What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

There's only ONE way to solve the problem of scheduling inequities.

ALL the WCHA schools need to stick together and tell the B!G "1 for 1, 2 for 2, or go to hell."
They only have a 20 game conference schedule. They've got 14-16 NC dates to fill. They need us nearly as much as we need them.
Yes, its risky business, and it can ONLY work if EVERYBODY stands up to the tyranny.
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Freddie said:
With all due respect, I have to disagree with you. Omaha did NOT have to be coaxed into applying for WCHA membership. From the moment Dean Blias was hired at UNO (spring of 2009) UNO politicked HARD to get in (make no mistake, that's where they ALWAYS wanted to be, anyway). The fact that Bemidji was in the process of being orphaned simply made it an easier call.
Click to expand...

Look at the deal UNO got to join the conference compared to what the last member to join the WCHA had to do. It was a huge embarrassment for what was the most powerful league in the country to basically have to beg for a 12th team like that, and was one of those leadership decisions that helped convince UND, DU, and the like to jump ship as soon as they could.
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

beaverhockey said:
The Minnesota Legislature also had NOTHING to do with confernce affiliation.
Click to expand...

The legislature didn't approve the bonding bill for the Sanford Center? The $20 million in state bonding and $3 million in other state funds? Does the building get built without that money, does the WCHA accept Bemidji without the building? It
s not a negative that the state helped Bemidji, especially considering that the majority of funds came from local taxes. It
s definitely the best barn in the league.

http://bsureportingspring11.blogspot.com/2011/02/sanford-center-where-money-came-from.html
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

EDIT...just re-read your original post. First read I had you saying that the Legislature "helped" get BSU into the WCHA...not got them a building so that they could get into a league. Sorry for that!
 
Last edited:
RapidsCity said:
The Commish would gladly gotten down on his hands and knees and begged Penn State to be an 11th team!
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. Yeah, PSU wasn't an official thing at that time but it was also the worst kept secret in college hockey. At that time that B16 wasn't a sure thing. If the B16 doesn't happen, the CCHA was easily the best fit for PSU.
 
davyd83 said:
When Bemidji was becoming a WCHA program, with great help from the Minnesota legislature, two teams were targeted as Team 12. Northern Michigan declined the invitation. Then Omaha accepted.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would NMU have declined that invite? I ask because there were overtures at that time from the WCHA to UAF. I don't think we were ever a serious candidate (it was more McLeod saying if Omaha says no we will give you a call), but if my memory is right I think McLeod even visited Fairbanks in the offseason that year and the university made their pitch just in case.

It's all pointless now, except that if that call did happen it would have been an easy yes.
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Freddie said:
There's only ONE way to solve the problem of scheduling inequities.

ALL the WCHA schools need to stick together and tell the B!G "1 for 1, 2 for 2, or go to hell."
They only have a 20 game conference schedule. They've got 14-16 NC dates to fill. They need us nearly as much as we need them.
Yes, its risky business, and it can ONLY work if EVERYBODY stands up to the tyranny.
Click to expand...

There are some schools out east — I forget who all, but Merrimack sticks out in my mind, and maybe Vermont — that are refusing to play money games or uneven deals. That may be easier to do out east, because what they can do is schedule non-Ivy ECAC and better AHA schools and not spend a ton on travel. Would they be willing to come out west? Merrimack didn't want to come to Huntsville, but they were willing to go to Nashville instead when that situation became tenable. It was a bad deal for our fans, and it was a bad deal for the people who put the game on, but it got us games against good talent. But hell, we got Lowell down here in 2009-10 (the year before they dropped a 5-win season). Also, we got Bob Motzko to do a 1-1 so Nic Dowd could play his hometown team.

I think that the eastern schools that are in the equity camp may find coming west harder to swallow, but it would be good for the sport. I know that our coaches have been in touch with the right coaches.

GFM
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Squarebanks said:
Why on earth would NMU have declined that invite? I ask because there were overtures at that time from the WCHA to UAF. I don't think we were ever a serious candidate (it was more McLeod saying if Omaha says no we will give you a call), but if my memory is right I think McLeod even visited Fairbanks in the offseason that year and the university made their pitch just in case.

