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.

The New WCHA (2013-14)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Shirtless Guy said:
We're still not set at 9 teams yet...but I assume a 9-team conference schedule would consist of the double rival pattern. Each team would have 2 teams that they play 4 times a year, every year, the rest would rotate. You'd play 2 designated rivals 4 times a year, plus 4 other teams 4 times a year, plus 1 team at home, 1 team away and that would rotate.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Shirtless. That would make lots of sense. I was thinking, though, about who would be the 2nd rival for the Alaska schools. And, right away, I had a question. Would that be advantage, or disadvantage? Ad, obviously, if you can use those extra 2 games to make money. So, that's Minnesota would think. But, maybe in the new-WCHA that it not so, and then the extra travel is disadvantage. That's why I tried to work out something else.

So, I had MTU, NMU, LSSU as double rivals always, and also UAA/Alaska. And, then I rotated the rest, so the Alaska games were all evenly distributed.
 
Last edited:
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Or, you know, the WCHA could invite UAH to join them and solve a lot of problems.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Numbers said:
Thanks, Shirtless. That would make lots of sense. I was thinking, though, about who would be the 2nd rival for the Alaska schools. And, right away, I had a question. Would that be advantage, or disadvantage? Ad, obviously, if you can use those extra 2 games to make money. So, that's Minnesota would think. But, maybe in the new-WCHA that it not so, and then the extra travel is disadvantage. That's why I tried to work out something else.

So, I had MTU, NMU, LSSU as double rivals always, and also UAA/Alaska. And, then I rotated the rest, so the Alaska games were all evenly distributed.
Click to expand...

Considering that nearly all teams would be traveling to AK twice a season in 6 of 8 seasons, I don't think that it would be much of a disadvantage to be paired with one of the AK schools.

I think that you'd want to have all the teams chain, so that you didn't end up with any insular 3 team pods. For example:
MTU: NMU & BSU
NMU: MTU & LSSU
LSSU: NMU & FSU
FSU: LSSU & BGSU
BGSU: UA(F) & FSU
UA(F): UAA & BGSU
UAA: UA(F) & MSUM
MSUM: UAA & BSU
BSU: MSUM & MTU
 
Last edited:
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Almington said:
Considering that nearly all teams would be traveling to AK twice a season in 6 of 8 seasons, I don't think that it would be much of a disadvantage to be paired with one of the AK schools.

I think that you'd want to have all the teams chain, so that you didn't end up with any insular 3 team pods. For example:
MTU: NMU & BSU
NMU: MTU & LSSU
LSSU: NMU & FSU
FSU: LSSU & BGSU
BGSU: UA(F) & FSU
UA(F): UAA & BGSU
UAA: UA(F) & MSUM
MSUM: UAA & BSU
BSU: MSUM & MTU
Click to expand...

Almington, I must be slow here. Because I fail to see how this works. If you had a 20 game sched, this would be perfect. You play 1 series with everyone, and then 1 more series in the way you have listed.

However, in this situation, you actually want to except 2 teams every year, right? So, the schedule really is a double home and home, which would be 32 games, and then you leave out 2 series, to get to 28 games. Now, you could choose those 2 series to leave out as you have done, but I guess the part that confused me is that you have chosen rivals that schools would want to keep. And, then you want to rotate every year, so it all comes out even in the end, right?

So, I think the way to chain them, would be like this: Line up all schools in alphabetical order:
UA
UAA
BGSU
BSU
FSU
LSSU
MSUM
MTU
NMU

Now, in year one, the series that are left out are : Home against the team just above you, Away against the team below you (with wraparound counting).
Year 2 : Leave out home against team 2 spots above you(for NMU, it would be MSUM), and away against 2 spots below you.
Year 3 : 3 above, 3 below (This would be insular)
Year 4 : 4 above, 4 below.

That leaves out one series against everyone. Then, in year 5, start over, except reverse the home and away portion.

Done: In 8 years, a perfect rotation.

However, I would still wonder that, if I am the Athletic Dept at MTU, I think I want LSSU and NMU in my barn every year. That was my original idea. And, the same would go for UA and UAA. Then, it gets more complicated. It actually takes a 24 year rotation to get everything even if you start with these 3 assumptions:
UAA and UA play home and home every year
MTU, LSSU and NMU play home and home against each other every year.
The other 4 schools want balance.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Is it decided to have a 28 game conference schedule already? Cos if it ain't ... I vote for 16 conference games.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

uaafanblog said:
Is it decided to have a 28 game conference schedule already? Cos if it ain't ... I vote for 16 conference games.
Click to expand...
Good luck filling that non-conference schedule, unless you're willing to be on the road for just about all of it.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Brenthoven said:
Or, you know, the WCHA could invite UAH to join them and solve a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
There's a scheduling problem without UAH?

