WCHA armchair expansion

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

sniffing your own farts .... talking crap... a load of bull. ... of the crappy teams ... you ungrateful twerp.

Nachos are a delicious snack treat first invented in southern Texas. Warm creamy processed cheese food sauce poured over crunchy salted tortilla chips satisfy more cravings across the United States these days than many other once more popular choices. In fact, by adding ingredients like refried beans, ground beef and an assortment of healthy vegetable choices you can turn this snack food into a complete meal.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Nachos are a delicious snack treat first invented in southern Texas. Warm creamy processed cheese food sauce poured over crunchy salted tortilla chips satisfy more cravings across the United States these days than many other once more popular choices. In fact, by adding ingredients like refried beans, ground beef and an assortment of healthy vegetable choices you can turn this snack food into a complete meal.

You know what's almost as good as nachos? Frito pie, mmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[ronmexico]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Nachos are a delicious snack treat first invented in southern Texas. Warm creamy processed cheese food sauce poured over crunchy salted tortilla chips satisfy more cravings across the United States these days than many other once more popular choices. In fact, by adding ingredients like refried beans, ground beef and an assortment of healthy vegetable choices you can turn this snack food into a complete meal.

You know what's almost as good as nachos? Frito pie, mmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Wow. What does that mean?

[ronmexico]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

CC AD Ken Ralph was asked about the BTHC during the CC/UW broadcast and he said that the BTHC is voting next week and that it's a done deal. I'm only paraphrasing what I was told in my chatroom.

IMHO Ken Ralph was very direct about the matter.

He also had the opinion (this was just an opinion) that the WCHA would move forward as a 10 team league. They obviously have time to work that out. He made the point that they already know how to operate as a 10 team league. That may seem simply but makes sense to me.

[redhawk95]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Knowing how closely BC and Notre Dame are tied in football, I'd be interested to see if Hockey East takes a look at perhaps adding Notre Dame if they could make the travel work. In that same light, I've also wondered if Miami might be a candidate, but I haven't heard Hockey East mentioned at all in terms of expansion. Just a thought I've had.

[bigmrg74]

I think the whole of Division II football would love it if we did. Not that many DII teams out west as is.

Yeah, the GNAC for sure would love it if both Anchorage and Fairbanks would build small domes and add football. It would really stabilize the GNAC, and with the Alaska exemption, all those schools would be able to have an extra game that they could play if they wanted to play and if they could find a dance partner for a weekend.

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

You know what's almost as good as nachos? Frito pie, mmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Did you know that Fritos Brand Corn Chips are an excellent alternate choice as fire starting material in an emergency.

[manurespreader]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

IMHO Ken Ralph was very direct about the matter.

He also had the opinion (this was just an opinion) that the WCHA would move forward as a 10 team league. They obviously have time to work that out. He made the point that they already know how to operate as a 10 team league. That may seem simply but makes sense to me.

Not to me, but I think it is a view held by quite a few Ad's in the WCHA. Possibly they think that the world will always be the same. However to be honest, the CCHA is toast as soon as the bthc is announced.( unless some of the schools who announced they would drop hockey have changed their mind)
The 4-5 teams left in the CCHA afterwards are going to need a place to play.

The WCHA has to face facts. They can make changes that benefit college hockey as a whole or do nothing and end up with egg on their face.

[kingdobbs]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Knowing how closely BC and Notre Dame are tied in football, I'd be interested to see if Hockey East takes a look at perhaps adding Notre Dame if they could make the travel work. In that same light, I've also wondered if Miami might be a candidate, but I haven't heard Hockey East mentioned at all in terms of expansion. Just a thought I've had.

Hockey East has no compelling need to expand. That is not to say that the onset of a BTHC might not change their mind, but just that in and of itself does not create a need to get bigger.

The facts in play:
1) Competitively, Hockey East is typically the second-best conference in Division I, and frequently the best. Miami and Notre Dame would make them better, but as a whole, they don't need to be there.
2) Hockey East is the most compact league in all of Division I. Poopoo the matter of travel distance all you want (especially if you think the Eastern perception of distance is ludicrous), but the fact that nearly every team is an afternoon's bus ride from every other is a powerful thing. Adding Miami and Notre Dame guarantees a flight every year, and kills off the possibility of doing home-and-homes throughout the whole league schedule.
3) The Big 4 (Maine/UNH/BU/BC) might welcome more competitive teams, but will the "Little Six"? Will Northeastern or UML vote to make their path to winning the league more difficult? Will PC or Merrimack (this year's results aside) vote to further marginalize themselves?

Hockey East standing pat is probably the most likely thing to happen.

[Squarebanks]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Actually it's only 8 hours. Flights between MSP and ANC are only about 6 hours, add in prep time you're looking at no more than 10. Plus UAA has a nice working relationship with Delta Airlines (a product of almost 20 years of constant travel on their airline) that expedites baggage handling including waiving of baggage fees and weight fees or at the least reduced rates. As for inflexibility, who cares about changing schedules when all things are planned out in advance, typically 3-4 months before the season starts, the only concerns are weather or equipment related issues, no way a group 30+ will get bumped because things are overbooked, especially when the people buying the tickets buy hundreds.

Donald may be a little heavy on the capitalist conspiracy stuff but the essence of his arguement is correct, the biggest issue of the travel is perception. All that is looked at is the number of miles to travel and they freak. UAA and UAF do it multiple times a season with little issue, as do sports teams in the GNAC.

