PDA

View Full Version : Atlantic Hockey Future



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

Ed Trefzger
06-25-2012, 08:23 AM
I always thought the NCAA allowed a D3 or D2 school to play at the D1 level in ONE sport solely to protect teams like Clarkson and RPI in the D3 world. Unless this ruling reversed it.

The ruling closed the door for D-III teams. As mentioned, RIT proposed legislation after the decision was made to end playing up to allow those schools with women's teams (or men's teams if a women's sport played up) to also move a team up for gender equity reasons. The application window for that closed June 1.

Teams already playing up are grandfathered. Teams that played up early enough can offer scholarships. Those that did not (Union, RIT) cannot.

schiegs
06-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Food for thought: Those who lament the cost containment m.o. of the conference, what are your thoughts of the "Alaska Plan" in the nWCHA? This is clearly meant to lower travel costs for the membership. Perhaps cost containment is no longer a unique outlier in college hockey, but a trend?

komey1
06-27-2012, 06:20 PM
Food for thought: Those who lament the cost containment m.o. of the conference, what are your thoughts of the "Alaska Plan" in the nWCHA? This is clearly meant to lower travel costs for the membership. Perhaps cost containment is no longer a unique outlier in college hockey, but a trend?

One downside of "power" teams joining up into the same conferences is that it leages the smaller teams to fend for themselves. When you won't get paydays that you are used to, you either have to pack it in or look for ways to cut costs. I think conferences will start looking at this option to maintain DI status in hockey.

Humanoid
06-27-2012, 10:25 PM
Food for thought: Those who lament the cost containment m.o. of the conference, what are your thoughts of the "Alaska Plan" in the nWCHA? This is clearly meant to lower travel costs for the membership. Perhaps cost containment is no longer a unique outlier in college hockey, but a trend?

This is a terrible idea, but, given the cost containment structure that the WCHA will need to have, it's the temporary fix. There is no way this will stick forever.

I think about the AHA's cost containment structure within th eplayoffs. They used the first season to see where the teams would spread out, then gave the top two division winners byes into the second round, reseeded in that round, and attempted to stunt some of the travel costs. It happened under the theory that if the eastern teams got the bye, they'd still end up on the road for the second round because the east was perceived as being weaker. Therefore, they kept eastern teams from having to travel 2 weeks in a row. By the same token, they also would then be able to have a west/west matchup in the first round with an east/east matchup, then have the eastern byes go to a western team for the 2nd round. Ergo - the western teams, who could afford travel moreso than the east, would only have to travel one of those two weekends, with the same going for the east teams (assuming the teams "expected' to win made it through).

After a year of this, they found it had no real effect on cost containment because of the teams that made it through. If memory serves right, western teams ended up traveling two weeks in a row, and somebody still ended up at Air Force. After a year of comparing actual versus expected and possible costs, they reevaluated the playoff structure and league schedule.

The Alaska PLan is precisely that same type of stopgap. I expect it to last maybe one year, then have the league figure out some type of profit share or kicker to factor out the scheduling. The biggest factor is traveling to Alaska in the playoffs, which is to say a team from Minnesota would have a brutal time coming back on a Sunday only to turn around and find a way to get out to Fairbanks on a Thursday. Bear in mind Michigan State, who's heading to the B1G, had to stagger travel across an entire day to get their team to UAF. They also couldn't fly from Detroit, meaning they bused from Lansing to Chicago and staggered flights to Fairbanks. It was not a pretty situation, and that won't change regardless of what happens in conference realignment.

This is hardly the end, but it's a stopgap solution until they can find something else.

Humanoid
06-27-2012, 10:27 PM
One downside of "power" teams joining up into the same conferences is that it leages the smaller teams to fend for themselves. When you won't get paydays that you are used to, you either have to pack it in or look for ways to cut costs. I think conferences will start looking at this option to maintain DI status in hockey.

I actually think the WCHA should do something like what NCAA basketball does. Basketball has a neutral-site, single-elimination tournament, where the conference shares gate receipts. I think if the conference has 9 teams, the top 8 should make it. Then, over the span of three or four days, single eliminate games until you go from eight to four to two to champion. Yes, it does away with the Final Five, but the WCHA is not the old WCHA, and that Final Five worked in the old conference. The nWCHA is not going to be the same, and therefore, the traditions need to change. I also think it'd be a great way to centralize the tourney revenues and then redistribute amongst the league.

komey1
06-28-2012, 06:10 PM
I actually think the WCHA should do something like what NCAA basketball does. Basketball has a neutral-site, single-elimination tournament, where the conference shares gate receipts. I think if the conference has 9 teams, the top 8 should make it. Then, over the span of three or four days, single eliminate games until you go from eight to four to two to champion. Yes, it does away with the Final Five, but the WCHA is not the old WCHA, and that Final Five worked in the old conference. The nWCHA is not going to be the same, and therefore, the traditions need to change. I also think it'd be a great way to centralize the tourney revenues and then redistribute amongst the league.

Hockey East uses a format where only the top 8 make it. I presume that will end when Notre Dame and UConn are in the mix to make it a 12 team league.

Personally, I like that every team in the conference makes the tourament. However, making is so that only the top 8 make it in a conference isn't the worst thing as you may need to play better just to GET to the post season.

UncleRay
06-28-2012, 09:11 PM
Hockey East uses a format where only the top 8 make it. I presume that will end when Notre Dame and UConn are in the mix to make it a 12 team league.

