Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
Why the WCHA? Why not the new league? They need more teams.
Why the WCHA? Why not the new league? They need more teams.
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)
- Thread starter aparch
- Start date
- Status
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
Naturally it'd be a Mankato fan that can't understand that non-conference games can be played against conference opponents.
The point of my inquiry and support for a short conference schedule is to allow each school to try to tailor their schedule for their own RPI/PWR best advantage. Cumbersome conference schedule requirements like a 28 game schedule may allow lower 48 members more than 6 non-conference games because they are getting extra games from the Alaska Exemption but it sure doesn't let UAA or UAF play extra games.
And more non-conference games will mean more home games for both UAA and UAF. In case you haven't noticed both of these schools have a LONG ESTABLISHED history of paying teams expenses to come to Alaska and play. Lots of NCAA teams look at that as an excellent opportunity to travel some place exciting and different and when someone else is pay the travel ... of course they'll come.
Stick your 28 game conference schedules and the queer machinations being discussed in order to "make it fair". 16 game schedule ftmfw.
Naturally it'd be a Mankato fan that can't understand that non-conference games can be played against conference opponents.
The point of my inquiry and support for a short conference schedule is to allow each school to try to tailor their schedule for their own RPI/PWR best advantage. Cumbersome conference schedule requirements like a 28 game schedule may allow lower 48 members more than 6 non-conference games because they are getting extra games from the Alaska Exemption but it sure doesn't let UAA or UAF play extra games.
And more non-conference games will mean more home games for both UAA and UAF. In case you haven't noticed both of these schools have a LONG ESTABLISHED history of paying teams expenses to come to Alaska and play. Lots of NCAA teams look at that as an excellent opportunity to travel some place exciting and different and when someone else is pay the travel ... of course they'll come.
Stick your 28 game conference schedules and the queer machinations being discussed in order to "make it fair". 16 game schedule ftmfw.
Last edited:
aparch
Well-known member
Fixed the end. We're not the Ivy schools. And what better way to confuse the (now fragile) fanbase (because of the shuffling) by trying to explain a 16 game league schedule when you can play up to 36 games.
"Why is this weekends contest against UAF not count for our season standings? Next weekends trip to UAA does!"
"Why are we playing MTU for the fifth and sixth time this season and it's only December? And why doesn't THIS weekends contest count for league points?"
Twenty eight league games prevents scheduling BGSU eight times a year by maintaining a (reasonably) balanced schedule by creating equal footing for all the teams.
Your 16 game conference schedule? Can die in a fire.
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
What would be the point of playing fewer conference games so you can play non-conference games against teams from your conference?
By the way, I wasn't directing that just at the Alaska schools. I think all of the "new" WCHA schools will have trouble getting teams to come to their buildings. It's going to be a pretty low-prestige league.
You just aren't going to be happy until you alienate everybody on this board, are you? What a jerk.
What would be the point of playing fewer conference games so you can play non-conference games against teams from your conference?
By the way, I wasn't directing that just at the Alaska schools. I think all of the "new" WCHA schools will have trouble getting teams to come to their buildings. It's going to be a pretty low-prestige league.
Last edited:
gfmorris
New member
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
I would be very, very surprised for an NCAA exemption on travel times to UAH. The only way it works is if it becomes an association-wide rule that schools with no team closer than X get a travel exemption. That would open up regional sports [e.g., LAX] to national play. While the Chargers have benefitted from past Championship Committee action to keep the CHA's AQ alive at first five and then four teams in the league, I would don't see a travel exemption happening.
I expect a 6-3 or 5-4 vote, up or down. Whether they end up calling that an acclimation vote as was done with the CCHA vote is up to them. I think it's pretty easy to figure out who would be for us and who would be against us.
GFM
I would be very, very surprised for an NCAA exemption on travel times to UAH. The only way it works is if it becomes an association-wide rule that schools with no team closer than X get a travel exemption. That would open up regional sports [e.g., LAX] to national play. While the Chargers have benefitted from past Championship Committee action to keep the CHA's AQ alive at first five and then four teams in the league, I would don't see a travel exemption happening.
I expect a 6-3 or 5-4 vote, up or down. Whether they end up calling that an acclimation vote as was done with the CCHA vote is up to them. I think it's pretty easy to figure out who would be for us and who would be against us.
GFM
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
This coming from a fan of a team that went to travel to a team with 12 NC games last year, and has that same team travelling to you this year.
This coming from a fan of a team that went to travel to a team with 12 NC games last year, and has that same team travelling to you this year.
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
If the AK schools don't like the 28 game schedule, they are free to leave the conference and have 34 non-conference games. In that case the WCHA can add UAH have 28 games and play everyone 4 times.
If scheduling NC games was so easy for the AK schools, why were they so interested in joining conferences in the first place?
If the AK schools don't like the 28 game schedule, they are free to leave the conference and have 34 non-conference games. In that case the WCHA can add UAH have 28 games and play everyone 4 times.
If scheduling NC games was so easy for the AK schools, why were they so interested in joining conferences in the first place?
beaverhockeyfan
Well-known member
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
I agree with 4four4 on this one, and it just irks me that everyone keeps saying it is up to the WCHA to do the right thing. Why is it up to the WCHA to do what everyone keeps calling the "right thing"? Did the Big Ten do the "right thing"? Did the NCHC do the "right thing"? No one ever gives me a good answer to why, they just keep saying it.......
