It's been a while since I've taken a shot at the Star-Tribune, mainly because Myron Medcalf has been too busy writing about bridges in St. Paul to call every white person he meets a racist. I think it's time though.
Apparently two weekends ago, when Minnesota traveled to Columbus to play a weak Ohio State squad, which is missing their best player, it was a referendum on a Big Ten hockey conference.
Overall, this article from the Star-Trib is correct that the world isn't quite ready for a Big Ten hockey conference, but then the article dips into pure crumbelievability with this gem:
The WCHA isn't perfect, and there is a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, but consider this: Michigan, widely looked upon as the class of the CCHA, would be hard-pressed to make regular trips to the WCHA Final Five.Michigan's program has faltered slightly over the past couple seasons, but are we to seriously believe that a team whose streak of 15 straight trips to the national quarterfinals, equivalent to a top 8 finish in the country, wouldn't regularly finish in the top 5 in the WCHA? That's just asinine.
It's even more ridiculous to say that a BTHC wouldn't work because Minnesota and Wisconsin would dominate over the CCHA schools. It's true that they have recently, but for much of the 90's, it was the exact opposite, and I think that is what you'd see if there ever was a Big Ten conference. It would be much more cyclical with certains teams being at the top in some years, and other being at the top in other years.
There's plenty of reasons the Big Ten hockey conference is a bad idea, but the Star-Trib's reasoning here is just crumbelievable.
8 comments:
I am not sure Medcalf is so far off, while he is wrong, the likes of Mn, Wis, DU, CC and ND would pose some huge problems for the Wolverines. Mich would not be the cream of the crop but compete absolutely. In fact that might make them a better program as it seems as though the stiff competition makes teams better, usually sometimes it can wear them down. Also it is important to note that 15 trips to the national quarter final doesn't mean as much as we might think being that a Holy Cross can beat a Minnesota, although the consistentcy does speak to a winning program but then the question arises isn't that the time that they hit the WCHA schools who are winning national championships and not just making it half way.
I think its ver unfair to call the Ohio State hockey team a weak team. First of all, they were not only missing their best player but they were also missing their second best player (Goebel) the past 2 weekends. OSU gave a very talented Minnesota team a better test than did CC (a WCHA team). Heck, both Minn/CC games would have been blowouts if not for a tremendous goaltending effort on Friday night by the Cc goaltender. Additionally, OSU went on the road and split with A Northern Michigan team who tied Wisconsin earlier this season at a neutral site even while Skille was still in the Badger lineup (A WCHA powerhouse according to your opinion). I think calling OSU a weak hockey team is totally incorrect and think that you Minnesota folks should get off your high horse before you loose to Holy Cross again at season's end
Perhaps the notion that Michigan wouldn't scratch the top 5 of the WCHA cames from the time when they were actually in the WCHA (in as close to its current incarnation as is possible, with UMD and UW), where they were in the bottom half of the league far more often than the top.
I realize that was also a low point for UM, but the point still stands.
The WCHA has some real umph beyond their big ten schools. Aside from a good year here and a good year there, you can't say that about the CCHA, certainly not to the same degree.
Michigan has the most titles out of any program in college hockey. To win that many titles they have had to go through many conferences. Their drought of frozen four success lately is, however, related to the dominance of the WCHA. With that said, I still think they would benefit more from a move to the WCHA because their regular season would better prepare them for the post season. I don't think they'd win many regular season titles, but WCHA national champions very seldom win regular season conference titles, but excel in post season play because the quality of competition has made them better equiped for the playoffs. Not all conferences do that.
The BTHC would stand on its on. And sooner would be better than later IMO. They'd all be able to play more than 20 games in thier home rinks and only have to go on the road in conference. What's wrong with the pussy athletic administrators at these schools. Why aren't they making this happen? It's beyond a sweet deal for them.
And the benefit for the rest of college hockey is that in any given year only two of those five would be in the NCAAs. Sweet huh?
Honestly, it's "crumbelievable" that anyone would write about this stupidity. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that big ten alumni who write anything about hockey should basically be ignored.
What a ridiculous line of reasoning. If anything, Michigan might be even more of a powerhouse in the WCHA. Recruiting could kick up a notch when you're selling the idea of playing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota every season (for league points) instead of Western Michigan, Ferris State, and Bowling Green.
No offense to those CCHA programs, and I realize the WCHA has their own bottom feeders, but Medcalf is assumming that the Michigan program would remain static in the WCHA, whereas I think the higher level of competition would in turn strengthen the program.
Hey there, Donald, watch it. RWD = Big Ten alumna... although not from a school with D1 hockey, just club.
OSU is a weak team. 2-4. I thought they were picked to be so good a few years ago, but choked big time ALL season.
Post a Comment