It's all pointless now, except that if that call did happen it would have been an easy yes.
Click to expand...
NMU declined because of the increased expenditures with travel to Denver & CC and the lesser subsidy from UAA plus a restriction on payout from the WCHA tourney for the first couple seasons it would be in the league. Financially, switching leagues would have been a bad deal at that point.'
http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/512141.html
 
Last edited:
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I agree Freddie that we play the Big Ten even or tell them to take a hike. Michigan and Michigan State have demanded a 2 to 1 where as Ohio State was willing to do a 1 to 1 or a 2 to 2 agreement. From that Ohio State was on our schedule this season and will be as well the next two seasons at least. No Michigan or Michigan State this year or next as it should be. If we were good enough to be league mates for 30 years or so, we are good enough now!


GO BG! Roll Along!
 
Jimjamesak said:
I think there is reason to be concerned for a future shakeup and how it affects UAH, UAA, and UAF. We are the geographical outliers after all.

First off, the Alaska are a package deal now. I just don't see them splitting up again unless they face dire circumstances (which is a possibility). We like being in the same conference, it has elevated our rivalry for sure.

All of this is going to hinge on the loyalties of Bemidji and Mankato. I don't believe much on the Miami and Western Mich swap rumors, at least the Western end of it. Budget issues aside, WMU campaigned hard to get into the NCHC. I don't see them giving up this early. Anyway, those rumors depend on how BSU and MSU feel where they fit best. If they go to the NCHC they have a better chance at making money, but they're also likely to be at doormat status if they go. Odds are, they have a better chance of success in the WCHA, but if the price is right... The other factor being, how do they feel about the NCHC schools? Are they upset? Would they care to leave the NCHC schools hanging in the wind? Or do they have a loyalty to their fellow Minnesota schools?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good with inside sources here in Mankato. From what I've heard, there is full intention to try and get back with the old conference foes, aka, the NCHC.
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

davyd83 said:
Really. Donnie boy, I worked in the WCHA before Alaska Anchorage was even a member of the WCHA. I recall playing Anchorage in the NCAA tourney in 91 and being a part of the production for what was then the Alaska Sports Network. I also recall the entry of UAA into the league. When UAA came to the WCHA and UAF to the CCHA. I also know that having a strong record against WCHA teams helped us into the NCAA tourney four years ago and had us right on the cusp, first team out three years ago. Where were you when I was standing there having a cup of coffee and chatting with Brush Christensen prior to those games in the early 90s?
Click to expand...

Once again you fail to read prior to launching yet another ad hominem attack.

I said that "you never really experienced the bump in pairwise that was part of being in the WCHA" (even though you quoted it) gave to the league's teams. And you hadn't. Had you? Was NMU in the WCHA when the pairwise was introduced? Nope. Was NMU in the WCHA when it fully dominated college hockey from 97 to 06 including when ALL FOUR of the Frozen Four teams was from the WCHA? Nope. Many of those years UAA wasn't particularly successful in the league yet in the pairwise they finished as high or nearly as high as this year. Why? Pairwise bump.

And since you desire some sort of *****-measuring contest ... I attended my first UAA hockey game in the 1984-1985 season immediately after I returned to Anchorage from my 4 years in the Air Force. I was one of the first 100 people to have season tickets (#81 if I recall correctly). In those nearly 30 years I'd estimate that I attended pretty close to 500 Seawolves hockey games and listened to nearly as many on the radio. Unlike you, I won't stoop to silly name dropping but suffice to say that anyone you've met over the years associated with Seawolves hockey is someone with whom I've certainly had more contact. Seawolves hockey isn't my only experience with the sport either. But again, not relevant here.

You really need to exercise some sort of care when addressing yourself to me in this place. Cos you've looked nothing but stupid nearly every time.

So ... none of what you've said is germane to the topic. Get over your little hard-on for me. I simply do not care what you think of me or how you perceive me. I've self-applied more negative labels regarding my communications style on the internet than you can generate in what seems to be an ill-functioning brain.
 
Last edited:
uaafanblog said:
Once again you fail to read prior to launching yet another ad hominem attack.