As much as I am an Alabama-Huntsville supporter for them to get into the league, and I would love to see them in the WCHA to continue the rivalry with BSU, how are these schools going to afford that travel? After all, these schools are the ones that the NCHC left out since they were not "like minded", or what I tend to believe, they don't have the $$$$$ that we do and we want more. All of these schools will already be making one trip to Alaska every year and from what I heard is that one year out of every five, they will make a two trips to Alaska. Now throw in trips to Huntsville and that is going to be a drain on the budgets of some of the schools. These schools are also loosing the games that typically fill their buildings when the NCHC and Big Ten break out, and that is going to hit the budgets as well.
So, please tell me, why should it be up to the WCHA to do the "right thing"? It is the Big Ten and the NCHC that will have the $$$$$ after all this shakes out, they will be in a better position to do the "right thing".
I agree with 4four4 on this one, and it just irks me that everyone keeps saying it is up to the WCHA to do the right thing. Why is it up to the WCHA to do what everyone keeps calling the "right thing"? Did the Big Ten do the "right thing"? Did the NCHC do the "right thing"? No one ever gives me a good answer to why, they just keep saying it.......
As much as I am an Alabama-Huntsville supporter for them to get into the league, and I would love to see them in the WCHA to continue the rivalry with BSU, how are these schools going to afford that travel? After all, these schools are the ones that the NCHC left out since they were not "like minded", or what I tend to believe, they don't have the $$$$$ that we do and we want more. All of these schools will already be making one trip to Alaska every year and from what I heard is that one year out of every five, they will make a two trips to Alaska. Now throw in trips to Huntsville and that is going to be a drain on the budgets of some of the schools. These schools are also loosing the games that typically fill their buildings when the NCHC and Big Ten break out, and that is going to hit the budgets as well.
So, please tell me, why should it be up to the WCHA to do the "right thing"? It is the Big Ten and the NCHC that will have the $$$$$ after all this shakes out, they will be in a better position to do the "right thing".
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
You make a valid point. The CCHA was the "bad guy" the last time around, although not one other league extended an invitation to UAH. I hope they find a way to get it done. But I'm not sure what it is.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
If you notice, most of the people that think the WCHA should do the right thing, are fans of a leftover. I think the WCHA should do the right thing because they are the WCHA, F the B1G Mistake and NCHC, they can chase money, we'll be fine doing the right thing...I don't really see how its such a huge deal overall.
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
The WCHA should do what is best for the member schools, not what is best for any of the other 50 teams. Now, if that is to add UAH, then the WCHA should do it, otherwise don't.
The WCHA should do what is best for the member schools, not what is best for any of the other 50 teams. Now, if that is to add UAH, then the WCHA should do it, otherwise don't.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
Then why expand in the past with teams like Minnesota State, Bemidji State, Alaska Anchorage? How were those additions the "best for the member schools?"
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
That was then when programs were more selfless and altruistic. That isn't the case anymore. The WCHA should do what they feel is best for them, certaintly not what others who have acted with concern exclusivly for their own interests think is best for the game.
That was then when programs were more selfless and altruistic. That isn't the case anymore. The WCHA should do what they feel is best for them, certaintly not what others who have acted with concern exclusivly for their own interests think is best for the game.
Shirtless Guy
Old Dirty Basterd
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
Well I can tell you the vast majority of Michigan Tech fans WANT Alabama-Huntsville. It has nothing to do with what B1G and NCHC teams think they should do, we just think it's the right thing to do and not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
uaafanblog
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
aparch
Well-known member
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
If UAH is to be added, I want it to be something that makes sense for the New WCHA and all it's member schools. I mentioned the NCAA waiver as a quick fix to allow teams to decide to either fly or bus. I can't see UAH being willing to pull a Fairbanks/Anchorage and sponsor conference schools in coming to them, at least in the long term. Sure short term they would be able to do it, but 10 years down the road, they may want out of that agreement. Almington brings up a valid concern.
And to answer "why the other teams?" Well, Minnesota State and Bemidji State were likely added because of their proximity to the other schools in the league, making for easy travel. If anything, Bemidji should have been in the WCHA instead of forming the CHA, but we all know what happened there, the WCHA members were too hung up on having a nice round number after NMU went and screwed it up in 1997.
A vast majority of Michigan Tech fans couldn't find Alabama-Huntsville on an Alabama state highway map.
If UAH is to be added, I want it to be something that makes sense for the New WCHA and all it's member schools. I mentioned the NCAA waiver as a quick fix to allow teams to decide to either fly or bus. I can't see UAH being willing to pull a Fairbanks/Anchorage and sponsor conference schools in coming to them, at least in the long term. Sure short term they would be able to do it, but 10 years down the road, they may want out of that agreement. Almington brings up a valid concern.
And to answer "why the other teams?" Well, Minnesota State and Bemidji State were likely added because of their proximity to the other schools in the league, making for easy travel. If anything, Bemidji should have been in the WCHA instead of forming the CHA, but we all know what happened there, the WCHA members were too hung up on having a nice round number after NMU went and screwed it up in 1997.
aparch
Well-known member
Re: The New WCHA (2013-14)
And you really think a sixteen game schedule allows UAA a better shot at the championship auto-bid?
- Status