The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Age	Now	10/1
17	0	3
18	23	43
19	104	128
20	263	293
21	416	357
22	360	283
23	265	196
24	150	74
25	30	1
26	0	0

 

[Speed Kills]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

So then what's the NCHC's excuse for forming and trying to kill the CCHA and WCHA? That was in the best interest of hockey too I suppose... How many new programs has the NCHC developed and added to the conference to "grow the game"? I suppose the NCHC is going to add ASU and the existing member schools will pay for ASU's new rink because "that's what's best for the sport?"

Having a new hockey conference has NOTHING to do with getting new schools to start hockey. The lack of a Bi6 hockey conference had NOTHING to do with the lack of college hockey growth. Not having ~$100M to add mens hockey and another womens sport is what limits the growth of college hockey.

It is funny how many people think D-I schools don't have hockey simply because "They never thought of it before" or "they didn't have a conference". Give me a break. Its about lack of money, not lack of desire. Period.

Ryan

The NCHC was formed by a bunch of small-time schools with a Scrappy Doo mentality. They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the Big Ten hockey conference. It was totally uncalled for, killed the CCHA and left the WCHA a shell of its former self. The NCHC schools, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with college hockey. And don't even try to say it's no different than the Big Ten schools leaving the CCHA/WCHA. It isn't the same thing because the Big Ten schools were going along with the plan set forth by the conference that they were already existing members of for every other sport. If North Dakota had left the WCHA to join a hypothetical Big Sky hockey conference, that would have been practically the same as what the Big Ten schools did. Abandoning what remained of the WCHA/CCHA to start up a pretentious new conference was low class all the way. Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

 

[SJHovey]

The NCHC was formed by a bunch of small-time schools with a Scrappy Doo mentality. They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the Big Ten hockey conference. It was totally uncalled for, killed the CCHA and left the WCHA a shell of its former self. The NCHC schools, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with college hockey. And don't even try to say it's no different than the Big Ten schools leaving the CCHA/WCHA. It isn't the same thing because the Big Ten schools were going along with the plan set forth by the conference that they were already existing members of for every other sport. If North Dakota had left the WCHA to join a hypothetical Big Sky hockey conference, that would have been practically the same as what the Big Ten schools did. Abandoning what remained of the WCHA/CCHA to start up a pretentious new conference was low class all the way. Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

Fortunately literally no one associated with the NCHC cares who you respect or what you think of our schools. Your irrelevance to us is exceeded only by the irrelevance of your team.

 

[kdiff77]

The NCHC was formed by a bunch of small-time schools with a Scrappy Doo mentality. They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the Big Ten hockey conference. It was totally uncalled for, killed the CCHA and left the WCHA a shell of its former self. The NCHC schools, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with college hockey. And don't even try to say it's no different than the Big Ten schools leaving the CCHA/WCHA. It isn't the same thing because the Big Ten schools were going along with the plan set forth by the conference that they were already existing members of for every other sport. If North Dakota had left the WCHA to join a hypothetical Big Sky hockey conference, that would have been practically the same as what the Big Ten schools did. Abandoning what remained of the WCHA/CCHA to start up a pretentious new conference was low class all the way. Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

You have a lot of bad opinions.

 

[cross cheque]

The NCHC was formed by a bunch of small-time schools with a Scrappy Doo mentality. They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the Big Ten hockey conference. It was totally uncalled for, killed the CCHA and left the WCHA a shell of its former self. The NCHC schools, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with college hockey. And don't even try to say it's no different than the Big Ten schools leaving the CCHA/WCHA. It isn't the same thing because the Big Ten schools were going along with the plan set forth by the conference that they were already existing members of for every other sport. If North Dakota had left the WCHA to join a hypothetical Big Sky hockey conference, that would have been practically the same as what the Big Ten schools did. Abandoning what remained of the WCHA/CCHA to start up a pretentious new conference was low class all the way. Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

You're the guy that has 3 Michelob Goldens and tells anyone who does or does not want to hear that Barack Obama is a Muslim and that 9/11 was an inside job, probably with either both collars popped or a once white pair of new balance sneaks depending on your age.