I said that "you never really experienced the bump in pairwise that was part of being in the WCHA" (even though you quoted it) gave to the league's teams. And you hadn't. Had you? Was NMU in the WCHA when the pairwise was introduced? Nope. Was NMU in the WCHA when it fully dominated college hockey from 97 to 06 including when ALL FOUR of the Frozen Four teams was from the WCHA? Nope. Many of those years UAA wasn't particularly successful in the league yet in the pairwise they finished as high or nearly as high as this year. Why? Pairwise bump.

And since you desire some sort of *****-measuring contest ... I attended my first UAA hockey game in the 1984-1985 season immediately after I returned to Anchorage from my 4 years in the Air Force. I was one of the first 100 people to have season tickets (#81 if I recall correctly). In those nearly 30 years I'd estimate that I attended pretty close to 500 Seawolves hockey games and listened to nearly as many on the radio. Unlike you, I won't stoop to silly name dropping but suffice to say that anyone you've met over the years associated with Seawolves hockey is someone with whom I've certainly had more contact. Seawolves hockey isn't my only experience with the sport either. But again, not relevant here.

You really need to exercise some sort of care when addressing yourself to me in this place. Cos you've looked nothing but stupid nearly every time.

So ... none of what you've said is germane to the topic. Get over your little hard-on for me. I simply do not care what you think of me or how you perceive me. I've self-applied more negative labels regarding my communications style on the internet than you can generate in what seems to be an ill-functioning brain.
Click to expand...

My fault. I mistook you for someone much much younger. My apologies. In acknowledging my error, I'll remove my prior post.

And while we may exchange unpleasantries, I do wish to tip my cap to you and all of those who have served our great country. Enjoy your summer.
 
Last edited:
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I don't see anyone from Bemidji bolting early for the pros. Cory Ward and Brendon Harms would be the two likely candidates, but I don't see it happening, at least this year. If they did, they would end up in the low minors, I feel.

Now if anyone leaves school due to other reasons, that is always a possibility but I have not heard anything.

As for scheduling, BSU is in an good postition geographically to pick up non-conference games. We already have the North Star Cup contract with the in-state schools. UND is just up the road and is very open to doing a home and home every year. Last year, BSU played at St. Cloud, so I see a return trip from the Huskies to Bemidji this year and may become a longer running contract. I have also heard that UMD eventually would like to set something up with BSU, but that would be a few years down the road due to UMD's schedules being full. With a 28 game conference schedule and those possible contracts, BSU would be at 36 games. On the year they travel to both Fairbanks and Anchorage, they would just have to pick up two more games.
 
Freddie said:
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this timeline, but I'm pretty sure I'm right:
Click to expand...

With the scheduled dissolving of the CHA, Bemidji (and I think UAH, I may be wrong about them) inquired to the WCHA for a spot (the CCHA was at 12, WCHA at 10). The WCHA wanted Bemidji, but also wanted an even number of teams. The WCHA asked NMU to be the 12th team. NMU said no because of the added financials of flying to Colorado and paying their own way to Anchorage, along with the loss of playing so many games in lower Michigan.

UNO, with Blais at the helm, was then asked to be the 12th team.



Bowling Green was the popular pick if you had to say a CCHA team was going to fold in the 11 team CCHA, but my feelings are there was a team or two that was much closer than BGSU. No proof, but it's a feeling that the BGSU talk was a mis-direction.

I am glad to have UAH in the new WCHA fold and I hope they can recover from being kicked around so much the last few years; but I still think the CCHA's exclusion of them was right, at the time. The CCHA needed to get it's house in order, and ham fisting acceptance of UAH into the league wasn't appropriate.

I think that while the travel costs may have gone up for all New WCHA, the arrangement has been much more amicable than whatever the CCHA would have done.
 
Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

As I recall it, we inquired with the WCHA and found out that we were way down the list. When it was clear that the WCHA was going to poach a CCHA member, it made sense for us to look at the league that far better fit our travel profile.

GFM
 
davyd83 said:
NMU declined because of the increased expenditures with travel to Denver & CC and the lesser subsidy from UAA plus a restriction on payout from the WCHA tourney for the first couple seasons it would be in the league. Financially, switching leagues would have been a bad deal at that point.'
http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/512141.html
Click to expand...

But the second time around two trips to Alaska and one to Alabama looked better then going to Colorado.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top