PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota State Applies to the NCHC



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14

5mn_Major
07-19-2016, 04:39 AM
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
07-19-2016, 04:58 AM
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
07-19-2016, 06:07 AM
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
07-19-2016, 08:19 AM
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]
07-19-2016, 11:28 AM
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
07-19-2016, 11:35 AM
;6342343']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
07-19-2016, 11:44 AM
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
07-19-2016, 11:52 AM
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
07-19-2016, 12:12 PM
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
07-19-2016, 12:28 PM
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.

JohnsonsJerseys
07-19-2016, 12:44 PM
...it gave the NCHC schools to be rid of the annual Alaska road trip... it's tough on their players to adjust to a three- or four-hour time zone shift...
Hockey is really tough isn't it. Sitting on a plane is hard work for the players and coaches. It's not like they're playing in China. It's three time zones - big whoop. People fly NY to LA all the time and I don't see any of them dropping dead, much less conditioned college age athletes. If it was so tough, how do the Alaska teams survive the season? Last I checked, players were not being drafted into college hockey against their will. I certainly hope none of them ever have to suffer the pains of playing in the NHL. Their agent won't be real happen when they mention they can't play for a Western Conference team because "it's too hard with all that travel..."

NCHC "Logic": We don't want to take a "tough" 5 hr flight to Anchorage. But we would have gladly played hockey with BC and BU (if they had wanted us) because that's an "easy" 4.5 hour flight... Miami and WMU are thrilled to add ASU to the schedule as well. Just another "easy" 5 hour flight every year for them on top of existing flights to DU, CC, UNO, UND...

Twenty years from now, someone is going to write a heck of a book with all the different ways the NCHC tried to spin the absolute necessity of their conference to save college hockey from itself.
:D
Ryan

giwan
07-19-2016, 12:55 PM
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

Nice exemption for CC

willythekid
07-19-2016, 01:03 PM
I don't know anywhere that the NCHC ever alluded that it was "trying to save college from itself"...:p From day one it was about doing what the NCHC schools thought was best for them. Those who choose to argue that the NCHC schools would have been just fine staying as the WCHA can say what they will until they're blue in the face. They might have had a better argument had the NCHC had such success since it formed though. Most everyone, including big10 fans, wish it was back to the old days of WCHA grandeur. That ship has sailed. Big10 money killed that, not the NCHC...

gfmorris
07-19-2016, 01:38 PM
Thank God we settle this on the ice during the season. Too bad the WCHA got its *** kicked last year (but hey, UAH did better than the WCHA average against the NCHC —*yes, against CC and NDFH, but they held their own in that game that the Whioux announcers kept calling UAH's Stanley Cup Game 7). The league has to be better, period.

GFM

SJHovey
07-19-2016, 01:54 PM
Hockey is really tough isn't it. Sitting on a plane is hard work for the players and coaches. It's not like they're playing in China. It's three time zones - big whoop. People fly NY to LA all the time and I don't see any of them dropping dead, much less conditioned college age athletes. If it was so tough, how do the Alaska teams survive the season? Last I checked, players were not being drafted into college hockey against their will. I certainly hope none of them ever have to suffer the pains of playing in the NHL. Their agent won't be real happen when they mention they can't play for a Western Conference team because "it's too hard with all that travel..."

NCHC "Logic": We don't want to take a "tough" 5 hr flight to Anchorage. But we would have gladly played hockey with BC and BU (if they had wanted us) because that's an "easy" 4.5 hour flight... Miami and WMU are thrilled to add ASU to the schedule as well. Just another "easy" 5 hour flight every year for them on top of existing flights to DU, CC, UNO, UND...

Twenty years from now, someone is going to write a heck of a book with all the different ways the NCHC tried to spin the absolute necessity of their conference to save college hockey from itself.
:D
RyanOr, rather than waiting twenty years, just go back and look at the original reasons (http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205181536) announced by the schools themselves.

As they said five years ago, they were looking for schools that:

1. Displayed a high level of competitiveness on the ice;
2. Demonstrated an institutional commitment to compete at the highest level of Division I hockey;
3. Provide a national platform for exposure; and
4. Have a high quality history and tradition within their hockey program.

That's what they were/are trying to achieve. Although they didn't specifically say so, it seems pretty clear from subsequent discussions that this was also the order of importance. That is, you needed to be a program fielding a nationally competitive team as demonstrated by relatively recent results, and you needed to show a willingness to spend money on your program, typically in the form of arenas and coaching.

