An alternate view: UConn to B1G 2016 via hockey affiliation | Page 2 | The Boneyard

An alternate view: UConn to B1G 2016 via hockey affiliation

Status
Not open for further replies.
businesslawyer said:
Yes. Dead on. We can get a home game like that, based on our history at the Rent, once every 14 years. Just keep pretending that we could get Michigan for a one and one again (even thought Michigan made clear they wouldn't do this again).

Having said that, we are not joining the Big Ten for hockey only, and they are not going to bring us into the Big Ten, if they ever do, with hockey being near the important parts of the decision making process. Sheesh.
Expand ...
Not pretending anything. Will playing any P5 team away with no return game help us get in a P5? It has not so far and doubt it will help in the future. If it would help then I would be for it. Has it helped any others in our position?
 
HuskyBandDad said:
Not pretending anything. Will playing any P5 team away with no return game help us get in a P5? It has not so far and doubt it will help in the future. If it would help then I would be for it. Has it helped any others in our position?
Expand ...

No, of course it won't get us in the P-5. Who the heck said that? It just might occasionally get us a game we could drive to against a team that beating would actually mean something
 
Dooley said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Hockey East is the unquestioned top college hockey conference in the country. The IceBus plays against nationally ranked opponents every single week. Leaving Hockey East for the B1G Hockey conference would be like a SEC school taking its football program out and putting it in the AAC.

There are only 2 scenarios that UConn should be receptive to leaving HE for the B1G:

1. it leads to full-time, all-in, B1G membership in the near future;
2. the B1G is somehow able to secure a hockey TV contract that would provide an annual revenue that is higher than our AAC deal (probably more likely)...AND...word leaks that several of the top HE programs are on-board with leaving too (BU, BC, etc).
Expand ...

"Leaving Hockey East for the BIG Hockey conference would be like a SEC school taking its football program out and putting it in the AAC."

Nonsense, when speaking long-term. But I will agree with you if you think college hockey has no need for say a P5 type structure and leagues should be concerned with intimate, geographical rivals - essential when it comes to the regional nature of American amateur hockey.

You really don't know hockey history very well, and I mean all time, and not just some recent trend, where power shifts east for a brief run - nothing new if you follow college hockey history. It will head back west soon enough. It's only natural.

The current BIG hockey members boast 23 NCAA titles. The AAC cannot account for such numbers in football. So your SEC analogy is complete bunk.

The WCHA was the SEC of college hockey before the BIG killed it & frankly it's not even close: national championships, NHL players, Frozen Four appearances, tradition, etc. It was the only conference to ever field the entire Frozen Four. Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were all once WCHA members along with Denver, ND, Colorado College and Minnesota Duluth - members who left the WCHA as well.

Why? Because dictator Delany had to create a BIG hockey conference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm BIG fan, and an alum of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also remain a big supporter of getting UConn in the BIG for ALL SPORTS.

But there was only one need to create a BIG hockey conference: money. Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey fans overwhelmingly objected to the near destruction of the WCHA & loss of intimate geographical rivals that say Hockey East currently enjoys. It's a GD shame what it has done to hockey in the Upper Midwest. I hate it what happened to the WCHA. But BIG hockey is still young in terms of history - the power programs will inevitably adapt & cycle through periods of dominance.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were at one time WCHA members, only Minny and Wisky stuck with the conference til the creation of the BIG. Michigan & Michigan State would leave the WCHA to create CCHA and hopefully grow the sport. Again, those 4 teams, now current BIG members, account for 23 NCAA titles. FYI, that's more titles than the entire current Hockey East - all time.

It's absolutely tragic what happened to the WCHA & I blame the BIG despite being a Minnesota alum. We lost the intimate rivalries that Hockey East enjoys because all of our conference rivals are now out of state. We also lost one of college hockey's biggest rivalry games: North Dakota - Minnesota.

It will take a long time for any current college hockey conference to equal the history of the WCHA.