Personally, I like that every team in the conference makes the tourament. However, making is so that only the top 8 make it in a conference isn't the worst thing as you may need to play better just to GET to the post season.Personally, I HATE that most leagues take everybody to the tourney. It's like the namby-pamby BS in our schools where every kid gets a participation trophy, no matter what. In my opinion, tournaments are for winners. Want to get into the tourney, then win during the season, merely showing up and lacing up the skates isn't enough. The regular season needs to mean something beyond seeding.

mar7967
06-28-2012, 11:31 PM
Personally, I HATE that most leagues take everybody to the tourney. It's like the namby-pamby BS in our schools where every kid gets a participation trophy, no matter what. In my opinion, tournaments are for winners. Want to get into the tourney, then win during the season, merely showing up and lacing up the skates isn't enough. The regular season needs to mean something beyond seeding.

1000% agree

Jim
06-29-2012, 08:35 AM
Personally, I HATE that most leagues take everybody to the tourney. It's like the namby-pamby BS in our schools where every kid gets a participation trophy, no matter what. In my opinion, tournaments are for winners. Want to get into the tourney, then win during the season, merely showing up and lacing up the skates isn't enough. The regular season needs to mean something beyond seeding.I'm with you, though I'd go a step further. I would favor adding 4 more games and giving the NCAA bid tot he regular season champion. After all, that team has proved itself over a 6 month run and by winning over 27 (or in my scenario 31) games. Why should teams that couldn't get it done over a 27 or longer game regular season now get a 2nd bite of the apple. Of course I realize that league tournaments have become a part of the game, and my idea will never be found acceptable, but still...

LtPowers
06-29-2012, 09:43 AM
Why should teams that couldn't get it done over a 27 or longer game regular season now get a 2nd bite of the apple.

1. Injuries.
2. Schedule imbalances.
3. Fan excitement.

Note that as an RIT fan, the rule you propose would have been in our best interests for most of the last several years. But that doesn't mean I support the idea in theory.


Powers &8^]

schiegs
06-29-2012, 10:19 AM
Personally, I HATE that most leagues take everybody to the tourney. It's like the namby-pamby BS in our schools where every kid gets a participation trophy, no matter what. In my opinion, tournaments are for winners. Want to get into the tourney, then win during the season, merely showing up and lacing up the skates isn't enough. The regular season needs to mean something beyond seeding.

Hear, hear!

MattS
06-29-2012, 10:48 AM
Personally, I HATE that most leagues take everybody to the tourney. It's like the namby-pamby BS in our schools where every kid gets a participation trophy, no matter what. In my opinion, tournaments are for winners. Want to get into the tourney, then win during the season, merely showing up and lacing up the skates isn't enough. The regular season needs to mean something beyond seeding.

Totally agree!!

mar7967
06-29-2012, 10:51 AM
I'm with you, though I'd go a step further. I would favor adding 4 more games and giving the NCAA bid tot he regular season champion. After all, that team has proved itself over a 6 month run and by winning over 27 (or in my scenario 31) games. Why should teams that couldn't get it done over a 27 or longer game regular season now get a 2nd bite of the apple. Of course I realize that league tournaments have become a part of the game, and my idea will never be found acceptable, but still...

And no one wants only 3 OOC games, which is what they would get with 31 AHA games.

Jim
06-29-2012, 11:59 AM
And no one wants only 3 OOC games, which is what they would get with 31 AHA games.That's not what I meant...It would probably take a rules change, but in my ideal world:) You'd add 4 more regular season games in lieu of a post season tourney. So the regular season would be 38, not 34...something along those lines...If you eliminated conference tourneies, there would be ample time to add 2 additional weekend and still play the NCAA Tourney on the same schedule.

Ralph Baer
06-29-2012, 12:12 PM
That's not what I meant...It would probably take a rules change, but in my ideal world:) You'd add 4 more regular season games in lieu of a post season tourney. So the regular season would be 38, not 34...something along those lines...If you eliminated conference tourneies, there would be ample time to add 2 additional weekend and still play the NCAA Tourney on the same schedule. The NCAA only allows 34 regular season games (not counting trips to Alsaka, etc.), whether or not a post-season tourney is played.

schiegs
01-23-2013, 10:57 AM
It appears we can take UAH off the list of expansion candidates, as they appear headed for the nWCHA. Congratualtions Chargers fans.

So, we're down to St. A's, URI, and Navy as viable (i.e. have been mentioned somewhere besides this board) candidates.

gfmorris
01-23-2013, 04:21 PM
It appears we can take UAH off the list of expansion candidates, as they appear headed for the nWCHA. Congratualtions Chargers fans.

So, we're down to St. A's, URI, and Navy as viable (i.e. have been mentioned somewhere besides this board) candidates.

I never thought that we were realistic. I'm not sure which of those three will go, but I'm betting on Navy.

GFM

MattS
01-24-2013, 07:35 AM
I think it's more likely that colleges leave the AHA than a new one come in.

schiegs
01-24-2013, 10:29 AM
I think it's more likely that colleges leave the AHA than a new one come in.

Names and destinations?

Jim
01-24-2013, 10:54 AM
Have any of you seen St A's new arena? Really nice. They would make a lot of sense. They are in the NE 10 with a couple of other AHA teams. They are in a good location for the league. One thing I'd say about AHA as a follower since the old MAAC days is that the level of play has improved just so remarkably. For years there has been talk about AHA losing members, but reality is just the opposite with 12 teams including several new members in the last 5 years. And reality is that AHA was more attractive to several programs than CHA was.