Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New WCHA is dead

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: New WCHA is dead

    Originally posted by manurespreader View Post
    Morals do not exist in the board rooms of these schools. get that silly thought out of your head. Nor do they exist anywhere else in college hockey.
    I find this whole things just disgusting to be honest. And i'd bet dollars to donuts that our buddies in Mankato are still going to try to get into the NCHC regardless of all this.
    Apparently you have never met Jerry York. There is no wonder why he is going to the Hall of Fame in Toronto. A first class guy all the way. Jerry has often scheduled out of conference road games while other top echelon schools rarely wander from their home rinks for such games. His reasoning is to get his team ready and lately that has hurt his team by just missing out of the tournament PWR. He is a no nonsense coach that sets high standards and goes by the rules.

    Comment


    • Re: New WCHA is dead

      “Where there is no vision, the leagues and programs perish.” Proverbs 20:19

      The [new] WCHA was a league formed out of necessity, not by design. Like leagues of necessity before them — Great Western Conference and College Hockey America — the WCHA is perishing. While it is painful to watch unfold (or fold in this case), it isn’t a surprise.

      Most surviving conferences have a vision. Sensible or not, the intent of the vision was well founded.

      Atlantic Hockey was formed by smaller budget programs with scholarship constraints. The Big Ten was formed by existing, long standing conference affiliations and a supposed lucrative television network. The NCHC was formed by programs with a history and commitment to competitiveness on a national platform.

      The [new] WCHA was formed eight years ago when ten teams decided to live under the same roof with varying eagerness. The vision of this relationship looked less like a loving marriage and more like finding a couch to crash on.

      One team jumped ship immediately, Northern Michigan. One team tried to keep it afloat, Bowling Green, by asking MAC buddy Buffalo to reboot hockey. The last team treaded water for half a year when out of the darkness a lifebuoy was tossed their way, Alabama-Huntsville.

      Things could have worked out, but they haven’t. Inevitably, getting out of the relationship, looking for a better ship was going to surface (or is that looking for a better submarine?). A relationship where you feel no connection, feel you aren’t growing, and others aren’t contributing, whether actual or imagined, probably isn't a lasting relationship.

      I feel for Alaska, Alaska-Anchorage, and Alabama-Huntsville (A3? A-3PO’ed? The Three As? The Three Amigos? Amigos without amigos?) I feel for the programs, the players, the fans. It sucks being dumped. Nobody likes being dumped. Nobody likes seeing one dumped when they’ve done nothing wrong. It’s especially difficult when the person being dumped has been a great friend.

      But nobody likes doing the dumping either. The seven schools aren’t the first ones to dump them. They aren’t the first ones to have abandoned ship with no concern for how the castoffs would survive. Fourteen programs came before them.

      Those 14 chose the relationship they felt were best for them. Right or wrong, so are these seven schools. So why are they suffering the scorn? Who deserves the blame for not saving the remaining passengers: the first ones off the ship or the last ones off the ship?

      Why the longing for the common good of college hockey now? It didn’t exist eight years ago. Did it ever exist?

      It didn’t exist when Alabama-Huntsville was rejected by the CCHA.

      It didn’t exist when Wayne State was rejected by the CCHA and folded.

      It didn’t exist in the late 80s, early 90s when Michigan-Dearborn had a full set of scholarships, were playing DI schools, applied twice to the CCHA, were rejected twice and folded.

      It didn’t exist when the NCAA awarded an auto-bid for Independent schools and took Merrimack over U.S. International because of winning percentage even though USIU had swept an undefeated Merrimack team, USIU played just 3 DIII teams while Merrimack played 20, and USIU was coming off of three consecutive winning seasons. USIU folded about two months later.

      It didn’t exist in the late 1970s when UM’s Don Canham tried to merge the CCHA and WCHA, split them into three leagues to save on travel, was rebuffed, St. Louis folded, and Canham took UM to the CCHA with Notre Dame, Michigan State, and Michigan Tech in tow.