I have a hunch it's going to happen. For UAA, UA_, it's a flight anywhere already. Bowling Green is a long bus-ride away.

For the other schools, I think the problem becomes distance, and an NCAA exemption of the 48 hour rule for UAH needs to be granted as an option to allow bussing instead of flights. That could be where the potential hang-up currently is.

Sure, I was against the CCHA initially adopting them, but the CCHA needed to worry about itself first which it didn't because Anastos thought he could just add Penn State. There wasn't any backup plan to the CCHA, Anastos knew it. There were too many question marks to just go and add UAH at the time. Now, I feel that the New WCHA could support UAH better than the CCHA could. But, the new WCHA needs to have nurturing to it, it doesn't have big money draws like NoDak or Minnesota to help feed it's coffers.


MavsFan said:
Good luck filling that non-conference schedule, unless you're willing to be on the road for just about all of it.
Click to expand...
That's the only way we're going to see the B1G schools anyway, so why not? :D
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

CCHA should have stayed the CCHA and invited the WCHA teams into their league . CCHA was sold out .
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Shirtless Guy said:
let's see, which name brand carries more weight and has been around longer?
Click to expand...
40 years versus 52 years. That close, it's almost a push.
(MCHL and WIHL don't count since you're discussing brand)


I like the logo for the CCHA and the work they've done publicly this year is making me forget the Anastos years of the league. It pops more than the WCHA, even after their stupid Giant W little CHA marketing update.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Numbers said:
Almington, I must be slow here. Because I fail to see how this works. If you had a 20 game sched, this would be perfect. You play 1 series with everyone, and then 1 more series in the way you have listed.
Click to expand...

My point was that with:

Shirtless Guy said:
You'd play 2 designated rivals 4 times a year, plus 4 other teams 4 times a year, plus 1 team at home, 1 team away and that would rotate.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't need to set the rivalries up in three team blocks and no one would really want to get the short end of the stick and be stuck in a block with both of the AK schools and have to make that trip twice every year where other teams were having some years (once every three years) where they only had to make one AK trip. It is a small thing, but I think that its important that everyone feels that the situation is fair and equitable.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

aparch said:
40 years versus 52 years. That close, it's almost a push.
(MCHL and WIHL don't count since you're discussing brand)


I like the logo for the CCHA and the work they've done publicly this year is making me forget the Anastos years of the league. It pops more than the WCHA, even after their stupid Giant W little CHA marketing update.
Click to expand...

If Anastos had left years ago and their current work had started in 2006 instead of 2011, I think it would have been an actual merger of the leadership and conferences instead of the dissolution of one.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

bronconick said:
If Anastos had left years ago and their current work had started in 2006 instead of 2011, I think it would have been an actual merger of the leadership and conferences instead of the dissolution of one.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that there still should be a merger of leadership considering how much better the CCHA has been this year with keeping up with the times.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

bronconick said:
If Anastos had left years ago and their current work had started in 2006 instead of 2011, I think it would have been an actual merger of the leadership and conferences instead of the dissolution of one.
Click to expand...
I think you may have been right too. I do wonder what the last five years would have been like without Anastos. The CCHA certainly pushed hard to include EVERY school this year, and really gave it their all utilizing social media.


Shirtless Guy said:
It seems to me that there still should be a merger of leadership considering how much better the CCHA has been this year with keeping up with the times.
Click to expand...
Almington said:
Keep the WCHA brand and the CCHA leadership.
Click to expand...
I think we're all on the same page with this.

WCHA name, CCHA web team/front office effort.
 
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)

Even if UAH doesn't become a league member for 2013-14 I think the WCHA would be well served to put UAH in the scheduling. It gives you 10 teams to schedule and I think a firm schedule of WCHA teams visiting UAH really helps strengthen UAH's hockey program and make them a team to be taken seriously in D-I hockey. I don't see them lasting long without a conference home. The WCHA needs to do the right think and help them out in some way shape or form.

Ryan J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top