The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

[Slap Shot]

Every single one of the WCHA teams not in Alaska could fold tomorrow and UAF and UAA would continue on without too much pain.

lolwut

[Critical Thinker]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Every single one of the WCHA teams not in Alaska could fold tomorrow and UAF and UAA would continue on without too much pain.

You are all concerned about your programs? Then fans of the state funded schools better get busy lobbying for better funding from the appropriate politicians. Fans of private school teams better get on their administrations to better fund them and/or hit the fund raising road. Why? Because the league cannot and is not going to butter your bread. No matter how many wishes and dreams or fantasies any of you have about new commishes bringing you fancy cheesecakes slathered with strawberries; it ain't gonna happen.

You are not wrong to consider the meager revenue potential that exists to be shared. And there's nothing wrong with maximizing the return to schools with whatever mechanisms make sense. It just isn't going to be much. That's life in the big city.

I'm now convinced uaafanblog and Pink Pony are the same person.

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I'm now convinced uaafanblog and Pink Pony are the same person.

Come on. Donald is a contrarian and can act like a jerk, but he does at least put together cogent thoughts (even if you disagree with his conclusions). PP is just a troll.

GFM

[davyd83]

I'm now convinced uaafanblog and Pink Pony are the same person.

Though he may have the market cornered on obnoxiousness, Donald has a far better grasp of reality and fact than does the equine one. On occasion, the former blogger makes some good points.

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Every single one of the WCHA teams not in Alaska could fold tomorrow and UAF and UAA would continue on without too much pain.

Yes, I agree they would continue to exist, however I'm guessing your scheduled would regularly consist of 4 or 8 games against the other AK school, 4-6 home games against out of state teams and the remaining 26-30 games of the schedule played on the road.
Ryan J

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Yes, I agree they would continue to exist, however I'm guessing your scheduled would regularly consist of 4 or 8 games against the other AK school, 4-6 home games against out of state teams and the remaining 26-30 games of the schedule played on the road.
Ryan J

But, but, but....ALASKA EXEMPTION!1!!11!

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Every single one of the WCHA teams not in Alaska could fold tomorrow and UAF and UAA would continue on without too much pain.

If UAA and UAF were so self-sufficient, why did they shackle themselves to this seemingly low revenue and backward thinking WCHA? Surely there were multiple other leagues that would have been falling all over themselves to admit two financial juggernauts like that.

I'm also trying to figure out what private schools are in the WCHA now. And as for the state schools lobbying for more money, none of the other 8 teams have the benefit of being the largest schools in their systems. All of them are fighting with schools like Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, and Alabama for those funding dollars, and athletic expenditures are not very high on the priority lists in those states.

I would also think that one of the ways to save the most amount of money in short order is to avoid 1 or 2 trips to Alaska every year. So let's try and build some constructive partnerships, rather than outlandish statements like the quote which we all know has not one shred of sense in it.

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

If UAA and UAF were so self-sufficient, why did they shackle themselves to this seemingly low revenue and backward thinking WCHA?

UAA and UAF's league fate has never been in their own hands. Geographic isolation from the other 57 teams does that. FFS, Huntsville, Alabama is broadly considered to be "too far away" from the rest of the college hockey world and it nearly cost them their program. UAA and UAF have two things going for them which would keep them from folding without a league.

They are the only major college sports in the state. Operational funding for them isn't a difficult political thing. Secondly, both schools are used to heavily subsidizing travel (sometimes FULLY paying travel and hotels) for nearly every team that has ever visited to joint to play hockey and combined with the fact that playing there doesn't count against the 34 game limit makes it less than too difficult to find willing opponents. Not being in a league would almost certainly water down the rosters talent-wise which would be the main problem. Getting games wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.

Surely there were multiple other leagues that would have been falling all over themselves to admit two financial juggernauts like that.

Here's the part where you feel insulted. Rather than seriously engaging the topic as you pretend to do with your first sentence, you introduce a completely ludicrous strawman; apparetnly, for some vague self-pleasuring sarcastic reason.

Making the topic me (as the typical reactionary forum fascists do) instead of what the topic is: the continual whining and moaning from WCHA fans who post here regarding "revenue" ... the only league-issue to which they'll never have a solution or even be able to constructively engage because all of those revenue numbers are simply not accessible. The result of which is that every noob who comes along to participate in this forum comes up with "travel expenses and travel difficulty to Alaska" as their virtual only idea.

And as for the state schools lobbying for more money, none of the other 8 teams have the benefit of being the largest schools in their systems. All of them are fighting with schools like Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, and Alabama for those funding dollars, and athletic expenditures are not very high on the priority lists in those states.

Not a problem for UAA and UAF as I've described above. They are the flagship state schools playing the flagship team sport. So again, if those state schools in the WCHA want more money then they'll have to buckle down and find political solutions. There is no money in a WCHA bucket to save them. What part of that is so difficult for you people here to grasp?