      It didn’t exist in 1976 when the NCAA was going to stage a Minnesota-St. Louis tournament play-in game and Herb Brooks threw a fit, getting the NCAA to squash it with pressure from the WCHA leadership and coaches.

      It didn’t exist in the mid 1970s when the three-team CCHA (BG, LSSU, and St. Louis) asked to be absorbed by the WCHA and were rejected.

      Don’t mistake stability for altruism.

      What has sunk the [new] WCHA, like defunct conferences of past, is unification by necessity rather than vision. I hope the Alaska schools and Huntsville find security soon in partnerships they once had in years past.

      Years past, the mid-1990s to be exact, then affiliate CCHA member Alaska-Fairbanks was seeking full membership. One coach from Miami strongly defended the Nanooks in the media when groans over lost class time, long flights, and effects on preparation and performance took hold of the debate. The Miami coach called the concerns ridiculous and pushed for admittance of UAF. That same coach, George Gwozdecky, was grinning widely at a podium in 2011 when the “National Collegiate Hockey Conference” name was unveiled, leaving behind 11 schools, including Alaska-Fairbanks.
      Last edited by John Biasi; 07-02-2019, 09:06 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by davyd83 View Post
        I believe they want to go to 24 conference games. Only the AHA & WCHA currently play more than 24.
        I think reducing the footprint of the league and having 7-8 teams is a perfect chance to stick with 24 game league schedule. The “SS” as it appears people are calling them have many close rivals they can play from the B10 and NCHC. So BSU or MSUM for example can replace games from UAF, AA with more und, umd, scsu and gophers, etc. those local names will help draw more and are at least possible to drive to watch as a road game. All that helps the bottom line. Geography matters when you aren’t flush with cash.

        So yeah, it sucks to get left behind, those 7 know the feeling well, but I like that they are making something happen now rather than “wait and hope”

        I also agree with the podcast, these 7 got this started, but doesn’t mean they end up together in the end. The biggest loss of the old WCHA was the final five tournament. That is never coming back, but maybe the swap of the MN schools for the MAC schools happen after a few “prove it years” of this new conference? With a smaller yet footprint, those tournaments get a boost of fans.

        Just my 2 cents

        Comment


        • Re: New WCHA is dead

          Everyone keeps saying "I hope Anchorage, Alaska and Huntsville find a new home" or words to that effect.

          With whom? The Three Little Pigs? The Seven Dwarfs? There is no conference out there that wants them. Maybe - MAYBE - the AHA will take Huntsville. Who wants the Alaska teams? The Big Mistake is not an option. Obviously Hockey East and the ECAC are out. The NCHC? Get real. The WCHA teams just kicked them to the curb. Maybe Huntsville and the Alaska teams can join with Arizona State to form the Island of Misfit Toys Conference. ASU can use its clout with the NC$$ to get an exemption like the CHA had so it gets an autobid with only four teams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FMR_Alaskan View Post
            I believe if either school loses hockey, they’d need to replace that sport with another to meet minimum NCAA standards yes?

            Whose ready for some GNAC Soccer in Anchorage? ⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️
            Wait, didn't the muni buy turf for the Sully?
            Just to be clear. My disinterest in this team became of the Uni's disinterest. Without the success of the hockey team, the other teams would not be where they are. Way to pay back the hockey team. **** UAA.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Biasi View Post
              Years past, the mid-1990s to be exact, then affiliate CCHA member Alaska-Fairbanks was seeking full membership. One coach from Miami strongly defended the Nanooks in the media when groans over lost class time, long flights, and effects on preparation and performance took hold of the debate. The Miami coach called the concerns ridiculous and pushed for admittance of UAF. That same coach, George Gwozdecky, was grinning widely at a podium in 2011 when the “National Collegiate Hockey Conference” name was unveiled, leaving behind 11 schools, including Alaska-Fairbanks.
              And both times Gwozdecky was not there on opening day following each move to see his dreams come to fruition.
              (Gwoz was fired from Denver the spring before the NCHC played their first game, left Miami for Denver the summer the CCHA made UA_ a full member, I'm sensing a pattern here...)
              “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

