PDA

View Full Version : Smaller Schools......



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

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 01:32 PM
You and crazy Eddie........What you didnt like my nonconference post about Miami of Ohio?

Is there any reason you have to specify Miami as Miami of Ohio? I am not sure anyone on this board is going to be stupid enough to be confused about which Miami you are referring to (for the record, Miami University was founded a hell of a lot earlier than the University of Miami).

And I still have not seen any reasons from you why the potential BTHC is going to benefit any small school.

cycledown
09-18-2010, 01:36 PM
Is there any reason you have to specify Miami as Miami of Ohio? I am not sure anyone on this board is going to be stupid enough to be confused about which Miami you are referring to (for the record, Miami University was founded a hell of a lot earlier than the University of Miami).

And I still have not seen any reasons from you why the potential BTHC is going to benefit any small school.

Yeah go back and read the post again and the one before it.
While you are at go back and read the thread starter again.

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 01:38 PM
Yeah go back and read the post again and the one before it.
While you are at go back and read the thread starter again.

Ok, I read them. Still have not seen any benefit for smaller schools.

cycledown
09-18-2010, 01:41 PM
Ok, I read them. Still have not seen any benefit for smaller schools.

Good, that leaves you out of the coversation because you cant understand the angle.

jcarter7669
09-18-2010, 01:44 PM
You get those feelings because of how YOU think...another words your mentality. I have quite of few neg. reps and Im sure they are not based on a ZOD definiton....
http://www.treygarrison.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/captain_obvious.jpg

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 01:47 PM
Good, that leaves you out of the coversation because you cant understand the angle.

I can read dumbass. IF the BTHC was to exist, you are asking us to list potential benefits for smaller schools. There are none. 0. I suppose you could argue that the athletic departments at FSU, LSSU, WMU, and some other small schools will save $ for their schools because men's hockey was likely not making a profit anyway. Is that what you want to hear?

Realigning will not do jack ****. It is similar to having to take the fat chick to prom instead of the hot chick because she ditched you for a different guy when Ferris State has to realign into a conference with a Bemidji State type program instead of stay in a conference with Michigan (No offense to BSU fans on that. I happen to like your program, but you know what I mean.)

blockski
09-18-2010, 01:48 PM
Ok, I read them. Still have not seen any benefit for smaller schools.

Calling it a 'benefit' is strong, but college hockey in general would benefit from more non-conference games.

Reducing conference schedules from 28 games to more like 20, 22, or 24 max is a good thing. It would make large conferences difficult to pull off, would mean more OOC games (thus making old ideas to absorb growth, such as CHA, more feasible), and would increase the effectiveness of the PWR by reducing some of the schedule insularity.

The situation we have currently with 4 established conferences that are not only full, but overflowing, playing most of their games against themselves, is not conducive to growth and probably actually hampers the ability for college hockey to sustain itself.

In short, this is unsustainable. Things must change.

If a BTHC or some form of BT competition is inevitable, then maybe that can be the vehicle to help reform the structure of college hockey to something more sustainable.

IrishHockeyFan
09-18-2010, 01:49 PM
Is it just my imagination or have there been a lot of idiot posters posting a lot more idiocy lately? Forget the BTHC. We need a conference of posters the likes of hokydad, cycledown, unichhockeyrulz and others of their ilk.

cycledown
09-18-2010, 01:49 PM
JCarter What cant you reply about the smaller schools and stay with the thread, my bad you are scared of the BTHC which doesnt exist and you have pack mentality because HOOSIER cant rant for himself.

cycledown
09-18-2010, 01:55 PM
I can read dumbass. IF the BTHC was to exist, you are asking us to list potential benefits for smaller schools. There are none. 0. I suppose you could argue that the athletic departments at FSU, LSSU, WMU, and some other small schools will save $ for their schools because men's hockey was likely not making a profit anyway. Is that what you want to hear?

Realigning will not do jack ****. It is similar to having to take the fat chick to prom instead of the hot chick because she ditched you for a different guy when Ferris State has to realign into a conference with a Bemidji State type program instead of stay in a conference with Michigan (No offense to BSU fans on that. I happen to like your program, but you know what I mean.)

Nice comparison......Fat chicks cant compare to the BTHC. If college hockey is to progress they are going to have to take out the hot chick which is the BTHC........Back at ya dumb ***.

