockey"? Come on, let's be realistic about it. I'm not going to get in a pissing match, but why was it only up to MN to do "what is good for college hockey"? What about UND, DU, CC, MIami, SCSU, UMD, UNO and WMU? All of those schools had the ability to help a lot of other schools. It's disingenuous to act as though their hands were tied and this was something that they had to do. It's something they wanted to do. And that's fine. It's their right to do that and if they are better off for it, it's all good. But, please, let's stop acting as though college hockey programs are above the money-grab that all college athletics have become. There is no such thing as acting for "the good of college hockey". MN and WI aren't immune from that and neither is UND or anyone else in the NCHC.
I know that you guys automatically think cynically about MN, and that's fine. But they have been making the best of a bad situation. Yes, the Big Ten started everything, but, realistically, they weren't going to be able to stop it without screwing over every other athletic program that they have. The only option that was available was to go with the flow, join the Big Ten and preserve as many of the relationships as possible. Yes, that might mean that they default to the other MN schools, but they're doing exactly what they've always said they would do. They are being stewards of the game in the state of Minnesota. Maybe it's a PR ploy and maybe they truly believe that's their role. I don't know and, frankly, it doesn't matter. They are doing what's best for hockey in the state of Minnesota.
All that being said, what's done is done. I think MSU will actually come out of this in a pretty good position. It's not where I would like us to be, but we'll be fine.
-
That's a crap deal and you know it! I think it's hilarious that UM is acting like their doing a huge favor by cutting the crusts of the turd sandwiches they're feeding the other Minnesota schools. Have fun filling your arena with Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Penn State fans
Honestly, from a Mankato perspective, MN is treating us a hell of a lot better than anyone else that's leaving the conference. They have agreed to both the "Minnesota Cup" and, for the first 2 years, a home-and-home series with Kato. I have also been told that it's probably going to morph into a 4-year agreement in which it's a home-and-home for 3 years and the 4th year MN has a home series, but they will have to pay a hefty price for that 4th year. I think that's going to be the way it works from this point forward. MN is going to have to play more return trips simply due to the fact that they aren't going to get enough schools to come in and play them without a return trip. They've got to fill up their schedule since the league is smaller and they are going to need to play more return trips. There is no upside for most schools to go to Mariucci without getting either return trip OR a very large check paid to them.
I hate to break it to you guys, but if there is anyone that MSU fans are really disgusted with it's the schools in the NCHC. Minnesota has been classy through this entire transition and Lucia has done and said all the right things. I, personally, gained a whole new respect for Minnesota and the way they are going about their business. I historically haven't defended the Gophers in hockey, but after this, I can't say anything bad about the way they are going about their business.
-
1
-
-
I agree you're leaving a high profile program for one with no history.
Just to be clear though, it happens all the time (in many other sports) that kids leave a program when the coach that recruited them leaves. They don't necessarily go to the program that the coach goes to, they go to their #2 school that they had chosen.
-
I'm pretty sure he would love to be a head coach somewhere but I believe for him to leave to become a head coach he will have to make more than he makes at UND. I just don't think Mankato or a USHL team would be able to do that.
I've heard this used by a bunch of people all over the place. I think the reality is that MSU knows they are going to have to pay more money. We aren't going to get a high quality coach by paying the same amount as we paid Jutting. It just won't work that way. I fully believe that if they weren't going to pay more and get a top level guy, they wouldn't have made this move in the first place. It just wouldn't make sense.
I've told a few people that this seems to fit with President Davenports grand plan. He's done a good job of capitalizing on opportunities in places that a lot of people don't see an opportunity. He's quietly taken a leadership role within the new WCHA and the initiatives that he's been pushing on campus (non-athletic) have been very impressive. MSU is now the 2nd largest university in the state and he's pushing the university to start acting like it is rather than playing the victim in this crappy situation. I truly think he and the AD see the writing on the wall that this is a crossroads for the hockey program. Make the right decision and the program goes in the right direction. Make the wrong decision and the program sinks even further. Going cheap on this hire is not going in the right direction. Maybe I'm wrong, but those are the signs that I'm getting.
-
Eades being publicly vocal about wanting the job at MSUM puts him in the driver's seat for the job. The biggest question mark, will be, with Jutting still being paid through next season, will the University dole out enough money to pay a guy like Eades?
I don't think Jutting continuing to get paid will have any bearing on this. His salary is now spread across the entire athletics budget, not just hockey and the President said he was probably going to hire someone in that position anyway. Also, there is no reason to have made a change if they weren't going to hire a higher level coach if they weren't going to pay him. I'm not saying he'll get Mel Pearson money, but he's going to be well paid (whoever it is).