The biggest key to this, UAF may actually be looking forward to leaving the CCHA as, apparently, they are getting taken to the woodshed on airline tickets from the Michigan schools (supposedly it's around 20 each for them). They were looking to leave the last time around but the WCHA took Omaha instead.

There are two ways to make a 12 team conference with UAA and UAF work while minimizing travel. The first solution is just to use the current pod system. Basically just pair UAA and UAF and then each season two teams have to make both trips, have those two schools do that trip in back to back weekends (in similar matter that UAA does back to back road series now) in January to minimize time lost in class. It might cost a little bit extra in hotel but that can be minimized as well.

The other solution is to have each play each once home and away and do the games in Alaska in one weekend as the GNAC schools do. It allows for more non-conference games to scheduled as well. Either way, the arguements used against having UAA and UAF in the same conference are frivilous.

Last I heard it was 25 tickets (you're welcome, Rick Comley). Like UAA with Delta, we have arrangements with Alaska Airlines that waive baggage fees and all that other good stuff. Quite frankly, if Alaska Air ever starts flying to Detroit that will probably help us out a lot.

If I were the WCHA (or CCHA for that matter), I would WANT both of the Alaska schools. Why? Double the refreshment, double the fun, and double the exemption revenues. Travel can be dealth with; I'd even venture to say that hockey is about the whiniest of the NCAA sports when it comes to travel. Long plane rides are the norm in football and basketball.

Contrary to our dear friend Alaska Hockey's ramblings, I think if it hadn't been for Blais at UNO, UAF would be in the WCHA already. The WCHA doesn't strike me as a league that would leave that kind of money on the table. UNO had stated for years they wanted to stay in the CCHA because of the ties to the big football schools (Michigan, OSU, Notre Dame, etc.), since Nebraska is a football-heavy state. However the minute they hired Blais that attitude did a 180.

Now here's a scenario, hypothetical of course, for you and Donald to ponder: Let's say BTHC happens, and the CCHA kids that got picked last are trying to salvage what's left of a conference that has been dominated, both competitively and financially, by the two big Michigan schools since forever. If the CCHA went to UAF and UAA and said that they would renogiate the travel deals to a fraction of current levels, in order to get double the number of exemptions for the remaining schools (equating possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional revenue), would you want UAA to make the jump to the new CCHA?

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

If I were the WCHA (or CCHA for that matter), I would WANT both of the Alaska schools. Why? Double the refreshment, double the fun, and double the exemption revenues.

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

The exemption only matters if you have no problem filling your non-conference schedule with home games. If you can't then the exemption just adds to the difficulty in fining enough non-conference games. (I suspect that UAH would be glad to fill any of those dates they can)

The only way that both teams are in the same conference is is the conference schedule is set up so that teams only have to make one trip up to AK during the regular season. Such as with a 12 team conference where you play each team once (2 games) either home or away, except your rival who you would play both at home and on the road. That would work out to a 24 game conference schedule allowing 12 non-conference games.

I suspect that the remaining WCHA teams will want to remain in a 10 team conference. The CCHA will have the opportunity to add UAH, or raid Atlantic Hockey for Niagara, and/or Mercyhurst if they need teams.

[darker98]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

Once the B10 hockey schools leave the CCHA the rest of the teams will be much richer. " don't know how to make the roll eyes"

[Squarebanks]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

[QUOTE=Almington;5067242]

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

You wouldn't have to make two trips per season.

The exemption only matters if you have no problem filling your non-conference schedule with home games. If you can't then the exemption just adds to the difficulty in fining enough non-conference games. (I suspect that UAH would be glad to fill any of those dates they can)

The exemption doesn't matter? Tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars might be used to wipe your rear end at Minnesota or Wisconsin, but to a smaller school that's a big chunk of money.

The only way that both teams are in the same conference is is the conference schedule is set up so that teams only have to make one trip up to AK during the regular season. Such as with a 12 team conference where you play each team once (2 games) either home or away, except your rival who you would play both at home and on the road. That would work out to a 24 game conference schedule allowing 12 non-conference games.

That was my point. As it is now, five (or is it six?) CCHA teams only go to Fairbanks once every other year. That means that every other year they are losing out on the exemptions.

With UAF and UAA together, just set the schedule so that you go to Anchorage one year and Fairbanks the next year. Rinse, wash, repeat, and you get an exemption every year.

I think the potential of a large amount of extra annual revenue more than outweighs ****ing and moaning about getting on a plane once a year.

I suspect that the remaining WCHA teams will want to remain in a 10 team conference. The CCHA will have the opportunity to add UAH, or raid Atlantic Hockey for Niagara, and/or Mercyhurst if they need teams.

You might very well be right that the WCHA stays at 10 and flips the bird to the rest of the non-B10 schools. But they would be pretty **** stupid to not consider the money they would leave on the table.

[Alton]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

This is simply untrue. Please refer to NCAA Bylaw 17.12.5.3 (i).

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

You wouldn't have to make two trips per season.

In any setup to fill a 28 game conference schedule some teams would be required to make 2 trips up to AK each season.

The exemption doesn't matter? Tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars might be used to wipe your rear end at Minnesota or Wisconsin, but to a smaller school that's a big chunk of money.

The exemption only matters if it INCREASES the number of home games that you can play, if you can't fill those game, end up going on the road for those games the exemption doesn't bring in any additional revenue.

You must be able to schedule additional home games for the exemption to result in increases revenue as opposed to just increased costs.

It's not that the exemption doesn't matter, just that it isn't as simple as exemption=more revenue.