Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new WCHA is dead pt2

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

  • #31
    Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

    Originally posted by moose97 View Post
    Salty much? Follow along. Its not about Pairwise. Its about reducing costs.
    Salty. Yes. It’s hard to keep up with the rational for the nCCHA decision making. This thread has a whole page on how bad the ousted three are on pairwise. Neither pairwise nor cost is the real reason. They are excuses.

    It seems everyone likes to ignore the UAF, UAA, UAH subsidies because they don’t help the narrative. This isn’t about money. It’s kind of an arrogant regional footprint kind of thing. Which is fine, but call it what it is instead trying to rationalize this as “we can no longer shoulder the burden” kind of BS.

    Does anyone have documentation other than a bar tab that gives credence that subsidized travel to Alaska is more of a travel burden above what teams are willing to pay to go to other schools that the coaches are not *****ing about. It’s what’s in the WCHA agreement. In the CHN podcast it was obvious that Bill Crawford doesn’t have a clue about the subsidy or how it works. This isn’t about money. This is not going to save the nCCHA programs any meaningful money.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

      There hasn't been a full subsidy in decades. UAA refused to offer it to Mankato when they joined the oWCHA because they weren't in when the agreement was signed.
      Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

      AHA:
      B1G: UMich, MSU, UMinn, Notre Dame, OSU, UWisc
      CCHA: BSU, BG, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU
      ECAC:
      HEA: UMass
      NCHC: Miami, UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
      Independant: ASU


      Inactive: UAH, ASU, BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

        10-0 what the F

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

          Originally posted by moose97 View Post
          There hasn't been a full subsidy in decades. UAA refused to offer it to Mankato when they joined the oWCHA because they weren't in when the agreement was signed.
          Please tell me what UAA pays in travel AND hotel subsidies to the other WCHA teams. I know pretty accurately what the figure is ... do you?
          Originally Posted by aparch
          I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

          From ADN:

          "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

          UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

            Originally posted by Bonin21 View Post
            10-0 what the F
            And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.
            Originally Posted by aparch
            I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

            From ADN:

            "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

            UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Suze View Post
              And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.
              Well, we tried to play our 5th and 6th lines, but the rules got in our way.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                Originally posted by Suze View Post
                And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.
                Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

                And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.
                Current NCAA D-I rinks I've been to:

                AHA:
                B1G: UMich, MSU, UMinn, Notre Dame, OSU, UWisc
                CCHA: BSU, BG, FSU, LSSU, MSU, MTU, NMU
                ECAC:
                HEA: UMass
                NCHC: Miami, UMD, UND, SCSU, WMU
                Independant: ASU


                Inactive: UAH, ASU, BSU, UMD, UND, NMU, Notre Dame

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                  Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                  Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

                  And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.
                  Amen! Division 1 hockey & someone is complaining about the score being run up...? Get better or quit for *******ks sake

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                    Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                    Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

                    And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.
                    Since you act like you know everything when it comes to subsidies, I am still waiting to hear what the numbers are. Go.
                    Originally Posted by aparch
                    I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

                    From ADN:

                    "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

                    UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                      Originally posted by moose97 View Post
                      ...And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.
                      What is a full subsidy or full reimbursement? You mean all travel costs paid at 100%? JFC. That’s plain nuts. We never did that in the CCHA either. When the nWCHA formed neither UAF, UAA, or UAH had much of a choice but to agree to a subsidy agreement if they wanted to be in a conference. And we were used to a “reasonable” subsidy even though it was financially painful.

                      Again, the concept was that those schools would reimburse travel costs so a trip to Alaska or Alabama is on par with any team’s next costliest trip. Not a 100%reimbursement. I understand that Alaska’s subsidy went down from the CCHA days and UAA’s went up from the oWCHA days. Have you ever talked to the nWCHA Commissioner about travel subsidies? Nothing has changed since the inception of the nWCHA. it’s not like it's a volunteer thing we do. We don’t pass the hat in stands asking who wants to help pay for BGSU trip up to Fairbanks. It’s part of the WCHA agreement.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                        Originally posted by mmf View Post
                        What is a full subsidy or full reimbursement? You mean all travel costs paid at 100%? JFC. That’s plain nuts. We never did that in the CCHA either. When the nWCHA formed neither UAF, UAA, or UAH had much of a choice but to agree to a subsidy agreement if they wanted to be in a conference. And we were used to a “reasonable” subsidy even though it was financially painful.

                        Again, the concept was that those schools would reimburse travel costs so a trip to Alaska or Alabama is on par with any team’s next costliest trip. Not a 100%reimbursement. I understand that Alaska’s subsidy went down from the CCHA days and UAA’s went up from the oWCHA days. Have you ever talked to the nWCHA Commissioner about travel subsidies? Nothing has changed since the inception of the nWCHA. it’s not like it's a volunteer thing we do. We don’t pass the hat in stands asking who wants to help pay for BGSU trip up to Fairbanks. It’s part of the WCHA agreement.
                        With what UAA pays, as of 2 years ago anyway, it's a very big reimbursement. Considering we are paying thousands in airfare and hotel costs as well. Probably cheaper than what travel to other teams in the league cost.
                        Originally Posted by aparch
                        I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

                        From ADN:

                        "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

                        UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Suze View Post
                          With what UAA pays, as of 2 years ago anyway, it's a very big reimbursement. Considering we are paying thousands in airfare and hotel costs as well. Probably cheaper than what travel to other teams in the league cost.
                          Every team is different I am sure, but I can confirm that the subsidies are significant. I would bet that each Alaska team is paying around $150K annually in-conference and probably more if they get non-conference teams to travel there.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                            Originally posted by Suze View Post
                            With what UAA pays, as of 2 years ago anyway, it's a very big reimbursement. Considering we are paying thousands in airfare and hotel costs as well. Probably cheaper than what travel to other teams in the league cost.
                            Just because the Alaskas are willing to pay doesn't mean that the teams they would be paying have to accept the payments and travel to Alaska. They don't like making the trips. So they shouldn't have to.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                              Originally posted by AMC View Post
                              Just because the Alaskas are willing to pay doesn't mean that the teams they would be paying have to accept the payments and travel to Alaska. They don't like making the trips. So they shouldn't have to.
                              Oh. My. Gosh. That attitude sets a very dangerous precedent.
                              Last edited by Suze; 02-22-2020, 11:50 AM.
                              Originally Posted by aparch
                              I love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

                              From ADN:

                              "According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

                              UAF is 56-86-12 vs. UAA.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

                                Originally posted by mmf View Post
                                Salty. Yes. It’s hard to keep up with the rational for the nCCHA decision making. This thread has a whole page on how bad the ousted three are on pairwise. Neither pairwise nor cost is the real reason. They are excuses.

                                It seems everyone likes to ignore the UAF, UAA, UAH subsidies because they don’t help the narrative. This isn’t about money. It’s kind of an arrogant regional footprint kind of thing. Which is fine, but call it what it is instead trying to rationalize this as “we can no longer shoulder the burden” kind of BS.

                                Does anyone have documentation other than a bar tab that gives credence that subsidized travel to Alaska is more of a travel burden above what teams are willing to pay to go to other schools that the coaches are not *****ing about. It’s what’s in the WCHA agreement. In the CHN podcast it was obvious that Bill Crawford doesn’t have a clue about the subsidy or how it works. This isn’t about money. This is not going to save the nCCHA programs any meaningful money.
                                You are dead right.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X