PS Minny owns the all-time series against BC & every other Hockey East member, minus Boston U - and that's a damn close margin. But we produce far more NHL talent than Mass, despite being a smaller state. But I will confess, Mass has a fantastic culture of college hockey, similar to Minnesota because there are so many D1 teams & they mostly share the same conference. Well because of the BIG hockey conference, Minnesota lost 4 in-state rivals. Still not happy about this shameful greed grab by the BIG.
 
Gfunk said:
"Leaving Hockey East for the BIG Hockey conference would be like a SEC school taking its football program out and putting it in the AAC."

Nonsense, when speaking long-term. But I will agree with you if you think college hockey has no need for say a P5 type structure and leagues should be concerned with intimate, geographical rivals - essential when it comes to the regional nature of American amateur hockey.

You really don't know hockey history very well, and I mean all time, and not just some recent trend, where power shifts east for a brief run - nothing new if you follow college hockey history. It will head back west soon enough. It's only natural.

The current BIG hockey members boast 23 NCAA titles. The AAC cannot account for such numbers in football. So your SEC analogy is complete bunk.

The WCHA was the SEC of college hockey before the BIG killed it & frankly it's not even close: national championships, NHL players, Frozen Four appearances, tradition, etc. It was the only conference to ever field the entire Frozen Four. Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were all once WCHA members along with Denver, ND, Colorado College and Minnesota Duluth - members who left the WCHA as well.

Why? Because dictator Delany had to create a BIG hockey conference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm BIG fan, and an alum of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also remain a big supporter of getting UConn in the BIG for ALL SPORTS.

But there was only one need to create a BIG hockey conference: money. Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey fans overwhelmingly objected to the near destruction of the WCHA & loss of intimate geographical rivals that say Hockey East currently enjoys. It's a GD shame what it has done to hockey in the Upper Midwest. I hate it what happened to the WCHA. But BIG hockey is still young in terms of history - the power programs will inevitably adapt & cycle through periods of dominance.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were at one time WCHA members, only Minny and Wisky stuck with the conference til the creation of the BIG. Michigan & Michigan State would leave the WCHA to create CCHA and hopefully grow the sport. Again, those 4 teams, now current BIG members, account for 23 NCAA titles. FYI, that's more titles than the entire current Hockey East - all time.

It's absolutely tragic what happened to the WCHA & I blame the BIG despite being a Minnesota alum. We lost the intimate rivalries that Hockey East enjoys because all of our conference rivals are now out of state. We also lost one of college hockey's biggest rivalry games: North Dakota - Minnesota.

It will take a long time for any current college hockey conference to equal the history of the WCHA.

PS Minny owns the all-time series against BC & every other Hockey East member, minus Boston U - and that's a damn close margin. But we produce far more NHL talent than Mass, despite being a smaller state. But I will confess, Mass has a fantastic culture of college hockey, similar to Minnesota because there are so many D1 teams & they mostly share the same conference. Well because of the BIG hockey conference, Minnesota lost 4 in-state rivals. Still not happy about this shameful greed grab by the BIG.
Expand ...

You're right, I don't know college history very well. I only began following it closely after UConn upgraded to Hockey East. I grew up with the Whalers and took a 20 year hiatus from the NHL after the 96-97 season too. But what I do know is this: UConn plays a top 10 team seemingly every week since I've had season tickets on the IceBus. And until there is some sort of HUGE TV contract for a mega college hockey conference, then I am perfectly happy with the current regionalized model. I can hop in my car and drive to any Hockey East opponent and get there before lunch (except ND of course) and that is, after all, what makes college sports fun.

I obviously didn't mean to ruffle B1G hockey fans feathers with my throw-away comment. My SEC comparison was simply to compare playing a top 25 team every week. Most weeks, multiple times. No other college hockey conference comes close to that. To me, that means the Hockey East is the premier conference in the country. But like I always say about our football program, sports are cyclical and things are subject to change. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St...all have excellent programs and a "white blood" history/tradition. Maybe they should think about coming out east to join Hockey East? :)
 
Gfunk said:
"Leaving Hockey East for the BIG Hockey conference would be like a SEC school taking its football program out and putting it in the AAC."

