I agree... what annoys me the most, however, is that the CCHA could have made a statement of "we're just not ready to make a decision right now" rather than flip us off. I know they didn't have to give an explanation, but the mystifying arrogance of the entire situation baffles me. If, for example, BGSU is seriously in jeopardy of going under, first, I understand why that wouldn't be made public by the league, but, second, that still leaves them with an 11-team outfit. Thus, after this season, there would be scheduling issues that they are ready and willing to deal with. So, even if that were the situation, and they don't want to make any moves until the BGSU issue settles, why not allow UAH in? Even if BGSU folds, that still leaves them with 11 teams, a number they are, currently, okay with. If BGSU doesn't fold, they have an even number to handle this easier. I can only surmise that this runs much deeper than that. I don't fault the UAF guy for giving some rationale for this blanket decision, and I think giving him grief for the lame excuses doesn't really help (why would anyone else now offer any reasons for this "acclamation"?), but I fail to see how the potential for opening up a region of the country that has been part of a lower-tier conference (okay, throwaways, to some folks) could be based upon such banal issues. Oh well; I will do my best to travel to see the guys as often as I can... can't wait to read Paula Weston's explanations to defend her conference.
I agree... what annoys me the most, however, is that the CCHA could have made a statement of "we're just not ready to make a decision right now" rather than flip us off. I know they didn't have to give an explanation, but the mystifying arrogance of the entire situation baffles me. If, for example, BGSU is seriously in jeopardy of going under, first, I understand why that wouldn't be made public by the league, but, second, that still leaves them with an 11-team outfit. Thus, after this season, there would be scheduling issues that they are ready and willing to deal with. So, even if that were the situation, and they don't want to make any moves until the BGSU issue settles, why not allow UAH in? Even if BGSU folds, that still leaves them with 11 teams, a number they are, currently, okay with. If BGSU doesn't fold, they have an even number to handle this easier. I can only surmise that this runs much deeper than that. I don't fault the UAF guy for giving some rationale for this blanket decision, and I think giving him grief for the lame excuses doesn't really help (why would anyone else now offer any reasons for this "acclamation"?), but I fail to see how the potential for opening up a region of the country that has been part of a lower-tier conference (okay, throwaways, to some folks) could be based upon such banal issues. Oh well; I will do my best to travel to see the guys as often as I can... can't wait to read Paula Weston's explanations to defend her conference.
In looking at this the only reason I can see for 3 or more CCHA schools not wanting UAH in is strictly financial.
Many of the schools would see UAH as a poor draw with few fans in the mid-west or that would travel to away games. With 10 or 11 teams there could be the possibility of filling the schedule with additional games against big draws (Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame) which guarantee a full arena. While travel costs wouldn't be much different from a trip to UNO, teams currently facing financial hardship could see this as an opportunity to trim costs.
Personally, as a CCHA follower, I'd have liked to see the CCHA do a scheduling arrangement with UAH for 1-2 years and then vote on whether or not to admit them. I honestly think that having quality home opponents would result in much higher attendance figures at UAH.
I don't think there's any way to fill out the schedule with additional games against big draws to cancel out adding UAH. The bottom line is every weekend a "big draw" plays UAH is one weekend they're not playing a current CCHA member.
I for one would like to see college hockey expand.
Well, you might as well get rid of Bowling Green, Ferris State, Western Michigan, and LSSU too. In fact, why not just trim college hockey down to 19 teams? Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Colorado College, Denver, SCSU, UMD, Boston, BC, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Miami, Cornell, and Harvard. That way, nobody will ever have to worry about not getting a "big draw" opponent, and we can "trim the fat" and get rid of programs like Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan, LSSU, Bowling Green, and other programs that have won national championships but don't draw the crowds.
As has been stated a hundred times on this website, UAH joining the CCHA would have likely made it more intriguing for better recruits, leading to UAH becoming a better program, and potentially leading other programs in non-mainstream hockey areas of the country to start up D-1 hockey. Blah blah blah, people get the point. By telling programs like UAH "We're not even thinking about bringing you in, the answer is no", it discourages growth. I for one would like to see college hockey expand.
I'm in... let us know if there's anything we can actually do more than joining a facebook group, calls... letters... whatever!
Any chance all the CCHA ADs are on these forums all the time and got sick and tired of us calling the watered-down CCHA the CupCake Hockey Association and so that's why they gave UAH the cold shoulder?![]()
Maybe. Even if it is the WCHA hangers-on like SCSU or MTU fans that are doing the wolfing.![]()