Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
watchmaker49

Why Are There 16 Teams in the Tournament?

Recommended Posts

Perhaps not, but great goaltending and a timely goal sure can make players a little more confident or less confident depending on which team is getting those. Let's face it, with the elite teams, the talent is there, it's just a matter of when/if it comes through. Just because BC has had UND's number doesn't necessarily mean Minnesota follows suit. Certain teams have a nemesis, Minnesota's has been Denver lately, and ours has been BC. I would imagine that if BC jumped on them early, it could hurt the confidence of Minnesota, however if Minnesota puts one in early, they could ride Patterson's goaltending. It would have been nice for UND to score the first goal against Minnesota in the rematch to see how they responded, but it didn't happen, so I think it will be interesting in this game as well.

The Eagles didn't give up a single goal in their regional. Nadda. Nothing. ZERO. And they haven't lost a game in a long time. I know that doesn't guarrantee a win next week, but they will be tough to beat. I know I would be worried if UND had won last weekend and was "rewarded" with a match-up with Boston College.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eagles didn't give up a single goal in their regional. Nadda. Nothing. ZERO. And they haven't lost a game in a long time. I know that doesn't guarrantee a win next week, but they will be tough to beat.

Last year, UND came into the Frozen Four on a 15-game unbeaten streak. Our performance in the regionals was even more dominating, with a 12-1 combined score.

But, as we all know, "Hockey is a funny game."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, UND came into the Frozen Four on a 15-game unbeaten streak. Our performance in the regionals was even more dominating, with a 12-1 combined score.

But, as we all know, "Hockey is a funny game."

Boston College is the team we were in the late 1990's and early 2000's. They cash in when they have the goods and I think this year's team definitely has the goods. I am predicting a Boston College-Union final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a Gopher fan ask me the other day if I was "supporting the WCHA" by cheering for the Gophers. Almost had to laugh at the idea of supporting the conference, the same conference that Minnesota has helped to destroy as we currently know it. No thanks, Mr. Arnold, I want to see a Boston College smackdown next weekend.

Again, Minnesota literally had no choice once the Big Ten made THEIR decision to start a hockey conference. None.

As far as the game goes, if the Gophers play well, the way they played in the regional then they have a great chance of beating BC. It certainly wouldn't be as big an upset as Michigan over the Sioux last year or MSU over BC a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston College is the team we were in the late 1990's and early 2000's. They cash in when they have the goods and I think this year's team definitely has the goods. I am predicting a Boston College-Union final.

BC since '98 has been to seven Frozen Fours, winning three titles. The Gophers have been to three Frozen Fours in that time period, winning two titles. BC has lost to UND, UW, MSU and Michigan in the finals, but only twice have they lost in the semis. I truly wish the Gophers played them in the second game of the weekend, because for whatever weird reason the Gophers have been great on Saturdays all year. Not nearly as consistant on Fridays. However as someone pointed out, I think the first goal will win the Gophers/BC tilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Minnesota literally had no choice once the Big Ten made THEIR decision to start a hockey conference. None.

Your spin:

Minnesota isn't an influential member of the Big Can't-Count?

Minnesota just sat back and was victimized by the dominant Big Can't-Count hockey powers of Penn State and Ohio State?

Oh the humanity. :silly:

Reality:

Minnesota is a voting member of the Big Ten.

They voted and for that they own the decision.

Minnesota is part of the "THEIR" you speak of.

Goldie's prints are on the smoking gun of WCHA assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your spin:

Minnesota isn't an influential member of the Big Can't-Count?

Minnesota just sat back and was victimized by the dominant Big Can't-Count hockey powers of Penn State and Ohio State?

Oh the humanity. :silly:

Reality:

Minnesota is a voting member of the Big Ten.

They voted and for that they own the decision.

Minnesota is part of the "THEIR" you speak of.

Goldie's prints are on the smoking gun of WCHA assassination.

Fine if you want to convince yourself that Minnesota actually had a choice to spurn the Big Ten and stay in the WCHA go ahead. It's an illogical opinion based on the facts but you're entitled to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would end the practice of individual schools hosting regionals, but let the conferences act as hosts, with the top seeded team from the conference placed in that regional. It would be easier then to keep bracket integrity and make it less common that seeds 8-16 get placed at home automatically.

