PDA

View Full Version : WCHA Pushing To Team With Big Ten, NCHC For Conference Tournaments



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Tipsy McStagger
03-22-2016, 02:00 PM
BSU has never relied on the bigger schools providing profit for them. Lets remember the facts that BSU had to pay to get into the WCHA and would not see any profits from the tournament for at least 3 years I believe? The WCHA wasnt around long enough after that to send any money their way. So although i understand the bigger ego schools of Denver and UND being frustrated with subsizing the smaller schools, its not fair to group BSU into that category.
I never said they did. I said "if the communities" can't support their team. I just threw them out as an example of a city.

Patman
03-22-2016, 02:07 PM
This thread is a good reason as to why I wanted to electrocute anybody and everybody who posted a "realignment" thread over the preceding decade. Nothing good could come of it and so far nothing has.

JohnsonsJerseys
03-22-2016, 02:12 PM
If North Dakota, Denver, St. Cloud, and Duluth were still in the WCHA, and Miami still in the CCHA, would Minnesota State or Michigan Tech have made the NCAA tournament last year? No, they wouldn't have.I think there is a very good chance Tech would still be in the tourney. I'll be the first to admit that the Huskies were the "WCHA Doormat" for many seasons. I supported the team through a long stretch of bad hockey including three seasons of 6, 5 and 4 wins per year from 2008-2011. Not conference wins mind you, but TOTAL wins.

A lot has changed since Coach Pearson arrive on campus. In his first year he took a team that won FOUR games the prior before and got them to 16 wins, missing WCHA home ice by two points. The following two seasons the team won 13 and 14 games, not great, but still a vast improvement over the last decade. The last two seasons the team has gone 29-8-3 and 23-9-5 grabbing a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney last season and barely missing the tourney this year. Had MTU not laid an egg against Ferris last weekend most observers (and the PWR) would agree Tech would have been in the tourney again this season in spite of the awful non-conference record of the WCHA this season.

Would Tech be winning the WCHA if the former 12 teams were still in the mix? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure they would be right there in the final weeks and also in the mix for a spot in the NCAA tourney. At this point it is all hypothetical, but I'm pretty confident that the teams Tech has put on the ice the last two seasons can compete with anyone. Win every game? No. Capable of beating anyone, on any given day, certainly.

Ryan

billmich88888
03-22-2016, 02:15 PM
. The last two seasons the team has gone 29-8-3 and 23-9-5 grabbing a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney last season and barely missing the tourney this year.

Michigan Tech was a #2 seed last year in the NCAA's

Bale
03-22-2016, 02:15 PM
I think what he was saying is that if you were to sprinkle North Dakota, Denver, UNO etc. into MSU's schedule last year, where do they end up in the PWR? I don't think it's a stretch to say they aren't the #1 overall seed.

MSU was becoming a player in the WCHA? Before the final year where they got in, it had been like 10 years since they made the tournament. They certainly weren't pushovers but they weren't yearly contenders either. Tech making it to the Final Five was a cause for celebration. They were consistently in the bottom 3 of the conference. Part of the reason for their success now is probably Mel Pearson, but let's not pretend that MTU and MSU were about to take over the old WCHA.

Lastly, and this seems to be something none of the butthurt WCHA fans want to acknowledge, it is the responsibility of YOUR fanbase to support your team. No one feels bad for the little schools that are no longer getting the sweet conference tournament money that was largely brought in by North Dakota, Minnesota, and Michigan fans. It shouldn't be on the bigger schools to subsidize the smaller ones. If the community of Houghton or Bemidji or Sault Ste. Marie can't make their college hockey program profitable or even breakeven, that isn't the fault of the programs that wanted something better for themselves.

Again, let's base this off of facts. Msu was #1 in the country before January 1. At that point the msu so was.in the top 5 in the country. Yes, it plummeted once it got to the meat of the wcha schedule. It was that way because uno, umd, and mn were on the schedule. Could they have fallen down? Of course. The original premise is that msu wouldn't have made the tournament with it being in the wcha. That is where the faulty logic lies.

You're putting words into my mouth in saying that msu was going to "take over the old wcha". I never said that or insinuated it. Again, my only argument is that it's foolish to say that the only reason msu and mtu have risen up is because of the conference shift. They both made significant changes to their programs before the conference changed. Things were looking positively for both schools after they made their coaching changes. They both made significant investments into their.programs before the conference switched.

