Realignment Rumors

[Jimjamesak]

Re: Realignment Rumors

Are you saying UAA and UAF pay travel costs for Non-conference opponents?

Yes.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: Realignment Rumors

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?

Because it's a thing that is about TV money for the most part. And Alaska isn't very friendly to TV people. Either that or the schools haven't made much of a press on it because it isn't happening.

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.

Yeah but you've taken a could and turned it into a will with your postings. You make it seem like a sure thing with your postings, echoing your true thoughts?

[Jimjamesak]

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.

The problem is what happens with Colorado College, a DIII school playing DI hockey?

[kingdobbs]

Re: Realignment Rumors

The problem is what happens with Colorado College, a DIII school playing DI hockey?

The same as Clarkson, St. Lawrence, RPI, and Union women's hockey.

[Patman]

Re: Realignment Rumors

To be honest, I really wish that the NCAA would let hockey be left to its own devices save for eligibility and the other regular stuff. Let them form a National Collegiate distinction, let them have as many D-1/2 playups as they can muster. I think in some way D1 hockey could be a valve against so many colleges going D-I... each school in going D-1 is looking for that bit of attention.

Let college hockey be unique because it isn't going to be like the other sports. I just wish they'd stop trying to force these paradigms on it.

[bronconick]

Re: Realignment Rumors

To be honest, I really wish that the NCAA would let hockey be left to its own devices save for eligibility and the other regular stuff. Let them form a National Collegiate distinction, let them have as many D-1/2 playups as they can muster. I think in some way D1 hockey could be a valve against so many colleges going D-I... each school in going D-1 is looking for that bit of attention.

Let college hockey be unique because it isn't going to be like the other sports. I just wish they'd stop trying to force these paradigms on it.

They need to have limitations on D1 basketball and football because there's actual money to be made there and they're trying to limit the #'s of teams Beyond that, they should let any schools that want to play up in any sport play up. If a DIII school wants to put D1 resources into two sports (1 men, 1 women) and DIII for everything else, why not? If they want to do it for 4 sports, hell, even better. More oppurtunities for scholarships.

[Dude Love]

Re: Realignment Rumors

I thought I got that guy banned.

[Rover]

Re: Realignment Rumors

I'm not in favor of just opening up the sport to a bunch of small schools trying to play up. They have to be committed to improving facilities and offering the full allotment of scholarships. The absolute last thing college hockey needs right now is a bunch of schools joining who try to get by on the cheap with a 100 year old hut as an arena playing in front of 50 fans with a team full of walk ons. Now I know that's a bit extreme, but my point remains the same. 40 years ago it may have been imperative to get schools to play the sport regardless of their committment. Given the success of conference tournaments and the FF that's no longer an issue as hockey schools should be able to see the benefits of participating in those events. Now just to clarify I'm not saying kick out any school that currently as a sub-standard arena. What I am saying is going forward do not let anybody in without the proper committment.

[FreshFish]

Re: Realignment Rumors

What I am saying is going forward do not let anybody in without the proper committment.

or a really really rich alumni booster, eh?

[bigmrg74]

They need to have limitations on D1 basketball and football because there's actual money to be made there and they're trying to limit the #'s of teams Beyond that, they should let any schools that want to play up in any sport play up. If a DIII school wants to put D1 resources into two sports (1 men, 1 women) and DIII for everything else, why not? If they want to do it for 4 sports, hell, even better. More oppurtunities for scholarships.

That, and the NCAA should really go after some of the schools that are D-1 in name only like New Jersey Tech. There's too many schools like that that try to get by on the cheap with PB&J sandwiches on roadtrips to money games where they've expected to watch Big Tyme State have a good day in basketball. And none of that tickets sold BS either, the aveage should be actual fannies in the seats there present, and if not, bust them back down a level.

[komey1]

Re: Realignment Rumors

That, and the NCAA should really go after some of the schools that are D-1 in name only like New Jersey Tech. There's too many schools like that that try to get by on the cheap with PB&J sandwiches on roadtrips to money games where they've expected to watch Big Tyme State have a good day in basketball. And none of that tickets sold BS either, the aveage should be actual fannies in the seats there present, and if not, bust them back down a level.

There go half the AHA....

[bigmrg74]

There go half the AHA....

I was talking more about the schools that are D1 for basketball.

[kingdobbs]

Re: Realignment Rumors

There go half the AHA....

Believe me, compared to some of the fly-by-night operations at the sub-bottom tier of men's basketball, the bottom end of the AHA looks positively committed.

AIC, as the frequently cited poster child for "Why are you bothering" hockey at least has (a) a long tradition of varsity play, and (b) isn't taking a lot of "payday" games to fund an otherwise shoestring program. They're funding their shoestring program by taking whatever money the school gives them, and budgeting it so that they're not bleeding.

Some of these other schools are, literally, playing Division I basketball so they can get a few paydays to fund their athletics department. They're not building support in the community, they're not out there to build a better program...their entire purpose is to suckle at the D-I teat.

[gophfan]

Re: Realignment Rumors

"Some of these other schools are, literally, playing Division I basketball so they can get a few paydays to fund their athletics department. They're not building support in the community, they're not out there to build a better program...their entire purpose is to suckle at the D-I teat." The same could be said for the CCHA schools. That why were having to talk about this realignment nonsense.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Realignment Rumors

"Some of these other schools are, literally, playing Division I basketball so they can get a few paydays to fund their athletics department. They're not building support in the community, they're not out there to build a better program...their entire purpose is to suckle at the D-I teat." The same could be said for the CCHA schools. That why were having to talk about this realignment nonsense.

I wouldn't call low 5 figure money to be the equivalent of "suckle at the D1 teat"