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.

WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

sm2pk said:
Worse thing to happen to college hockey was starting the Big Ten League and making travel for the former CCHA teams a nightmare. Miami and Western and Notre Dame must love their travel distance as well . The old CCHA ,WCHA , were regional leagues with so many schools close enough for fans to make the trips to away games and now, going to away games has become almost impossible for most fans.
Click to expand...

If the rumors and rumblings are true, I don't think realignment is finished yet.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
If the rumors and rumblings are true, I don't think realignment is finished yet.
Click to expand...

Especially now with Arizona State now in the picture. Something's going to give before too much longer.
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Hammer said:
Especially now with Arizona State now in the picture. Something's going to give before too much longer.
Click to expand...

ASU to the NCHC. Western and (maybe Robert Morris to make 12) to the WCHA? Just spitballing there.

IMO, Miami and Rico are too full of themselves to admit that the NCHC has been a net negative move for them.
 
There was a time in Minnesota where Friday and Saturday night were dominated by Gopher hockey. Now you can replace the Rouser with crickets. The split of the WCHA and the development of the Nacho and the big 10 fractured what was good into chaos. But the new WCHA has melded into something good. There is great parity in college hockey despite what the other conferences want to believe. They chased the mighty dollar and turned up their noses at their fan bases. Now they have impossible to access TV coverage, smaller crowds and the end to rivalry series that were decades old. Nobody won in the birth of these new conferences. I hold tight to the belief that ALL schools that want D1 hockey should be able to belong to a conference. And I am glad the door is always open at the WCHA. I welcome Arizona if they want in, whomever applies and can meet their requirements for membership. I like our new conference. I like the integrity of our conference.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
If the rumors and rumblings are true, I don't think realignment is finished yet.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but unless a partner comes along with ASU, I have a hunch the island of misfit schools (WCHA) will take them in for a bit. Then, re-alignment will happen a few years after that when another Pac10 Team starts.

Biggest questions:
- Is Notre Dame sick of Hockey East and/or vice versa? Can ND swallow their pride and just schedule a non-conference agreement with Boston College while moving back West for shorter trips?
- Will WMU/Miami strongarm their fellow MAC school into either switching to the NCHC, moving to join BGSU in the WCHA, or re-start the CCHA?
- Does the NCHC still have Bemidji and Mankato as "alternates" if the above changes happen?
- Does anyone other than the WCHA want _airbanks and Anchorage?
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I would rather follow wherever Tech, Ferris, Huntsville and Bowling Green go than be in the same conference with Denver and North Dakota. Ugh that's just a distasteful idea!
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

As for splitting into east/west, I did come up with a decent schedule.

everyone from east plays everyone from west twice a year, alternating home/road every other year (12 games)
Within division we have a designated rival like old days that you play 4 times every every year (4 games)
The remaining 4 teams you play 2 home and road, 1 home, 1 road (12 games)

So in year one for BSU it would be 4 with MSU, 4 with UA_, 4 with ASU, at UAA, vs UNLV, at MTU, at LSSU, at BGSU, vs NMU, vs FSU, vs UAH
year 2 for BSU would be 4 with MSU, 4 with UAA, 4 with UNLV, vs UA_, at ASU, vs MTU, vs LSSU, vs BGSU, at NMU, at FSU, at UAH
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

HuskyNation said:
It may take 32-34pts for Home Ice this season. Up from the last few seasons.
Click to expand...
Historically it takes slightly above 50% of the possible conference points to secure home ice. Only during a couple seasons did the cut-off number stray upwards. This seemed to be seasons when the bottom few teams were REALLY bad and they were not keeping points in the bottom half of the standings which dragged the home ice cut-off upwards. The 2012-13 season is the best example. UNO had a winning record and 30 pts and didn't get home ice because the everyone was beating the bottom three teams (like a rented mule).

With two teams getting cut out of the playoffs, it artificially raises the cut-off point because you now need to be top-4 in a 10-team league to have home ice. Now we're all focused on 4th place, rather than 5th or 6th place (2010-2013), so it makes the requirement for home ice a little higher compared to historical numbers.

