The Sicatoka Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 You keep implying those two schools actually had a choice ... There's always a choice, and Minnesota and Wisconsin made the "go along get along" one. <domino falls> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 If that is the case, then why are gopher fans mad at Barry Alvarez? Because Alvarez is the one that pushed for this and Maturi pushed to NOT leave the WCHA. This is one situation we can't blame on Minnesota. It is the people in charge in Madison, WI that helped make this whole thing happen. I do not blame Gopher fans for being ticked off about this, as I am also not happy about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I will only say that we discussed that there was a distinct possibility of a so-called "Super League" should the Big Ten decide to form a hockey conference. In effect, I am sure that the powers that be in the Big Ten knew that this was a probability and what the trickle down would be. Knowing that, they still didn't put any backbone behind preventing it from happening. If you know the consequences, yet still decide to go down that road as a conference -- I would say that you share in a large part of the blame. Now, blame could become kudos if it expands the growth of college hockey and draws more casual fans and T.V. exposure, but for those of us that grew up with the natural rivalries we have now it sure doesn't feel like much good can come of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Because Alvarez is the one that pushed for this and Maturi pushed to NOT leave the WCHA. This is one situation we can't blame on Minnesota. It is the people in charge in Madison, WI that helped make this whole thing happen. I do not blame Gopher fans for being ticked off about this, as I am also not happy about it. My point was that if Minnesota and Wisconsin could do nothing about the league forming, then Barry Alvarez wouldn't have been able to do one thing either- one way or the other. According to those arguing "nothing they could do", Barry Alvarez wouldn't have had a say in the league forming, except if he was the one that paid the money to get Penn State hockey going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 ... I am sure that the powers that be in the Big Ten knew that this was a probability and what the trickle down would be... I doubt the power brokers in the Big Ten knew or cared what would happen to the WCHA after the Gophers and UW left. All they care about is programming for the BTN and maximizing the BTN revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The B1G was formed because with PSU there will now be 6 B1G teams. Barry Alvarez has been trying to start a B1G hockey conference for many years, he's the driver behind this whole thing because he "Doesn't want to be seen playing small schools" all the time (i.e.- SCSU, UMD, CC, MSUM, etc.). Minnesota, however, has never wanted to join the B1G. Lucia and Maturi are BOTH on record saying that it would be bad for the sport and that Minnesota liked what they had in the WCHA. I personally talked to Maturi about it and told him that it's stupid if it's being done for money and Maturi told me that Minnesota will actually probably make less money in the B1G conference than the WCHA. I then asked him if there was any way they could stop the team from joining the B1G hockey conference and he told me that since Minnesota is a B1G member school that they're required to join the conference whether they want to or not. You can blame it on Minnesota all you want, but the 100% truth is that they were dragged into it against their will. The only ones to blame in this entire mess are Alvarez and Terry Pegula. I'm not sure how Michigan and Michigan State view it, I'd never heard anything from their coaches or AD's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I doubt the power brokers in the Big Ten knew or cared what would happen to the WCHA after the Gophers and UW left. All they care about is programming for the BTN and maximising the BTN revenue. I can see them not caring, but if they didn't know, then that would be a direct indictment on those that purported to want to stay in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 The B1G was formed because with PSU there will now be 6 B1G teams. Barry Alvarez has been trying to start a B1G hockey conference for many years, he's the driver behind this whole thing because he "Doesn't want to be seen playing small schools" all the time (i.e.