What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Future of the ccha????

Re: Future of the ccha????

kingdobbs said:
Continuity of membership (aka the six teams for five years rule) is not a qualification for continuing with an automatic bid, only on a new league gaining one in the first place.
Click to expand...
Continuity of membership appears to be required for two years according to the NCAA DI Bylaws. There is also a two year grace period before losing the AQ. I think the CCHA (and WCHA) will be fine provided they keep stable membership at 6 or more during the grace period. They would then meet the requirements again for the AQ without losing it during the transition.

NCAA Division I Bylaws

31.3.4.4.2 Single Sport Conference. To be considered for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a single sport member conference for a sport sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership must include six institutions that have conducted conference competition together the preceding two years in the sport in question at the Division I level. (Adopted: 8/5/04, Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

31.3.4.4.3 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below six institutions, or below six members with continuity of membership, provided the conference maintains at least five Division I members. (Adopted: 8/5/04)

Sean
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Sean Pickett said:
Continuity of membership appears to be required for two years according to the NCAA DI Bylaws. There is also a two year grace period before losing the AQ. I think the CCHA (and WCHA) will be fine provided they keep stable membership at 6 or more during the grace period. They would then meet the requirements again for the AQ without losing it during the transition.

NCAA Division I Bylaws

31.3.4.4.2 Single Sport Conference. To be considered for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a single sport member conference for a sport sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership must include six institutions that have conducted conference competition together the preceding two years in the sport in question at the Division I level. (Adopted: 8/5/04, Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

31.3.4.4.3 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below six institutions, or below six members with continuity of membership, provided the conference maintains at least five Division I members. (Adopted: 8/5/04)

Sean
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes me feel better...hopefully the new league doesn't go and poach additional teams that screws up the WCHA's autobid at a later date.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Shirtless Guy said:
and give up one of the autobids? no way...they should create 2 conferences of 6-8 teams each and have some interlocking scheduling.
Click to expand...

Everyone else should split up into 4 conferences of 6 and 5 of 7 teams, then watch the "elite conferences" howl about there only being 7 at-large bids to fight over.
 
NMU8405 said:
That may happen in time. Right now, things are being done on what is best for the schools, instead of the Conf. NMU and UA_ are going to the WCHA, Western and Notre Dame I think will join the new league in time. LSSU, Ferris and Bowling Green are going to be left on their own.
Click to expand...

UAF isn't a done deal yet. See the Nanook hockey blog for details.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

bronconick said:
Everyone else should split up into 4 conferences of 6 and 5 of 7 teams, then watch the "elite conferences" howl about there only being 7 at-large bids to fight over.
Click to expand...
I somewhat concur. There were 24 western teams (excluding AFA) when PSU picked up hockey. I don't see WMU getting picked up (or wanting to be picked up) by the new league, unless ND joins and requires it. I don't see ND going east either. Travel costs would be worse than joining the new league. South Bend to Omaha and Duluth about 500 miles, nearly 800 miles from SB to Boston. I think the new league wants ND, badly!! I don't see any gain for ND to join the WCHA vs staying in the CCHA. Crowds won't be bigger for SCSU than for FSU. If ND stays in the CCHA they will dominate it, which gives them high chances of making the NCAA's every year. After paying the bills, isn't that the objective?

The WCHA and CCHA should stay seperate to maintain the 2 auto bids, and this also keeps the 2 alaska schools in seperate conferences. One trip to Alaska a year is plenty. The WCHA needs at least one more school. For me, NMU appears to be the obvious choice. A former member geographically close. I don't know if NMU draws more than normal for ND, but they should be in the same league as MTU. BY keeping the 2 leagues at 6 schools or 7 at most, you increase the chances of NCAA's for all the schools. Suppose that SCSU is first in the WCHA and is 10th in the PWR, but gets upset in the title game by Bemidgi St. They both go. And likewise in the CCHA, if ND is high in the PWR and gets beat by WMU in the title game. They both go. Even with lower SOS I think conference leaders will be ranked top 15 in the PWR. With all western leagues at 6/7 teams, there will be plenty of nc play as well, which we never got enough of before.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

