tnt Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 And a lot of UND fans are blaming UM and UW when in reality they had no choice, while UND DID have a choice. I have NO problem at all with UND's decision but they certainly had a choice unlike UM and UW. So if Moorhead State starts up hockey, you are giving UND credit for growing college hockey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Five Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Certainly isn't UMNs fault that Penn State started a program that made this thing a go from the start. Anyway, pointing fingers does nothing. I'm missing Bison-Sioux football games, I hope the same doesn't happen to Gophers-Sioux hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxFanatic Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 And a lot of UND fans are blaming UM and UW when in reality they had no choice, while UND DID have a choice. I have NO problem at all with UND's decision but they certainly had a choice unlike UM and UW. And why is it that Gopher fans always like to include UW when saying they didn't have a choice? Wisconsin fans may not have wanted to leave but Wisconsin's AD was a major proponent of the BTHC. So yeah, they had a choice and they chose BTHC. Your response would've been just fine if you stuck with just saying Minnesota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If Mankato, ST. Cloud and Bemidji had wanted to join the NCHC was the invitation even there or were they never a part of the picture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 So if Moorhead State starts up hockey, you are giving UND credit for growing college hockey? No and I wont blame UND if this move has a negative affect on college hockey either. UND has to look out for themselves first and because they were pro-active they will be part of what looks to be an elite conference for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Certainly isn't UMNs fault that Penn State started a program that made this thing a go from the start. Anyway, pointing fingers does nothing. I'm missing Bison-Sioux football games, I hope the same doesn't happen to Gophers-Sioux hockey. I think its inevitable that the rivalry will suffer some which just sucks. But things change and there's no doubt that Michigan will quickly turn into a major rival of ours which I look forward to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 And a lot of UND fans are blaming UM and UW when in reality they had no choice, while UND DID have a choice. I have NO problem at all with UND's decision but they certainly had a choice unlike UM and UW. Would there have been a Big Ten Hockey Conference if Minnesota and Wisconsin said they weren't interested? Would the other 4 teams have formed the league without them? Minnesota and Wisconsin are not as innocent in this as you guys like to portray, they knew what was going on and they went along with it, they didn't go kicking and screaming. What was the Big Ten going to do if they said no...kick them out of the Big Ten Conference for all sports? Not hardly. They made a decision based on their circumstances, and it was probably the right decision for them. Because of that decision, UND and the 5 (so far) others made a decision based on their circumstances, and it was probably the right decision for them. Because of those decisions, the WCHA and CCHA will now be forced to make decisions of their own, and hopefully they will make correct decisions too. I'm not blaming anybody for how this has transpired, in the end every school has to do what is in its best interests, but I'm sick of hearing the "poor Minnesota and Wisconsin got kidnapped but North Dakota ruined college hockey" line, it's a bunch of bullsh^t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If Mankato, ST. Cloud and Bemidji had wanted to join the NCHC was the invitation even there or were they never a part of the picture? If the idea is to add schools that are "likable" to Notre Dame - academically and DI - so that Notre Dame (and maybe other higher profile schools in the West later) would join, no Minnesota State school would be acceptable. Miami - DI, high academics - check Denver - DI, high academics - check CC - DIII, high academics - partial check UNO - DI, commuter school - partial check (rushed through a DI acceptance to make UNO acceptable?) UMD - DII, decent academics - partial check - but don't be surprised if UMD needs to pursue DI as part of this deal UND - DI, Tier 1 - check All the Mn State school don't pass any of these tests. Before there is a smirk, look at the Big East. A number of its schools are rated lower than UND/Miami/Denver: West Virginia, Louisville, Villanova, Providence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 And a lot of UND fans are blaming UM and UW when in reality they had no choice, while UND DID have a choice. I have NO problem at all with UND's decision but they certainly had a choice unlike UM and UW. Alvarez was pushing a Big Ten confederation with Miami, WMU, and Bowling Green well before Terry Pegula ever gave his Penn State contribution. Big Ten hockey in some type form has been on Delany's checklist ever since the Big Ten Network was formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Would there have been a Big Ten Hockey Conference if Minnesota and Wisconsin said they weren't interested? Would the other 4 teams have formed the league without them? Minnesota and Wisconsin are not as innocent in this as you guys like to portray, they knew what was going