sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Yeah...they would have great players for 4 years instead of one or two!! It would be nice from a fan's perspective if their college heroes would stay in school for 4 years instead of cutting out early. Up until 1972, I think, collegiate football & basketball players could not turn pro before their graduating class: Wilt Chamberlin, for example, played his freshman season on the Kansas jv team, his next 2 years on the varsity team & played on the Harlem Globetrotters (nonprofessional) his senior season before going pro with Philadelphia. I'm unsure if college hockey players had to abide by the same rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 You want college hockey players to play for the Harlem Globetrotters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux fan in phoenix Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Somehow I can't imagine Brady Murray flying above the rim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarce Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Uhhhhh, actually they have made rule changes to make it more difficult for teams that peak at the end of the season to make the NCAA field. They no longer consider "record over last 15 games" as criteria for deciding who stays and who goes. Ask any Dogs fan. Peaking at the end is only good if you go all the way in the conference tourney. It was rather difficult seeing 4 teams from the WCHA, (three of whom the Dogs beat in the final 11 games of the season: UM once, SCSU twice, UND twice + one tie) get in and the Dogs left out in the cold, despite peaking when teams are supposed to peak. So don't tell me that it is "set up" to reward late peaking teams...you're just pouring salt in the wound, man!! I said playoffs, not regular season. We all no the dogs got screwed last year, but had they made it through into the NCAA PLAYOFFS, they may have one it all as well! : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 This is a great statement about college hockey. Many people say college is a better game to watch because there is less hooking and holding (I happen to agree). Also, people like college because players tend to stay in one place and have some connection to the city for which they are playing. Again apparently you haven't watch a few of the WCHA's mediocre teams ie: SCSU, MSU-M, UAA, MTU, Duluth all hook and hold and clutch and grab because can't keep up with teams like UND. So that statment isn't all that accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMDDogz Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Again apparently you haven't watch a few of the WCHA's mediocre teams ie: SCSU, MSU-M, UAA, MTU, Duluth all hook and hold and clutch and grab because can't keep up with teams like UND. You have a strange impression of mediocrity. SCSU and UMD are ahead/tied with the Sioux in the WCHA standings. Right now, I would put Minnesota in UMD's place on that list! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarce Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 You have a strange impression of mediocrity. SCSU and UMD are ahead/tied with the Sioux in the WCHA standings. Right now, I would put Minnesota in UMD's place on that list! I agree with dogs (Did I just say that). If anything there is more parity in the WCHA than any league and I would say easily the toughest conference. I have stated on this post and others that the biggest competition the Sioux will have this year is not so much the other team, but taking the other team lightly. Every Sioux fan wants to think that teams like AA and Michigan Tech are cupcake, but go out and look at those teams stats and what they have done to the so called better teams in the WCHA. They have played them tough and been in just about everygame. You may call it clutch and grab, but I call it different styles that give you the WIN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMDDogz Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 Again apparently you haven't watch a few of the WCHA's mediocre teams ie: UAA ....hook and hold and clutch and grab because can't keep up with teams like UND. Hey Goon...Who swept Colorado College this weekend?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted December 14, 2003 Share Posted December 14, 2003 I am a fan of both college and NHL hockey, but I prefer college hockey better. I think, though, that ones enjoyment of the game comes with how much effort you wish to put forth in rooting for whichever team is playing. In the NHL, I find I am very picking in watching games. If I don't like either team, the game is hard to watch. For example: Try watching the New York Rangers vs Colorado Avalanche. To me, this matchup sucks. I dislike both teams. In college hockey, it's much different. It's why I prefer college sports over pro sports in general. Players are playing for tommorrow. They can't slack off because they never know when a scout will be watching them, regardless of whether or not they know a scout is at the arena at all. They want to keep playing and those who don't do not get ice time. Also, the players have a guaranteed fanbase. No fan base is more adament for their team than a college athletics program (You could make arguments about the Packers, Cubs, Yankees, and Lakers, but even sociologists who have studied fans and their teams do not understand some of that (Cubs for example. Explain why almost perenial cellar dwellers always sell out on season tickets?)). College students have ownership in the college teams because the athletes are students as well. All of this builds an atmosphere. P.S. To the fellow who talked about the 'new' teams and not being able to get into them: One should note that the Hurricanes, Coyotes, and Avalanche are not new teams. The Hurricanes used to be the Hartford Whalers. The Phoenix Coyotes used to be the Winnipeg Jets. The Avalanche used to be the Quebec