 

[bueller]

The NCHC was formed by a bunch of small-time schools with a Scrappy Doo mentality. They did it as a knee-jerk reaction to the formation of the Big Ten hockey conference. It was totally uncalled for, killed the CCHA and left the WCHA a shell of its former self. The NCHC schools, in my opinion, represent everything that is wrong with college hockey. And don't even try to say it's no different than the Big Ten schools leaving the CCHA/WCHA. It isn't the same thing because the Big Ten schools were going along with the plan set forth by the conference that they were already existing members of for every other sport. If North Dakota had left the WCHA to join a hypothetical Big Sky hockey conference, that would have been practically the same as what the Big Ten schools did. Abandoning what remained of the WCHA/CCHA to start up a pretentious new conference was low class all the way. Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

Well said and spot on.

 

[Speed Kills]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Well said and spot on.

Excellent! So glad to know I'm not the only one who gets it.

 

[willythekid]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Fortunately literally no one associated with the NCHC cares who you respect or what you think of our schools. Your irrelevance to us is exceeded only by the irrelevance of your team.

BINGO!!!! We have a winner.

 

[Speed Kills]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Fortunately literally no one associated with the NCHC cares who you respect or what you think of our schools. Your irrelevance to us is exceeded only by the irrelevance of your team.

So nobody associated with the NCHC cares what I think... nobody associated with the Big Ten cares what you think either. So that makes us even, now stop throwing stones from that glass house of yours.

 

[joecct]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

The Big Six back doored the rest of college hockey. But it doesn't matter, the proposal is likely to die before it gets to a vote.

The solution may be commitments. Some schools have 25 recruits on Heisenberg's list. WHAT? What if they limited the amount of commits to 18 in any 4 year class cohort?

So next year you would have 18 for the years 2017 - 20. If my grandson want to commit to the class of 2035, he can and he'll count in any 4 year cohort that contains 2031 in the arrival year.

 

[UML Puck Hawk]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

nobody associated with the Big Ten cares what the rest of college hockey thinks.

FYP. And thats the problem the rest of the sport has with the BI6

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

The solution may be commitments. Some schools have 25 recruits on Heisenberg's list. WHAT? What if they limited the amount of commits to 18 in any 4 year class cohort?

So next year you would have 18 for the years 2017 - 20. If my grandson want to commit to the class of 2035, he can and he'll count in any 4 year cohort that contains 2031 in the arrival year.

Big Ten doesn't want that

 

[Dirty]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

So nobody associated with the NCHC cares what I think... nobody associated with the Big Ten cares what you think either. So that makes us even, now stop throwing stones from that glass house of yours.

No. Throwing stones is fun. Especially since the B10 ineptitude makes it so easy.

 

[joecct]

Big Ten doesn't want that

Check the # of commitments to the Ivy schools.

 

[Superfly100]

Starting the Big Ten hockey conference was the single most important event in developing the long term growth of the game at the collegiate level.

Ahhhh, but this assumes hockey needed growth at the collegiate level. I think college hockey has a strong and faithful following in those markets where hockey is part of the local culture. Forcing it into markets for the sake of "growing" does nothing for the sport, and only serves to dilute the talent.

I agree with you that the BI6 is here to stay and we'll have to get used to it. They're too arrogant to admit it was a mistake. But, it doesn't mean I have to drink the Kool Aid and accept it as a good idea.

 

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Any respect that I once had for those eight schools vanished the day that the NCHC was formed.

You would have to give SCSU a bit of a pass. Honestly, they didn't want any part of the NCHC... until the conference ran out of teams who wanted to join and then SCSU's invite arrived.
Ryan J

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Sources: Big Ten withdraws age limit proposal at NCAA Legislative Council meeting</p>— College Hockey News (@chnews) <a href="https://twitter.com/chnews/status/717799242295681024">April 6, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[QUAlum2004]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Great news for college hockey.

 

[Deleted member 3166]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Nice!

 

[Scarlet]

Re: The B1G's proposal and their defense of it

Well that's interesting news.