Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Realignment Rumors

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • joecct
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    The more I think about it, and looking @ college hockey as a whole, the best solution for ALL the D-II schools, not just the 6 schools playing in D-III in the NE-10/ECAC-E, is to form a D-I/II National Collegiate Championship for Men's Ice Hockey.

    1) This mirrors the women and is pretty much defacto what is the current situation in D-I Men's.
    2) The impeding re-alignment of D-I (see the BTHC effect) may have the schools group by resources, not playing level. The D-II's have nowhere near the money than the D-I's and the BCS schools have more money that anyone. If the D-II's can form up around existing D-II conferences, they may gain leverage, rather than sticking in a single sport conference, and play in the money championship.
    3) Canadian schools. Canadian colleges are coming into the NCAA as D-II members. If Western Canada schools come in with any numbers, the 2 Alaska schools have a ready made, dollar saving conference.
    4) D-III becomes pure - which will tickle the bowtie crowd in D-III land.
    5) May actually encourage expansion. Cost containment conferences can and do exist at D-I and D-II, as well as conferences where the sky is the limit. If you're thinking of forming a hockey team, you may not have to break the bank.
    6) Least disruption. 4 NE-10 schools have to goose the program, but not too much. Remember most colleges pick and choose which sports they want to dominate in and keep the rest at a "maintenance" level. These schools probably would never compete for a NE-10 title, but they would have an NCAA team. They're lots of schools who fill that model in lots of sports.

    One drawback is that D-II men are currently limited to 15 scholarships, but the D-II women have the D-I limit of 18 (don't worry, the 2 true D-II schools play with 0 schollys). If there is a D-I/II NCC for men, I can see the scholarship limit being raised to 18.

    Leave a comment:


  • goldy_331
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by uaafanblog View Post
    My saving grace.
    Well, you got one thing going for you and you stick with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • uaafanblog
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by goldy_331 View Post
    But on the plus side, you were completely condescending and overbearing in your adherence to your silly misconceptions.
    My saving grace.

    Leave a comment:


  • goldy_331
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by uaafanblog View Post
    It's clear now that I have to apologize for being under a decade-plus long misinterpretation. I'm not a rule book reader and hence have always gone by what I've been told regarding the Alaska/Hawaii exemption ... I "thought" I'd seen it explained in writing at some point as well but I'm unable to find such a reference anywhere. It always seemed perfectly clear and simple to me.

    So ... I'm sorry.
    But on the plus side, you were completely condescending and overbearing in your adherence to your silly misconceptions.

    Leave a comment:


  • ecbrevik
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by ExileOnDaytonStreet View Post
    As I see it, the only thing that should be concerning the Alaska schools is the fact that the B1Gs are among the schools that have the most to benefit from conference affiliation with them.

    The key to taking advantage of exemptions is this:
    1. Using the exemption to get two more home games.
    2. Getting cheap opponents for said home games.
    3. Being a successful enough program that you can make a lot of money at home games.

    When you're one of the B1Gs (especially Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan), it's pretty easy to follow that formula, since you have such large attendance figures and you make more money off of your program than most other schools do.

    So, when you remove the schools that have the most to gain from playing the Alaska schools, I have to imagine that UAA and UAF's fortunes can't be improving all that much.
    The other schools that could certainly benefit would be those like North Dakota and Denver, schools that have sizable arenas that do fill up and that could provide a nice shot of additional revenue with two extra home games. But I think the biggest reason you aren't seeing the Alaska schools mentioned as part of a "Super 6" league is that, if it ever even happens, the "Super 6" is a response to the BTHC. Schools included in the "Super 6" would be those who have proven a willingness to spend the kind of money on their programs that will be required to be competative with the type of money the BTHC schools are going to be spending on theirs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ralph Baer
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    In the long term, the Alaska schools might be in a league with the western Canadian schools if and when they join the NCAA.

    Leave a comment:


  • ExileOnDaytonStreet
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    As I see it, the only thing that should be concerning the Alaska schools is the fact that the B1Gs are among the schools that have the most to benefit from conference affiliation with them.

    The key to taking advantage of exemptions is this:
    1. Using the exemption to get two more home games.
    2. Getting cheap opponents for said home games.
    3. Being a successful enough program that you can make a lot of money at home games.

    When you're one of the B1Gs (especially Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan), it's pretty easy to follow that formula, since you have such large attendance figures and you make more money off of your program than most other schools do.