Nonsense, when speaking long-term. But I will agree with you if you think college hockey has no need for say a P5 type structure and leagues should be concerned with intimate, geographical rivals - essential when it comes to the regional nature of American amateur hockey.

You really don't know hockey history very well, and I mean all time, and not just some recent trend, where power shifts east for a brief run - nothing new if you follow college hockey history. It will head back west soon enough. It's only natural.

The current BIG hockey members boast 23 NCAA titles. The AAC cannot account for such numbers in football. So your SEC analogy is complete bunk.

The WCHA was the SEC of college hockey before the BIG killed it & frankly it's not even close: national championships, NHL players, Frozen Four appearances, tradition, etc. It was the only conference to ever field the entire Frozen Four. Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were all once WCHA members along with Denver, ND, Colorado College and Minnesota Duluth - members who left the WCHA as well.

Why? Because dictator Delany had to create a BIG hockey conference.

Don't get me wrong, I'm BIG fan, and an alum of Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also remain a big supporter of getting UConn in the BIG for ALL SPORTS.

But there was only one need to create a BIG hockey conference: money. Minnesota and Wisconsin hockey fans overwhelmingly objected to the near destruction of the WCHA & loss of intimate geographical rivals that say Hockey East currently enjoys. It's a GD shame what it has done to hockey in the Upper Midwest. I hate it what happened to the WCHA. But BIG hockey is still young in terms of history - the power programs will inevitably adapt & cycle through periods of dominance.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Minnesota were at one time WCHA members, only Minny and Wisky stuck with the conference til the creation of the BIG. Michigan & Michigan State would leave the WCHA to create CCHA and hopefully grow the sport. Again, those 4 teams, now current BIG members, account for 23 NCAA titles. FYI, that's more titles than the entire current Hockey East - all time.

It's absolutely tragic what happened to the WCHA & I blame the BIG despite being a Minnesota alum. We lost the intimate rivalries that Hockey East enjoys because all of our conference rivals are now out of state. We also lost one of college hockey's biggest rivalry games: North Dakota - Minnesota.

It will take a long time for any current college hockey conference to equal the history of the WCHA.

PS Minny owns the all-time series against BC & every other Hockey East member, minus Boston U - and that's a damn close margin. But we produce far more NHL talent than Mass, despite being a smaller state. But I will confess, Mass has a fantastic culture of college hockey, similar to Minnesota because there are so many D1 teams & they mostly share the same conference. Well because of the BIG hockey conference, Minnesota lost 4 in-state rivals. Still not happy about this shameful greed grab by the BIG.
Expand ...

There is literally no reason to televise sports other than to make money off of them. You are nostalgic for a time in college sports that no longer exists. You miss playing Colorado College or NDU or whomever the hell else? Tough luck. Schedule them OOC if they are important to you. I miss playing an independent football schedule composed of primarily Eastern Schools. That's never coming back either. We all have to sacrifice a little of what we love for the betterment of our athletic departments as a whole. I doubt the WCHA would be cutting UM a check for 2 million dollars were it still in existence.
 
.-.
I know this is going OT a bit, but it would be nice to see NESN and HE work out a bigger tv deal, putting more games on tv. With FIOS and Direct TV NESN is available in the NYC market and this is a really good market for hockey (there are some really high profile youth organizations between LI, Westchester, and NJ...as well as CT) and kids regularly sign with HE teams. It may not be much to schools like BC, BU, ND, UConn, UMass...schools who play D-1 sports at all levels. BUT for the other schools like Merrimack, UMass-Lowell it could pump some serious needed cash into their AD. IF...and this is a big IF UConn gets into the B-12 and a B-12 Network becomes a reality..it wouldn't be a bad idea for HE to try and use that avenue to get more games on the air.
 