If true this year here is the bracket

BC v AF

UMTC v BU

UND v WMU*

Miami v Mass Lowell

Mich v Cornell*

UMD v Maine

Union v Mich St*

Ferris v Den

*changes made to avoid 1st round conf matchups.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine if you want to convince yourself that Minnesota actually had a choice to spurn the Big Ten and stay in the WCHA go ahead. It's an illogical opinion based on the facts but you're entitled to it.

The Big Ten has rules. They made them. And (critical item to follow, pay attention) they can change them. The "if six member play the sport we must play as the Big Ten" answer is a ruse. It's a Big Ten rule. The Big Ten could've made an exception to it for hockey. (They make their own rules remember.)

If the hockey wing of the Big Ten really, really didn't want to create the BTHC they would've lobbied to create a Big Ten exception for hockey (and the status quo could've held). That didn't happen.

Given all that, I believe it's logical to conclude that if Minnesota and Wisconsin had said that they weren't interested in creating a Big 10 hockey conference (for whatever reason, traditional rivals, the good of the college game, better travel budgets for UMn), it wouldn't exist. And accordingly, the National Collegiate Hockey Conference wouldn't exist, either.

But then again, I can't expect people who fail to comprehend the great irony of Wally Shaver's "go form your own league" comment to get this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly wouldn't be as big an upset as Michigan over the Sioux last year or MSU over BC a few years ago.

I love it when Gopher fans consider the Michigan win over North Dakota last year on par with such upsets as MSU over BC...it's hardly that caliber or even Harvard over Minnesota circa 1989.

Michigan over UND last year is NOWHERE NEAR the upset that Michigan State was over Boston College several years ago.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Ten has rules. They made them. And (critical item to follow, pay attention) they can change them. The "if six member play the sport we must play as the Big Ten" answer is a ruse. It's a Big Ten rule. The Big Ten could've made an exception to it for hockey. (They make their own rules remember.)

If the hockey wing of the Big Ten really, really didn't want to create the BTHC they would've lobbied to create a Big Ten exception for hockey (and the status quo could've held). That didn't happen.

Given all that, I believe it's logical to conclude that if Minnesota and Wisconsin had said that they weren't interested in creating a Big 10 hockey conference (for whatever reason, traditional rivals, the good of the college game, better travel budgets for UMn), it wouldn't exist. And accordingly, the National Collegiate Hockey Conference wouldn't exist, either.

But then again, I can't expect people who fail to comprehend the great irony of Wally Shaver's "go form your own league" comment to get this.

It is possible that Minnesota didn't want to leave the WCHA and form the Big 10 conference. Barry Alvarez from Wisconsin seemed to be very vocal about supporting the Big 10. Of course Penn State would support it, and it makes sense that Ohio State and at least Michigan would probably want to stick together. Those 4 schools could put the deal together over objections from Minnesota, if Minnesota objected. Maturi and Lucia have seemed to be less enthused about switching conferences. Without direct confirmation it would be hard to know for sure whether Minnesota was in favor of starting the hockey conference or whether they wanted to keep the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Ten has rules. They made them. And (critical item to follow, pay attention) they can change them. The "if six member play the sport we must play as the Big Ten" answer is a ruse. It's a Big Ten rule. The Big Ten could've made an exception to it for hockey. (They make their own rules remember.)

If the hockey wing of the Big Ten really, really didn't want to create the BTHC they would've lobbied to create a Big Ten exception for hockey (and the status quo could've held). That didn't happen.

Given all that, I believe it's logical to conclude that if Minnesota and Wisconsin had said that they weren't interested in creating a Big 10 hockey conference (for whatever reason, traditional rivals, the good of the college game, better travel budgets for UMn), it wouldn't exist. And accordingly, the National Collegiate Hockey Conference wouldn't exist, either.

But then again, I can't expect people who fail to comprehend the great irony of Wally Shaver's "go form your own league" comment to get this.