With MSU and BGSU both having yet to play #9 and #10 in the conference, I would expect this to be another season where the bottom three teams have a very low number of wins and thus it will drag the home-ice cut-off line upward. If NMU (currently in 5th) continues to play 0.500 hockey, they would end up with 30 pts right at what has been the cut-off in the new playoff format. It doesn't appear that 30 will get you home ice this year if the games go the way we think they should. BUT, that is why they play the games...
Ryan J

<text>
Year _ _ Pts/Place to secure home ice
03-04 _ _ 31 of 56 / 5th (1)
04-05 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
05-06 _ _ 32 of 56 / 5th (2)
06-07 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
07-08 _ _ 28 of 56 / 5th
08-09 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
09-10 _ _ 33 of 56 / 5th (3)
10-11 _ _ 28 of 56 / 6th
11-12 _ _ 28 of 56 / 6th
12-13 _ _ 33 of 56 / 6th (4)
13-14 _ _ 30 of 56 / 4th
14-15 _ _ 30 of 56 / 4th (5)

(1) SCSU finished 6th w/ 28 pts and 12-12-4 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 19 wins combined.
(2) SCSU finished 6th w/ 28 pts and 13-13-2 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 16 wins combined.
(3) CC finished 6th w/ 27pts and 12-13-3 WCHA record, top five teams averaged 35.8 pts
(4) UNO finished 7th w/ 30 pts and 14-12-2 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 15 wins combined.
(5) UAF DQ'd, BSU hosted w/ 29th pts from 5th place
</text>
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

JohnsonsJerseys said:
Historically it takes slightly above 50% of the possible conference points to secure home ice. Only during a couple seasons did the cut-off number stray upwards. This seemed to be seasons when the bottom few teams were REALLY bad and they were not keeping points in the bottom half of the standings which dragged the home ice cut-off upwards. The 2012-13 season is the best example. UNO had a winning record and 30 pts and didn't get home ice because the everyone was beating the bottom three teams (like a rented mule).

With two teams getting cut out of the playoffs, it artificially raises the cut-off point because you now need to be top-4 in a 10-team league to have home ice. Now we're all focused on 4th place, rather than 5th or 6th place (2010-2013), so it makes the requirement for home ice a little higher compared to historical numbers.

With MSU and BGGSU both having yet to play #9 and #10 in the conference, I would expect this to be another season where the bottom three teams have a very low number of wins and thus it will drag the home-ice cut-off line upward. If NMU (currently in 5th) continues to play 0.500 hockey, they would end up with 30 pts right at what has been the cut-off in the new playoff format. It doesn't appear that 30 will get you home ice this year if the games go the way we think they should. BUT, that is why they play the games...
Ryan J

<text>
Year _ _ Pts/Place to secure home ice
03-04 _ _ 31 of 56 / 5th (1)
04-05 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
05-06 _ _ 32 of 56 / 5th (2)
06-07 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
07-08 _ _ 28 of 56 / 5th
08-09 _ _ 29 of 56 / 5th
09-10 _ _ 33 of 56 / 5th (3)
10-11 _ _ 28 of 56 / 6th
11-12 _ _ 28 of 56 / 6th
12-13 _ _ 33 of 56 / 6th (4)
13-14 _ _ 30 of 56 / 4th
14-15 _ _ 30 of 56 / 4th (5)

(1) SCSU finished 6th w/ 28 pts and 12-12-4 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 19 wins combined.
(2) SCSU finished 6th w/ 28 pts and 13-13-2 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 16 wins combined.
(3) CC finished 6th w/ 27pts and 12-13-3 WCHA record, top five teams averaged 35.8 pts
(4) UNO finished 7th w/ 30 pts and 14-12-2 WCHA record, bottom three teams had 15 wins combined.
(5) UAF DQ'd, BSU hosted w/ 29th pts from 5th place
</text>
Click to expand...

You can't really compare anything before the reshuffle because every team made the tournament...moving from top 5 of 10 to top 4 of 10 makes a difference.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Interesting comments from the commissioner in the piece but, certainly not surprising. Here's a portion from my very first post on these forums a couple of years ago regarding who the new commissioner should be and what challenges that person needed to be able to address:

"Since cost containment seems to be the number one issue on the table, finding a proactive, workable solution to that problem is priority number one. Here's my suggestion:

Approach Robert Morris and Niagara about joining the league. They've both been very outspoken about their desire to compete with 18 scholarships. I suspect both would be very willing to listen. IF they accept, create a West and East division with an Alaska school in each one. Play 2/3 of your conference games within your division and alternate yearly with the other schools home and away except that the Alaska schools would play each other twice a season which further limits the need for teams to travel to Alaska twice in any one season. I admit that I haven't "run the numbers" regarding how or if this scheduling arrangement can be made to work but, from what I've read of Mr. Morris's posts over the years, I suspect that would be mere child's play for him. The divisions would look as follows:

East (or South?) -- UAF/UAH/Ferris/BG/RMU/Niagara
West (or North) -- UAA/BSU/MSMU/MTU/NMU/LSSU

As for a playoff format, well, lots of options there. Personally, I would take the top 10 overall seeds and leave the bottom two out. Then you can actually have a "Final Five" again. As for the site, if creating the best atmosphere is as important as it seems to be, I think we need to shoot for buildings in the 6500 to 10K capacity range. If a neutral site is critical, considering the local college hockey community (Div. I & Div. III), decent sized regional airport, and available hotels at that time of year, I think Duluth makes the most sense. However, my understanding is that Amsoil's management was approached and, after consulting with UMD (obviously, their primary tenant) said they weren't interested. The main reason being that UMD didn't want to have the hassle of practicing somewhere else if they were still playing. Considering the amount of local tax dollars that went into building the facility, I'm a little surprised that the city wouldn't demand a little more say in that decision considering the potential economic impact of hosting the tournament"

Obviously, this was before Arizona St. entered the picture. So, if the WCHA were to add them, then they would only need to add one AHA team. Although I originally felt the WCHA had only an outside shot at getting ASU (I'm not saying I think they should as that's a completely different discussion but, it's obvious they do in fact want them), my opinion on this has changed considerably in the last couple of months. As others have said recently in these forums, I too have heard from people I trust that the Big 10 hasn't actually approached ASU. I also very recently had the chance to speak with an NCHC administrator who told me that, although they've certainly had discussions with ASU about joining their conference, there wasn't a consensus that they would be a good "fit". It definitely seemed as though there was an insinuation that ASU wasn't coming to them. Maybe this person was simply intentionally trying to be coy and not wanting to tip their hand. But that's just not the impression I got. Robertson's comments about possible changes in the playoff venue after the current agreement expires were also interesting as I know that the league has recently approached Amsoil Arena in Duluth about it's availability, to include a site visit by league staff.
As has been recently revealed on these forums regarding the WCHA's financials for the first couple of years and, considering the geographical layout of the conference, the ONLY realistic way this conference can do anything to substantially reduce travel costs for the teams is to adopt the "two division format". Obviously, it can be easily argued that adding ASU may actually increase that hardship (unless they're willing to offer travel subsidies like UAH, UAA, and UAF). Which is why at least some of you have understandably questioned the logic in doing so. Still, if the WCHA is there choice, it will certainly lead to at least a minor domino effect as it's obvious Mr. Robertson favors an even number of teams.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

If this division concept has the goal to cut travel cost, I don't see how that helps if you put one AK school in each division. Now you're making EVERY school take an Alaska trip EVERY season, assuming you're going to play all your division teams four games each. If you're going to do two divisions, I would say keep the AK schools together and then focus your effort on making sure the teams coming into AK can play UAF and UAA on adjacent weekends. If the league were to jump to 16 teams, maybe you can then start to look at some sort of "balanced schedule" (15 teams x 2 games each). But if you're going to play everyone one series for a true balanced schedule, what is the point of the divisions? Not to mention if you add an AHA team to the league now you really have "four corners" with AK, AZ, AL and PA/NY (guess).

I'm sure if you got the AHA teams to vote, Air Force is the one they would love to shed, as they are the outcasts and their one long trip. AF would actually be a good fit for the WCHA to help grow the West and AF has no concerns with travel costs for obvious reasons. I realize that AF and Army have strong ties, but there is no reason they can't continue to play as non-conference opponents annually.

Assuming we would add ASU and one AHA team, I would propose the following:
Groups you want together:
MTU, LSSU, NMU (geography/rivals)
UAF, UAA (geography/rivals)
UAH, BSU (rivals) plus MSU (geography to BSU)
FSU, BGSU (geography, rivals)
ASU (loner, long trips to anywhere)
AHA (likely put them with the FSU/BGSU group unless it is Air Force)
Take one threesome, add one pair and throw one of the newbie teams.