Has the NCHC been a success? I think the results are mixed, but largely positive. The tournament hasn't produced crowds like the WCHA tournament of old, but I'm not sure anyone predicted they would. But the NCHC has been as successful as any of the three western tournaments that resulted from the alignment shift, and its the only one that hasn't had to fold up shop yet.

Six of its eight teams have made the NCAA tournament in just the first three years. We've had three different conference tournament champions in three years. Five of the eight teams have played in the conference tournament championship game. Six of the eight teams have hosted a conference playoff series.

They haven't produced a national television package, but they do have their own streaming service that seems to make money.

The conference has produced one national champion. In the twelve NCAA quarterfinal games since realignment, nine of them have featured an NCHC team, six of them featured a Hockey East team, with the B1G, WCHA, and ECAC bringing up the rear with two each.

NCHC teams have played 29 NCAA tournament games in the past three years, all televised or streamed on ESPN channels. WCHA teams have played seven. NCHC teams are 17-12 in the NCAAs these past three seasons. Only HEA teams at 14-13, are also above .500.

On ice the conference has been a success. Television, not so much. However, I also think that talking about television success today is a little like talking about radio success in 1970. Yeah it may be currently important, but technology isn't going to be kind to it.

camilo
07-19-2016, 02:35 PM
Do you really think we don't know the situation of how we ended up in the league? No, we weren't at the top of the list, but we were on the list and we picked up the phone when called. And it's been a lot of fun hockey since then playing against top competition for points and not the likes of UAH, UAA or UA_.

To be fair, up until last year, Alaska was a consistently decent team, expected to be in the top half of the league from year to year. UAA and UAH were the only terrible teams in the league. Now, it's a different story for Alaska, I wonder if they'll come back.

As for the league, the WCHA, no matter what anyone says, was a league of cast-offs. Good hockey schools, but similar in terms of similar size schools with similar (less than top tier) commitments to hockey, tough for recruitment, definitely second tier in terms of NCAA leagues. Doubtful that they'd produce more than one or maybe two dangerous teams from year to year, and the third and fourth (let alone the bottom) teams would not be feared by other leagues. Now, with both Alaska schools in jeopardy, it's going to be a tough league to keep good teams in.

Shirtless Guy
07-19-2016, 02:41 PM
Uhm, the alaska schools are probably some of the biggest issues for the membership with the travel costs. Without them, the league is likely healthier.

camilo
07-19-2016, 02:49 PM
Or, rather than waiting twenty years, just go back and look at the original reasons (http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205181536) announced by the schools themselves.

As they said five years ago, they were looking for schools that:

1. Displayed a high level of competitiveness on the ice;
2. Demonstrated an institutional commitment to compete at the highest level of Division I hockey;
3. Provide a national platform for exposure; and
4. Have a high quality history and tradition within their hockey program.

That's what they were/are trying to achieve. Although they didn't specifically say so, it seems pretty clear from subsequent discussions that this was also the order of importance. That is, you needed to be a program fielding a nationally competitive team as demonstrated by relatively recent results, and you needed to show a willingness to spend money on your program, typically in the form of arenas and coaching.

Has the NCHC been a success? I think the results are mixed, but largely positive. The tournament hasn't produced crowds like the WCHA tournament of old, but I'm not sure anyone predicted they would. But the NCHC has been as successful as any of the three western tournaments that resulted from the alignment shift, and its the only one that hasn't had to fold up shop yet.

Six of its eight teams have made the NCAA tournament in just the first three years. We've had three different conference tournament champions in three years. Five of the eight teams have played in the conference tournament championship game. Six of the eight teams have hosted a conference playoff series.

They haven't produced a national television package, but they do have their own streaming service that seems to make money.

The conference has produced one national champion. In the twelve NCAA quarterfinal games since realignment, nine of them have featured an NCHC team, six of them featured a Hockey East team, with the B1G, WCHA, and ECAC bringing up the rear with two each.

NCHC teams have played 29 NCAA tournament games in the past three years, all televised or streamed on ESPN channels. WCHA teams have played seven. NCHC teams are 17-12 in the NCAAs these past three seasons. Only HEA teams at 14-13, are also above .500.

On ice the conference has been a success. Television, not so much. However, I also think that talking about television success today is a little like talking about radio success in 1970. Yeah it may be currently important, but technology isn't going to be kind to it.

This is one of the best analyses I've seen so far and is right on. The NCHC had very valid reasons for forming. They have been successful. They are better than the current WCHA and arguably better, top to bottom, than the old CCHA and maybe even the old WCHA. It was a smart move by their teams.

