Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Well its that time when our team is no longer playing. the league has
MI, Miami, ND and Northern MI at the Joe.

I dont see the dark horse Northern overcoming MI
I do see a stellar final between MI Miami.
I see the NCAA coming back to the CCHA this year, while there are many top teams that could take it, I just dont see any of them on their best nights as good as the top CCHA teams on their best nights this year.

Are these games going to be on TV anywhere?

Macman while I agree that the Miami Michigan game will be compelling. The NCAA WILL NOT be back in the CCHA. UNH, BC, any WCHA team other than UAA are better than all the CCHA teams. My bet is on the Sioux JPL is a force and goaltending is the key in the tourny.

I know your high on the WCHA but they are not wining it this year they have good teams but not that good, UNH I can buy into and UNH should clobber BC making UNH the only real contender of all the east coast teams...and as much as I like East coast hokey they dont have what it will take this year either and they are better than wcha this season.
Well wait and see and likely have some good go rounds with this one, but a CCHA NCAA repeat is what will happen.

[Are these games going to be on TV anywhere?]

I guess FSN Detroit is broadcasting the CCHA Championship game, it shows the broadcast time on the right side of the page close to the top, http://msn.foxsports.com/regional/detro ... goryId=272. Too bad we only get FSN Ohio down here. [/quote]

PegCityFalcon wrote:Macman while I agree that the Miami Michigan game will be compelling. The NCAA WILL NOT be back in the CCHA. UNH, BC, any WCHA team other than UAA are better than all the CCHA teams. My bet is on the Sioux JPL is a force and goaltending is the key in the tourny.

Who's been #1 virtually all year? Oh yeah, Michigan.

What makes all the teams in the WCHA better than the Wolverines? Or the Redhawks for that matter?

Who's been #1 virtually all year? Oh yeah, Michigan.

What makes all the teams in the WCHA better than the Wolverines? Or the Redhawks for that matter?

Thats kinda like saying that OSU was a lot better than Florida a couple of years ago in football. Just b/c OSU was #1 for most of the year didn't make them better than a team that battled it out in close games for a lot of the year. The WCHA is in my opinion kinda like the SEC of hockey, pretty much everyone is good. Look at a team like Wisconsin, they had 3 first round NHL draft picks that were freshman this year, Kyle Turris, Brendan Smith and Ryan McDonough plus several other NHL draft picks and they still couldn't finish .500 in the conference. Theres a reason why a few years back the entire Frozen Four for two years in a row I believe was made up of only teams from the WCHA (Am I correct?).

DWhite21 wrote:

Who's been #1 virtually all year? Oh yeah, Michigan.

What makes all the teams in the WCHA better than the Wolverines? Or the Redhawks for that matter?

Thats kinda like saying that OSU was a lot better than Florida a couple of years ago in football. Just b/c OSU was #1 for most of the year didn't make them better than a team that battled it out in close games for a lot of the year. The WCHA is in my opinion kinda like the SEC of hockey, pretty much everyone is good. Look at a team like Wisconsin, they had 3 first round NHL draft picks that were freshman this year, Kyle Turris, Brendan Smith and Ryan McDonough plus several other NHL draft picks and they still couldn't finish .500 in the conference. Theres a reason why a few years back the entire Frozen Four for two years in a row I believe was made up of only teams from the WCHA (Am I correct?).

Ahh.. the famous, "the whole league is so good, that no one has a good record." It's such a load of crap. The SEC has rested it's hat on this argument over the last few years and I'm about sick of it. It's like an excuse to lose, but still be regarded as good

In all sports, and especially in college hockey, you have to be ready to play each night. Any given team can win on any given night. Ask Michigan State. If you come out with a .500 record, in my book you're an average team.. with some room to consider strength of schedule. Truth of the matter is, good teams win their games. I'd honestly rather take Michigan who's record is 29-5-4 over a .500 Wisconsin team. Why? It means Michigan showed up to play, against the good teams in our league and bad. Who knows what Wisconsin's .500 record means, they lost to all the powerhouses in their league but beat up on the small guys (like us this year)? Or they beat some big guys, but lost 3 of 4 to a team like WMU. Either way, to me that's an average team.