Lastly, you're right, it is the responsibility of each school to support their team. I have.long said thatmsu, for example, gave no one any reason to think that they were committed. They had ignored the program for too long and that perception still existed when the realignment happened (and for that matter, the perception still exists). The problem that i see with everything that has happened is that the supposed pot of gold that was waiting for the b10 and nchc never materialized. Frankly, the B10 still hasn't realized it and are refusing to stick their head in the sand. The nchc is better off, bUT still seems to not be willing to admit it isn't quite what they expected. No one seemed to give a **** what the commoners (ie their customers) wanted.

It seems as though that no one wants to admit that things aren't all that rosyexcept those from the wcha (although with a bit too much bitterness for my liking). It's ok to admit mistakes and this certainly seems like one. Now it's time to fix what's wrong and, in my opinion, nothing should be off the table.

When all of this stuff started troy jutting, of all people, said something that I haven't forgotten. His comment was, "change isn't necessarily bad. College hockey is as good as its ever been. So, if you're going to change it, you **** well better be sure that it's a change for the better." Can anyone honestly say that this had been a change for the better of colege hockey? I'm not so sure we can. And if it hasn't changed for the better, don't shouldn't the leaders of the conferences and schools put their egos aside to change it for the better?

geezer
03-22-2016, 02:18 PM
would Minnesota State or Michigan Tech have made the NCAA tournament last year? No, they wouldn't have.

This is easy to assume, but not provable. Tech had a good team last year, and beat some top ten teams which is why they had the #1 ranking for a while. They played one of the toughest schedules in the country.
Similar story for Mankato. Remember that both teams made the tournament on their merits last year.

Sean Pickett
03-22-2016, 03:15 PM
A similar thing occurred back when Hockey East formed and split from the old 18 team ECAC. The ECAC retained the Boston Garden as the host venue for their tournament and Hockey east held their tournament at the Providence Civic Center. After a just two years of the tournament in Providence (1985 & 86) Hockey East moved it to the Boston Garden, after the ECAC Tournament, on Sunday and Monday nights (1987). The following year they had 2-game, total goals semifinals at the higher seeds on Tuesday & Wednesday and then the championship at Boston Garden on the following Monday (1988). It then moved to Boston College's then new Conte Forum (1989). Then for 1990 the ECAC and Hockey East agreed to hold both tournaments at Boston Garden Friday through Sunday under the name Hockeyfest. Hockey East semifinals were to be Friday and the ECAC semifinals on Saturday with both championship games on Sunday. However, the 1990 Hockeyfest was cancelled due to a measles outbreak at the University of Maine and the semifinals were held at the higher seeds (UMaine and BC) and the final was at the higher seed (BC). In 1991 & 92 the two leagues held their joint championships as part of Hockeyfest and but after the two years decided to not continue it and go their separate ways.The ECAC decided to move their tournament and Hockey East remained at Boston Garden and then TD Garden. Since then it has grown and become a successful tournament. Meanwhile, the ECAC has continued to move their tournament around, most disastrously to Atlantic City several years ago.

With the three western tournaments I see a similar issue, especially with the WCHA and B1G moving their tournaments between different cities. I have looked at the attendance figures for all three for the past three years and the NCHC has done the best, growing from the first year to last year and then remaining stable this year. The B1G actually had a good first tournament in St. Paul, almost equaling the NCHC per session figure and having about 2000 more for the championship game. However, last year in Detroit attendance took a huge drop and when it returned to St. Paul this year the fans didn't and attendance was slightly lower than last year. The WCHA started in Grand Rapids and had poor attendance in 2014, but last year in St. Paul it more than doubled, bettering the B1G by more than 2000 per session. This year back in Grand Rapids it dropped again, but was better than 2014.

It appears the NCHC has a strong start to a really solid tournament and that it can grow regardless of the other two tournaments an it seems to me that it is in the best possible location for the NCHC. In my opinion both the B1G and WCHA appear to be hurting themselves by moving their tournaments between cities. I think St. Paul appears to be a better fit for the WCHA, but I've read that many liked the atmosphere at Van Andel Arena this year, so maybe it can grow and become a success in Grand Rapids, but I think the league needs to settle on one location. As for the B1G, St. Paul was a disappointment this year, but so was Detroit last year. Maybe, as has been mentioned, Chicago would make for a good location, but it is also likely that part of the attendance problems have to do with the teams not being very good since the B1G formed.

Sean

Tipsy McStagger
03-22-2016, 03:27 PM
With the three western tournaments I see a similar issue, especially with the WCHA and B1G moving their tournaments between different cities. I have looked at the attendance figures for all three for the past three years and the NCHC has done the best, growing from the first year to last year and then remaining stable this year. The B1G actually had a good first tournament in St. Paul, almost equaling the NCHC per session figure and having about 2000 more for the championship game. However, last year in Detroit attendance took a huge drop and when it returned to St. Paul this year the fans didn't and attendance was slightly lower than last year. The WCHA started in Grand Rapids and had poor attendance in 2014, but last year in St. Paul it more than doubled, bettering the B1G by more than 2000 per session. This year back in Grand Rapids it dropped again, but was better than 2014.

