MplsBison Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Their women's team is in. Another case of the rich trying to keep everyone else poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead_rabbit Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Their women's team is in. Another case of the rich trying to keep everyone else poor. Maybe the Big 10 should let NDSU's FB team in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Bemidji State hopes to raise $2.5 million by May 2008 to have funds available to allow their program to survive. That's the annual hockey budget in Minneapolis or Madison or Grand Forks or Denver. There's problem #1. The WCHA is already playing an unbalanced "rivals" schedule. That's with 10 teams. How do you make an 11 team league work out for travel and schedule? That's problem #2. Would it be great for BSU? Sure. But as much as we'd all love the "feel good" storybook ending you have to look at things logically, not emotionally, if you want to make sure they'll work for the long haul. The WCHA and BSU aren't a fit for each other right now. But read the articles. The conversations are not over, they're just on hold for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I'm sure it is all being considered & they are still working on making it happen - But there is & should be a lot to it - Not just let them in - But if they can swing it - sure I enjoyed seeing them in recent yrs & they were tough this yr & it's a town that is growing & a place people like to go to I want to see & play the best - I'd hate to see the league diluted & have to play too many mediocre programs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denbo1 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Maybe they should let U of M Crookston in also. They are finding it hard to get in to a league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Get rid of the drain on WCHA budgets by getting rid of Anchorage and bring in a natural draw in Bemidji. What does Anchorage do for the WCHA other than cost extra travel money and according to most coaches, a trip that takes at least a week to recover. Somebody needs to make that tough decision. I know the feeling is that you need to keep programs going like that, but why not keep a program going that is close by. It's not like Anchorage brings the WCHA a lot of prestige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Maybe they should let U of M Crookston in also. They are finding it hard to get in to a league. That would be ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas_Sioux Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 That would be ugly. They used to be good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray77 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Get rid of the drain on WCHA budgets by getting rid of Anchorage and bring in a natural draw in Bemidji. What does Anchorage do for the WCHA other than cost extra travel money and according to most coaches, a trip that takes at least a week to recover. Somebody needs to make that tough decision. I know the feeling is that you need to keep programs going like that, but why not keep a program going that is close by. It's not like Anchorage brings the WCHA a lot of prestige. I could be wrong, but I believe that UAA pays for much (if not all) of the travel expenses for teams to go up there. If that is the case, your theory on draining WCHA budgets is out the window. I am not 100% sure on this...anyone else know? EDIT: I found a site where it says: The expansion would continue, with the addition of Alaska-Anchorage in 1993. UAA's membership further reinforced the mold of the WCHA as a "plane" league, although UAA's membership was contingent on helping to pay for teams to come visit the Seawolves. Now what percentage that is, I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 They used to be good Did they used to have scholarships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxnami Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Their women's team is in. Another case of the rich trying to keep everyone else poor. Complete BS, the WCHA is still in the process of trying to build up SCCC, MSU, and AA, while trying to return UMD and Tech on reasonable ongoing success... The league is already rich vs. poor and until that is further resolved, we shouldn't add more poor. The fact is that I can say every year with near 100% accuracy that the WCHA will be won next year by UND, UM, UW, DU, or CC and the last time this wasn't a true statement was about when Northern Michigan was here. Teams like SCCC or UMD or MSU occasionally have a good year, but don't rise to the top and can't sustain it. Maybe SCCC will finally make the leap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I could be wrong, but I believe that UAA pays for much (if not all) of the travel expenses for teams to go up there. If that is the case, your theory on draining WCHA budgets is out the window. I am not 100% sure on this...anyone else know? EDIT: I found a site where it says: The expansion would continue, with the addition of Alaska-Anchorage in 1993. UAA's membership further reinforced the mold of the WCHA as a "plane" league, although UAA's membership was contingent on helping to pay for teams to come visit the Seawolves. Now what percentage that is, I have no idea. I thought that was only for 5 or 8 years. UAA has a lot of money but I do not think that they still pay for opposing teams' travel up there. I could be wrong but I think that's the case now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Complete BS, the WCHA is still in the process of trying to build up SCCC, MSU, and AA, while trying to return UMD and Tech on reasonable ongoing success... The league is already rich vs. poor and until that is further resolved, we shouldn't add more poor. The fact is that I can say every year with near 100% accuracy that the WCHA will be won next year by UND, UM, UW, DU, or CC and the last time this wasn't a true statement was about when Northern Michigan was here. Teams like SCCC or UMD or MSU occasionally have a good year, but don't rise to the top and can't sustain it. Maybe SCCC will finally make the leap... i agree. bsu is tough, but they would not be able to compete with uaa even imo over the long term. and they NEED a new arena if they would want to be in the wcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ba Ba Canoosh Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yeah - like the WCHA needs ANOTHER Minnesota team. Mmmmn. that would give Minnesota more of a chance to win a national title (what was I thinking?). EXCUSE ME WHILE I BLOW CHUNKS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxman Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yeah - like the WCHA needs ANOTHER Minnesota team. Mmmmn. that would give Minnesota more of a chance to win a national title (what was I thinking?). EXCUSE