I guess we'll see some NCAA time, you know Wisky will get an auto-bid and screw over some other more deserving team, but that's life.

rc_ziggy84 wrote:

DWhite21 wrote:

Who's been #1 virtually all year? Oh yeah, Michigan.

What makes all the teams in the WCHA better than the Wolverines? Or the Redhawks for that matter?

Thats kinda like saying that OSU was a lot better than Florida a couple of years ago in football. Just b/c OSU was #1 for most of the year didn't make them better than a team that battled it out in close games for a lot of the year. The WCHA is in my opinion kinda like the SEC of hockey, pretty much everyone is good. Look at a team like Wisconsin, they had 3 first round NHL draft picks that were freshman this year, Kyle Turris, Brendan Smith and Ryan McDonough plus several other NHL draft picks and they still couldn't finish .500 in the conference. Theres a reason why a few years back the entire Frozen Four for two years in a row I believe was made up of only teams from the WCHA (Am I correct?).

Ahh.. the famous, "the whole league is so good, that no one has a good record." It's such a load of crap. The SEC has rested it's hat on this argument over the last few years and I'm about sick of it. It's like an excuse to lose, but still be regarded as good

In all sports, and especially in college hockey, you have to be ready to play each night. Any given team can win on any given night. Ask Michigan State. If you come out with a .500 record, in my book you're an average team.. with some room to consider strength of schedule. Truth of the matter is, good teams win their games. I'd honestly rather take Michigan who's record is 29-5-4 over a .500 Wisconsin team. Why? It means Michigan showed up to play, against the good teams in our league and bad. Who knows what Wisconsin's .500 record means, they lost to all the powerhouses in their league but beat up on the small guys (like us this year)? Or they beat some big guys, but lost 3 of 4 to a team like WMU. Either way, to me that's an average team.

I guess we'll see some NCAA time, you know Wisky will get an auto-bid and screw over some other more deserving team, but that's life.

I see what you're saying with showing up to play every night. I'd rather take a Michigan team that had that type of record over a below .500 Wisconsin team too. I was just trying to make a point that the WCHA is a tough conference from top to bottom-whether you agree or disagree with that I can't control. And as for the "the whole league is so good, nobody has a good record" well, I'm pretty sure teams like Denver, North Dakota and Colorado College came out of the league w/ pretty good records this year.

DWhite21 wrote:

rc_ziggy84 wrote:

DWhite21 wrote:

Who's been #1 virtually all year? Oh yeah, Michigan.

What makes all the teams in the WCHA better than the Wolverines? Or the Redhawks for that matter?

Thats kinda like saying that OSU was a lot better than Florida a couple of years ago in football. Just b/c OSU was #1 for most of the year didn't make them better than a team that battled it out in close games for a lot of the year. The WCHA is in my opinion kinda like the SEC of hockey, pretty much everyone is good. Look at a team like Wisconsin, they had 3 first round NHL draft picks that were freshman this year, Kyle Turris, Brendan Smith and Ryan McDonough plus several other NHL draft picks and they still couldn't finish .500 in the conference. Theres a reason why a few years back the entire Frozen Four for two years in a row I believe was made up of only teams from the WCHA (Am I correct?).

Ahh.. the famous, "the whole league is so good, that no one has a good record." It's such a load of crap. The SEC has rested it's hat on this argument over the last few years and I'm about sick of it. It's like an excuse to lose, but still be regarded as good

In all sports, and especially in college hockey, you have to be ready to play each night. Any given team can win on any given night. Ask Michigan State. If you come out with a .500 record, in my book you're an average team.. with some room to consider strength of schedule. Truth of the matter is, good teams win their games. I'd honestly rather take Michigan who's record is 29-5-4 over a .500 Wisconsin team. Why? It means Michigan showed up to play, against the good teams in our league and bad. Who knows what Wisconsin's .500 record means, they lost to all the powerhouses in their league but beat up on the small guys (like us this year)? Or they beat some big guys, but lost 3 of 4 to a team like WMU. Either way, to me that's an average team.