It appears the NCHC has a strong start to a really solid tournament and that it can grow regardless of the other two tournaments an it seems to me that it is in the best possible location for the NCHC. In my opinion both the B1G and WCHA appear to be hurting themselves by moving their tournaments between cities. I think St. Paul appears to be a better fit for the WCHA, but I've read that many liked the atmosphere at Van Andel Arena this year, so maybe it can grow and become a success in Grand Rapids, but I think the league needs to settle on one location. As for the B1G, St. Paul was a disappointment this year, but so was Detroit last year. Maybe, as has been mentioned, Chicago would make for a good location, but it is also likely that part of the attendance problems have to do with the teams not being very good since the B1G formed.

Sean
I think what it shows is that Detroit's claim of being "Hockeytown" is clearly BS, while Minnesota is truly the "State of Hockey".

Thank you, tip your waitress!

giwan
03-22-2016, 03:39 PM
I think what it shows is that Detroit's claim of being "Hockeytown" is clearly BS, while Minnesota is truly the "State of Hockey".
Thank you, tip your waitress!

It's only "hockeytown" based on the Red Wings.

stuckinwi
03-22-2016, 03:45 PM
I think what it shows is that Detroit's claim of being "Hockeytown" is clearly BS, while Minnesota is truly the "State of Hockey".

Thank you, tip your waitress!

The state of hockey and hockeytown don't matter. The state of hockey didn't turn out to support the big ten tourney. It's where the teams are from. Locations with the old conferences were centralized with schools around them, now we end with lower peninsula Michigan teams having to travel to the twin cities and teams like MSU having to go to Grand Rapids. It's stupid for playoffs and it's stupid for the regular season.

It's a lot harder to travel to away games from campus now as you're going much longer distances. Better competition aside, making conferences aligned to anything but geography takes a lot of the sense out of it and ruins the atmosphere at a lot of venues and costs the teams a lot more.

Arafel
03-22-2016, 04:04 PM
[QUOTE=Arafel;6302478]So you'd rather forgo teams like Tech and Minnesota State making the NCAA tournament than have a power conference? If North Dakota, Denver, St. Cloud, and Duluth were still in the WCHA, and Miami still in the CCHA, would Minnesota State or Michigan Tech have made the NCAA tournament last year? No, they wouldn't have.

Uh. The number 1 team in the pairwise last year would not have made the tournament?????

My point is they would not have been No. 1 in the PairWise if they'd been playing in a league with North Dakota, Denver, St. Cloud, and Duluth. So yes, they may not even have made the tournament.

JohnsonsJerseys
03-22-2016, 04:26 PM
[QUOTE=Iwearpurple;6302564]My point is they would not have been No. 1 in the PairWise if they'd been playing in a league with North Dakota, Denver, St. Cloud, and Duluth. So yes, they may not even have made the tournament.
Actually MSU would have been a run away #1 overall seed with the additional QWB added in for beating those teams you listed. Also SCSU would have been out as a couple more losses would have put them below 0.500 last season and blocked them from the tourney. SCSU last season is still a great example for how broken the PWR system is when used on it's own for picking tourney teams. One game over 0.500 and you're a tourney team? Please...
Ryan J

SJHovey
03-22-2016, 04:28 PM
It seems as though that no one wants to admit that things aren't all that rosyexcept those from the wcha (although with a bit too much bitterness for my liking). It's ok to admit mistakes and this certainly seems like one. Now it's time to fix what's wrong and, in my opinion, nothing should be off the table.

When all of this stuff started troy jutting, of all people, said something that I haven't forgotten. His comment was, "change isn't necessarily bad. College hockey is as good as its ever been. So, if you're going to change it, you **** well better be sure that it's a change for the better." Can anyone honestly say that this had been a change for the better of colege hockey? I'm not so sure we can. And if it hasn't changed for the better, don't shouldn't the leaders of the conferences and schools put their egos aside to change it for the better?I guess my question is how do we know if college hockey has "changed for the better?" Is there some sort of tool we're using to measure that?

I noticed something interesting as I looked at the attendance statistics on USCHO for the 2012-13 season, compared with the current season. Out of 59 teams in Div. I hockey (ignored ASU), 24 teams have had their average attendance increase, while 35 saw it decrease. But what's more interesting is when you break the teams down by conference.

In Hockey East (I've included Conn and Notre Dame in HE), 5 went up in attendance, seven down. In the ECAC it was exactly the opposite, 7 up and 5 down. The AHA saw 5 go up and 6 go down. In the B1G it was 3-3.

