Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2
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.
Originally posted by moose97
View Post
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