ME WHILE I BLOW CHUNKS! Hey - Its one more team to take the Dairy Queen Cup away from the Gophers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I don't have a problem with BSU but I don't want them added to the WCHA. The WCHA is already too big. IMO, the ideal size is 8 teams so you can play every team 4 times. With the current 10 team league we have an uneven schedule where you only see each team 3 out 4 years at home (excluding the "rival" team). If you make the WCHA an 11 team league and keep the yearly home-and-home with the "rival" team, which is highly likely, then you would only see each team 3 out of 5 years at home. Do you want to trade home games with MN, Wisc, Denver for games with BSU ? I don't. The only other thing that could be done is to increase the number of conference games but that would limit the non-conference games. I don't think this would be good for the fans or for college hockey. With 11 teams the schedule becomes even more unbalanced. The conference championship means less since the schedule you play may be completely different then the schedule the 2nd place team played. Take a look at Notre Dame this past year, they played every team twice and three teams four times - two of the three teams they played four times were the bottom two in the league. Since the CCHA has 12 teams and plays 28 games, each team plays almost half their games (12) against three teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I don't have a problem with BSU but I don't want them added to the WCHA. The WCHA is already too big. IMO, the ideal size is 8 teams so you can play every team 4 times. With the current 10 team league we have an uneven schedule where you only see each team 3 out 4 years at home (excluding the "rival" team). If you make the WCHA an 11 team league and keep the yearly home-and-home with the "rival" team, which is highly likely, then you would only see each team 3 out of 5 years at home. Do you want to trade home games with MN, Wisc, Denver for games with BSU ? I don't. The only other thing that could be done is to increase the number of conference games but that would limit the non-conference games. I don't think this would be good for the fans or for college hockey. With 11 teams the schedule becomes even more unbalanced. The conference championship means less since the schedule you play may be completely different then the schedule the 2nd place team played. Take a look at Notre Dame this past year, they played every team twice and three teams four times - two of the three teams they played four times were the bottom two in the league. Since the CCHA has 12 teams and plays 28 games, each team plays almost half their games (12) against three teams. There has been suggestions of having UNO and BSU join togther if Wayne was to go to the CCHA. 12 teams would be better than 11 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Get rid of the drain on WCHA budgets by getting rid of Anchorage and bring in a natural draw in Bemidji. What does Anchorage do for the WCHA other than cost extra travel money and according to most coaches, a trip that takes at least a week to recover. Somebody needs to make that tough decision. I know the feeling is that you need to keep programs going like that, but why not keep a program going that is close by. It's not like Anchorage brings the WCHA a lot of prestige. I'm not exactly clear on the details but I think every time you play up in AA you get 2 extra home games in your schedule. That's not bad compensation, and it would go away if AA was dropped. Personally, I'd like to see BSU in the WCHA, but I'm not familiar with all the dynamics and there are some drawbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 The WCHA is screwed up now as it is. Let's take Fairbanks as well, letting the CCHA absorb another desparate CHA team. I'd like to trade Omaha for UW straight up as well, but that can happen later. Twenty two game schedule. One trip to Alaska. Nobody cares about the league title so no crying about the six fewer games. Three extra weekends for whatever a team wants to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 The WCHA is screwed up now as it is. Let's take Fairbanks as well, letting the CCHA absorb another desparate CHA team. I'd like to trade Omaha for UW straight up as well, but that can happen later. Twenty two game schedule. One trip to Alaska. Nobody cares about the league title so no crying about the six fewer games. Three extra weekends for whatever a team wants to do. I am sure something is eventually going to be worked out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxnami Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I'd like to trade Omaha for UW straight up as well, but that can happen later. That would be a good trade right now UNO is more wide open offense and Wisco is, well... zzzz.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skateshattrick Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 That would be a good trade right now UNO is more wide open offense and Wisco is, well... zzzz.... The Wisconsin bashing is getting a little old, don't you think? They are a big time program with a very rich hockey history and was UND's main rival in the late 70's and early 80's. The current style is a bit boring because it is defense first, but they are still a great program. UNO?? Please. They are a middle-of-the-pack team in a mediocre conference. If UND maintains rivalries with any schools, UM and UW should be at the top of the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxnami Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 The Wisconsin bashing is getting a little old, don't you think? First, the I would never actually make that trade. You might have noticed the laughing icon... Second, others lecturing about Wisconsin is getting a little old, don't you think? You don't like it, so be it, as far as I am concerned I will stop ripping the style that Wisco plays ONLY when the stop playing it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 First, the I would never actually make that trade. You might have noticed the laughing icon... Second, others lecturing about Wisconsin is getting a little old, don't you think? You don't like it, so be it, as far as I am concerned I will stop ripping the style that Wisco plays ONLY when the stop playing it... I think the lecturing about the lecturing on the lecturing about UW is getting old too. In other news, it's UW trying to get the heave ho, which is new from the perrenial eviction contenders of MTU and MSUM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I thought that was only for 5 or 8 years. UAA has a lot of money but I do not think that they still pay for opposing teams' travel up there. I could be wrong but I think that's the case now. I'm pretty sure it was for 10 years. Regardless, they don't pay anymore. 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.