on and they went along with it, they didn't go kicking and screaming. What was the Big Ten going to do if they said no...kick them out of the Big Ten Conference for all sports? Not hardly. They made a decision based on their circumstances, and it was probably the right decision for them. Because of that decision, UND and the 5 (so far) others made a decision based on their circumstances, and it was probably the right decision for them. Because of those decisions, the WCHA and CCHA will now be forced to make decisions of their own, and hopefully they will make correct decisions too. I'm not blaming anybody for how this has transpired, in the end every school has to do what is in its best interests, but I'm sick of hearing the "poor Minnesota and Wisconsin got kidnapped but North Dakota ruined college hockey" line, it's a bunch of bullsh^t. Theoretically, yes we had a choice. In reality we did not and you know it. And Sioux fans must have voices in their heads because I just dont see the outrage directed at UND that you claim exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxFanatic Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Theoretically, yes we had a choice. In reality we did not and you know it. And Sioux fans must have voices in their heads because I just dont see the outrage directed at UND that you claim exists. You are kidding right? Do you need someone to link you to all the threads on USCHO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You are kidding right? Do you need someone to link you to all the threads on USCHO? I dont read that website often, but even so that is a tiny percentage of college hockey fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernmn Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Would there have been a Big Ten Hockey Conference if Minnesota and Wisconsin said they weren't interested? Would the other 4 teams have formed the league without them? Minnesota and Wisconsin are not as innocent in this as you guys like to portray, they knew what was going on and they went along with it, they didn't go kicking and screaming. What was the Big Ten going to do if they said no...kick them out of the Big Ten Conference for all sports? Not hardly. Thats exactly what would have happened. The University of Minnesota is a member of the Big 10, not just the football or baseball, etc teams. To assume that it was even an option for the University as a whole to tell the Big 10 they were dropping out so that their hockey tem could remain in the WCHA, just plain defies any commom sense. The tail (and in this case a very nubby tail) doesn't wag the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runninwiththedogs Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If the idea is to add schools that are "likable" to Notre Dame - academically and DI - so that Notre Dame (and maybe other higher profile schools in the West later) would join, no Minnesota State school would be acceptable. Miami - DI, high academics - check Denver - DI, high academics - check CC - DIII, high academics - partial check UNO - DI, commuter school - partial check (rushed through a DI acceptance to make UNO acceptable?) UMD - DII, decent academics - partial check - but don't be surprised if UMD needs to pursue DI as part of this deal UND - DI, Tier 1 - check All the Mn State school don't pass any of these tests. Before there is a smirk, look at the Big East. A number of its schools are rated lower than UND/Miami/Denver: West Virginia, Louisville, Villanova, Providence. You're missing the key component which I think is the ability and willingness to spend money. Goon touched on that earlier, but SCSU's athletic department is in such a tenuous position that they almost dropped football. Starting this league is going to be cost money. I don't think SCSU, MSUM, etc have the money. I'm surprised UMD does, honestly. The NCHL has no money, it's being fronted by the member schools, whereas the WCHA itself has revenue. (I don't know how they make their money other than the Final Five, but whatever.) SCSU doesn't have the budget flexibility to pay for the costs of these PR firms, hiring a commissioner, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Thats exactly what would have happened. The University of Minnesota is a member of the Big 10, not just the football or baseball, etc teams. To assume that it was even an option for the University as a whole to tell the Big 10 they were dropping out so that their hockey tem could remain in the WCHA, must plain defies any commom sense. The tail (and in this case a very nubby tail) doesn't wag the dog. Exactly. It's crazy for Sioux fans to rationalize to the point of actually believing that Minnesota, a Big Ten member, could tell the Big Ten we wont be in their hockey conference. Ultimately I think these changes will be good for college hockey. It just seems like it makes more sense now. Big Ten hockey schools actually playing each other on a regular basis makes sense. Elite programs like UND and DU in another conference with some other very good programs makes sense. The fact that the brand of the Big Ten is now a part of college hockey will be great for exposure. And if there's any truth to the Versus(NBC sports) rumors about the NCHC then that will be huge for the sport as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Thats exactly what would have happened. The University of Minnesota is a member of the Big 10, not just the football or baseball, etc teams. To assume that it was even an option for