The new WCHA is dead pt2

[UncleRay]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Can someone show me evidence of a rule change that DII schools cannot play up in DI hockey specifically? This is news to me if they can't because NCAA doesn't sponsor a DII championship. In other sports, I believe it, you can't just choose to play up, but hockey is an exception because there is no DII championship.

"Some schools, however, have opted to compete in a sport at a higher level and are allowed to do so by the NCAA under certain circumstances. First, schools in Divisions II and III are allowed to classify one men's sport and one women's sport as Division I (except for football and basketball), provided that they were sponsoring said sports at Division I level prior to 2011. In addition to this, a lower-division school may compete as a Division I member in a given sport if the NCAA does not sponsor a championship in that sport for the school's own division. Division II schools may award scholarships and operate under Division I rules in their Division I sports. Division III schools cannot award scholarships in their Division I sports (except as noted below), but can operate under most Division I rules in those sports."

You're highlighting the wrong statement.

20.8.2 Division II Options When No Division II Championship is Conducted. An active member institution that holds membership in Division II is eligible to compete in the Division I championship in those sports for which no championship is conducted in Division II. The Division II institution shall declare its intention to compete by June 1. This declaration of intent shall be effective for a minimum of three years. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)

20.8.2.1 Participation in Division I Championship. To be eligible for the Division I championship in such a sport, the Division II member institution is required to meet all Division I institutional and individual eligibility requirements and may use Division I financial aid limitations in that sport as permitted under Bylaw 20.9.1.1.
(Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/92)

20.8.2.2 Exception for Maximum Number of Contests or Dates of Competition. A Division II member institution that is eligible for a championship in another division because there is no championship in that sport in its membership division shall apply the maximum number of contests or dates of competition in the sport involved that applies to the division in which it declares its intention to compete.

I spoke to someone that confirmed these are still intact and that the only difference is that a school like St. Thomas would not be able to call themselves a DI institution if they're not full DI, but they would be allowed to participate in DI hockey and follow DI hockey rules while being DI in everything else.

No, the rule is there...

20.4.1 Multidivision Classification. A member of Division II or Division III may have a sport classified in Division I, provided the sport was so classified during the 2010-11 academic year. Such a classification shall continue until the institution fails to conduct the sport in Division I in any subsequent academic year. (Revised: 8/9/07, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

It's just that there's a way around it if there's no championship for a particular sport in Division II. Dallas Baptist, which is Division II, couldn't play baseball in Division I as it does now if they hadn't declared to play up in 2004.

Just because you want to believe that DII teams can play up, doesn't mean they can.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Vocal soccer fanbases are way more peculiar about the pitch than any other fan especially with a new franchise developing a fanbase. MNUFC currently have a 10k seat waiting list and I don't believe the team wants to lose them becuase of adding a rentor. Now I am not saying this couldn't happen but the timing my not be right as of today.

Not to mention the possibility of field issues and injury risks at the time of year when the team will likely be making a playoff push.

 

[cetihcra]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Just because you want to believe that DII teams can play up, doesn't mean they can.

They can. The "provided that they were sponsoring said sports at Division 1 level prior to 2011" is for schools choosing to play up in a sport that has a championship at their division level, such as RIT/SLU/etc playing D1 hockey. The key in that rule is "IN ADDITION TO THIS", saying that schools playing a sport in a division for which there is no championship, can play up.

The Saint Anselm MH team has been looking into, and pondering this for years, though now it's looking like they will try to push their entire AD down to D3 eventually.

r

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

The Loons likely wouldn't allow it but their fans would be 0% of the reason.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

You're highlighting the wrong statement.



Just because you want to believe that DII teams can play up, doesn't mean they can.

Rule 20.4.1 means that a school like Minnesota State-Moorhead would not be able to call itself a D1 hockey team, but they would be allowed to play for the D1 championship, because the NCAA does not sponsor a D2 championship.

The only difference is that, in the past, a D-II school like UMD could declare itself D-I in hockey, etc... whereas now, they can't call themselves D-I - but can participate just the same. So it's just semantics.

 

[Jimjamesak]

The Loons likely wouldn't allow it but their fans would be 0% of the reason.

You’d be surprised at what kind of impact fan groups have on MLS decisions. Try reading up on the Iron Front flag controversy and the now revised fan code of conduct.

 

[4four4]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

You’d be surprised at what kind of impact fan groups have on MLS decisions. Try reading up on the Iron Front flag controversy and the now revised fan code of conduct.

Yup. Even American soccer fans can really be "intense/obnoxious" about certain changes like the field, the size of it and gridiron lines which will make people angry. Some might even not come back.

 

[mmf]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Question: Have the 3 schools in question gone 2-15-1 every year?