              Live Radio from 100.3

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Biasi View Post
                One team jumped ship immediately, Northern Michigan. One team tried to keep it afloat, Bowling Green, by asking MAC buddy Buffalo to reboot hockey.
                This first bit seems to keep surprising everyone, what they seem to forget is that the WCHA invited them to leave the CCHA in 2009 (to join in 2011). NMU turned that invitation down, and UNO was invited.

                That second bit, let's not forget that one day after extending an invitation, three days after holding a joint meeting by the WCHA and CCHA staff and school officials, LSSU, FSU and UA_ accepted an invitation to jump to the WCHA.

                BGSU was (for six weeks) holding just the CCHA name and their d*cks in their hands seeing if they could find out what fellow MAC school WMU was going to do.

                Then SCSU and WMU announce they're going to the NCHC and BGSU *still* waited two weeks to figure their sh*t out, and asked the WCHA for an extension so they could delay their choice because Notre Dame still hadn't made a decision and was flirting with the NCHC still.

                Don't go painting BGSU as keeping the dream alive when they never wanted to be in the WCHA either, and were the last team standing in the CCHA.
                “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

                Live Radio from 100.3

                Comment


                • Re: New WCHA is dead

                  Originally posted by gfmorris View Post
                  The music was still playing when the NCHC made their move. The SS killed the DJ and lit two chairs on fire.

                  GFM
                  I think the NCHC was worse. The NCHC made their move at a time when the entirety of college hockey west of the Appalachians could have sat down and come up with a collaborative solution that, if not ideal for everyone, was at least workable. Instead they just grabbed the "most appealing" of the western schools and left everyone else standing there holding the bag. The nWCHA schools never chose each other, they are what's left. The schools in Hockey East, ECAC, the Big Ten, the NCHC, even the AHA all picked each other. Sure, some BC fans may not love being in a league with Merrimack, but Hockey East chose Merrimack.

                  Bowling Green, Ferris, Northern Michigan, etc. never CHOSE to be in a league with UAH or the Alaskas. They were just the teams that were left when everyone else picked their homes. The rest of college hockey basically decided that these seven schools are the ones that get to deal with going to Alaska and Alabama every year. They've played with those three schools for a few years, and for whatever reason, have decided it isn't tenable to remain in the league with three remote outposts. And that is fair. They know their budgets, and they know how all that travel affects their kids.

                  I also don't look at the announcement as "screw these guys, we are completely done." I think it is the start of a process, and they are saying "hey, college hockey, if you think it is important to have teams in Alaska and Alabama, you need to step up and help support them." Maybe the answer is that the NCHC agrees to take Fairbanks. Maybe the answer is that all three go independent but there's some sort of "scheduling alliance" where each of the six conferences guarantee two of their schools each go to each of UAH, UAA and Fairbanks (Arizona State seems to be scheduling fine, but they have some inherent financial and geographic advantages), giving each of the three twelve guaranteed home games each year.

                  Comment


                  • Re: New WCHA is dead

                    As I have stated previously, I don't blame the Big for the disaster that college hockey has become and it's poor geographic alignment out West. They were adding hockey to an existing conference structure. As much as fans didn't like the move, I really don't think there is any real argument against the Big hockey conference once they had a suitable number of teams.

                    The NaCHo however was a complete knee jerk reaction to the Big conference. One the Big plucked their teams, you still had two smaller, yet stable, conferences with room for expansion in the future. However the NaCHo teams used it as their excuse to dump perceived "dead weight" and left the other teams to pick up the pieces in their wake. As another poster mentioned, the nWCHA was formed out of necessity, not because of any grand vision that by joining those 10 teams the future looked super awesome. The conference footprint was massive and pointless.