Ldandy said:
There is literally no reason to televise sports other than to make money off of them. You are nostalgic for a time in college sports that no longer exists. You miss playing Colorado College or NDU or whomever the hell else? Tough luck. Schedule them OOC if they are important to you. I miss playing an independent football schedule composed of primarily Eastern Schools. That's never coming back either. We all have to sacrifice a little of what we love for the betterment of our athletic departments as a whole. I doubt the WCHA would be cutting UM a check for 2 million dollars were it still in existence.
Expand ...

In terms of college hockey, it has very little to do with television in the state of Minnesota - the fans watch regardless. College hockey is only popular in two regions of the US: upper Midwest and Northeast & it's a damn expensive sport to run at the collegiate level. It's not a popular tv sport in general. Moreover, it's essential to have two game series each weekend much of the time. So don't give me your bs that a school like Minnesota can schedule former WCHA mates OOC - it's impossible unless done over a 3 year period due to the new BIG schedule requirements and expanded travel.

Just think BIG East and UConn, what was sadly lost due to football driving the expansion bus - same goes for the WCHA for the sake of BIG hockey. If college hockey was second only to football - I doubt the WCHA would have collapsed at the expense of a new BIG hockey conference - for such a proposal would have never made it to the drawing board. But then again, there would have likely been no need for a WCHA because more BIG members, as well as universities in general would have D1 hockey.

The WCHA lost 35 NCAA titles due to the formation of the BIG & the indirect results of football expansion. See former members, NCAA Titles in ( parenthesis).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Collegiate_Hockey_Association

I get your tough love argument - UConn and the Big East got screwed. So why not the WCHA - it's former members, esp new BIG members supposedly earning bigger paychecks. But I'm not the one, I was totally against the dissolution of the Big East & I love the intimate rivalries of the former WCHA and current Hockey East (which is far better for college hockey, long-term), & care very little about college football. But I'm impractical.
 
Gfunk said:
In terms of college hockey, it has very little to do with television in the state of Minnesota - the fans watch regardless. College hockey is only popular in two regions of the US: upper Midwest and Northeast & it's a damn expensive sport to run at the collegiate level. It's not a popular tv sport in general. Moreover, it's essential to have two game series each weekend much of the time. So don't give me your bs that a school like Minnesota can schedule former WCHA mates OOC - it's impossible unless done over a 3 year period due to the new BIG schedule requirements and expanded travel.

Just think BIG East and UConn, what was sadly lost due to football driving the expansion bus - same goes for the WCHA for the sake of BIG hockey. If college hockey was second only to football - I doubt the WCHA would have collapsed at the expense of a new BIG hockey conference - for such a proposal would have never made it to the drawing board. But then again, there would have likely been no need for a WCHA because more BIG members, as well as universities in general would have D1 hockey.

The WCHA lost 35 NCAA titles due to the formation of the BIG & the indirect results of football expansion. See former members, NCAA Titles in ( parenthesis).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Collegiate_Hockey_Association

I get your tough love argument - UConn and the Big East got screwed. So why not the WCHA - it's former members, esp new BIG members supposedly earning bigger paychecks. But I'm not the one, I was totally against the dissolution of the Big East & I love the intimate rivalries of the former WCHA and current Hockey East (which is far better for college hockey, long-term), & care very little about college football. But I'm impractical.
Expand ...

You're responding to a Penn State fan.
 
CallMeBruce said:
If it came with, say, 6 guaranteed games against the Big Ten every year, I'd consider it.
Expand ...
And, if some hot lil' actress invited you to spend some time together in bed, you might jump at the opportunity. Impossible? Perhaps not, and some sort of 6 football games versus B1G teams may also be possible. Odds on A vs B? ;)
 
.-.
Gfunk said:
In terms of college hockey, it has very little to do with television in the state of Minnesota - the fans watch regardless. College hockey is only popular in two regions of the US: upper Midwest and Northeast & it's a damn expensive sport to run at the collegiate level. It's not a popular tv sport in general. Moreover, it's essential to have two game series each weekend much of the time. So don't give me your bs that a school like Minnesota can schedule former WCHA mates OOC - it's impossible unless done over a 3 year period due to the new BIG schedule requirements and expanded travel.