I would also think that one of the ways to save the most amount of money in short order is to avoid 1 or 2 trips to Alaska every year. So let's try and build some constructive partnerships, rather than outlandish statements like the quote which we all know has not one shred of sense in it.

You should try to stay away from engaging me directly in the future as most of the other noobs here do. Also, never put words in my mouth.

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

I'm now convinced uaafanblog and Pink Pony are the same person.

So then "Critical" in your screen moniker is more of a "medical" reference? Almost braindead is a tragic thing.

[davyd83]

UAA and UAF's league fate has never been in their own hands. Geographic isolation from the other 57 teams does that. FFS, Huntsville, Alabama is broadly considered to be "too far away" from the rest of the college hockey world and it nearly cost them their program. UAA and UAF have two things going for them which would keep them from folding without a league.

They are the only major college sports in the state. Operational funding for them isn't a difficult political thing. Secondly, both schools are used to heavily subsidizing travel (sometimes FULLY paying travel and hotels) for nearly every team that has ever visited to joint to play hockey and combined with the fact that playing there doesn't count against the 34 game limit makes it less than too difficult to find willing opponents. Not being in a league would almost certainly water down the rosters talent-wise which would be the main problem. Getting games wouldn't be nearly as big a problem.


Here's the part where you feel insulted. Rather than seriously engaging the topic as you pretend to do with your first sentence, you introduce a completely ludicrous strawman; apparetnly, for some vague self-pleasuring sarcastic reason.

Making the topic me (as the typical reactionary forum fascists do) instead of what the topic is: the continual whining and moaning from WCHA fans who post here regarding "revenue" ... the only league-issue to which they'll never have a solution or even be able to constructively engage because all of those revenue numbers are simply not accessible. The result of which is that every noob who comes along to participate in this forum comes up with "travel expenses and travel difficulty to Alaska" as their virtual only idea.


Not a problem for UAA and UAF as I've described above. They are the flagship state schools playing the flagship team sport. So again, if those state schools in the WCHA want more money then they'll have to buckle down and find political solutions. There is no money in a WCHA bucket to save them. What part of that is so difficult for you people here to grasp?


You should try to stay away from engaging me directly in the future as most of the other noobs here do. Also, never put words in my mouth.

John J a "noob?" Shows how little you know.

[gfmorris]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

So then "Critical" in your screen moniker is more of a "medical" reference? Almost braindead is a tragic thing.

Here's what I can never understand, Donald. You have a lot of good things to say. Why do you wrap them in acid? I hear you say that we're making it about you, but I don't see why you think that your ideas will reign supreme in spite of their presentation. Is this a result of the frontier spirit necessary to living in Alaska (which I respect) that we don't see down here in the Lower 48?

GFM

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

John J a "noob?" Shows how little you know.

Making a strawman is a noob move. End of story.

[uaafanblog]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

Here's what I can never understand, Donald. You have a lot of good things to say. Why do you wrap them in acid?

Patting each other on the back and glad-handing leads to insularity on internet forums. A cacophony of views is a better approach. The acidity is a result of nearly 15 years here seeing unique or unconventional views isolated and marginalized. For many people here this is "social media". Not for me. I'm not interested in making friends. I'm interested in sharing my views. It's quite funny to me that somehow my singular view(s) so often generate the tizzies in people when all they really need to do is quote my post break it down point by point and advocate their own view. That's actually a useful process that leads to the honing of ideas.

This joint easily becomes a box in which nobody really looks outside. I always look outside first.

I hear you say that we're making it about you, but I don't see why you think that your ideas will reign supreme in spite of their presentation.

The message is the thing. The messenger and/or it's conveyance is irrelevant.

Is this a result of the frontier spirit necessary to living in Alaska (which I respect) that we don't see down here in the Lower 48?

No. There's plenty of glad-handing back-patting no-account poo$sies in Alaska too.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

After a day or 2 without checking in here, I went to read back several posts, but it became quickly apparent that it wasn't worth it. Ugh.

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: The New WCHA, 2014 Offseason: See-ya, Bruce

You should try to stay away from engaging me directly in the future as most of the other noobs here do. Also, never put words in my mouth.

Then don't put words in mine, *****hat. If you want raw numbers, check your posts - we have about the same number so there's your straight empirical data. I started posting here in 2002, eight years before your first one. I've been to over 40 college hockey buildings since my first attended game when I was 3 months old. And I can guarantee to you that I know more about college hockey than you. If you can't recognize sarcasm, that ain't my issue so can the "strawman" idea.

I'll engage anyone I please here. But certainly doesn't please me to do it with you. If you want an intelligent discussion with someone who knows the issues faced by almost every college hockey program from Minnesota to Mercyhurst, I'm your guy. If you want to spout off with a bunch of vitriol or unsupported crap, I'll call you on it. I'm not here to badmouth anyone's program, I just hate misinformation and unfounded rhetoric with a passion. And you crossed the line on both.