Save Uah Hockey!

[CHFAN222]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

I guess that I wasn't clear. It isn't the monetary aspect, it's the academic clout that the Ivies have. The RPI administation, for example, likes being mentioned in the same sentence as Harvard, Yale et al.

IDK about Syracuse but Rutgers at least is no slouch. They have a good reputation and where actually invited to be in the Ivy league at one point. I'm also sure if there was a new ECAC with ivies leaving that Army and Air Force and possibly Navy would be invited into it and would probably accept it. All of those three schools have very good academic reputations and would work out well for the reaming schools.

[bigmrg74]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Thanks for giving me the perfect segue to note that we now have Save UAH Hockey merchandise available.

GFM

Can we get the We Want Biscuits and The CCHA Hates Biscuits on Buttons as well??

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Again: Biscuits? I don't get it.

[gfmorris]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Can we get the We Want Biscuits and The CCHA Hates Biscuits on Buttons as well??

wnickelson reads and will see this, but yes, I expect so.

And EoDS ... the Fairbanks beat writer wrote an article talking about how he'd miss pork rinds and biscuits about coming to the South, and that he was looking forward to both when he came down here. He's from Mississippi [a forgivable sin; so is half my family] and was really looking forward to the trip.

We'll save "Adam Wodon hates biscuits" for a second run.

GFM

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

IDK about Syracuse but Rutgers at least is no slouch. They have a good reputation and where actually invited to be in the Ivy league at one point. I'm also sure if there was a new ECAC with ivies leaving that Army and Air Force and possibly Navy would be invited into it and would probably accept it. All of those three schools have very good academic reputations and would work out well for the reaming schools.

They're both good schools, but still a substantial step down from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Since the D-IIIs (St. Lawrence, Clarkson, RPI, and Union) have zero interest in increasing the overall power of their athletic programs, the academic prestige is far more important.

When you consider the kind of student they go after, these schools have zero interst in ever breaking up the ECAC. RPI cares more about winning cross admit battles for engineering talent with Cornell than being in a conference with big name hockey powers.

[GreatLakerMohawk]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

We'll save "Adam Wodon hates biscuits" for a second run.

GFM

What about the "Paula Weston hates biscuits" buttons?

[Dirty]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

What about the "Paula Weston hates biscuits" buttons?

Have you seen pictures of her? She loves the biscuits.

[gfmorris]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

What about the "Paula Weston hates biscuits" buttons?

Paula was a pretty strong advocate for UAH [and RMU] to join the CCHA. That said, maybe we should make "The BTHC Hat--" ... nah.

GFM

[ScoobyFanClub]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Paula was a pretty strong advocate for UAH [and RMU] to join the CCHA. That said, maybe we should make "The BTHC Hat--" ... nah.

GFM

I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.

[gfmorris]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.

See, I agree with this. I've been saying this to lots of people: if we were a perfect fit for the CCHA, they would've taken us. We weren't, and they didn't.

That said, Adam Wodon's been writing about our impending demise for some time now.

GFM

[BlueDevil98]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.

This annoys me. I understand what you're saying, but the issue of "fairness" has popped up quite a bit, and please do not consider this a personal attack, but as annoyance that this excuse has been used over and over again.

Fairness is a relative concept in the world of college athletics. And in this instance, it's inapplicable. We could debate fairness back in forth; for instance, IMO, I find it unfair that the CCHA refused to release the vote of their decision and that they gave relatively BS reasons for rejecting UAH.

I believe that the WCHA did what should have been expected of them once they announced that they were looking for a 12th member to enter with Bemidji. And in fact, given the rumor (which I cannot confirm, yet is not key to my argument) that the CCHA was quite willing to let Alaska go, but not UNO, shows that it is not necessarily relevant that any one member left but only that UNO left. Why was UNO, who let us not forget, left the CCHA without even a second thought, so crucial to the CCHA? Why is it okay to cry foul at the WCHA when one of its own members was so eager to leave? Relying upon matters of fairness on this issue only pinpoints the fact that the CCHA was so utterly unprepared to deal with this eventuality that they deserve to be found culpable.