- SCSU, UMD, CC, MSUM, etc.). Minnesota, however, has never wanted to join the B1G. Lucia and Maturi are BOTH on record saying that it would be bad for the sport and that Minnesota liked what they had in the WCHA. I personally talked to Maturi about it and told him that it's stupid if it's being done for money and Maturi told me that Minnesota will actually probably make less money in the B1G conference than the WCHA. I then asked him if there was any way they could stop the team from joining the B1G hockey conference and he told me that since Minnesota is a B1G member school that they're required to join the conference whether they want to or not. You can blame it on Minnesota all you want, but the 100% truth is that they were dragged into it against their will. The only ones to blame in this entire mess are Alvarez and Terry Pegula. I'm not sure how Michigan and Michigan State view it, I'd never heard anything from their coaches or AD's. Once again, how can it be the fault of Barry Alvarez when you argue there was nothing Wisconsin or Minnesota could do to prevent it? To me that is just two-sided talk. Whether Alvarez was for it and Lucia was against it shouldn't matter if it was a given once there was a 6th team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Once again, how can it be the fault of Barry Alvarez when you argue there was nothing Wisconsin or Minnesota could do to prevent it? To me that is just two-sided talk. Whether Alvarez was for it and Lucia was against it shouldn't matter if it was a given once there was a 6th team. Aww I get what you're saying now. Can't argue that either. Alvarez has just been a bast**d in this whole ordeal because he's been pushing for a B1G conference for the better part of a decade now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I then asked him if there was any way they could stop the team from joining the B1G hockey conference and he told me that since Minnesota is a B1G member school that they're required to join the conference whether they want to or not. Required by Big Ten rules, which the Big Ten made and the Big Ten can change. If you create the rule that you have to put your foot into a bear trap whenever you walk into your house don't complain to me when your foot is chopped off. There were only 11 voting Big Ten members when the BTHC was formed. Six played hockey. That's a majority. Why didn't the hockey schools band together in the Big Ten and act in the best interests of college hockey and get an exception to the Big Ten rule? Because it was Big Ten first, college hockey second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Required by Big Ten rules, which the Big Ten made and the Big Ten can change. If you create the rule that you have to put your foot into a bear trap whenever you walk into your house don't complain to me when your foot is chopped off. There were only 11 voting Big Ten members when the BTHC was formed. Six played hockey. That's a majority. Why didn't the hockey schools band together in the Big Ten and act in the best interests of college hockey and get an exception to the Big Ten rule? Because it was Big Ten first, college hockey second. You're right, all 6 banding together could have probably changed things. Penn State has no college hockey experience and needed a home, so why would they worry about that? We know that Alvarez wanted to move Wisconsin away from the smaller schools in the WCHA. Already you have a problem even if the remaining 4 hockey schools wanted to stay where they were. Ohio State doesn't have the long history, so it wouldn't surprise me if they wanted their own conference. That leaves Minnesota, Michigan and Michigan State. All have some good history in college hockey, 2 of them are among the top 5 all time. But that isn't enough if the rest wanted to take the money for the Big 10 channel and run. I say go ahead and blame the conference as a whole, but it isn't as easy to blame every individual school. I believe that Minnesota was at least hesitant to make the change and probably didn't want to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I say go ahead and blame the conference as a whole, but it isn't as easy to blame every individual school. If during a bank robbery someone is killed, even the getaway driver who never entered the bank is charged with the murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Required by Big Ten rules, which the Big Ten made and the Big Ten can change. If you create the rule that you have to put your foot into a bear trap whenever you walk into your house don't complain to me when your foot is chopped off. There were only 11 voting Big Ten members when the BTHC was formed. Six played hockey. That's a majority. Why didn't the hockey schools band together in the Big Ten and act in the best interests of college hockey and get an exception to the Big Ten rule? Because it was Big Ten first, college hockey second. Why would the B1G change? This makes the conference more money. It makes Minnesota less money but the conference could care less about one school. Some of the people on here are blaming Minnesota for EVERYTHING that happened, which is just not true. You can hate Minnesota all you want, but this is far from being Minnesota's fault. In fact, even though you hate Minnesota, you should be somewhat happy that they publicly spoke out against the B1G conference. One can say it probably takes some balls to speak out against the top money making conference in the NCAA when you're a member of that conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 If during a bank robbery someone is killed, even the getaway driver who never entered the bank is charged with the murder. But he usually gets offered a lesser crime like involuntary manslaughter in a plea bargain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 But he usually gets offered a lesser crime like involuntary manslaughter in a plea bargain. Plea? PLEA? I'm what they call a "hangin' judge". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Plea? PLEA? I'm what they call a "hangin' judge". Some of us prefer to convict and punish for actual crimes, not for associating with the wrong crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jodcon Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Some of us prefer to convict and punish for actual crimes, not for associating with the wrong crowd. I just bunch it under "Conspiracy to Commit...", then everybody is guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So in the end....I'm supposed to blame Wisconsin...... Makes sense. I'm surprised Barry Alvarez knows that the Badgers field both mens and womens hockey teams..... I have a feeling with the new conferences that there will be a year that the Sioux and gophers don't play each other at all....or maybe a succession of years....it'll happen. Just wait. If UND keeps the nickname don't the gophers have some sort of institutional clause in place that prevents them from playing schools with horrible/offensive/awful/no way of respecting Native Americans in any way shape or form nicknames? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 So in the end....I'm supposed to blame Wisconsin...... Makes sense. I'm surprised Barry Alvarez knows that the Badgers field both mens and womens hockey teams..... I have a feeling with the new conferences that there will be a year that the Sioux and gophers don't play each other at all....or maybe a succession of years....it'll happen. Just wait. If UND keeps the nickname don't the gophers have some sort of institutional clause in place that prevents them from playing schools with horrible/offensive/awful/no way of respecting Native Americans in any way shape or form nicknames? Both Wisconsin and Minnesota have told UND that as long as they are using the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo there will be no games during the regular season. Tournament games would be a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GFG Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 So in the end....I'm supposed to blame Wisconsin...... Makes sense. I'm surprised Barry Alvarez knows that the Badgers field both mens and womens hockey teams..... I have a feeling with the new conferences that there will be a year that the Sioux and gophers don't play each other at all....or maybe a succession of years....it'll happen. Just wait. If UND keeps the nickname don't the gophers have some sort of institutional clause in place that prevents them from playing schools with horrible/offensive/awful/no way of respecting Native Americans in any way shape or form nicknames? It sounds like the series would have continued immediately with the conference change until use of the nickname resumed. After that happened it's in limbo because it's been reported that DU is in talks for a series with MN and WI, and could possibly include CC. If it does include CC it will be like the College Hockey Showcase that had MN, WI, MI, and MSU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 This is a fact...UND was on the road for 7 of the last 11 days and MN 0 of those 11 days...UND played 5 games in those 11 days and MN 3 games...records during that time were 4-1 for UND and 2-1 for MN with both teams only losses by 3 goals to each other. Those are facts that cannot be disputed by anyone. Did UND look fatigued compared to MN on Sunday? I thought so. If the roles were reversed would MN have won on Sunday...I very much doubt it... Minnesota put themselves in a better position than we did as far as the number of games played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 It sounds like the series would have continued immediately with the conference change until use of the nickname resumed. After that happened it's in limbo because it's been reported that DU is in talks for a series with MN and WI, and could possibly include CC. If it does include CC it will be like the College Hockey Showcase that had MN, WI, MI, and MSU. Once again, I would call that a convenient excuse. Minnesota made no attempt to schedule UND while Wisconsin had already agreed to a deal. When Minnesota was off scheduling Notre Dame, UND was already in the process of going without the nickname. Like I said before, it is like the NDSU rivalry, if you really want to get it done, you get it done. It's not like Minnesota wouldn't be able to schedule anybody if they waited a couple months, especially when they were in no rush to schedule UND when they weren't using the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxnews Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I agree the u of m made no attempt to schedule UND. the u of m's first priority was series with the other MN schools. after that there were 2 non conference series available. one was taken with notre dame- the second may be and/or already was taken with the rumored BC/BU agreement. either way- the u of m did not try and make it work with UND. its very very unfortunate 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.