-
Don't know if this is the best place for it but is Ryan Cardinal actually associated with the Minnesota hockey program at all? I know I use to listen to him on the PA show sometimes, but probably won't ever again. First the stunt he pulled at the Final 5, now trying to trash former college players on twitter, to me he is a total tool and I have lost any respect I once had for him.
What did he say now? The one before the FF was just a joke, but not one that was taken all that well by non-gopher fans. I personally thought it was kind of annoying, but that's just me. Cardinal on the whole is pretty well connected from what I know, but he doesn't have an official capacity with the program.
-
I see no reason why this has to be a snooze fest. Even if neither team is as good as BC or MN, they must be 2 pretty decent teams to reach the Frozen Four, and therefore have a chance to give the fans a fun game to watch. Personally, I wish I had the time to watch, snooze fest or not.
They are both good teams. They won the CCHA and ECAC for the regular season. You don't win that many games and not be a pretty good team.
-
Whoever takes over at Mankato will insist that they dump the soccer song as a condition of acceptance. That's before they talk money and health insurance.
The fact that it pisses so many people off is the best reason for us to keep it.
-
Among the locals, I think there was some frustration with not making the NCAA (1 in 13 years) or even the WCHA Final Five for several years. Jutting was Don Brose's handpicked choice a decade ago, and one could reasonably conclude he's had a chance to make it work.
I think MSU Mankato has a number of advantages going forward, including an easy commute from the hockey suburbs on the south side of the Twin Cities. Your kid can get more quality ice time and you can be home by midnight on game nights.
They certainly have had a string of high quality players come through there in the past years, but the lack of development of the rest of the roster was apparent ... David Backes, Grant Stephenson, Shane Joseph, Ryan Carter, Travis Morin and the top guys couldn't carry the load alone.
As to replacement coaches, Guentzel and Johnson are good guesses. I don't see Eades making that move, but I could be wrong.
My money would be on Eric Means. Was assistant to Jutting, now the women's head coach.
I would be shocked if it were Eric Means. The comments I was hearing from long time season ticket holders this year would fly in the face of that happening. The women's team isn't that good and he is from the old regime. The argument for bringing him in as men's coach would be a tough one to make to fans when he's an old assistant coach. People want a change, not more of the same.
Jutting is a good guy, but has had a long time to make this program into something more. It just hasn't happened and the fan base is apathetic and staying the same would have been worse. In two seasons the attendance figures have gone down 25%-30% and it was translating into lots of real dollars being lost.
There is a very good pool of candidates for my school to choose from right now. Guentzel, Eades, Rohlik among others are all guys that are going to be looking to make a jump sooner than later. I would guess that the allure of being in the power position is going to be enticing for all of them. I know it's going to a "lesser" school, but still going to be worth it to be the man rather than reporting to the man.
BTHC/NCHC
in Men's Hockey
Posted
Realistically, I don't think anyone knows how well attended any of the tournaments are going to be. The only certainty is that none of them will be as well attended as the Final Five. The Final Five was the perfect storm. The U with it's 100K+ alumni and UND with a ton of people that move to the Twin Cities after graduation and then sprinkle in a good amount of fans from the other schools and you have huge attendance. None of those things are going to be the same.
My personal opinion is that the NCHC is expecting way too much in terms of attendance. You really have a large following of 1 school (UND) and a few other schools that have a decent following. My expectation for UND games would be in the 15,000 range, but for non-UND I think you're looking at more like 7500. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical about the following the tourney will have. The BTHC really isn't going to benefit from the torunament. It's likely not going to be well attended in Detroit and in MPLS I would expect it to be about like the NCHC.
As for the WCHA, the rumblings that I have heard is that there weren't any real good options for smaller rinks that made logistical sense. There is Duluth (in which you have the same situation as holding it in GF). You have Green Bay, but realistically you need to have alumni bases in the area to make the tourney successful. You have Milwaukee, but now you're asking everyone to drive a minimum of 5-6 hours to get there so that's not realistic. And you've got Detroit and the Twin Cities. The smaller venues in those areas are Mariucci or high school venues. The PR hit of colleges playing in high school venues is just awful. So, you're left with the Joe and the X. Yes, they will be half (or more) empty, but it's better than the alternative. I don't think it's unrealistic to have 5000+ for a lot of the games. You have your die hards that will go every year regardless (1000, which is just 100 from each team, or maybe more). You will have maybe 500-1000 walk ups for each game. And then you will likely have one of the "local" teams that is involved and will draw 2000-3000 to the rink due to proximity and the fact that their team will be competing for an NCAA berth (which isn't the case right now). Is it a perfect scenario? Absolutely not, but it's what we've got to work with.