                    The only solution to this problem that has a happy ending in my opinion is to once again split the AK schools into separate conferences. I don't believe the statement that "No one wants to play AK schools..." I do believe the statement that no one wants play AT UAA, UAF AND UAH all in the same season. When and if ASU gets their act together you can add their name to that list and make it a foursome of teams no one wants more than one or two of in their conference.

                    The NCHC needs to get off their high horse and offer a conference home to one of the AK schools and maybe add ASU to even out their number if they so choose. (I still don't think ASU is the desirable add some folks seem to think they are. If they were such a hot commodity they would be in a conference now, rink or not.) The Secret Seven needs to be thankful they only have to travel once to AK in a season and accept ONE of the AK schools back into their new conference as well.

                    As for UAH, I could see them still being a fit with the Secret Seven. I don't know how attractive they look to AH. I think they look more attractive to AH if Holy Cross remains in AH and UAH gives them an even number. If AH feel that HC will eventually follow their women's program to Hockey East then I think UAH won't be seriously considered for membership.
                    Preserving Michigan Tech's Hockey History
                    https://www.johnsonsjerseys.net
                    Originally posted by geezer
                    Tech has the best of everything, even the best jersey nerd.
                    Originally posted by manurespreader
                    ...I really enjoyed listening to Ryan Johnson. He sounded intelligent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: New WCHA is dead

                      Originally posted by AMC View Post
                      and they are saying "hey, college hockey, if you think it is important to have teams in Alaska and Alabama, you need to step up and help support them."
                      Here's the heart of the problem - There is no "college hockey" as an entity. It's 60 individual programs, each of whom ultimately needs to take care of itself. There is no Big Daddy College Hockey who can step in and bail out the UA programs, or the WCHA, or the other 7 members of the WCHA. As harsh as the reality is, college hockey is not a particularly profitable endeavor, outside of a handful (or less) programs. To think Kato, or BGSU, or any of the others can absorb losses year after year is folly. Eventually, the current system will drag them all down.

                      I hate everything about this situation, including the way it was handled, but for me, it isn't worth it for us to bankrupt our program as well. If those 3 programs are to be saved, it's going to take a heckuva lot more resources than the other 7 schools have.

                      Comment


                      • Re: New WCHA is dead

                        How does the narrative that the NCHC hand picked all the good teams then packed up and left keep propagating? It's been pretty well established that after the B1G teams pulled out the small schools realized they had a numbers advantage and intended to use it to bring everybody else to their level and cut back spending. Of course the teams that are nationally competitive year in and year out are going to look for other options at that point. The break off is just as much the small schools' fault as anybody else's, they tried to take advantage of the new reality and it backfired on them. And in the end they kind of did get what they wanted, their conference with a small budget full of financially "like minded" schools, losing the teams they wanted to play with was the price they paid for it. And now many of those same schools are back here as the ringleaders yet again. The NCHC may have been a power grab by a number of schools, but it was born from a failed power grab before it.
                        Last edited by TheRevengeance; 07-03-2019, 09:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: New WCHA is dead

                          Stop with the Shady Seven crap...its all out in the open. I'm not sure what anyone expected them to do? It's been known for years that BGSU and MSUM have not been happy with this league and have wanted out in various forms. The fact that they are leaving along with the other 5 isn't a surprise and no one in their right mind is going to go much further than saying "I'm leaving" until they're actually leaving. Who knows, as I've stated this might just push to get the 3 teams in question to either step up their game or they'll move on. But if things don't get fixed, the teams aren't required to stay another year without paying penalties to the league.
                          Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

