Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New WCHA is dead

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

  • Originally posted by aparch View Post
    I believe UAA and UAF have not filed paperwork with the league to leave, but UAH has.

    So that leaves us with
    WCHA: UAA, UA_
    Announced intentions in leaving: UAH
    Homeless: ASU

    *Edit* I assume UAH could have the league tear up their paperwork and remain IF something comes about.
    UAA, UA_, UAH, and ASU is a tough sell for other teams wanting in. And I believe the NCAA has a rule about conferences with less than six members.
    UAH isn’t leaving unless something happens to the Alaska schools.
    “We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”

    —UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lakersparty View Post
      How dare schools don't want to travel 3,500+ miles one way to play conference games!?
      Because they’ll never have to travel very far if they end up playing pro or even semi pro, right? *eyeroll*

      Comment


      • Re: New WCHA is dead

        Originally posted by UAFIceAngel View Post
        Because they’ll never have to travel very far if they end up playing pro or even semi pro, right? :eyerolll:
        It's not the players bud... It's the cost...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bonin21 View Post
          It's not the players bud... It's the cost...
          Pretty sure both Alaska schools help pick up a portion of the costs anyways...

          Comment


          • Re: New WCHA is dead

            Does the NCHC pass the "no good dirty money-grubbing ruining college hockey jerks" baton to the CCHA now or in the fall?
            The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

            North Dakota Hockey:

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
              Does the NCHC pass the "no good dirty money-grubbing ruining college hockey jerks" baton to the CCHA now or in the fall?
              I think that happened in late June.
              “We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”

              —UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925

              Comment


              • Re: New WCHA is dead

                Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                Does the NCHC pass the "no good dirty money-grubbing ruining college hockey jerks" baton to the CCHA now or in the fall?
                I thought Penn State would get blamed... it was, arguably, the first domino.
                St. Norbert College Green Knights
                NCHA regular season champs: 97-99, 02-08, 10-12, 14, 16, 19
                NCHA playoff champs: 98-99, 03-05, 07-08, 10-14, 17-19
                NCAA Champions: 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2018
                ---
                SNC women: 2013 O'Brien Cup Champions

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bonin21 View Post
                  It's not the players bud... It's the cost...
                  And you act like there is no cost to the Alaska schools...a lot of teams work to only make the trip once and will play UAA then Alaska to save on the travel whereas the Nanooks and Seawolves make that trip and spend much more to go to games in the lower 48...so try again with your logic “bud”

                  Comment


                  • Re: New WCHA is dead

                    Originally posted by GB Puck Fan View Post
                    I thought Penn State would get blamed... it was, arguably, the first domino.
                    The old WCHA and CCHA could have survived, and been successful, without the B1G teams. The major shakeup in 2013 is at the feet of the Nacho instigators, not Penn State.

                    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Re: New WCHA is dead

                      When Purina owned the Blues they let SLU play at the Checkerdome for basically free. Then Purina sold the team and the new ownership didn't want to continue that agreement. There is an arena on campus now that can do ice, but they have to get special equipment or something they're isn't a dedicated system for maintaining ice.
                      Thinking that NMU is way better then your school with no evidence or proof since 2001.

                      Comment


                      • Re: New WCHA is dead

                        Originally posted by Bonin21 View Post
                        It's not the players bud... It's the cost...
                        It’s not the players. It’s also not the cost. When the nWCHA was formed the contract called for UAF and UAA (and UAH) to subsidize team travel to Alaska or UAH so that the cost to those traveling teams was no more than the next costliest trip those teams had in conference. I have no idea if the actual subsidizes were little more than expected, a little less than expected, or right on the money. Ignorant fans comment on the cost all the time, but never from a position of real knowledge. Never heard that UAF, UAA or UAH were not meeting the terms of the WCHA agreement. Cost is more likely an excuse and not a reason. Inconvenience and a desire to regionalize the footprint is probably the reason. That’s fine. But the process was about as ChickenChit as you can get.
                        "Who got the Cup?"
                        UAF UAA UAA UAA UAF UAF UAA UAA UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAA UAA UAA UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF

                        Comment


                        • Re: New WCHA is dead

                          Originally posted by mmf View Post
                          Actually, the moniker is more about the way it was handled then the end result.

                          But to be clear, you’d be against the CCHA adding any new team that required a flight?
                          I have no interest in fighting with Alaska school fans. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is already remote compared to many places and then to throw 3 U.P. schools into a league with 2 Alaska schools? It just didn't make sense. I wish there was a logical home for the Alaska schools, but I also have to be realistic.

                          I was sad seeing teams like UIC, Kent State, and Wayne State go away while I have been watching college hockey. I will be sad if the Alaska schools and Huntsville go away. I also realize Lake Superior State is a tiny school, one that might not still have a hockey program at this level if it hadn't established itself in the way it did in the NCAAs during the '80s and '90s. Even with those accomplishments, nothing is guaranteed for LSSU in the future and it has to make decisions in its own financial interest to support its college hockey program.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by UAFIceAngel View Post
                            Pretty sure both Alaska schools help pick up a portion of the costs anyways...
                            They pick up a portion. But it still costs more for Lake Superior to go to Fairbanks than it does to go to Bowling Green.

                            Comment


                            • Re: New WCHA is dead

                              Originally posted by RapidsCity View Post
                              They pick up a portion. But it still costs more for Lake Superior to go to Fairbanks than it does to go to Bowling Green.
                              Maybe so. Is BGSU the next costliest trip other than (UAF, UAA, and UAH)? I have no idea.
                              And also, do you know what LSSU's total travel costs were to UAF this year and exactly how much of a subsidy LSSU received from UAF? I have never seen those numbers. I would be curious.
                              "Who got the Cup?"
                              UAF UAA UAA UAA UAF UAF UAA UAA UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAA UAA UAA UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF UAF

                              Comment


                              • Re: New WCHA is dead

                                Originally posted by mmf View Post
                                It’s not the players. It’s also not the cost. When the nWCHA was formed the contract called for UAF and UAA (and UAH) to subsidize team travel to Alaska or UAH so that the cost to those traveling teams was no more than the next costliest trip those teams had in conference. I have no idea if the actual subsidizes were little more than expected, a little less than expected, or right on the money. Ignorant fans comment on the cost all the time, but never from a position of real knowledge. Never heard that UAF, UAA or UAH were not meeting the terms of the WCHA agreement. Cost is more likely an excuse and not a reason. Inconvenience and a desire to regionalize the footprint is probably the reason. That’s fine. But the process was about as ChickenChit as you can get.
                                Several times since the formation of the nWCHA BG has been stuck with two trips to Alaska in the same year. THAT is the primary reason. FWIW, I would have no problem keeping UAF in the nCCHA considering how long they were in the old league. One trip every other year is doable. One and many times two trips every year sucks.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X