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Calling it a 'benefit' is strong, but college hockey in general would benefit from more non-conference games.

Reducing conference schedules from 28 games to more like 20, 22, or 24 max is a good thing. It would make large conferences difficult to pull off, would mean more OOC games (thus making old ideas to absorb growth, such as CHA, more feasible), and would increase the effectiveness of the PWR by reducing some of the schedule insularity.

The situation we have currently with 4 established conferences that are not only full, but overflowing, playing most of their games against themselves, is not conducive to growth and probably actually hampers the ability for college hockey to sustain itself.

In short, this is unsustainable. Things must change.

If a BTHC or some form of BT competition is inevitable, then maybe that can be the vehicle to help reform the structure of college hockey to something more sustainable.

But at what cost?

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 01:58 PM
Nice comparison......Fat chicks cant compare to the BTHC. If college hockey is to progress they are going to have to take out the hot chick which is the BTHC........Back at ya dumb ***.

:rolleyes: I think the comparison has merit. How does the BTHC = hot chick? Explain yourself.

The Rube
09-18-2010, 01:59 PM
Nice comparison......Fat chicks cant compare to the BTHC. If college hockey is to progress they are going to have to take out the hot chick which is the BTHC........Back at ya dumb ***.

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/9/13sep19-internet-makes-you-look-stupid.jpg

cycledown
09-18-2010, 02:00 PM
AT what cost? which would be realignment or schedule more BT teams at non BT sites for the extra revenue . Maybe an increase of tv money when nonconference games are shown

cycledown
09-18-2010, 02:01 PM
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/9/13sep19-internet-makes-you-look-stupid.jpg

More pack mentality for those that cant stand up for themselves.

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 02:02 PM
which would be realignment or schedule more BT teams at non BT sites for the extra revenue . Maybe an increase of tv money when nonconference games are shown

An increase of TV $...who is going to show a game between BTHC Minnesota and WCHA St. Cloud State? If you say the BTN, you have lost.

blockski
09-18-2010, 02:04 PM
But at what cost?

That's the wrong question to ask.

Penn State is coming. The fact that college hockey is adding a program/school of that stature is a good thing.

Asking "at what cost" assumes you could chose not to pay that cost. You can't. What are you going to do - tell Penn State no? We don't want you? That's not exactly a formula for growth.

Instead, ask what the costs of the current system are. All Penn State has done is pull back the curtain on the serious structural problems college hockey has.

The Rube
09-18-2010, 02:05 PM
More pack mentality for those that cant stand up for themselves.

I don't care about anyone else here. I just think you are incredibly moronic and delusional with your BTHC talk and thinking the smaller schools can not only survive, but somehow benefit.

Every reasonable dent in your thinking is immediately shot down by you with no retort that makes sense, because you are more stubborn than a mule, denser than lead, and have such a lack of intelligence that I'm amazed you are not in a group home somewhere.

Now, go away, <strike>LARRY E BLOOM</strike> cycle.

HoosierBBall_GopherHockey
09-18-2010, 02:08 PM
That's the wrong question to ask.

Penn State is coming. The fact that college hockey is adding a program/school of that stature is a good thing.

Asking "at what cost" assumes you could chose not to pay that cost. You can't. What are you going to do - tell Penn State no? We don't want you? That's not exactly a formula for growth.

Instead, ask what the costs of the current system are. All Penn State has done is pull back the curtain on the serious structural problems college hockey has.

No, it is not the wrong question to ask. I ask that question assuming Penn State is coming. That is inevitable. Forming the BTHC is not inevitable. Forming the BTHC will likely cost D1 college hockey many smaller programs, which have been named numerous times. Adding PSU so that a BTHC can be formed will cause college hockey to lose FSU, LSSU, WMU, and other smaller schools, is, in my opinion, not a gain.

cycledown
09-18-2010, 02:13 PM
An increase of TV $...who is going to show a game between BTHC Minnesota and WCHA St. Cloud State? If you say the BTN, you have lost.



you still have to play the game, one way is for smaller schools to reinvent themselves, meaning put competitve teams on the ice. if there is a nonBT team beating BT teams surely that aspect is going to factor into non BTHC schools.