The new WCHA is not a "victim" of anything but the member schools mediocre commitment and mediocre success on the ice. Not a result of realignment, but one of the root reasons for realignment. They are good hockey schools with good fans and occasional great players, but they simply don't have the resources and commitment of the NCHC or other top tier leagues. Just speaking of the teams I'm somewhat familiar with, there's no doubt that Alaska, NMU, Lake State, Bemidji, Tech, etc. are in Hockey Country, and have solid fans. Anchorage and UAH, I really don't know about, but it doesn't appear so. But the great majority of WCHA schools simply haven't shown commitment to top tier coaching, recruitment, facilities of the other schools. They don't have the resources, and with some exceptions, haven't ever had national-quality success and certainly not consistent or recent. It's not a good guy - bad guy situation, it's just reality. No worse than in, say college football where there's top tier and second tier conferences based on the same factors.

camilo
07-19-2016, 02:55 PM
Uhm, the alaska schools are probably some of the biggest issues for the membership with the travel costs. Without them, the league is likely healthier.

This might have some truth, but not as much as people say. I would like to see both schools survive in D-1, but without them being decent teams, being successful at least in the conference and better, NCAA tournament quality teams, they won't draw crowds home or away, and will be a drag on the conference as a whole both in terms of money and national rankings.

But like someone said above, the travel is a red herring, if the "excess" travel costs are covered by the AK teams. The airplane ride is not significantly worse than 6+ hour bus rides, trips from the UP to UAH, or eastern time zone to rocky mountain plane trips. I personally believe that the college kids get a kick out of traveling to Anchorage or Fairbanks once in a while - they get a free trip to Alaska and often while they're there, get to see some sights they don't see in the boring midwest.

purpleinnebraska
07-19-2016, 04:22 PM
The new WCHA is not a "victim" of anything but the member schools mediocre commitment and mediocre success on the ice. Not a result of realignment, but one of the root reasons for realignment. They are good hockey schools with good fans and occasional great players, but they simply don't have the resources and commitment of the NCHC or other top tier leagues. Just speaking of the teams I'm somewhat familiar with, there's no doubt that Alaska, NMU, Lake State, Bemidji, Tech, etc. are in Hockey Country, and have solid fans. Anchorage and UAH, I really don't know about, but it doesn't appear so. But the great majority of WCHA schools simply haven't shown commitment to top tier coaching, recruitment, facilities of the other schools. They don't have the resources, and with some exceptions, haven't ever had national-quality success and certainly not consistent or recent. It's not a good guy - bad guy situation, it's just reality. No worse than in, say college football where there's top tier and second tier conferences based on the same factors.

As someone caught in the middle on this, I disagree that the WCHA lacks "commitment," whatever that may mean. There may be better coaches out there than Mike Hastings, Mel Pearson, Chris Bergeron, and Bob Daniels, but not many, and pay has increased accordingly for the league's coaches. Several of the schools have upgraded facilities in recent years. WCHA schools are tireless in their recruiting. School administrators are supportive of the programs. What the schools lack in resources is not a lack of commitment, but rather the lack of money that comes from having several member schools with fewer than 10,000 students.

The problems come with how do you get players to come to a small school, and play with and against what's generally perceived by players, fans, and scouts to be second-rate players? For the schools themselves looking to the future, how long can the commitment remain when travel costs are exorbitant? Kato is hoping to address these issues by going to a league with a much better travel footprint. Half of the NCHC's schools are as close or closer to Mankato than is Bemidji, our closest league opponent. Two of the NCHC's members are already in the same conference as MSU-M in every other sport.

As far as the competition, membership in the NCHC allows you to point out to players that by coming to their school, you will be competing against some of college hockey's very best. 7 players picked in the first 3 rounds of the 2016 NHL draft are committed to NCHC schools; the WCHA had none. This is the sort of thing that snowballs, as right now, the NCHC is able to use this as a selling point to future recruits. Frankly, it was easier for us to get highly regarded recruits, like a David Backes or a Tyler Pitlick, to come to Mankato when we were a doormat in the old powerhouse WCHA, than it is to get that same caliber of player to come to the school where we're now the "big dog" in the new WCHA.

Look, it's college hockey. I'll love it whatever conference we're in, and no matter who we play. I just wanted to register my disagreement with saying WCHA schools aren't committed to hockey, but also explain why I think a move to the NCHC makes a ton of sense for MSU-M.