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.

Save Uah Hockey!

Re: Save Uah Hockey!

As has been said: ECAC is too dependent on the Ivies to survive without them. (More so than the D-II members of the WCHA and CCHA are on the Big Televen schools? Perhaps) And a seperate Ivy conference is too dependent on Penn and Columbia actually wanting to stick around (assuming that they actually want to show up in the first place). Sure, they'd only need the current six, technically, but a six team conference isn't a very comfortable one- even if the Ivies are well established.

If schools like Syracuse, Temple, Villanova, Rutgers, Rhode Island etc. ever look at starting up programs, then we can talk the ECAC splitting (again). The non-Ivies in the ECAC will care a lot less about the loss of a bunch of Ivies if they get to make money off of BCS level schools.

gfmorris said:
Thanks for giving me the perfect segue to note that we now have Save UAH Hockey merchandise available.

GFM
Click to expand...
Biscuits?
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

I can't remember which topic this was posted in, but I posted earlier that I didn't think that UAH was at 18 schollies. I have been corrected---we have been at 18 for the entire Danton Cole era.

I regret the error.

GFM
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
As has been said: ECAC is too dependent on the Ivies to survive without them. (More so than the D-II members of the WCHA and CCHA are on the Big Televen schools? Perhaps) And a seperate Ivy conference is too dependent on Penn and Columbia actually wanting to stick around (assuming that they actually want to show up in the first place). Sure, they'd only need the current six, technically, but a six team conference isn't a very comfortable one- even if the Ivies are well established.

If schools like Syracuse, Temple, Villanova, Rutgers, Rhode Island etc. ever look at starting up programs, then we can talk the ECAC splitting (again). The non-Ivies in the ECAC will care a lot less about the loss of a bunch of Ivies if they get to make money off of BCS level schools.

Biscuits?
Click to expand...

I have always thought that being associated with the Ivies keeps the D-III ECAC admins pacified with having a D-I sport. Although currently the Ivies have, on average, better hockey teams than the non-Ivy ECAC schools, historically, besides for Cornnell and Harvard, that has not been the case. I have doubts that the ECAC non-Ivy admins would be as thrilled with being associated with the eastern D-I teams that you listed.
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
For any particular reason? If other eastern schools can bring enough money to the table, will that still make such a big difference to them?
Click to expand...

I guess that I wasn't clear. It isn't the monetary aspect, it's the academic clout that the Ivies have. The RPI administation, for example, likes being mentioned in the same sentence as Harvard, Yale et al.
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

Ralph Baer said:
I guess that I wasn't clear. It isn't the monetary aspect, it's the academic clout that the Ivies have. The RPI administation, for example, likes being mentioned in the same sentence as Harvard, Yale et al.
Click to expand...

IDK about Syracuse but Rutgers at least is no slouch. They have a good reputation and where actually invited to be in the Ivy league at one point. I'm also sure if there was a new ECAC with ivies leaving that Army and Air Force and possibly Navy would be invited into it and would probably accept it. All of those three schools have very good academic reputations and would work out well for the reaming schools.
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

bigmrg74 said:
Can we get the We Want Biscuits and The CCHA Hates Biscuits on Buttons as well??
Click to expand...

wnickelson reads and will see this, but yes, I expect so.

And EoDS ... the Fairbanks beat writer wrote an article talking about how he'd miss pork rinds and biscuits about coming to the South, and that he was looking forward to both when he came down here. He's from Mississippi [a forgivable sin; so is half my family] and was really looking forward to the trip.

We'll save "Adam Wodon hates biscuits" for a second run.

GFM
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

CHFAN222 said:
IDK about Syracuse but Rutgers at least is no slouch. They have a good reputation and where actually invited to be in the Ivy league at one point. I'm also sure if there was a new ECAC with ivies leaving that Army and Air Force and possibly Navy would be invited into it and would probably accept it. All of those three schools have very good academic reputations and would work out well for the reaming schools.
Click to expand...

They're both good schools, but still a substantial step down from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Since the D-IIIs (St. Lawrence, Clarkson, RPI, and Union) have zero interest in increasing the overall power of their athletic programs, the academic prestige is far more important.

When you consider the kind of student they go after, these schools have zero interst in ever breaking up the ECAC. RPI cares more about winning cross admit battles for engineering talent with Cornell than being in a conference with big name hockey powers.
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

gfmorris said:
Paula was a pretty strong advocate for UAH [and RMU] to join the CCHA. That said, maybe we should make "The BTHC Hat--" ... nah.

GFM
Click to expand...

I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money :) ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PGB
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

ScoobyFanClub said:
I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money :) ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.
Click to expand...

See, I agree with this. I've been saying this to lots of people: if we were a perfect fit for the CCHA, they would've taken us. We weren't, and they didn't.

That said, Adam Wodon's been writing about our impending demise for some time now.

GFM
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

ScoobyFanClub said:
I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money :) ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.
Click to expand...

This annoys me. I understand what you're saying, but the issue of "fairness" has popped up quite a bit, and please do not consider this a personal attack, but as annoyance that this excuse has been used over and over again.

Fairness is a relative concept in the world of college athletics. And in this instance, it's inapplicable. We could debate fairness back in forth; for instance, IMO, I find it unfair that the CCHA refused to release the vote of their decision and that they gave relatively BS reasons for rejecting UAH.

I believe that the WCHA did what should have been expected of them once they announced that they were looking for a 12th member to enter with Bemidji. And in fact, given the rumor (which I cannot confirm, yet is not key to my argument) that the CCHA was quite willing to let Alaska go, but not UNO, shows that it is not necessarily relevant that any one member left but only that UNO left. Why was UNO, who let us not forget, left the CCHA without even a second thought, so crucial to the CCHA? Why is it okay to cry foul at the WCHA when one of its own members was so eager to leave? Relying upon matters of fairness on this issue only pinpoints the fact that the CCHA was so utterly unprepared to deal with this eventuality that they deserve to be found culpable.

All of these statements put out by Weston and the CCHA are ambiguous double-speak that fail to properly explain the CCHA's decison. I can even accept that it is the CCHA's right to make decisions as it pleases. But please do NOT think that shifting blame to the WCHA for this problem is a "fair" and acceptable way to shift responsibility for the CCHA's actions. That's like saying: Alan pushed Bob, so Bob punched Chris in the face. Defending the CCHA's decision on a matter of relative fairness (which seems to be the overwhelming consensus approach from writers like Weston and Wodon) is a losing battle. In fact, on a matter of fairness, the CCHA deserves to be vilified.

Ultimately, the only "fair" thing to do is to be honest with UAH and provide them an unambiguous yes-or-no answer or a clear pathway to CCHA entry. UAH can either do something about this decision or it can't. But this isn't about being fair. I fully expect the CCHA to hedge its bets and wait for as long as possible to make a final decision and to give UAH lame excuses. In the end, the only real loser here is UAH. So why don't you ask UAH if that's fair?
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

ScoobyFanClub said:
I don't see those defending the CCHA as hating UAH or being against their acceptance. I just think they are explaining that it's rational for the CCHA to have made that decision - and that the comparisons to what the WCHA did are unfair. If UAH was accepted - fans/writers would've been happy too. It's not our money :) ... But the CCHA decided it wasn't right, and it's their prerogative. You can be sympathetic towards UAH, want them to survive, and defend the CCHA at the same time.
Click to expand...
Yes, "I got mine; now you get yours" is a sentiment that has been growing and growing at many levels over the past decade. It appears to have beacome an openingly acceptable part of the American fabric.
 
Last edited:
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

If Paula's Aug 19 column is accurate I'm left wondering ...

Why didn't the "Big Ten Hockey Conference" spectre keep Bemidji State out of the WCHA?
 
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

bigmrg74 said:
Can we get the We Want Biscuits and The CCHA Hates Biscuits on Buttons as well??
Click to expand...

Soon. Possibly later tonight.

BlueDevil98 said:
This annoys me. I understand what you're saying, but the issue of "fairness" has popped up quite a bit, and please do not consider this a personal attack, but as annoyance that this excuse has been used over and over again.

Fairness is a relative concept in the world of college athletics. And in this instance, it's inapplicable. We could debate fairness back in forth; for instance, IMO, I find it unfair that the CCHA refused to release the vote of their decision and that they gave relatively BS reasons for rejecting UAH.

I believe that the WCHA did what should have been expected of them once they announced that they were looking for a 12th member to enter with Bemidji. And in fact, given the rumor (which I cannot confirm, yet is not key to my argument) that the CCHA was quite willing to let Alaska go, but not UNO, shows that it is not necessarily relevant that any one member left but only that UNO left. Why was UNO, who let us not forget, left the CCHA without even a second thought, so crucial to the CCHA? Why is it okay to cry foul at the WCHA when one of its own members was so eager to leave? Relying upon matters of fairness on this issue only pinpoints the fact that the CCHA was so utterly unprepared to deal with this eventuality that they deserve to be found culpable.

All of these statements put out by Weston and the CCHA are ambiguous double-speak that fail to properly explain the CCHA's decison. I can even accept that it is the CCHA's right to make decisions as it pleases. But please do NOT think that shifting blame to the WCHA for this problem is a "fair" and acceptable way to shift responsibility for the CCHA's actions. That's like saying: Alan pushed Bob, so Bob punched Chris in the face. Defending the CCHA's decision on a matter of relative fairness (which seems to be the overwhelming consensus approach from writers like Weston and Wodon) is a losing battle. In fact, on a matter of fairness, the CCHA deserves to be vilified.

Ultimately, the only "fair" thing to do is to be honest with UAH and provide them an unambiguous yes-or-no answer or a clear pathway to CCHA entry. UAH can either do something about this decision or it can't. But this isn't about being fair. I fully expect the CCHA to hedge its bets and wait for as long as possible to make a final decision and to give UAH lame excuses. In the end, the only real loser here is UAH. So why don't you ask UAH if that's fair?
Click to expand...

It annoys us, and particularly me, as well. No one has been honest with us yet and the consensus opinion is that we are not owed anything resembling an explanation. And then Weston and Wodon attempt to spin the CCHA's decision in a positive light which ultimately is not only futile, but misguided. The only happy thing I can take from all of this is the amazing outpouring of support we have received and the fact that there have been so that agree with the decision.
 
Last edited:
Re: Save Uah Hockey!

wnickelson said:
Soon. Possibly later tonight.
Click to expand...

I would pay good money to see "Save UAH Hockey" buttons on a BSU student section as it chants "Who Hates Huntsville!!!" Even more if the buttons were on BSU jerseys.

The juxtaposition would just be...delicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top