PDA

View Full Version : New WCHA is dead



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

SJHovey
07-09-2019, 03:26 PM
Everyone has different values. Some people value money; some people value loyalty. We have learned who values what.

Kind of like in the early 80's when the Ivies were kicking around the idea of bolting the ECAC and forming an Ivy League hockey conference, so BC, BU, UNH, and a couple of other ECAC teams to whom hockey was important decided to jump the gun and form a new hockey conference with programs of their own choosing, that kind of loyalty?

DrunkTrainPolka
07-09-2019, 03:44 PM
It's nice to see the fiddling about the NCHC while the WCHA burns and three schools scream in agony...

GFM

i misread your post as; "It's nice to see the fiddling about the NCHC while the WCHA burns these three schools [and they] scream in agony..."

but i will leave my reply anyway. ;)

______________________

nah... not at all.

big difference here.

sure, i did not like it how they went about it (even 'tho i can't tell you on how they should have gone about it). but...

the day these seven schools have a budget that's even close to the likes of the B1G or the NACHO, we can talk about hypocrisy.

i rather see these three programs out there "screaming in agony" [for its the biggest chance of survival] then they dying a slow death and injuring all the other seven survivors - if there are that many in the end.

while the WCHA may be at 'some fault' on all this, it is/was being thrown under the bus.

its like some sort of statute of limitations that is being given to the B1G and the NACHO.

the nWCHA has been wearing life-preservers from day one... we don't have a boat, not even a crappy leaky one.
.

ticapnews
07-09-2019, 03:52 PM
Kind of like in the early 80's when the Ivies were kicking around the idea of bolting the ECAC and forming an Ivy League hockey conference, so BC, BU, UNH, and a couple of other ECAC teams to whom hockey was important decided to jump the gun and form a new hockey conference with programs of their own choosing, that kind of loyalty?
Are you hoping to play "Gotcha!" with something that happened when I was in grade school?

icehawk
07-09-2019, 04:38 PM
B1G creation; a bad move
NCHC creation; a worse move
nWCHA creation; a choice-less move
Magnificent 7 creation; a survival move

and the situation that these three UA_ teams find themselves in can only resolved by having the other 50 programs and the NCAA do something for once.

every conference and every team within each conference should take a turn in hosting and visiting the states of AL and AK.

and if you do the math the cost would be trivial for the cycle would take forever to repeat itself.

solutions are abundant...

GO TECH GOLD!
.
Big Ten move started it all so obviously that was by far the worse move

cetihcra
07-09-2019, 04:47 PM
The NCHC schools never gave it a chance to work. They blew it up...that is a distinct difference. The WCHA accepted all the left over teams and tried to make it work. If you can't understand the difference thats on you.

They may have had the oWCHA members of the S7 not gone behind their backs to re-up McLeod...that backstabbing killed any possibility of loyalty to the WCHA.

r

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 05:21 PM
Big Ten move started it all so obviously that was by far the worse moveI may be (and am frequently) wrong but I thought the B1G has had a policy that dictates the formation of a B1G conference if 6 or more member schools compete at the D1 level in any sport and all member schools playing in said sport are obligated to compete in the B1G unless there is no B1G conference in that sport.

If that is the case, as soon as Terry Pegula bought Penn State a team, the 6-team requirement was met and the other five had no choice but to leave the WCHA and CCHA.

IMHO neither the WCHA (10 teams) nor the CCHA (8 teams) would have folded. Both had a good mix of schools and other than the AK schools they had relatively easy travel. Having the AK schools split between the tow made having them in conference a bit more tolerable.

So, if I am right about the B1G, I lay the responsibility of this whole mess squarely at the feet of DU and UND as the Nacho instigators.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

SJHovey
07-09-2019, 05:32 PM
Are you hoping to play "Gotcha!" with something that happened when I was in grade school?

No. Just pointing out the silliness of your post. Schools have always moved from conference to conference, even going so far as to form their own (there used to be only one eastern and one western conference), always based upon the best interests of the individual schools. To suggest schools have ever (or will ever) choose loyalty to other schools in making these moves is nonsense, so let's just stop.

First Time, Long Time
07-09-2019, 05:35 PM
I may be (and am frequently) wrong but I thought the B1G has had a policy that dictates the formation of a B1G conference if 6 or more member schools compete at the D1 level in any sport and all member schools playing in said sport are obligated to compete in the B1G unless there is no B1G conference in that sport.

If that is the case, as soon as Terry Pegula bought Penn State a team, the 6-team requirement was met and the other five had no choice but to leave the WCHA and CCHA.

IMHO neither the WCHA (10 teams) nor the CCHA (8 teams) would have folded. Both had a good mix of schools and other than the AK schools they had relatively easy travel. Having the AK schools split between the tow made having them in conference a bit more tolerable.

So, if I am right about the B1G, I lay the responsibility of this whole mess squarely at the feet of DU and UND as the Nacho instigators.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

They have the option to, they are not forced to.
It was inevitable though.
But yes...the NCHC has the black hat...the current 7 just couldn't help themselves...

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 05:49 PM
They have the option to, they are not forced to.