uaafanblog said:
And the 7 or 8 road trips that the Alaska schools make every year? Is that "plenty" too?
Click to expand...
Donald, let it go...the difference is that Alaska teams know what they're getting themselves into when they choose Alaska or Alaska-Anchorage. I think a conference of MTU, NMU, SCSU, MSUM, BSU, UAA, UAF and someone else (FSU, LSSU or WMU) would be a great conference that could certainly get to a place where its considered better than the ECAC. I don't think the 2 trips to Alaska (or 1 long trip to alaska) would be bad. I do wonder how tough it would be to fill a 38 game schedule every year might be and the lack of "off weeks." One thing 4-6 Lower-48 teams might not like is the prospect of going to Anchorage or Fairbanks on short notice for a conference playoff series (especially if its the 3rd trip to Alaska in a season). We shall see how it plays out but I do think the WCHA will end up with the configuration I mentioned above. Either at 6 by adding NMU or 8 by adding NMU, UAF and one of the other Michigan schools.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Life is so unfair for the Alaska schools. How were they supposed to know they'd have to travel to the lower 48 when they started programs?
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Shirtless Guy said:
Donald, let it go...
Click to expand...
Um ... Nope.

the difference is that Alaska teams know what they're getting themselves into when they choose Alaska or Alaska-Anchorage.
Click to expand...

The difference is that not a single conference opponent has been a bus ride for UAA or UAF. While every other member of the conferences has at least one.

A minor compromise is required in the name of equity and fair play. UAA and UAF have shown a willingness to pay travel expenses and there's no reason to expect that to change. There is a lot of historical travel experience in both programs they can lend to others should 2 trips or 1 extended trip or whatever the compromise scheduling works out to be. And the exemptions are more than adequate compensation. It's right. It's fair. It should happen.

Notions that suggest otherwise must be challenged. End of story.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Shirtless Guy said:
One thing 4-6 Lower-48 teams might not like is the prospect of going to Anchorage or Fairbanks on short notice for a conference playoff series
Click to expand...

Ohio State, WMU, and Michigan State have played playoff series' in Fairbanks the last three years in succession. My advice, then, to any team griping about going on the road to start the playoffs is to win more regular season games. UAF & A have every bit the same right as everyone else to be rewarded for a job well done in the regular season.
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Squarebanks said:
Ohio State, WMU, and Michigan State have played playoff series' in Fairbanks the last three years in succession. My advice, then, to any team griping about going on the road to start the playoffs is to win more regular season games. UAF & A have every bit the same right as everyone else to be rewarded for a job well done in the regular season.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree with you completely...especially in the CCHA when it only the bottom 4
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

Squarebanks said:
Ohio State, WMU, and Michigan State have played playoff series' in Fairbanks the last three years in succession. My advice, then, to any team griping about going on the road to start the playoffs is to win more regular season games. UAF & A have every bit the same right as everyone else to be rewarded for a job well done in the regular season.
Click to expand...
Not to mention all of the schools in the GNAC for basketball having to go to Alaska on short notice this season. So horrible of us...
 
Re: Future of the ccha????

3dognight said:
NMU will go to their BOT Thursday to approve a move to WCHA......UGH.

In some of my readings this week it seems that in the WCHA for the past couple of years there was a pattern of voting where big schools voted one way and small schools another, with budget a major concern Ditto for the CCHA. The WCHA could not secure a TV contract where the new league feels they will. It seems schools are gravitating to leagues that share their common interests (and budgets).

The 10 team "merger" league was an exciting option that is dissolving before our eyes.
Good for NMU for making a solid move "back" to the WCHA.
Tomorrow we will learn if WMU / ND and yes even BGSU are moving on. Friday we learn what the new WCHA will look like.
The remaining CCHA members will then search for teams that fit their "new" reality.
No More CCHA playoffs at the Joe, no more GLI invitations, as Refs and linesmen disburse even worse officiating (is that possible?)
Fewer NHL Prospects rolling into the building, BIG travel budgets,

The Donor Group really does not "fear" changes, but we are not foolish. We will scale a project to whatever reality 2013 provides.
We are watching along with all of you, aggressively looking for quality information. We are in a good place as these things will be decided in the project development stage.
While much of the project impacts other sports we are a hockey based group...that is our focus.
We can certainly make adjustments as needed, but none are planned at this time. We will wait for the dust to clear..
I am hopeful the CCHA can pull a rabbit from the hat.
Click to expand...

From the LSSU thread!

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AaEmCFiNqP0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top