Big A HG Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 http://www.nmuhockey.net/?p=760 It sounds like most Northern Michigan fans and supporters were for NMU [re]joining the WCHA. However, the head honchos over there decided to stay put in the CCHA. What does this mean? With BSU all but in the WCHA, that leaves the WCHA with a probable 11 team conference. Many talks of either NMU or UNO joining the WCHA have been the main suggestions from our point of view. UNO stated a couple months ago that they were staying in the CCHA to maintain games against more recognizable schools to keep the fanbase interested (Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and even Miami to an extent). Now NMU is out of the mix. Who's next as a possibility? -Lake Superior State seems like the next best option. They are in the UP along with NMU and MTU and have had past success. -UAH still needs a home. Are we going to have to take them in as well as BSU, assuming we take BSU? -An 11 team conference isn't fair, but can be doable to an extent. I don't want to see this, but if it means keeping BSU, I feel it's worth it. -Does the WCHA look even farther east to lower Michigan to possible get an unlikely buyer? I doubt it would happen, but it doesn't hurt to ask (Ferris State, Western Mich, and Central Mich are in this category). Or, considering OSU is in the women's side of the WCHA, are they convinceable? It's unlikely considering their location and intrastate rivalry with Miami. -Do we unfortunately leave BSU in the dust to keep our own conference intact? -Is a Canadian team an answer to the riddle? Lots of questions are raised with this and only time will answer them. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxtimestwo Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 What would the arguments be against an 11-team league? I understand that once conference play begins, one team would always be left out, but teams already schedule non-conference games and have bye weeks once league play begins, so I don't see how that could be a gigantic problem. The conference schedule is already unbalanced, so it's not like BSU would mess that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxweet Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 http://www.nmuhockey.net/?p=760 It sounds like most Northern Michigan fans and supporters were for NMU [re]joining the WCHA. However, the head honchos over there decided to stay put in the CCHA. What does this mean? With BSU all but in the WCHA, that leaves the WCHA with a probable 11 team conference. Many talks of either NMU or UNO joining the WCHA have been the main suggestions from our point of view. UNO stated a couple months ago that they were staying in the CCHA to maintain games against more recognizable schools to keep the fanbase interested (Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and even Miami to an extent). Now NMU is out of the mix. Who's next as a possibility? -Lake Superior State seems like the next best option. They are in the UP along with NMU and MTU and have had past success. -UAH still needs a home. Are we going to have to take them in as well as BSU, assuming we take BSU? -An 11 team conference isn't fair, but can be doable to an extent. I don't want to see this, but if it means keeping BSU, I feel it's worth it. -Does the WCHA look even farther east to lower Michigan to possible get an unlikely buyer? I doubt it would happen, but it doesn't hurt to ask (Ferris State, Western Mich, and Central Mich are in this category). Or, considering OSU is in the women's side of the WCHA, are they convinceable? It's unlikely considering their location and intrastate rivalry with Miami. -Do we unfortunately leave BSU in the dust to keep our own conference intact? -Is a Canadian team an answer to the riddle? Lots of questions are raised with this and only time will answer them. Any thoughts? no frickin canadian teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A HG Posted April 4, 2009 Author Share Posted April 4, 2009 What would the arguments be against an 11-team league? I understand that once conference play begins, one team would always be left out, but teams already schedule non-conference games and have bye weeks once league play begins, so I don't see how that could be a gigantic problem. The conference schedule is already unbalanced, so it's not like BSU would mess that up. It's slightly unbalanced in an individual season, but over the course of four years it continues to cycle making it somewhat fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 What would the arguments be against an 11-team league? I understand that once conference play begins, one team would always be left out, but teams already schedule non-conference games and have bye weeks once league play begins, so I don't see how that could be a gigantic problem. The conference schedule is already unbalanced, so it's not like BSU would mess that up. The bottom line in this is that Bruce McLeod is against admitting Bemidji State into the league and he has latched onto this "we just cannot have an 11 team league because of scheduling problems" rationale to try to convince enough member schools to vote no. You need 8 of 10 schools to vote yes, which means the anti-expansion crowd only needs 3 no votes to kill it. I am convinced that McLeod is getting some heavy pressure from two schools in the league (I honestly don't know which ones; we can speculate all we want on that) to campaign against this proposal so that one more school votes no and therefore kills expansion (and the BSU hockey program). I don't want the league to get bigger (I think 10 is too big as it is), but letting the Bemidji State hockey program die is simply not an option. Period. It doesn't make "good business sense" or any other kind of sense. We should admit the Beavers right now and keep looking for #12. It will happen, just not right away. College