Three comments here. 1)As you noted, collegiate hockey is very expensive, that is why the additional 2 million a year The B1G's Members receive is very important for sustaining both M/W programs. 2)The additional television exposure created by The BTN for all members is great because it takes the game out of "the upper mid west" and puts it on TV Screens nationwide. This is great advertising for both the programs and the schools in general. 3)It is not essential to have two game series with all programs OOC. Sure its preferable, but you could put together a weekend mini tournament featuring a bunch of your old rivals. You might be able to swing an outdoor event against an old rival as well. Maybe play Denver in Mile High? Play ND at Minny's new place when it opens. It's difficult but arrangements can be made if all parties are game for it.

Just think BIG East and UConn, what was sadly lost due to football driving the expansion bus - same goes for the WCHA for the sake of BIG hockey. If college hockey was second only to football - I doubt the WCHA would have collapsed at the expense of a new BIG hockey conference - for such a proposal would have never made it to the drawing board. But then again, there would have likely been no need for a WCHA because more BIG members, as well as universities in general would have D1 hockey.

JMO but The WCHA was toast the second The BTN came into existence. It was/is Delany's Baby, and he would have pushed for the creation of a hockey league the second there were enough full members to field a league.

The WCHA lost 35 NCAA titles due to the formation of the BIG & the indirect results of football expansion. See former members, NCAA Titles in ( parenthesis).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Collegiate_Hockey_Association

I get your tough love argument - UConn and the Big East got screwed. So why not the WCHA - it's former members, esp new BIG members supposedly earning bigger paychecks. But I'm not the one, I was totally against the dissolution of the Big East & I love the intimate rivalries of the former WCHA and current Hockey East (which is far better for college hockey, long-term), & care very little about college football. But I'm impractical.
Expand ...

Look nobody was expecting you to like giving up decades of history and success. As A PSU Fan I wasn't in love with giving up nearly a century of rivalries in all of our sports to join what was viewed as a plodding Midwest Conference at the time. Joe and our AD understood that sustaining independence for football was becoming tenuous at best, and that The B1G would provide a great home for all sports as well as a great partnership for academics. It hasn't all been gumdrops and rainbows for us, but we have had fantastic success in conference and nationally across our whole AD. It was a sacrifice for the betterment of our entire program.
 
It's one thing to have visitors who follow other schools to come here and discuss things with us in a non-condescending manner. But am I the only one who doesn't understand how we keep attracting fans of other schools conversing with each other?
 
businesslawyer said:
It's one thing to have visitors who follow other schools to come here and discuss things with us in a non-condescending manner. But am I the only one who doesn't understand how we keep attracting fans of other schools conversing with each other?
Expand ...

I'm guessing you are directing the post above to the conversation between GFunk and myself. Therefore I'll try to answer from my end. I enjoy following conference realignment more than the average fan, but there is very little discussion about it on my team's boards.

I am also a fan of UCONN Sports and think you all got a raw deal in realignment to date. I imagine GFunk feels about the same. As to why our conversation? It was really an extension of A B1G v. Hockey East discussion started by A UCONN fan.

I responded to his post because I disagreed with it. That's pretty much it. I get that I'm a guest and unlike some others I spend very little time talking about how great I think my school is or how great The Big is. Both have good and bad points. Hopefully that clears things up on my end.
 
Ldandy said:
I'm guessing you are directing the post above to the conversation between GFunk and myself. Therefore I'll try to answer from my end. I enjoy following conference realignment more than the average fan, but there is very little discussion about it on my team's boards.

I am also a fan of UCONN Sports and think you all got a raw deal in realignment to date. I imagine GFunk feels about the same. As to why our conversation? It was really an extension of A B1G v. Hockey East discussion started by A UCONN fan.

I responded to his post because I disagreed with it. That's pretty much it. I get that I'm a guest and unlike some others I spend very little time talking about how great I think my school is or how great The Big is. Both have good and bad points. Hopefully that clears things up on my end.
Expand ...