                          Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

                          Comment


                          • Re: New WCHA is dead

                            Originally posted by TheRevengeance View Post
                            How does the narrative that the NCHC hand picked all the good teams then packed up and left keep propagating? It's been pretty well established that after the B1G teams pulled out the small schools realized they had a numbers advantage and intended to use it to bring everybody else to their level and cut back spending. Of course the teams that are nationally competitive year in and year out are going to look for other options at that point. The break off is just as much the small schools' fault as anybody else's, they tried to take advantage of the new reality and it backfired on them. And in the end they kind of did get what they wanted, their conference with a small budget full of financially "like minded" schools, losing the teams they wanted to play with was the price they paid for it. And now many of those same schools are back here as the ringleaders yet again. The NCHC may have been a power grab by a number of schools, but it was born from a failed power grab before it.
                            Wow. This is the first time I've heard that Bowling Green was a ringleader in the creation of the Nachos. If I'd known that, the amount of shade I've slung towards Miami State on various message boards would have had a completely different tone!

                            Comment


                            • Re: New WCHA is dead

                              Originally posted by AMC View Post
                              I think the NCHC was worse. The NCHC made their move at a time when the entirety of college hockey west of the Appalachians could have sat down and come up with a collaborative solution that, if not ideal for everyone, was at least workable. Instead they just grabbed the "most appealing" of the western schools and left everyone else standing there holding the bag. The nWCHA schools never chose each other, they are what's left. The schools in Hockey East, ECAC, the Big Ten, the NCHC, even the AHA all picked each other. Sure, some BC fans may not love being in a league with Merrimack, but Hockey East chose Merrimack.

                              Bowling Green, Ferris, Northern Michigan, etc. never CHOSE to be in a league with UAH or the Alaskas. They were just the teams that were left when everyone else picked their homes. The rest of college hockey basically decided that these seven schools are the ones that get to deal with going to Alaska and Alabama every year. They've played with those three schools for a few years, and for whatever reason, have decided it isn't tenable to remain in the league with three remote outposts. And that is fair. They know their budgets, and they know how all that travel affects their kids.

                              I also don't look at the announcement as "screw these guys, we are completely done." I think it is the start of a process, and they are saying "hey, college hockey, if you think it is important to have teams in Alaska and Alabama, you need to step up and help support them." Maybe the answer is that the NCHC agrees to take Fairbanks. Maybe the answer is that all three go independent but there's some sort of "scheduling alliance" where each of the six conferences guarantee two of their schools each go to each of UAH, UAA and Fairbanks (Arizona State seems to be scheduling fine, but they have some inherent financial and geographic advantages), giving each of the three twelve guaranteed home games each year.
                              Really?! It always felt to me, an alumnus and supporter of the hockey program, that UAH was included in the WCHA purely because those nine schools likely couldn't handle the guilt and reputation hit of being the school to reject a program when a quasi-new conference was being filled in a time where there's no value in having 9 teams instead of 10 (can't build a balanced schedule) and while UAH made the argument — I've seen the proposal, it's prominent —*that admitting the Chargers limited the amount of times that nWCHA teams would do the Alaska double.

                              The timing couldn't suck more for any of the three schools. Alaska's budget woes are well-documented; UAH just put their (useless and sometimes actively destructive) AD (who ignored warnings that this was coming) out to pasture and just changed Presidents.

                              GFM
                              Geof F. Morris
                              UAH BSE MAE 2002
                              UAHHockey.com

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheRevengeance View Post
                                How does the narrative that the NCHC hand picked all the good teams then packed up and left keep propagating? ...
                                The NCHC may have been a power grab by a number of schools, but it was born from a failed power grab before it.
                                You said it yourself: the NCHC was born from a failed power grab before it. These same NCHC schools were growing bitter with having to split the Final Five golden goose egg every year with the likes of MTU, UAA. Add in BSU in 2009 for the 2011 season, and all the grumbling finally came to a head.

                                In hindsight, the NCHC schools had one foot out the door since the CHA exodus occurred in 2009, because they didn't want "more of *those* schools" taking their precious nest egg.


                                *The exception is Miami, who wasn't getting a dime from the CCHA because NONE of the schools saw a Super Six check. That money went to pay for the fan experience and league award banquet during the finals.
                                “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

                                Live Radio from 100.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X