Maybe three years is convenient, but since the nWCHA has only been in existence seven seasons (almost), we can probably look at the full history of non-conference games. These are from the the WCHA filtered stats.

<a href="https://mmf.smugmug.com/All-Galleries/Alaska-Nanook-Hockey/2019-20-Hockey-GIFS/n-2JNjJH/i-bBPnCs6/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bBPnCs6/0/1187abd8/L/i-bBPnCs6-L.jpg" alt=""></a>


UAH is the worst performing team. UAA is much better but still second to last. But if you want to get rid of your next two lowest performers, then the CCHA made a mistake in showing BSU and NMU the secrete handshake.

 

[moose97]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Maybe three years is convenient, but since the nWCHA has only been in existence seven seasons (almost), we can probably look at the full history of non-conference games. These are from the the WCHA filtered stats.

<a href="https://mmf.smugmug.com/All-Galleries/Alaska-Nanook-Hockey/2019-20-Hockey-GIFS/n-2JNjJH/i-bBPnCs6/A"><img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-bBPnCs6/0/1187abd8/L/i-bBPnCs6-L.jpg" alt=""></a>


UAH is the worst performing team. UAA is much better but still second to last. But if you want to get rid of your next two lowest performers, then the CCHA made a mistake in showing BSU and NMU the secrete handshake.

Salty much? Follow along. Its not about Pairwise. Its about reducing costs.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Salty much? Follow along. Its not about Pairwise. Its about reducing costs.

You mean the costs the Alaska schools have paid for?

 

[mmf]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Salty much? Follow along. Its not about Pairwise. Its about reducing costs.

Salty. Yes. It’s hard to keep up with the rational for the nCCHA decision making. This thread has a whole page on how bad the ousted three are on pairwise. Neither pairwise nor cost is the real reason. They are excuses.

It seems everyone likes to ignore the UAF, UAA, UAH subsidies because they don’t help the narrative. This isn’t about money. It’s kind of an arrogant regional footprint kind of thing. Which is fine, but call it what it is instead trying to rationalize this as “we can no longer shoulder the burden” kind of BS.

Does anyone have documentation other than a bar tab that gives credence that subsidized travel to Alaska is more of a travel burden above what teams are willing to pay to go to other schools that the coaches are not *****ing about. It’s what’s in the WCHA agreement. In the CHN podcast it was obvious that Bill Crawford doesn’t have a clue about the subsidy or how it works. This isn’t about money. This is not going to save the nCCHA programs any meaningful money.

 

[moose97]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

There hasn't been a full subsidy in decades. UAA refused to offer it to Mankato when they joined the oWCHA because they weren't in when the agreement was signed.

 

[Bonin21]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

10-0 what the F

 

[Suze]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

There hasn't been a full subsidy in decades. UAA refused to offer it to Mankato when they joined the oWCHA because they weren't in when the agreement was signed.

Please tell me what UAA pays in travel AND hotel subsidies to the other WCHA teams. I know pretty accurately what the figure is ... do you?

 

[Suze]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

10-0 what the F

And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.

 

[purpleinnebraska]

And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.

Well, we tried to play our 5th and 6th lines, but the rules got in our way.

 

[moose97]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

And the shots were 64-11. Real classy to run the score up like that. Not.

Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.

 

[skolbrother]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.

Amen! Division 1 hockey & someone is complaining about the score being run up...? Get better or quit for *******ks sake

 

[Suze]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

Its ****ing Division I athletics, not a youth jamboree. Suck it up or just save everyone the embarrassment and drop the program.

And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.

Since you act like you know everything when it comes to subsidies, I am still waiting to hear what the numbers are. Go.

 

[mmf]

Re: The new WCHA is dead pt2

...And, last time I talked with the WCHA commissioner about the subsidy agreement, it wasn't what it used to be, nor was every school getting full reimbursement. Got something that says otherwise? I'm all ears.

What is a full subsidy or full reimbursement? You mean all travel costs paid at 100%? JFC. That’s plain nuts. We never did that in the CCHA either. When the nWCHA formed neither UAF, UAA, or UAH had much of a choice but to agree to a subsidy agreement if they wanted to be in a conference. And we were used to a “reasonable” subsidy even though it was financially painful.

Again, the concept was that those schools would reimburse travel costs so a trip to Alaska or Alabama is on par with any team’s next costliest trip. Not a 100%reimbursement. I understand that Alaska’s subsidy went down from the CCHA days and UAA’s went up from the oWCHA days. Have you ever talked to the nWCHA Commissioner about travel subsidies? Nothing has changed since the inception of the nWCHA. it’s not like it's a volunteer thing we do. We don’t pass the hat in stands asking who wants to help pay for BGSU trip up to Fairbanks. It’s part of the WCHA agreement.