Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

[SJHovey]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Kinda curious, what's the Home/Away breakdown of that stat?

The NCHC has played 33 games at home against WCHA teams. They are 23-6-4
The NCHC has played 28 games on the road against WCHA teams. They are 15-8-5
The NCHC has played 15 neutral site games against WCHA teams, including NCAA tournament games. They are 12-3

[Dirty]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Those stats really do tell the tale, don't they? If you eliminate all the wins NCHC teams got by cheating and playing at home or at neutral sites they aren't so great, are they? Heck they aren't even .500!

[SJHovey]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

The nice thing for the WCHA is that Minnesota State is 2-9 vs. the NCHC, so the WCHA's record against the NCHC will actually improve if the Mavericks jump ship.

[davyd83]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

So once you take out Wisconsin & Minnesota, then add Mankato, this is the WCHC minus Tech, Bemidji and UAA plus Miami and Western. Is there really a net gain of some sort? Was it really worth all the disruption it caused college hockey? Was it really worth blowing up two pretty good postseason tourneys? Granted, the CCHA even would have been hurt badly by losing Michigan and Michigan State, but the WCHA would have continued to have a very strong event, better than what's out there now.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that no matter how you sliced it in the post-BTHC world, 8-10 schools were going to be sort of okay in one conference with the rest struggling in another conference. The only thing that's changed is the makeup of the two groups.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

So once you take out Wisconsin & Minnesota, then add Mankato, the is the WCHC minus Tech, Bemidji and UAA plus Miami and Western. Is there really a net gain of some sort?

Yeah. That's kind of funny.

Is MTU that much worse a school than Miami? The last several years don't show that much of a difference. What about Bemidji/UAA vs. Western? Again is that worth a complete overhaul? There are reported travel issues with Miami and Western. A large number of NCHC schools schedule Bemidji anyways. That Western vs. UAA trade was really critical I guess.

[gfmorris]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Yeah. That's kind of funny.

Is MTU that much worse a school than Miami? The last several years don't show that much of a difference. What about Bemidji/UAA vs. Western? Again is that worth a complete overhaul? There are reported travel issues with Miami and Western. A large number of NCHC schools schedule Bemidji anyways. That Western vs. UAA trade was really critical I guess.

It's too bad that the NCHC schools would never agree to take ASU, Mankato, Bemidji, and UAA while sending Western and Miami to the WCHA. We'll even trade them the WCHA name and let BGSU dust off the CCHA IP.

GFM

[Dirty]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

So once you take out Wisconsin & Minnesota, then add Mankato, the is the WCHC minus Tech, Bemidji and UAA plus Miami and Western. Is there really a net gain of some sort? Was it really worth all the disruption it caused college hockey? Was it really worth blowing up two pretty good postseason tourneys? Granted, the CCHA even would have been hurt badly by losing Michigan and Michigan State, but the WCHA would have continued to have a very strong event, better than what's out there now.

Yes

[manurespreader]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Yes

UMMM, ok if you say so I guess it must be true. But I'm guessing you all have less revenue in total than before the split.
Regardless, can we just agree to let bygones be bygones and get on with it.
I don't see Mankato moving right away anyway. The NCHC is going to need ASU to come up with a rink and even after they say they'll have one it will take a couple of years for it to actually happen. So maybe 3 years from now? A lot can happen in 3 years.

[cF[Authentic]]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

So once you take out Wisconsin & Minnesota, then add Mankato, the is the WCHC minus Tech, Bemidji and UAA plus Miami and Western. Is there really a net gain of some sort? Was it really worth all the disruption it caused college hockey? Was it really worth blowing up two pretty good postseason tourneys? Granted, the CCHA even would have been hurt badly by losing Michigan and Michigan State, but the WCHA would have continued to have a very strong event, better than what's out there now.

Losing Minnesota and Wisconsin in the Final Five would give you **** near the exact same scenario as you have now. UND and a bunch of other schools that sort-of travel. The NCHC didn't blow up the Final Five, the Big 10 did.

[joecct]

Losing Minnesota and Wisconsin in the Final Five would give you **** near the exact same scenario as you have now. UND and a bunch of other schools that sort-of travel. The NCHC didn't blow up the Final Five, the Big 10 did.

Go back to my post on what the West would have looked like without the NCHC. Add UAH to the CCHA and everything works, though I may have moved the CCHA finals to Grand Rapids and out of Detroit.

The WCHA version 1.1 would have been fine at the X.

The NCHC was a mountain created in reaction to a molehill. No need for it.

[St. Clown]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Go back to my post on what the West would have looked like without the NCHC. Add UAH to the CCHA and everything works, though I may have moved the CCHA finals to Grand Rapids and out of Detroit.

The WCHA version 1.1 would have been fine at the X.

The NCHC was a mountain created in reaction to a molehill. No need for it.

Except that it gave the NCHC schools to be rid of the annual Alaska road trip. Despite UAA paying for the costs of it, no school liked the trip because it's tough on their players to adjust to a three- or four-hour time zone shift and the extra disruption to routine. Add to that, there were a couple other schools that, rightly or not, appeared to be drags on the teams, and the B1G Mistake provided the excuse to cull the herd a little.

[aparch]

Except that it gave the NCHC schools to be rid of the annual Alaska road trip. Despite UAA paying for the costs of it, no school liked the trip because it's tough on their players to adjust to a three- or four-hour time zone shift and the extra disruption to routine. Add to that, there were a couple other schools that, rightly or not, appeared to be drags on the teams, and the B1G Mistake provided the excuse to cull the herd a little.

Yep.

"Like-minded schools" was code word for "Flights to Anchorage and Houghton are terrible. And we don't want to share revenue with those leeches."


Maybe had the WCHA adopted a reward system where the better finishing schools got a bigger share of the Final Five money, the old WCHA wouldn't have been backdoored by UND and DU. But, McLeod fought to make the WCHA equal for all member schools, which contributed to the great exodus.

[cetihcra]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

Yeah. That's kind of funny.

Is MTU that much worse a school than Miami? The last several years don't show that much of a difference. What about Bemidji/UAA vs. Western? Again is that worth a complete overhaul? There are reported travel issues with Miami and Western. A large number of NCHC schools schedule Bemidji anyways. That Western vs. UAA trade was really critical I guess.

The difference isn't about the on-ice product, it's about financial commitment. The departure of UMTC/UW left a power vacuum that would have granted the smaller, less financially solvent schools more voting power than DU/UND (and to a lesser extent, CC) were willing to deal with. When it comes to voting on league policies and contracts, they wanted to be in the majority, but wouldn't have been in the reduced WCHA. Hence, NCHC. It's not rocket surgery, and it has very little to do with on-ice performance.

r

[5mn_Major]

Re: Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC

The difference isn't about the on-ice product, it's about financial commitment. The departure of UMTC/UW left a power vacuum that would have granted the smaller, less financially solvent schools more voting power than DU/UND (and to a lesser extent, CC) were willing to deal with. When it comes to voting on league policies and contracts, they wanted to be in the majority, but wouldn't have been in the reduced WCHA. Hence, NCHC. It's not rocket surgery, and it has very little to do with on-ice performance.

r

Maybe. But not so sure about much of the sentiment I'm reading here that the NCHC was a correct and calculated move to get to exactly where we are today.

I believe that the NCHC was formed with the vision of a nationwide collection of the 'top' small schools that were not in HE or B1G. Things got a bit messed up (i.e., Notre Dame) and it found itself where it is today. So just where is it? After adding SCSU and seriously considering MSUM, frankly not far from an old WCHA with an awkward exchange of couple of schools for a similar couple of schools.