Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

As I was in the deans office this morning, I overheard to gentlemen (board of trustee members) talking about the future of Hockey. They were saying that there are some people in favor of cutting the program completely and throwing the resources behind football and basketball program. They noted lack of interest among large groups of students and alumni, making no money on hockey like other schools, and not having the resources to fix the current the facility.

Dont kill the messenger just what I heard

It's been said in the past, and it'll continue to be said: If BGSU ever cuts hockey it will lose a lot of money in donations.

If BG cuts hockey it will be the end of their chances to legitimately compete on the national level against quality opponents in men's sports. Football and basketball will never have a chance at winning anything, and hockey has brought the school its only NCAA title. The administration would have to be crazy to ruin something like that.

The Niz wrote:If BG cuts hockey it will be the end of their chances to legitimately compete on the national level against quality opponents in men's sports. Football and basketball will never have a chance at winning anything, and hockey has brought the school its only NCAA title. The administration would have to be crazy to ruin something like that.

Case and point: When was the last time any sport at this University beat Michigan and Michigan State in the same season? Even just one of the two?

My thoughts exactly. Also throw the suckeyes in there. Too bad the irish couldn't be on that list also

The Niz wrote:My thoughts exactly. Also throw the suckeyes in there. Too bad the irish couldn't be on that list also

You're only thinking of this past year. Years past, OSU and ND have been our whipping boys. Although interesting to note that we beat both MSU and UM in our worst season ever.

I don't like their thought process. This is what I have been talking about regarding a complete cultural change for the BG hockey program.

Cutting hockey because of lack of support. Now why would their be a loack of support? Oh, I KNOW! Because the team has not been consistently good in years. Why not resolve to put a quality program on the ice and the problem of "lack of support" goes away.

The lack of logic is puzzling. I'm not terribly worried. I'm sure the trustees who have pitched ditching the hockey program are in the minority and wouldn't get that much traction if they float that weather balloon.

BGDrew wrote:Case and point: When was the last time any sport at this University beat Michigan and Michigan State in the same season? Even just one of the two?

And when was the last time we even played Lake Superior or Ferris or AA or UNO in football or basketball? Different sports, different landscapes. You can't compare them based on who they played. When was the last time the hockey team beat Purdue or Northwestern?

Just because I couple guys were talking about it somewhere, does not mean that the university is seriously considering dropping the sport. I highly doubt that's the case.

Warthog wrote:

BGDrew wrote:Case and point: When was the last time any sport at this University beat Michigan and Michigan State in the same season? Even just one of the two?

And when was the last time we even played Lake Superior or Ferris or AA or UNO in football or basketball? Different sports, different landscapes. You can't compare them based on who they played. When was the last time the hockey team beat Purdue or Northwestern?

In what sport do we weekly play the top teams in the nation? Not only that, but compete? Sorry, but men's basketball playing Wisconsin-Green Bay doesn't count.

People want hockey to be cut for more football money, which is the wrong way to look at this. We need more money from the administration to compete in ALL sports.

Warthog wrote:

BGDrew wrote:Case and point: When was the last time any sport at this University beat Michigan and Michigan State in the same season? Even just one of the two?

And when was the last time we even played Lake Superior or Ferris or AA or UNO in football or basketball? Different sports, different landscapes. You can't compare them based on who they played. When was the last time the hockey team beat Purdue or Northwestern?

If Purdue even had a hockey team, we'd have whipped them in that too.

Several years back there used to be a lot more student and fan support for hockey. The student section would fill up the section it currently has and spread around toward the goal. During those times, the BG Ice Arena was considered to be one of the toughest places to play in the CCHA, right up there with Yost Arena.

Why the difference?

Our team didn't finish dead last in the CCHA! If we start winning more, people will come back to games and there will be the interest we used to have. What the administration of BGSU needs to do is instead of cutting hockey, make the appropriate changes to make the hockey team a really good and competitive team again.

BGDrew wrote:

Warthog wrote:

BGDrew wrote:Case and point: When was the last time any sport at this University beat Michigan and Michigan State in the same season? Even just one of the two?

And when was the last time we even played Lake Superior or Ferris or AA or UNO in football or basketball? Different sports, different landscapes. You can't compare them based on who they played. When was the last time the hockey team beat Purdue or Northwestern?

In what sport do we weekly play the top teams in the nation? Not only that, but compete? Sorry, but men's basketball playing Wisconsin-Green Bay doesn't count.

People want hockey to be cut for more football money, which is the wrong way to look at this. We need more money from the administration to compete in ALL sports.

The landscape of the two sports are completely different. There are 117 Div IA football programs and we play 12 games a year. Eight of those against MAC teams leaving 4 games for the other 104 teams. It would take you 26 years to play each one just one time.

Hockey only has 59 teams and only 5 leagues (I think) and we played 38 games. BG is in one of the "power" conferences in hockey and gets the opportunity to play the top teams multiple times each year. And most recently, has lost the majority of those games. There are far more opportunities to play one of the top teams in hockey, so beating them a couple of times out of 25 tries each year just doesn't qualify as justification to me.

Warthog wrote: BG is in one of the "power" conferences in hockey and gets the opportunity to play the top teams multiple times each year.

Which is exactly the reason BG needs to make hockey a priority instead of an afterthought. Even with the recent struggles of the program, the top teams not in the CCHA will still come play in our barn. Which other sport can say that?

We have a lot of newer blood in the administration, and I know there are trustees that simply are not hockey fans. There isn't an administrative connection between the now distant "old days" and current BGSU hockey.

Those that follow the program know it can compete. Why it isn't depends on which of us you ask. But few, if anybody, feels it can't do so again.

Much as I'm a total BGSU sports fan, cutting hockey would cut too deep for me. I would drop support of the school across the board, if such a half-assed cop-out were attempted.

I won't read too much into the trustee talk. I still recall a long conversation with another somewhat recent trustee where she expressed her view that there shouldn't be any scholarship sports at BGSU, and that Football was a waste of time and money.

At root in all of this, is academics. Its the classic confrontation. Were enrollment not strong and such, we would see a ton more pressure to drop losing sports, etc.