As much as an AHA is more likely to accept an invite, Miami or Western makes more sense. However if you grab one of those from the NCHC, you can likely kiss Mankato good-bye as a Nacho back-fill.

Ryan J
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

JohnsonsJerseys said:
If this division concept has the goal to cut travel cost, I don't see how that helps if you put one AK school in each division. Now you're making EVERY school take an Alaska trip EVERY season, assuming you're going to play all your division teams four games each. If you're going to do two divisions, I would say keep the AK schools together and then focus your effort on making sure the teams coming into AK can play UAF and UAA on adjacent weekends. If the league were to jump to 16 teams, maybe you can then start to look at some sort of "balanced schedule" (15 teams x 2 games each). But if you're going to play everyone one series for a true balanced schedule, what is the point of the divisions? Not to mention if you add an AHA team to the league now you really have "four corners" with AK, AZ, AL and PA/NY (guess).

I'm sure if you got the AHA teams to vote, Air Force is the one they would love to shed, as they are the outcasts and their one long trip. AF would actually be a good fit for the WCHA to help grow the West and AF has no concerns with travel costs for obvious reasons. I realize that AF and Army have strong ties, but there is no reason they can't continue to play as non-conference opponents annually.

Ryan J
Click to expand...
You won't be able to play ever team ever year within your division unless you're not playing the teams in the other division every year. 4x5+2x6>28

I'm not sure how we'd do it with splitting the Alaska schools...if you brought in RMU as the 12th team you could do divisions as follows:
UAA, ASU, BSU, MSU, MTU, NMU
UA_, UAH, LSSU, FSU, BGSU, RMU

Each team would have a designated rival: UAA-UAF*, UAH-ASU*, BSU-MSU, MTU-NMU, BGSU-RMU the 2 asterisk ones are crossovers. So then UAA would never play ASU 4 times and UA_ would never play UAH 4 times and then you'd have a 2 year rotate for "balanced" divisional schedules.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I'll believe all this ASU/ whatever stuff when I see it. There's too many if's.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

If you want expansion why not pursue Colorado College. Nabbing a team from the NCHC (even if it is the perennial bottom feeder) seems like a good idea to me and they would fit nicely into a western division. I'm sure they want to stay with Denver so maybe it's a really tough sell but it's not like they can't still play DU for their gold pan thing anyway. Find some incentives that make them consider it.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

I can't really see CC having any interest in the WCHA in the near future. They chose to follow Denver to the NCHC and they are right in Denver's back yard. CC is about 8+ hours from UNO. The nearest WCHA school is 13+ hours away from CC. The only reason Miami or WMU might eventually want to give it up would be their distance from everyone else.
Ryan J
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

uaafanblog said:
If you want expansion why not pursue Colorado College. Nabbing a team from the NCHC (even if it is the perennial bottom feeder) seems like a good idea to me and they would fit nicely into a western division. I'm sure they want to stay with Denver so maybe it's a really tough sell but it's not like they can't still play DU for their gold pan thing anyway. Find some incentives that make them consider it.
Click to expand...

CC would likely be asked to pay some kind of reimbursement for team flights out to Colorado like the Alaskas do now; I don't see them leaving the NCHC for that.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

Critical Thinker said:
CC would likely be asked to pay some kind of reimbursement for team flights out to Colorado like the Alaskas do now; I don't see them leaving the NCHC for that.
Click to expand...

I can't really see CC having any interest in the WCHA in the near future. They chose to follow Denver to the NCHC and they are right in Denver's back yard. CC is about 8+ hours from UNO. The nearest WCHA school is 13+ hours away from CC. The only reason Miami or WMU might eventually want to give it up would be their distance from everyone else.
Click to expand...

But there's talk of adding ASU?

Seems to me that if the WCHA isn't prepared to incentivize teams to join the league but instead is going to ask new members to cover costs that there's no chance of expanding at all.
 
Re: WCHA 2015-16: So here's what we think that we know...

uaafanblog said:
But there's talk of adding ASU?

Seems to me that if the WCHA isn't prepared to incentivize teams to join the league but instead is going to ask new members to cover costs that there's no chance of expanding at all.
Click to expand...

Not with the league bleeding money.

Air Force won't leave Army until Army folds the program, and that will mean that a Riley doesn't want to coach West Point anymore.

I really fear that the WCHA is becoming CHA 2.0.

GFM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top