I think the NCHC was worse. The NCHC made their move at a time when the entirety of college hockey west of the Appalachians could have sat down and come up with a collaborative solution that, if not ideal for everyone, was at least workable. Instead they just grabbed the "most appealing" of the western schools and left everyone else standing there holding the bag. The nWCHA schools never chose each other, they are what's left. The schools in Hockey East, ECAC, the Big Ten, the NCHC, even the AHA all picked each other. Sure, some BC fans may not love being in a league with Merrimack, but Hockey East chose Merrimack.
Bowling Green, Ferris, Northern Michigan, etc. never CHOSE to be in a league with UAH or the Alaskas. They were just the teams that were left when everyone else picked their homes. The rest of college hockey basically decided that these seven schools are the ones that get to deal with going to Alaska and Alabama every year. They've played with those three schools for a few years, and for whatever reason, have decided it isn't tenable to remain in the league with three remote outposts. And that is fair. They know their budgets, and they know how all that travel affects their kids.
I also don't look at the announcement as "screw these guys, we are completely done." I think it is the start of a process, and they are saying "hey, college hockey, if you think it is important to have teams in Alaska and Alabama, you need to step up and help support them." Maybe the answer is that the NCHC agrees to take Fairbanks. Maybe the answer is that all three go independent but there's some sort of "scheduling alliance" where each of the six conferences guarantee two of their schools each go to each of UAH, UAA and Fairbanks (Arizona State seems to be scheduling fine, but they have some inherent financial and geographic advantages), giving each of the three twelve guaranteed home games each year.