hockey must maintain the health and vitality of programs like this to remain strong in the present and future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 no frickin canadian teams. I thought North Dakota was a Canadian team?? But yeah, the Canadians are coming...... Simon Fraser to apply to the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I thought North Dakota was a Canadian team?? But yeah, the Canadians are coming...... Simon Fraser to apply to the NCAA. Heh.... short term costs would be HUGE for Canadian teams though. All those ex-MJ players on their rosters... their recruiting column on Heisenberg would dwarf UW and UAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 That's past this year's NCAA application deadline, but UBC could still choose to apply for the following year. Maybe this is the 12th team in the WCHA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I thought North Dakota was a Canadian team?? But yeah, the Canadians are coming...... Simon Fraser to apply to the NCAA. OOH! THAT JOKE BOMBED!! Please forgive him...he's from Michigan! - AKA the "land of the lost!" and NO...some low-rent Canadian University who's ultimate goal is to land in the GNAC for fb? NEXT!!!!!! I'd take Bemidji State 10X over those hosers...although their MacIntosh Toffee (frozen) is quite delicious!...when it's frozen and easily crackable. (Just sayin') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianvf Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 their recruiting column on Heisenberg would dwarf UW... Impossible, I tell you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Heh.... short term costs would be HUGE for Canadian teams though. All those ex-MJ players on their rosters... their recruiting column on Heisenberg would dwarf UW and UAF. Well, If I recall correctly, any canadian team that goes D2 for their athletic department and then wants to add hockey would have to go thru an adjustment period, like at least a year where they could only operate as a "D2 hockey team". Thats what I recall from seeing Findlay's early years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I like 10, lets keep it as is. No way BSU is getting those 8 votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 i like 11 with BSU, just make it work!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 i like 11 with BSU, just make it work!! If the Commish can't find a way to make it work the member schools should hire someone that will or can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I like 10, lets keep it as is. No way BSU is getting those 8 votes. and you gleamed this information how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopherz Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 and you gleamed this information how? English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Goon likes things Mr. Clean-like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 English? Must be the Minnesota education: gleam - appear briefly; "A terrible thought gleamed in her mind" come along, appear - come into being or existence, or appear on the scene; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 If the Commish can't find a way to make it work the member schools should hire someone that will or can. If you need a second for this motion. Count me as an aye! I would rather go to a Sioux vs BSU game over UAA or MTU any day. IMHO, MTU should join the CCHA!! Also what will this do to the W/WCHA?? Would BSU drop womens hockey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 If you need a second for this motion. Count me as an aye! I would rather go to a Sioux vs BSU game over UAA or MTU any day. IMHO, MTU should join the CCHA!! Also what will this do to the W/WCHA?? Would BSU drop womens hockey? I can't remember the UAA games being all that exciting. Their program bores me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 uaa isnt goig anywhere and tech isnt either. just make it a 11 team league. its really not that hard to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I like 10, lets keep it as is. No way BSU is getting those 8 votes. Thats just pretty short sighted there ya rodent!! College hockey needs to keep some D1 teams around or else they're going to have to go back to 12 team regionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksioux Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I would rather go to a Sioux vs BSU game over UAA or MTU any day. UAA and MTU are not going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Folks, ... Talk's cheap; it takes money to buy whiskey. What WCHA people are saying publicly is one thing. How they vote is determined solely by the fiscal impacts (to themselves) that they perceive. Put another way? To see how this will play out just ... Follow the Benjamins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Folks, ... Talk's cheap; it takes money to buy whiskey. What WCHA people are saying publicly is one thing. How they vote is determined solely by the fiscal impacts (to themselves) that they perceive. Put another way? To see how this will play out just ... Follow the Benjamins. In that case, the logical vote is yes. Because if we keep losing programs, we will go back to a 12 team NCAA tournament instead of the 16 team field we fought so long to get. Fewer playoff spots mean less $$$ for programs that would otherwise have gotten in. Another point to consider: If schools start thinking entirely in terms of what's in it for them and nothing else, college hockey as a whole is in big trouble. There is strength in numbers, especially in sports. Letting programs die an untimely death will weaken college hockey as a whole and cause a whole laundry list of problems in the future. If Bruce McLeod wants to maintain "good business sense" in making decisions as commissioner, he should consider these points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.