All of these statements put out by Weston and the CCHA are ambiguous double-speak that fail to properly explain the CCHA's decison. I can even accept that it is the CCHA's right to make decisions as it pleases. But please do NOT think that shifting blame to the WCHA for this problem is a "fair" and acceptable way to shift responsibility for the CCHA's actions. That's like saying: Alan pushed Bob, so Bob punched Chris in the face. Defending the CCHA's decision on a matter of relative fairness (which seems to be the overwhelming consensus approach from writers like Weston and Wodon) is a losing battle. In fact, on a matter of fairness, the CCHA deserves to be vilified.

Ultimately, the only "fair" thing to do is to be honest with UAH and provide them an unambiguous yes-or-no answer or a clear pathway to CCHA entry. UAH can either do something about this decision or it can't. But this isn't about being fair. I fully expect the CCHA to hedge its bets and wait for as long as possible to make a final decision and to give UAH lame excuses. In the end, the only real loser here is UAH. So why don't you ask UAH if that's fair?

[tnlong]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.

Yes, "I got mine; now you get yours" is a sentiment that has been growing and growing at many levels over the past decade. It appears to have beacome an openingly acceptable part of the American fabric.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

If Paula's Aug 19 column is accurate I'm left wondering ...

Why didn't the "Big Ten Hockey Conference" spectre keep Bemidji State out of the WCHA?

[wnickelson]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Can we get the We Want Biscuits and The CCHA Hates Biscuits on Buttons as well??

Soon. Possibly later tonight.

This annoys me. I understand what you're saying, but the issue of "fairness" has popped up quite a bit, and please do not consider this a personal attack, but as annoyance that this excuse has been used over and over again.

Fairness is a relative concept in the world of college athletics. And in this instance, it's inapplicable. We could debate fairness back in forth; for instance, IMO, I find it unfair that the CCHA refused to release the vote of their decision and that they gave relatively BS reasons for rejecting UAH.

I believe that the WCHA did what should have been expected of them once they announced that they were looking for a 12th member to enter with Bemidji. And in fact, given the rumor (which I cannot confirm, yet is not key to my argument) that the CCHA was quite willing to let Alaska go, but not UNO, shows that it is not necessarily relevant that any one member left but only that UNO left. Why was UNO, who let us not forget, left the CCHA without even a second thought, so crucial to the CCHA? Why is it okay to cry foul at the WCHA when one of its own members was so eager to leave? Relying upon matters of fairness on this issue only pinpoints the fact that the CCHA was so utterly unprepared to deal with this eventuality that they deserve to be found culpable.

All of these statements put out by Weston and the CCHA are ambiguous double-speak that fail to properly explain the CCHA's decison. I can even accept that it is the CCHA's right to make decisions as it pleases. But please do NOT think that shifting blame to the WCHA for this problem is a "fair" and acceptable way to shift responsibility for the CCHA's actions. That's like saying: Alan pushed Bob, so Bob punched Chris in the face. Defending the CCHA's decision on a matter of relative fairness (which seems to be the overwhelming consensus approach from writers like Weston and Wodon) is a losing battle. In fact, on a matter of fairness, the CCHA deserves to be vilified.

Ultimately, the only "fair" thing to do is to be honest with UAH and provide them an unambiguous yes-or-no answer or a clear pathway to CCHA entry. UAH can either do something about this decision or it can't. But this isn't about being fair. I fully expect the CCHA to hedge its bets and wait for as long as possible to make a final decision and to give UAH lame excuses. In the end, the only real loser here is UAH. So why don't you ask UAH if that's fair?

It annoys us, and particularly me, as well. No one has been honest with us yet and the consensus opinion is that we are not owed anything resembling an explanation. And then Weston and Wodon attempt to spin the CCHA's decision in a positive light which ultimately is not only futile, but misguided. The only happy thing I can take from all of this is the amazing outpouring of support we have received and the fact that there have been so that agree with the decision.

[MikeAnderson]

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Soon. Possibly later tonight.

I would pay good money to see "Save UAH Hockey" buttons on a BSU student section as it chants "Who Hates Huntsville!!!" Even more if the buttons were on BSU jerseys.

The juxtaposition would just be...delicious.