#20 Miami @ #14 WMU on CBSSN now.

Western beats Miami 4-3, second game tonight.

And Western won again 3-2. The Broncos have a long unbeaten string going. It seems like every game Miami plays goes down to the last minute.

Bowling Green is ranked 10th, but may slip after only getting a split at Michigan Tech. Our league isn't great; we need to win nearly every game from here on out to ensure we make the NCAA tournament for the first time in far too long.

(01-14-2019 08:29 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Bowling Green is ranked 10th, but may slip after only getting a split at Michigan Tech. Our league isn't great; we need to win nearly every game from here on out to ensure we make the NCAA tournament for the first time in far too long.

You've got a hell of a team. The WCHA is tough in the sense that if you let up just a little bit and lose to a bad team (with a bad pairwise) you can get knocked out of the NCAA running. The NCHC is a difficult league, but you don't pay for the losses as much when you're regularly playing top 5 teams.

(01-14-2019 10:46 AM)Bronc33 Wrote:  You've got a hell of a team.

So does Western Michigan. New poll has Bowling Green 9, Western Michigan 10. Nice.

Your wins over WMU were huge for NCAA hopes. I'm hoping BGSU can string some more good years together so if the NCHC ever looks at expansion they're a good candidate. Need to hold on to Bergeron.

(01-14-2019 02:43 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Your wins over WMU were huge for NCAA hopes. I'm hoping BGSU can string some more good years together so if the NCHC ever looks at expansion they're a good candidate. Need to hold on to Bergeron.

Nacho's sent out feelers to gauge our interest back when Mankato and ASU applied. Rumor was that if we wanted in they'd bring us and Mankato in as a package deal. The NCHC wasn't/isn't a fit for us so the advance was spurned which subsequently hosed Mankato.

So in actuality we ARE a good candidate, it's just that you're simply not good enough for us!!! (I'm kidding of course...)

(01-14-2019 04:29 PM)TalonsUpPuckDown Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 02:43 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Your wins over WMU were huge for NCAA hopes. I'm hoping BGSU can string some more good years together so if the NCHC ever looks at expansion they're a good candidate. Need to hold on to Bergeron.

Nacho's sent out feelers to gauge our interest back when Mankato and ASU applied. Rumor was that if we wanted in they'd bring us and Mankato in as a package deal. The NCHC wasn't/isn't a fit for us so the advance was spurned which subsequently hosed Mankato.

So in actuality we ARE a good candidate, it's just that you're simply not good enough for us!!! (I'm kidding of course...)

If true, I completely disagree with the decision that BG is not a fit for the NCHC. We have a solid alumni base in Denver, and travel-wise, there wouldn’t be much difference. Not to mention having two schools, with which we share an athletic conference for all other sports, within 3-hour drives. As of now, in the WCHA, Ferris State is by far shortest drive from BG, at just under 4 hours. Second is Alabama-Huntsville, clocking in at 8.5 hours. It’s just one season ticket holder’s opinion, but BG has a nationally prominent hockey program with a national championship and should be competing in a conference with other top-tier programs.

Wow, that sounds Kittonhead-ish... Schools in the WCHA do have a ton of tradition (see, Michigan Tech and Lake Superior State), but college hockey is changing, and many can’t commit the necessary resources to maintain successful programs.

(01-14-2019 07:07 PM)bg816 Wrote:  Schools in the WCHA do have a ton of tradition (see, Michigan Tech and Lake Superior State), but college hockey is changing, and many can’t commit the necessary resources to maintain successful programs.

The WCHA makes more sense for those Upper Peninsula schools, since that's where the center of gravity is now. Bowling Green used to be near the center of gravity of the CCHA. Now we are kind of on the periphery, and it isn't great.

I've always liked the idea of a CCHA 2.0 that combines the MAC with other decent programs from Michigan and western New York in a more reasonable footprint. But until the other MAC schools are willing to go along, it probably will not happen.

If the NCHC adds Arizona State, I wonder if the MAC members would consider alternatives, given the additional cost.

The Falcons are making two trips to Alaska this year and one to Alabama. A league schedule like that is not ideal.

The rumor is that UNLV will start NCAA hockey soon, with many arena choices in that city. UNLV would be a natural NCHC addition with Arizona St, which is building a new arena on campus.

There are also rumors that Oakland (Mich) is buying Auburn Hills, which would become their home hockey arena, Louisville wants to start hockey, and Pitt ants to start it too (they have announced women’s lacrosse down the road). Maybe these schools have enough stardom for Western Mich and Miami to leave the NCHC and start a new league with them.