We are delighted to have you as a guest. Just don't leave any fingerprints on the trophies.
 
.-.
Ldandy said:
I'm guessing you are directing the post above to the conversation between GFunk and myself. Therefore I'll try to answer from my end. I enjoy following conference realignment more than the average fan, but there is very little discussion about it on my team's boards.

I am also a fan of UCONN Sports and think you all got a raw deal in realignment to date. I imagine GFunk feels about the same. As to why our conversation? It was really an extension of A B1G v. Hockey East discussion started by A UCONN fan.

I responded to his post because I disagreed with it. That's pretty much it. I get that I'm a guest and unlike some others I spend very little time talking about how great I think my school is or how great The Big is. Both have good and bad points. Hopefully that clears things up on my end.
Expand ...
You're welcome here, as is @Gfunk
 
Ldandy said:
I promise I won't touch them, but I'd keep an eye on that Rutgers Guy. He told me that their 1947 Fencing National Championship Trophy was looking kind of lonely.
Expand ...

And I'd keep a close eye on the Landy guy. If UCONN doesn't watch it, he just might put up a JOEPA statue on the campus in Storrs, to honor his hero who has been mercilessly attacked and wrongly vilified.
 
mainlinedave said:
And I'd keep a close eye on the Landy guy. If UCONN doesn't watch it, he just might put up a JOEPA statue on the campus in Storrs, to honor his hero who has been mercilessly attacked and wrongly vilified.
Expand ...
@mainlinedave if you are going to come here and throw shots at people...the LEAST thing you can do is know how to properly spell and tag screen names...
 
Last edited:
mainlinedave said:
And I'd keep a close eye on the Landy guy. If UCONN doesn't watch it, he just might put up a JOEPA statue on the campus in Storrs, to honor his hero who has been mercilessly attacked and wrongly vilified.
Expand ...

You fail at failing.
 
.-.
Waquoit said:
Yale boasts 27 FB titles.
Expand ...

While your reply is humorous and makes a slight point, it's incredibly devoid of critical thinking.

Btw, I've been a big proponent of UConn to the BIG, but as a full member. I have counter-argued every naysaying BIG fan opposed to UConn in the BIG for well over a year on various boards. I've given well documented reasons for UConn in the BIG, to me it's a no-brainer. I've even written official letters to BIG offices, various administrators, for UConn's inclusion in the BIG.

Yale doesn't even play FBS football anymore and their NCs are ancient. The game changer in football, Black Americans, were hardly playing football during Yale's heyday.

To your humorous / slight point, many things here: CF doesn't have a truer format NC process like college hockey. In fact, even the current playoff format is filled with holes.

Since 1948, the first year of official NCAA hockey championships, so-called BIG programs, albeit under non-BIG conference arrangements, have won at least 1 NC per decade. Even since 2000, 3 different programs have accounted for 4 NCs and 3 runners up.

BIG hockey is new & with its formation comes very challenging logistics and expenses. Its down cycle is by no means permanent, way too much tradition and the availability of in-state talent in states like Michigan, Minnesota & to a smaller degree Pa & Wi are constant realities. I mean good Lord, Minnesota has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to hockey talent & these kids, unlike east coast kids, go everywhere to play.

My discontent with BIG hockey is much like the death of the original Big East. It continues to be a terrible, bitter pill to swallow: the seismic destruction & partial renewal of the WCHA, especially, and CCHA - it was not a carefully considered decision. But worse, ice hockey doesn't have the popularity and influence of men's basketball, so the negatives of BIG hockey at the expense of the WCHA and CCHA gets far less media exposure and public debate.

Got nothing but kindness for you man or woman - have to be PC here.
 
Ldandy said:
I'm guessing you are directing the post above to the conversation between GFunk and myself. Therefore I'll try to answer from my end. I enjoy following conference realignment more than the average fan, but there is very little discussion about it on my team's boards.

I am also a fan of UCONN Sports and think you all got a raw deal in realignment to date. I imagine GFunk feels about the same. As to why our conversation? It was really an extension of A B1G v. Hockey East discussion started by A UCONN fan.