the University as a whole to tell the Big 10 they were dropping out so that their hockey tem could remain in the WCHA, just plain defies any commom sense. The tail (and in this case a very nubby tail) doesn't wag the dog. So you're saying they were forced to drop out of their current hockey conferences and join the new BTHC...OR get kicked out of the Big Ten for all sports? Really? You would have to provide a source for that statement to have any credibility at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Exactly. It's crazy for Sioux fans to rationalize to the point of actually believing that Minnesota, a Big Ten member, could tell the Big Ten we wont be in their hockey conference. Ultimately I think these changes will be good for college hockey. It just seems like it makes more sense now. Big Ten hockey schools actually playing each other on a regular basis makes sense. Elite programs like UND and DU in another conference with some other very good programs makes sense. The fact that the brand of the Big Ten is now a part of college hockey will be great for exposure. And if there's any truth to the Versus(NBC sports) rumors about the NCHC then that will be huge for the sport as well. But they could stand up for themselves and maybe other schools (other than Wisconsin) could tell the Big Ten "no" to the new conference, remember Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan St had voices and as far as I know Barry Alverez doesn't run those schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Did Minnesota and Wisconsin put forth the proposal to remove the "if six play the sport we play as Big Ten" rule from the Big Ten rulebooks? If they couldn't affect the whole rule, did they put forth a proposal to exempt hockey from the rule? It's a Big Ten rule. They could change it, or they could ignore it like the Big Ten does with some NCAA rules (see: Ohio State football). But we never heard about UMTC or UW even trying. They just went merrily along. And try to blame UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Exactly. It's crazy for Sioux fans to rationalize to the point of actually believing that Minnesota, a Big Ten member, could tell the Big Ten we wont be in their hockey conference. That's not the point of the argument, it's not that they joined the BTHC that bothers people, it was probably the right move, it's that they act like they had no part or idea or choice about its development. Do you really believe that the 2 best teams with the most prestigious college hockey background of the 6 weren't instrumental in its forming? They had a big part and everybody knows it, so for people to play the 'poor Minnesota' card grinds on people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 And a lot of UND fans are blaming UM and UW when in reality they had no choice, while UND DID have a choice. I have NO problem at all with UND's decision but they certainly had a choice unlike UM and UW. Here we go again if you say it enough times maybe it will become true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckysieve Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Here we go again if you say it enough times maybe it will become true. Thats because what I said is 100% true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernmn Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 So you're saying they were forced to drop out of their current hockey conferences and join the new BTHC...OR get kicked out of the Big Ten for all sports? Really? You would have to provide a source for that statemnet to have any credibility at all. Seriously ?? What part of "UNIVERISTY" being a member of the Big 10 don't you understand ? The individual Universities don't get to pick and choose where they want to play. Once the BTHC came to be, it was a done deal. The only reason these 5 Univeristies did not play in the same conference is because the Big 10 didn't have one. Do you seriously think Ohio State is free to join a another conference in football if they desired ?? BTW.........I HATE the idea of the BTHC more than you can even imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Either: a) State that they're a go b) State that if they get money right away they'll go really soon c) State that they can't do it. I'm really out there on a limb with that, aren't I? b) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 b) I haven't heard the whole thing, but what I did hear is that they have $15M in soft money at this point shooting for a total of $37M in the next 3 months to move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Seriously ?? What part of "UNIVERISTY" being a memeber of the Big 10 don't you understand ? The individual Universities don't get to pick and choose where they want to play. Once the BTHC came to be, it was a done deal. The only reason these 5 Univeristies did not play in the same conference is because the Big 10 didn't have one. Do you seriously think Ohio State is free to join a another conference in football if they desired ?? BTW.........I HATE the idea of the BTHC more than you can even imagine. So if the Big Sky picks up hockey in a few years, UND will be obligated to drop out of the new conference and play hockey in the Big Sky or get kicked out in all sports? I don't think they can force a team to move from an established conference to a new conference of their creation by force, but again, if you can provide that from the Big Ten bylaws it would be helpful. 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.