The WCHA would appear to have plenty of Minn-Wisc-Dakota interest with UW-Eau Claire, Augustana SD, Mary (ND); Minot St, ND, for BGSU and Ferris to leave the WCHA without hurting much.

I don't follow the sport but is it surprising that the MAC has multiple teams ranked and even a couple in the top 10? Imagine if that happened in football. Toledo needs to invest in a varsity hockey program.

(01-16-2019 12:07 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  I don't follow the sport but is it surprising that the MAC has multiple teams ranked and even a couple in the top 10? Imagine if that happened in football. Toledo needs to invest in a varsity hockey program.

Toledo just moved its club hockey team to the top level. Almost aa the schools that moved to NCAA hockey have done this before. Understand that Toledo is one of the few schools that has a college size rink available with the Huntington Center with 8000 seats. Miami’s arena is just barely covers costs if they sell out.

http://achahockey.org/view/achahockey/ac...ews_496645

Buffalo should have a DI team but lacks a adequate rink. Canisius plays in the Sabres practice rink, 2000 seats, but that is too small and the Sabres rink is too big.

I live in a hockey mad state so I get the idea that hockey is cool and sexy and whatever. But adding hockey, especially men's hockey, seems like a poor financial and TitleX decision is today's day and age. There are many easier sports to add.

(01-16-2019 09:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I live in a hockey mad state so I get the idea that hockey is cool and sexy and whatever. But adding hockey, especially men's hockey, seems like a poor financial and TitleX decision is today's day and age. There are many easier sports to add.

This is the challenge.

Get Grand Valley St aboard.

They can play in the 10,000 seat Van Andel arena.

Grand Rapids, Oakland County, Toledo, and Buffalo are major hockey towns with no public U sponsoring it.

(01-16-2019 12:07 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  I don't follow the sport but is it surprising that the MAC has multiple teams ranked and even a couple in the top 10? Imagine if that happened in football. Toledo needs to invest in a varsity hockey program.

It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. There are only 60 D1 schools competing and the B1G is the only P5 conference that sponsors the sport and even then they aren't pouring money into the sport like they do football. It's definitely a much more even playing ground to compete. It's also really costly to operate a program.

(01-16-2019 06:41 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 12:07 AM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  I don't follow the sport but is it surprising that the MAC has multiple teams ranked and even a couple in the top 10? Imagine if that happened in football. Toledo needs to invest in a varsity hockey program.

It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. There are only 60 D1 schools competing and the B1G is the only P5 conference that sponsors the sport and even then they aren't pouring money into the sport like they do football. It's definitely a much more even playing ground to compete. It's also really costly to operate a program.

But hockey can pay its annual costs
If it gets 3000 per game.
But the upfront costs to start a team and get in a conference are very intimidating and costly.

Conferences require other sports like fb and mbb for their existence, even if they lose money. It rare for a potential hockey school to have an appropriate rink near campus and autobid conferences don’t require them.

The conference changes with the WCHA and CCHA should have theoretically brought down hockey barriers for Toledo, GVSU, Oakland, Buffalo, etc, but it hasn’t happened yet.

(01-16-2019 09:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I live in a hockey mad state so I get the idea that hockey is cool and sexy and whatever. But adding hockey, especially men's hockey, seems like a poor financial and TitleX decision is today's day and age. There are many easier sports to add.

If you are in an area where people will turn out for a college hockey game, it can be a break even sport in operating costs (including Title IX offsets) ... similar to baseball in the best areas for college baseball.

It's the capital cost of the rink that is the killer for starting a program.

(01-17-2019 08:13 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I live in a hockey mad state so I get the idea that hockey is cool and sexy and whatever. But adding hockey, especially men's hockey, seems like a poor financial and TitleX decision is today's day and age. There are many easier sports to add.

If you are in an area where people will turn out for a college hockey game, it can be a break even sport in operating costs (including Title IX offsets) ... similar to baseball in the best areas for college baseball.

It's the capital cost of the rink that is the killer for starting a program.

I know Miami spent ~$35 million on a ice rink 10 or so years back while Millett Hall hasn't been updated in what seems to be decades. Similarly, BGSU spent ~$30 mil on a basketball arena when their hockey rink was built in the 60s. I can't imagine it would be that much more costly to build an arena that could serve as both a basketball and hockey rink. Is the cost/man hours just too costly of switching back and forth between a hockey rink/basketball court that it's just more financially wise to keep two separate arenas?