I responded to his post because I disagreed with it. That's pretty much it. I get that I'm a guest and unlike some others I spend very little time talking about how great I think my school is or how great The Big is. Both have good and bad points. Hopefully that clears things up on my end.
Expand ...

I'm sorry for not keeping pace with this thread. I've been mostly glued, with any sort of sports time, to the basketball tourney and I actually attended the hockey tourney here in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Denver won the regional & is on to the Frozen Four, in case you are wondering.

To UConn fans, I'll keep it simple:

I will continue to endorse your hopeful membership into the BIG as a full member and nothing but - various, obvious reasons. I am terribly opposed to partial membership for a flagship state school that has multiple D1 programs & an FBS program that is certainly on par in the current and foreseeable landscape with Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, IU and NW. Moreover, AAU status aside, UConn is certainly a worthy academic national university. Other points here: I get the JHU angle (there so d3 in most sports) and to a smaller degree ND. ND, despite my genuine discontent for their various arguments, does have an inexplicable claim to football independence. I mean this indie status has been going for 100 plus years if I'm not mistaken. BIG hockey does make sense for ND due to travel and traditional rivalries. If I'm not mistaken, ND's longest tenure with a conference may just be their WCHA days when Michigan and MSU were also in the conference. On a personal note, my first college hockey experience (mid 1970s, yes I'm old) was Minnesota versus ND, WCHA conference play.

As stated in previous posts, the destruction of the WCHA for BIG hockey was absolutely similar to what happened to the Big East. I supported neither. Unfortunately, and this is the big difference with the above argument, college hockey does not get even close to the press, thus public dissent, as college basketball. So in my opinion, BIG hockey went unchecked with its rapid decision.

LLandy, I'll respect UConn fans here and keep a BIG quarrel limited here. I do think BIG hockey could have still included former WCHA members and a far more careful process - I'm all for PSU hockey. I continue to know that other BIG schools are 5-10 years out from d1 hockey & we really can't be naive here and think college hockey will produce a p5 structure, so non-traditional conference alignment is expected, coupled with affiliated membership. We must respect travel costs and the traditional home and home format.
 
Gfunk said:
The game changer in football, Black Americans, were hardly playing football during Yale's heyday.
Expand ...
WT*? Race has nothing to do with how well the game progressed. The NFL had 2 black players in it's first year. It was the owner of the Redskins who instituted segregationalist policies. Race has no relevance unless you think African-Americans are more athletic, somehow.
 
Butch said:
WT*? Race has nothing to do with how well the game progressed. The NFL had 2 black players in it's first year. It was the owner of the Redskins who instituted segregationalist policies. Race has no relevance unless you think African-Americans are more athletic, somehow.
Expand ...


GFunk didn't say it, you did. He simply stated a major portion of the American population was not represented. That means the league wasn't drawing from nearly as big a talent pool as it did when blacks started playing.
 
Butch said:
WT*? Race has nothing to do with how well the game progressed. The NFL had 2 black players in it's first year. It was the owner of the Redskins who instituted segregationalist policies. Race has no relevance unless you think African-Americans are more athletic, somehow.
Expand ...

Butch, I think Hoophound got my point. I apologize if you misread me due to my details.

CF was absolutely segregated for a long, long time. Heck, I don't think the SEC had fully de-segregated until the early 1970s.

It's all about the inclusion of anyone who plays, regardless of race-ethnicity. JJ Watt is an outstanding athlete as is Richard Sherman.
 
The same wave of realignment we saw in hockey with the B1G happened in men's and women's lacrosse when the B1G added those sports.


B1G Men's Ice Hockey:
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Notre Dame (joins July 1, 2017)
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin

B1G Men's Lacrosse:
Johns Hopkins
Maryland
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers

B1G Women's Lacrosse:
Johns Hopkins (joins July 1, 2016)
Maryland
Michigan
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State
Rutgers
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,341
Messages
4,565,989
Members
10,466
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom