Re: Save Uah Hockey!
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?
From what I've read, the CCHA people were upset at the WCHA - not for doing what they did in taking UNO -- but by doing so and claiming that it was for the "good of college hockey" -- while really, it was just to make their own league stronger. It wasn't for the "good of college hockey" to take UNO. Sure, it helped Bemidji out - but if the WCHA were purely just trying to help college hockey, there were numerous other things it could've done that wouldn't have been as damaging to the CCHA.
The bottom line again is, the WCHA, UNO, CCHA, etc... all did what was best for them at the time they did it. Or at least what they think is sincerely best for them. Let's not try to make ANYONE seem more noble than anyone else. This is where the defense of the CCHA comes in. Me, and lots of other people, wished the CCHA would take UAH - and don't want to see UAH disappear ... we are merely defending the CCHA from attacks that aren't fair.
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.
I don't understand this paragraph at all? So, it's not OK to point out the unfairness of vilifying the CCHA for making a decision in its own best interests - just like everyone else has? And in what way was the CCHA supposed to be prepared?
All of these statements put out by Weston and the CCHA are ambiguous double-speak that fail to properly explain the CCHA's decison.
From the articles I've read - not necessarily here, but elsewhere - the decision seems pretty well explained. Even if you don't agree with it. What else are you looking for? Some Bowling Green/Save Ferris conspiracy theory? Maybe that's not part of the explanation because that's not part of the reason. What else do you want? Look at Wodon's column - he touches on the Big Ten stuff, but only briefly. Mentions many other reasons. A simple matter of economics for the CCHA - and its members that are worried, for various reasons, about those economics. There is nothing more to understand than that.
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.
I don't see it that way at all. I don't think anyone I saw has shifted blame to the WCHA. I think it was made pretty clear that there is no bad guy at all. The decision just is what it is. Please show me where blame was attempted to be shifted to anyone else? Defending the CCHA from being attacked for acting in its own best interests, by pointing out how others have done the same, is NOT a "shifting of blame."
In the end, the only real loser here is UAH. So why don't you ask UAH if that's fair?
It totally sucks for UAH, and I and everyone I know sympathizes with them wholeheartedly. I wish they were playing in the CCHA next season. But that does not mean I will attack the CCHA as villains for their decision.
