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.