In other words, in each conference about half the teams increased and half decreased.

This is where it got interesting.

In the WCHA, three went up (Mankato, Tech and BG) while 7 went down. In the NCHC, only North Dakota increased its attendance, with the other 7 showing declines.

What do I think this shows? Teams in the NCHC and WCHA counted on the attendance boosts brought on by the appearance of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan St. in their arenas. I don't think the creation of the NCHC had anything to do with shifts in attendance or interest at these western schools, either by increasing attendance at the NCHC schools or decreasing it at the WCHA schools.

I think that if we want to help college hockey, two things need to happen. First, each conference has to take a close look at whether a conference tournament makes sense financially, as opposed to playoff games on campus at the higher seeds.

Second, I think it's incumbent upon the "name" schools in college hockey (and I mean all of them) to make a conscious effort to be willing to schedule away non-conference games with many different programs, not just traditional rivals.

Tipsy McStagger
03-22-2016, 04:28 PM
[QUOTE=Arafel;6302758]
Actually MSU would have been a run away #1 overall seed with the additional QWB added in for beating those teams you listed. Also SCSU would have been out as a couple more losses would have put them below 0.500 last season and blocked them from the tourney. SCSU last season is still a great example for how broken the PWR system is when used on it's own for picking tourney teams. One game over 0.500 and you're a tourney team? Please...
Ryan J
And yet, they beat the bums from your school! Imagine that!

TheSiouxFan
03-22-2016, 04:52 PM
No chance. Even in the heyday of the WCHA, with UND playing Minnesota and other traditional rivals, we never saw anything approaching those types of numbers from UND fans.

Candidly, we've probably seen about what we'll see out of UND fan support. If they're not going to come and watch a 30 win team, why will more come in other years?

My fear, as others have expressed, is what happens when UND goes through a stretch like we did in the early to mid-90's. Don't kid yourself. We are destined to see that happen again. That happens, and unless something else has changed, the NCHC is going to be in rough financial shape regarding its tournament.

The NCHC had 11,600 people this Saturday. And somehow you think in its three year history it has already peaked lol. And that's without UND playing a meaningful game in Minneapolis when all the alumni aren't working. All afternoon games for UND so far. You don't believe the Attendance would have increased for that Saturday if UND was in the championship game? Don't kid yourself.

You having to go back 20+ years, when the culture, fan support, and building was all different at the school with the longest running NCAA tournament appearances sort of proves my point, The NCHC Frozen Faceoff will be just fine thank you.

Arafel
03-22-2016, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=JohnsonsJerseys;6302781]
And yet, they beat the bums from your school! Imagine that!

Um, I so didn't write that. Please edit it. Wasn't me!

SJHovey
03-22-2016, 05:01 PM
The NCHC had 11,600 people this Saturday. And somehow you think in its three year history it has already peaked lol. And that's without UND playing a meaningful game in Minneapolis when all the alumni aren't working. All afternoon games for UND so far. You don't believe the Attendance would have increased for that Saturday if UND was in the championship game? Don't kid yourself.

Not to let facts get in the way of an argument, but UND has actually played two meaningful games "when the alumni aren't working" at the Frozen Faceoff. UND played the night game the first year, against Miami. Furthermore, its hard to argue that the Saturday afternoon game that followed that year wasn't meaningful, since it was necessary for the team to win it (and get luck elsewhere) to even get into the NCAAs. Those two games were the poorest attended of any of UND's since moving to the Target Center.

TheSiouxFan
03-22-2016, 05:02 PM
So the entire conference is dependant on a single team winning the tournament 2 years in a row? That's not exactly what I'd call a solid business plan.


Did you read what I was applying too? I'll take that as a no. It was about the Frozen Faceoff reaching a ceiling.

The entire conference isn't dependent on "a single team winning the tournament two years in a row." Has never happened. And it still beat the combined attendance of the WCHA and BIG (with a hometown team in the championship game). What kind of business plans does that make for those conferences then?

TheSiouxFan
03-22-2016, 05:03 PM
Not to let facts get in the way of an argument, but UND has actually played two meaningful games "when the alumni aren't working" at the Frozen Faceoff. UND played the night game the first year, against Miami. Furthermore, its hard to argue that the Saturday afternoon game that followed that year wasn't meaningful, since it was necessary for the team to win it (and get luck elsewhere) to even get into the NCAAs. Those two games were the poorest attended of any of UND's since moving to the Target Center.

And after that first year the attendance grew.

AKSWF
03-22-2016, 05:22 PM
I don't think the B7G would be interested anymore.

Unless they want to stick it to the WCHA, and go toe-to-toe with the NCHC.