geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 ESPN hates the NHL as well ... Once again if the ratings were their they'd be all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Once again if the ratings were their they'd be all over it. If they had the rights to any hockey, they would have an incentive to promote it instead of bury it or not show any highlights at all. Chicken/egg situation, but there is a definite correlation between what they can broadcast and what they show highlights for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted August 8, 2013 Author Share Posted August 8, 2013 Because the ratings aren't good. If they were those money grubbing whores at ESPN would be all over hockey. Well at least we agree what a bunch of whores they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 If they had the rights to any hockey, they would have an incentive to promote it instead of bury it or not show any highlights at all. Chicken/egg situation, but there is a definite correlation between what they can broadcast and what they show highlights for. They showed plenty of hockey in the 90's when the sport was popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 They showed plenty of hockey in the 90's when the sport was popular. Dude it is as popular now as it was in the 90's....a good non scientific example is compare the turnout for the NHL championship parade in Chicago versus the turnout in Miami...not even close. Not to mention many of these NBA "Fans" have no clue what they are talking about: http://ballislife.com/clueless-miami-heat-fans-talk-about-heat-players-that-dont-exist-on-jimmy-kimmel/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Dude it is as popular now as it was in the 90's....a good non scientific example is compare the turnout for the NHL championship parade in Chicago versus the turnout in Miami...not even close. Not to mention many of these NBA "Fans" have no clue what they are talking about: http://ballislife.com/clueless-miami-heat-fans-talk-about-heat-players-that-dont-exist-on-jimmy-kimmel/ The ratings had dipped in a huge way and that is why espn didn't keep their rights to broadcast hockey. The popularity has gotten alot stronger, especially in non traditional markets, but my original point still stands that espn doesn't have a vendetta against hockey. Had the ratings always been strong they would've been all over hockey. Also Miami has the worst fans in the history of things to cheer for. And NBA basketball pretty much sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 So you are saying that und hockey is more of a feeder to the NHL than ndsu football is to the nfl? Uh...yes. Everything about UND hockey is top tier college sports. Everything about the University of Agriculture, Applied Sciences and Home Economics is second tier. A very good second tier...but second tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 It isn't an issue with being a fan of hockey only, its the fans who put down every other sport as not being important and dismiss those student-athletes as second or third rate (not directing this at you). That's fine that you don't enjoy any basketball, there are sports UND participates in that I am not all that interested in either, but I still support those student-athletes and hope they excel both on and off the field (again not directing at you personally). There is definitely a subset that not only could care less about other sports outside of hockey, but are vocal that they are unimportant to the athletic department and university as a whole. The nickname issue showed a definite divide as some were all for keeping the nickname because it wouldn't effect the hockey team all that much but had the possibility of being devasting to the rest of the athletic department and because of that, were fine with keeping the nickname and sanctions that came with it. \ It doesn't mean they are bad people. Or less competitive. They did what they did against...Winona State. Let's face it. There are few athletes who choose to play at a lower division. They either play at the lower division, or don't play at all. Because they aren't good enough to play at the highest level. Of course there are exceptions. Jim Kleinsasser is a huge exception. But, they are few and far between. UND hockey has been at the highest level of college athletics for nearly 70 years. They are one of the top programs in the country, and attract some of the best talent. Hockey is also a northern hemisphere sport, followed in the US, Canada and Europe. American football...yeah..not so much outside of the US. Say football in Europe and they think Barcelona or Manchester United. They certainly don't the University of Agriculture, Applied Sciences and Home Economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 \ It doesn't mean they are bad people. Or less competitive. They did what they did against...Winona State. Let's face it. There are few athletes who choose to play at a lower division. They either play at the lower division, or don't play at all. Because they aren't good enough to play at the highest level. Of course there are exceptions. Jim Kleinsasser is a huge exception. But, they are few and far between. UND hockey has been at the highest level of college athletics for nearly 70 years. They are one of the top programs in the country, and attract some of the best talent. Hockey is also a northern hemisphere sport, followed in the US, Canada and Europe. American football...yeah..not so much outside of the US. Say football in Europe and they think Barcelona or Manchester United. They certainly don't the University of Agriculture, Applied Sciences and Home Economics. I actually wasn't directing my post at you. I understand what you are saying (maybe a little harsh, but I get your underlying reasoning). I was more referring to those that would prefer all sports but hockey be shut down or turned into club teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 I actually wasn't directing my post at you. I understand what you are saying (maybe a little harsh, but I get your underlying reasoning). I was more referring to those that would prefer all sports but hockey be shut down or turned into club teams. I don't feel that way at all. Those who think that are unreasonable. I think UND is where they need to be (finally!) by being FCS and D-i in all other sports. I would cheer the other sports, but was frustrated by the school's unwillingness to move up. D-II probably stayed due to UND/Ag School/USD/SDSU all staying DII in the NCC for much too long..IMHO. Finally, when NDSU moved up it unraveled at the NCC. It would have been nice to see them all go together in the same conference, but that didn't shake out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 \ UND hockey has been at the highest level of college athletics for nearly 70 years. They are one of the top programs in the country, and attract some of the best talent. 