Your right, the Big Ten has rules ( Bylaws) and they could have changed them BUT they didn't thus Minnesota and Wisconsin had no choice but to join the Big Ten hockey conference. Minnesota's AD ( Maturi) is on record saying he didn't want to join the Big Ten hockey conference but as a member of the Big Ten he had no choice. Wisconsin's AD ( Alvarez) on the other hand was full in favor of Wisconsin joining the Big Ten hockey conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Ten has rules. They made them. And (critical item to follow, pay attention) they can change them. The "if six member play the sport we must play as the Big Ten" answer is a ruse. It's a Big Ten rule. The Big Ten could've made an exception to it for hockey. (They make their own rules remember.)

If the hockey wing of the Big Ten really, really didn't want to create the BTHC they would've lobbied to create a Big Ten exception for hockey (and the status quo could've held). That didn't happen.

Given all that, I believe it's logical to conclude that if Minnesota and Wisconsin had said that they weren't interested in creating a Big 10 hockey conference (for whatever reason, traditional rivals, the good of the college game, better travel budgets for UMn), it wouldn't exist. And accordingly, the National Collegiate Hockey Conference wouldn't exist, either.

But then again, I can't expect people who fail to comprehend the great irony of Wally Shaver's "go form your own league" comment to get this.

UND and Denver made a choice, they decided to form a new league and leave the WCHA. You can not deny that as it is fact. Look in the mirror when you talk about the current state of the WCHA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UND and Denver made a choice, they decided to form a new league and leave the WCHA. You can not deny that as it is fact. Look in the mirror when you talk about the current state of the WCHA.

I'll concur with that. North Dakota would have done just as well to stay in the WCHA and invite Miami and Western Michigan along with LSSU, Northern Michigan, and the several other schools left in the CCHA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic check: Remember its ok for the B1G to improve their lot in the college hockey world, not O.K. for the NCHC teams to want to improve their lot. No offense but the WCHA in its present form when PSU decided to add hockey. The WCHA minus Minnesota and Wisconsin isn't very attractive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic check: Remember its ok for the B1G to improve their lot in the college hockey world, not O.K. for the NCHC teams to want to improve their lot. No offense but the WCHA in its present form when PSU decided to add hockey. The WCHA minus Minnesota and Wisconsin isn't very attractive.

Exactly, quite the double standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UND and Denver made a choice, they decided to form a new league and leave the WCHA. You can not deny that as it is fact. Look in the mirror when you talk about the current state of the WCHA.

Yes, that's a fact.

It's also a fact that it was the second domino to fall after Minnesota and Wisconsin and the Big Ten knocked over the first domino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's a fact.

It's also a fact that it was the second domino to fall after the Big Ten knocked over the first domino.

Fixed your post. You keep implying those two schools actually had a choice which is just baffling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed your post. You keep implying those two schools actually had a choice which is just baffling to me.

If that is the case, then why are gopher fans mad at Barry Alvarez?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of off-topic, Buckysieve, I can only assume that your signature line "Lucia 2 NCAA titles > Hakstol 0 NCAA titles" line means that you're back on board with all things happy-go-lucky at Minnesota as opposed to wanting him canned after the performance of the past three years.

Minnesota and Wisconsin certainly did have a choice. And that choice was Penn State over UMD, St Cloud, North Dakota, etc...

Administration's decision aside, I didn't talk to a single Minnesota fan at the WCHA Final Five who is in favor of Minnesota moving to the Big 10. I know that that number isn't an exact science, but I think true hockey fans understand what rivalry means. I will give Gopher hockey fans credit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WCHA breaking up is in my opinion mostly the Big Ten's doing. It is the Big Ten's mandate that demands the Gophers (grudgingly) and Wisconsin (gleefully) join the Big Ten Hockey Conference. The Gophers loved the WCHA because they get lots of games with Minnesota teams which means nice crowds and cheap travel. UW probably hated the repetitive playing of the small MN schools. UW sees it's peers as MSU, Mich, Ohio St., etc... and games vs. Mankato, Duluth, SCSU, Bemidji are beneath them.

The only way the WCHA could have survived and people laughed when I said it years ago, would have been to send UW to the CCHA a long time ago. They could have played the big time football programs and the WCHA would have taken Omaha in return. Things didn't work out.

Nobody that got into the Big Ten or the "super" league will suffer much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...