Nordiques. Even the Stars used to be the Minnesota North Stars. So, I wouldn't really call Minnesota's team a "new team" either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Somehow I can't imagine Brady Murray flying above the rim Me either...but I bet Bina can I liked them a lot better as the Whalers. Same goes for the Coyotes and Avalanche... I liked them a lot better as the Jets and Nordiques. I like the Stars a lot better as the North Stars too. Overall, I love hockey. I can watch any level from high school to college to the NHL. Though there's something about college sports that I just love. There's a ton of pride involved that you just don't see at any other level. There is also a lot more atmosphere at these games than at an NHL or high school game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 If anything there is more parity in the WCHA than any league and I would say easily the toughest conference. I could not agree with you more. There will always be teams that are always in the top 5-4 of the WCHA (UM, UND to name 2), but some years one of the lower 5 (MTU last year, JBSU a few years ago) pops up and surprises everyone! WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Good point, but at least the Stars didn't completely change their identity. They simply dropped the word "North" and kept the same jerseys they had worn the last couple of years in Minnesota. It would be about the same as the Vikings moving to a different city and changing their name to "Vikes". Everybody who liked the North Stars simply referred to them as "Stars" anyways, so to me it wasn't such a drastic change. It's a bummer that they moved to Dallas, but I still like them better than the Wild. I grew up with the Stars, I didn't grow up with the Wild. I'm actually a Penguins fan, but I always liked the Stars and Jets and secondary teams. As a cubs fan, I can wish you the best as a Penguins fan. They're gonna be the cellar dwellars for a while... as long as the money is not there anyways. It's sad to say this, but what does the future hold for Pittsburgh? No one comes to the games, no one cares. No money. Doesn't bode well for them. If I were Andy Schneider with too much time on my hands, I'd worry about that draft status or hope for a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skateshattrick Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I much prefer college hockey, and there are many reasons: 1. There is less clutching, holding and interference, which means the game is faster, despite the fact that the skill level is not as high 2. There is very little fighting in college because the consequences are so severe. I understand that fighting is to protect the stars, but it is unnecessary and stupid to the extent it occurs in the NHL, and there are ways to eliminate cheap shots without resorting to fighting. 3. Checking from behind, spearing and kneeing, are very rare in college hockey, and if it does occur, usually results in a major penalty and even an ejection rather than a 2 minute minor for "boarding" or "tripping". 4. The worst rule at any level is the NHL rule prohibiting 2 line passes. College allows 2 line passes which means more wide open play and odd man rushes. 5. There are no Olympic sized rinks in the pros, which also opens up the passing and skating game. This is a matter of preference, but I prefer the European style over the old Broad Street Bullies style of hockey. I also disagree that the NHL is a faster game. The skill level is obviously higher, but there is more room for the big lumbering slow skaters than in college hockey. The fastest players in college are often the fastest in the pros. Doug Smail and Jason Blake are prime examples. On the other hand, Murray Baron was an average college hockey player with slow feet. He wasn't even in the same class as his defensive partner at UND, Russ Parent. Russ Parent was too small for the pros, however, and Baron is still playing because he is big and physical. The NHL is more about size than it is about speed. Another example is Jay Caufield, the ex UND football player who was not good enough for college hockey, but because he was 6'5" 230 lbs, he survived for several years in the NHL as an enforcer. I would rather watch a Sioux hockey game against any college team than a pro game. The pro game is boring, and will continue to be boring, until they learn to open up the game by eliminating the 2 line pass rule, clean up the fighting and interference, and emphasize speed and passing ala the Edmonton Oilers of the Gretzky era. It has gotten better because of the European influence, but where would the game be without Naslund, Federov, Jagr, Lidstrom and Forsberg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFarce Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I like all the points brought up. Here is a different way of looking at the question. Most of you say you prefer the college game over the pros. I would guess a good number of you have the opportunity to watch the Sioux whether in person or on tv/satelite. The hidden message I seem to be hearing is that you prefer the college game because it is the Sioux that you are watching play everyone else. So is it more exciting to watch Bemidji State vs. Alabama- Huntsville or the Wild play Detroit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The problem I'm seeing more and more in the NHL is low scoring games. The worst part is that they aren't good goalie duels filled with many spectacular saves. Many NHL teams just can't get shots off. If you don't shoot, you don't score. Dallas just tied an alltime futility streak of scoring 1 goal or less for 7 straight games. And they are supposed to be one of the more talented teams. Seeing blowouts gets old as well (unless its your team), but I don't think 2-4 goals for each team is too much to ask. Just too many good goalies. 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.