21 of 59 D1 hockey programs are schools that play either D2 or D3 sports. Nothing says the highest level of competition like Alabama Huntsville, Colorado College, Alaska Fairbanks, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Union. Just sayin. And some of these random non D1 schools have won national championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 I don't feel that way at all. Those who think that are unreasonable. I think UND is where they need to be (finally!) by being FCS and D-i in all other sports. I would cheer the other sports, but was frustrated by the school's unwillingness to move up. D-II probably stayed due to UND/Ag School/USD/SDSU all staying DII in the NCC for much too long..IMHO. Finally, when NDSU moved up it unraveled at the NCC. It would have been nice to see them all go together in the same conference, but that didn't shake out. All 4 of the Dakota schools should have been FCS from its inception. Huge mistake by all 4 not to. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 21 of 59 D1 hockey programs are schools that play either D2 or D3 sports. Nothing says the highest level of competition like Alabama Huntsville, Colorado College, Alaska Fairbanks, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Union. Just sayin. And some of these random non D1 schools have won national championships. That is correct that some of these schools have won national championships(at the highest level of NCAA hockey at that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 All 4 of the Dakota schools should have been FCS from its inception. Huge mistake by all 4 not to. Totally agree. I always wondered why? Maybe because all four were comfortable playing each other over the years. But D-II degenerated over the years into a much lower level. All four schools should have seen it coming with the formation of conferences like The Big Sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 21 of 59 D1 hockey programs are schools that play either D2 or D3 sports. Nothing says the highest level of competition like Alabama Huntsville, Colorado College, Alaska Fairbanks, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Union. Just sayin. And some of these random non D1 schools have won national championships. You know what though, they have put themselves out that at the level for many years. Michigan Tech, as bad as they have been for so many years, was one of the premier programs in college hockey. CC is still a tough program. Lake Superior had a good run for awhile. RPI has won it all.. Okay..I"ll give you Huntsville... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Totally agree. I always wondered why? Maybe because all four were comfortable playing each other over the years. But D-II degenerated over the years into a much lower level. All four schools should have seen it coming with the formation of conferences like The Big Sky. Lack of vision is what I think it was. It took a visionary at NDSU who didn't care if they couldn't afford it for everything to get moving. Had there been someone with vision in charge back in the 70's all 4 would have been D1 for a long time and perhaps even be FBS now. Football would definitely be a bigger deal in Grand Forks had UND been FCS from the start...... at least we didn't stay D2.... I'm not sure I could handle that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 You know what though, they have put themselves out that at the level for many years. Michigan Tech, as bad as they have been for so many years, was one of the premier programs in college hockey. CC is still a tough program. Lake Superior had a good run for awhile. RPI has won it all.. Okay..I"ll give you Huntsville... I wish more B1G schools would add hockey along with Pac 12 and maybe some more MAC and east coast D1 schools. That would be good for college hockey to have more 'name' schools that could draw more people into college hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Lack of vision is what I think it was. It took a visionary at NDSU who didn't care if they couldn't afford it for everything to get moving. Had there been someone with vision in charge back in the 70's all 4 would have been D1 for a long time and perhaps even be FBS now. Football would definitely be a bigger deal in Grand Forks had UND been FCS from the start...... at least we didn't stay D2.... I'm not sure I could handle that. If UND was DI back in the 70s...would they have been bigger than hockey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDvince97-01 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 What a great thread! Keep going! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The whole thread started on which was MORE difficult to win a Natty in. Again this season in FCS FB there are no more than 6-8 teams that realistically have a shot...bout the same number for this season in hockey. The total number of teams in each category argument is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geaux_sioux Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 If UND was DI back in the 70s...would they have been bigger than hockey? Probably not since GF has been a hockey town since the 50s. But football would be alot closer at the very least. Maybe if football went on some ridiculous run like ndsu did in the 80s but outside of that hockey is pretty entrenched in the blood of GF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Probably not since GF has been a hockey town since the 50s. But football would be alot closer at the very least. Maybe if football went on some ridiculous run like ndsu did in the 80s but outside of that hockey is pretty entrenched in the blood of GF. That's about right. I grew up playing against GF in hockey and with some of the guys in the summer and the level of dedication to hockey in GF is unmatched in the state, and much of the country for that matter. There is opportunity for football to grow, and since hockey is already so entrenched in GF, I am more interested in growing football at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scpa0305 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 If you ask the Bison Nation in Fargo, they will tell you that FCS is more difficult. I'm sorry but the FCS is definitely a "JV" league while hockey is tops in the US, as far as hockey goes.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison06 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 The whole thread started on which was MORE difficult to win a Natty in. Again this season in FCS FB there are no more than 6-8 teams that realistically have a shot...bout the same number for this season in hockey. The total number of teams in each category argument is irrelevant. I-AA/FCS has existed since 1978. In that time 21 different schools have won national championships. NCAA hockey has existed since 1948. In that time. 19 different schools have won the national championship. I'm not sure what this proves exactly. I suppose the argument could be made that the NCAA hockey championship is more difficult to win because there is only a few teams that have a chance to win it each year. I think the opposite argument could be made with the exact same set of numbers. It's much easier to win because there are only a few good teams in NCAA hockey. I know for sure that these numbers prove there is far more parity in FCS football than in NCAA hockey. Not sure how that applies to the original question though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison06 Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 I'm sorry but the FCS is definitely a "JV" league while hockey is tops in the US, as far as hockey goes.. I think the same argument could be made about NCAA hockey vs. major junior hockey in Canada. Yes I realize you put a qualifier of being in the US in there. 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.