I guess we'll see some NCAA time, you know Wisky will get an auto-bid and screw over some other more deserving team, but that's life.

I see what you're saying with showing up to play every night. I'd rather take a Michigan team that had that type of record over a below .500 Wisconsin team too. I was just trying to make a point that the WCHA is a tough conference from top to bottom-whether you agree or disagree with that I can't control. And as for the "the whole league is so good, nobody has a good record" well, I'm pretty sure teams like Denver, North Dakota and Colorado College came out of the league w/ pretty good records this year.

Yeah, I'm not saying there aren't good teams in the WCHA. I'm saying teams with mediocre records get way too much credit just b/c their league is viewed as being so good. I could give the same argument (that's used for Wisconsin) for Nebraska-Omaha, they finished around .500 in a league where we have good teams like UM, MSU, MU & ND who all came out with good records. However, we all know that UNO is not that strong of a team.

At least we can be thankful we have a tournament in hockey to sort these things out!!

If Miami, Michigan, Michigan St., or Notre Dame were in the WCHA they would be .500 teams as well. The CCHA has 4 good teams on top and garbage on the bottom. Let's compare the garbage (5 down)
Ferris State vs. SCSU- about even
NMU vs Wisconson- no question UW-madison
BG vs Minnesota- if at home maybe we take a game but at MN they dominate us
UNO vs UMD- UMD can play with anyone, they just can't handle the elite 4
Alaska vs Mich Tech- Tech is the best team in the UP they would dominate AK
LSSU vs UAA- Lake State would dominate UAA

PegCityFalcon wrote:If Miami, Michigan, Michigan St., or Notre Dame were in the WCHA they would be .500 teams as well. The CCHA has 4 good teams on top and garbage on the bottom. Let's compare the garbage (5 down)
Ferris State vs. SCSU- about even
NMU vs Wisconson- no question UW-madison
BG vs Minnesota- if at home maybe we take a game but at MN they dominate us
UNO vs UMD- UMD can play with anyone, they just can't handle the elite 4
Alaska vs Mich Tech- Tech is the best team in the UP they would dominate AK
LSSU vs UAA- Lake State would dominate UAA

Unless you provide head to head proof, this analysis is, strictly speaking, opinion and nothing but opinion.

BGFan wrote:

PegCityFalcon wrote:If Miami, Michigan, Michigan St., or Notre Dame were in the WCHA they would be .500 teams as well. The CCHA has 4 good teams on top and garbage on the bottom. Let's compare the garbage (5 down)
Ferris State vs. SCSU- about even
NMU vs Wisconson- no question UW-madison
BG vs Minnesota- if at home maybe we take a game but at MN they dominate us
UNO vs UMD- UMD can play with anyone, they just can't handle the elite 4
Alaska vs Mich Tech- Tech is the best team in the UP they would dominate AK
LSSU vs UAA- Lake State would dominate UAA

Unless you provide head to head proof, this analysis is, strictly speaking, opinion and nothing but opinion.

Since and including 1984 when the CCHA won its first NCAA Championship the CCHA has won 8 and the WCHA 9. Seems pretty even to me.

even? In the last 7 years the WCHA has won 5 titles.

PegCityFalcon wrote:even? In the last 7 years the WCHA has won 5 titles.

And in the prior 7 years they won 2, the CCHA 3, and the also rans 2....you can spin it whatever way you like. Starting last year the CCHA has won one in a row....

If you're such a WCHA fan, why are you here because, to me, you sound like you'd rather see another WCHA title.