    So, when you remove the schools that have the most to gain from playing the Alaska schools, I have to imagine that UAA and UAF's fortunes can't be improving all that much.

    Leave a comment:


  • uaafanblog
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
    Are you saying UAA and UAF pay travel costs for Non-conference opponents?
    It wouldn't surprise me that they provide some sort of incentive since there is little to none otherwise it appears. Not quite the NationalCAA is it then? More like the Continguous48CAA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Almington
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    I think you continually underestimate the value of the exemption when it comes to conference affiliation. It's basically free money for teams since UAA and UAF pay most of the travel costs. I just seem to think that you want the Alaska schools out of college hockey, especially since nearly every post in this thread of yours seems to mention about UAA and UAF being left behind or left out or whatever.
    I fully acknowledge that I don't have all of the economic numbers to acurately put a value on the exemption to the schools. I just don't believe that the exemption has anywhere near the value that some people have claimed. My question would be if this exemption is so valuable why has there been no mention of including either of the AK schools in the Super 6 conference?

    I don't want to see college hockey lose any teams, and I enjoyed my visit to UAA when the Badgers played up there back in 06-07. But it is clear that UAA and UA(F) could be left out in any realignment, exemption or no exemption (along with a few other teams) in the same way that UAH was left out the last time.
    Last edited by Almington; 04-25-2011, 02:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by Jimjamesak View Post
    I think you continually underestimate the value of the exemption when it comes to conference affiliation. It's basically free money for teams since UAA and UAF pay most of the travel costs. I just seem to think that you want the Alaska schools out of college hockey, especially since nearly every post in this thread of yours seems to mention about UAA and UAF being left behind or left out or whatever.
    Are you saying UAA and UAF pay travel costs for Non-conference opponents?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by Almington View Post
    I'm not sure how UA(F) fits into everything. I can see both UAA and UA(F) being left behind in all the realignment fallout as I just don't see the exemption being that valuable to the lower attendance teams who will be looking to cut costs as much as they can.
    I think you continually underestimate the value of the exemption when it comes to conference affiliation. It's basically free money for teams since UAA and UAF pay most of the travel costs. I just seem to think that you want the Alaska schools out of college hockey, especially since nearly every post in this thread of yours seems to mention about UAA and UAF being left behind or left out or whatever.

    Leave a comment:


  • uaafanblog
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    It's clear now that I have to apologize for being under a decade-plus long misinterpretation. I'm not a rule book reader and hence have always gone by what I've been told regarding the Alaska/Hawaii exemption ... I "thought" I'd seen it explained in writing at some point as well but I'm unable to find such a reference anywhere. It always seemed perfectly clear and simple to me.

    So ... I'm sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Almington
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by uaafanblog View Post
    Let's use a fictional team just for simplicity ...

    The Almington Junior College Maroons in 2010-11 play a 34 game schedule that includes a tournament in Alaska for which they pocket two exemptions. 18 are at home and 16 are on the road (not that this matters but used as exposition of the Maroon's typical schedule).

    In 2011-2012 the Almington Junior College Maroons are allowed to play a 36 game schedule. They play 20 games at home and 16 on the road. Conference affliation has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

    There's your two extra home games. The two extra games ARE NOT played during the SAME season as the games in Alaska were played. How hard is that?

    If the Almington Junior College Maroons are TOO DIM to schedule the extra contests at home and get the revenue then they should fold up shop and never play sports again.

    End of story.
    Others have mentioned that you don't banks games, but even if you could it would change the numbers.

    The reason that conference affiliation matters is that the MINIMUM number of away games that a team must play is set by a conference schedule, for teams currently in the WCHA and CCHA that is set at 14. The standard schedule allows for 34 total games, leaving 6 NC games with a 28 game conference schedule.

    The advantage of having 2 of those required conference game be in AK is that you get an exemption for playing games on the road that you would have played on the road even without the exemption because you are required to as part of your conference schedule. That is why conference affiliation matters, the exemption is for games that you would have played as road as part of your conference schedule anyway. Thus you have 8 NC games you can schedule and the ability to schedule additional home games.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
    Does Michigan State get extra games on their schedule next year for having to head up to Fairbanks in the CCHA tournament?
    heh... you'd hope so But tournament games are already exempt

    Leave a comment:


  • Shirtless Guy
    replied
    Re: Realignment Rumors

    Does Michigan State get extra games on their schedule next year for having to head up to Fairbanks in the CCHA tournament?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X