Whether forced or optioned, I still believe the B1G would not have been fatal for the WCHA or CCHA without the Nacho.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

First Time, Long Time
07-09-2019, 06:04 PM
Whether forced or optioned, I still believe the B1G would not have been fatal for the WCHA or CCHA without the Nacho.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The Alaska schools are likely dead anyway due to their own finances which is not the NCHC's doing and the CCHA had already rejected UAH.
I also doubt the WCHA would have added them as that would have created an odd team league.
The NCHC didn't kill these schools...sorry to burst your bubble.

icehawk
07-09-2019, 06:08 PM
The Alaska schools are likely dead anyway due to their own finances which is not the NCHC's doing and the CCHA had already rejected UAH.
I also doubt the WCHA would have added them as that would have created an odd team league.
The NCHC didn't kill these schools...sorry to burst your bubble.

Everyone likes to blame UND for anything so there’s that :)

davyd83
07-09-2019, 06:23 PM
I may be (and am frequently) wrong but I thought the B1G has had a policy that dictates the formation of a B1G conference if 6 or more member schools compete at the D1 level in any sport and all member schools playing in said sport are obligated to compete in the B1G unless there is no B1G conference in that sport.

If that is the case, as soon as Terry Pegula bought Penn State a team, the 6-team requirement was met and the other five had no choice but to leave the WCHA and CCHA.

IMHO neither the WCHA (10 teams) nor the CCHA (8 teams) would have folded. Both had a good mix of schools and other than the AK schools they had relatively easy travel. Having the AK schools split between the tow made having them in conference a bit more tolerable.

So, if I am right about the B1G, I lay the responsibility of this whole mess squarely at the feet of DU and UND as the Nacho instigators.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Here’s a great article that explains a lot about the NCHC’s genesis.

www.grandforksherald.com/sports/hockey/4512561-nchc-series-part-1-how-nchc-was-formed

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 06:30 PM
The Alaska schools are likely dead anyway due to their own finances which is not the NCHC's doing and the CCHA had already rejected UAH.
I also doubt the WCHA would have added them as that would have created an odd team league.
The NCHC didn't kill these schools...sorry to burst your bubble.My bubble isn't burst. My only point is that the status quo would have worked well after the B1G exodus.

Fast forward to 2019 and this scenario if Nacho didn't exist: The AK teams have the money rug pulled out from under them and have to shut down, leaving the WCHA with nine teams and CCHA with seven. Logic (admittedly absent in college hockey since 2011) dictates one WCHA team migrates to the CCHA for two 8-team leagues. My guess would be Tech so they could join NMU and Lake State as well as the rest in the EST zone.
WCHA: CC, DU, UND, BSU, SCSU, UMD, MSU & UNO

CCHA: MTU, NMU, LSSU, FSU, WMU, ND, MU & BGSU

Still two very viable leagues, IMHO.

I realize this scenario does not address UAH but I doubt they would have been added to either league without the Nacho.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 06:32 PM
After looking at it, I like that alignment after 2020-21 if you just leave ND in the B1G and replace them with UAH.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

First Time, Long Time
07-09-2019, 06:46 PM
So your changes are the two MN schools for the two eastern NCHC schools...and yet somehow the NCHC is the problem?
Good logic.

ticapnews
07-09-2019, 07:42 PM
No. Just pointing out the silliness of your post. Schools have always moved from conference to conference, even going so far as to form their own (there used to be only one eastern and one western conference), always based upon the best interests of the individual schools. To suggest schools have ever (or will ever) choose loyalty to other schools in making these moves is nonsense, so let's just stop.

There is such a thing as loyalty. It's rare but it is out there. And some people do value it more than money.

TheDee
07-09-2019, 08:01 PM
Here’s a great article that explains a lot about the NCHC’s genesis.

www.grandforksherald.com/sports/hockey/4512561-nchc-series-part-1-how-nchc-was-formed

Thanks for the link; really interesting

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 08:01 PM
So your changes are the two MN schools for the two eastern NCHC schools...and yet somehow the NCHC is the problem?
Good logic.

No, basically my only change is Tech going from the WCHA back to the CCHA to balance the leagues. Otherwise everyone is the same as before the Nacho messed it all up. And for what it's worth, I personally would prefer Tech staying in the WCHA because of their long history in the league, but for the betterment of college hockey, that move makes sense.

First Time, Long Time
07-09-2019, 08:25 PM
No, basically my only change is Tech going from the WCHA back to the CCHA to balance the leagues. Otherwise everyone is the same as before the Nacho messed it all up. And for what it's worth, I personally would prefer Tech staying in the WCHA because of their long history in the league, but for the betterment of college hockey, that move makes sense.

And what im saying is you look at what we have now...and what may happen with the 7 leaving and the only difference from what you put out there is BSU & MSU for Miami & Western.
Yet you still blame the NCHC for "messing it all up."
Your delusions are amazing.

MTUHuskies
07-09-2019, 08:35 PM
And what im saying is you look at what we have now...and what may happen with the 7 leaving and the only difference from what you put put there is BSU & MSU for Miami & Western.
Yet you still blame the NCHC for "messing it all up."
Your delusions are amazing.

Who is delusional when my scenario is only one team changes conferences (to balance them after losing the AK teams) different than pre-Nacho and you have two "eastern" teams playing in the "west" two "western" teams playing in the "east" for 8 years when there was no reason for them to have to do so? So yes, the Nacho caused a lot more change to the college hockey landscape than was necessary. And I would argue that the changes caused by Nacho were more detrimental to college hockey as a whole than if they just stayed status quo after the B1G formed.