Re: Atlantic Hockey Summer News
Try this:
1.) We are a D-1 institution who wants to offer our student athletes the ability to play varsity hockey while attending this school. It is our intent to provide as many athletic opportunities as is economically feasible. However, given the fact that our resources aren't infinite, we need to place some/all sports in an environment that allows them to compete with an eye towards keeping costs under a certain level. Otherwise, we can't offer those opportunities at all. Some will offer a club level program, others a varsity program in a cost-contained environment.
2.) We are a D-2 institution that has two options for hockey. Either we can ask our athletes to compete in a division that does not offer any sort of championship opportunity, or we can find an avenue within D-1 that does provide that opportunity. See above argument for the rest....
See, I was able to do that without flame-throwing. You should try it. Its not a case of some "good accounting" to make it work. Its quite a bit more involved than that. Every institution has finite resources with which to work. Some chose 5,000 seat arenas and fully funded scholarships to the maximum level, often times by limiting the number of sports available to student athletes. (Bentley offers more student athletes the opportunity to play sports than most BCS schools.) Others choose different, equally (more?) legitimate institutional endeavors. Those that choose the latter banded together to provide an opportunity to put forth hockey at the level they saw fit. If you don't like it, I ask you and others one more time (to which I still haven't gotten an answer)...
If you are so disappointed with the hockey program put forth by most of the AHA institutions, why did your institution decide to join? There was another conference that had schools putting more funding into their programs like you cry about, begging for your institutions to stay, and they instead decided to leave that for the cost containment league. Fully one-third of the AHA is now made up of teams that left a league with "more commitment" to competitive hockey. Perhaps it has been proven that the AHA model is much more sustainable than what you seem to want.
No one is "satisfied" with being a perennially weak program, but many of us have the ability to keep perspective and have the understanding of why it is that way. In the mean time, we will continue to root for our teams, give what we can ourselves to increase resources, enjoy the upsets when they happen, and dream that maybe someday, just maybe, we can go on the hottest of hot streaks at just the right time of the season.
Try this:
1.) We are a D-1 institution who wants to offer our student athletes the ability to play varsity hockey while attending this school. It is our intent to provide as many athletic opportunities as is economically feasible. However, given the fact that our resources aren't infinite, we need to place some/all sports in an environment that allows them to compete with an eye towards keeping costs under a certain level. Otherwise, we can't offer those opportunities at all. Some will offer a club level program, others a varsity program in a cost-contained environment.
2.) We are a D-2 institution that has two options for hockey. Either we can ask our athletes to compete in a division that does not offer any sort of championship opportunity, or we can find an avenue within D-1 that does provide that opportunity. See above argument for the rest....
See, I was able to do that without flame-throwing. You should try it. Its not a case of some "good accounting" to make it work. Its quite a bit more involved than that. Every institution has finite resources with which to work. Some chose 5,000 seat arenas and fully funded scholarships to the maximum level, often times by limiting the number of sports available to student athletes. (Bentley offers more student athletes the opportunity to play sports than most BCS schools.) Others choose different, equally (more?) legitimate institutional endeavors. Those that choose the latter banded together to provide an opportunity to put forth hockey at the level they saw fit. If you don't like it, I ask you and others one more time (to which I still haven't gotten an answer)...
If you are so disappointed with the hockey program put forth by most of the AHA institutions, why did your institution decide to join? There was another conference that had schools putting more funding into their programs like you cry about, begging for your institutions to stay, and they instead decided to leave that for the cost containment league. Fully one-third of the AHA is now made up of teams that left a league with "more commitment" to competitive hockey. Perhaps it has been proven that the AHA model is much more sustainable than what you seem to want.
No one is "satisfied" with being a perennially weak program, but many of us have the ability to keep perspective and have the understanding of why it is that way. In the mean time, we will continue to root for our teams, give what we can ourselves to increase resources, enjoy the upsets when they happen, and dream that maybe someday, just maybe, we can go on the hottest of hot streaks at just the right time of the season.
Last edited:
