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 + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Slap Shot said:
They've had a Div I program for how many years now? How long did it take SCSU, MSUM and BSU to do the same?
Click to expand...

SCSU - 1st year 1987-88, NCAA tournament second year 1988-89 Independent. Herb Brooks took the job at $21K dependent on commitment to go D1 and secure state funding for an arena. National Hockey Center built in their 3rd D1 season 1989-90. Opened Dec 16, 1989
MSUM - 1st year 1996-97, NCAA tournament seventh year 2002-03 WCHA. Announced going D1 in 1992 but shot down by the Minn State University board, took another stab in 1995 and was approved. Mankato Civic arena first hockey game Feb 3, 1995
BSU - 1st year 1999-2000, NCAA tournament sixth year 2004-05 CHA. Went D1 because the NCAA ended sponsorship of a Division II ice hockey tournament due to lack of membership. Sanford Arena first hockey game Oct 15, 2010.

PSU- 1st year 2012-13, NCAA tournament fifth year 2016-17. $88 million donation by the Pegula's in 2010 upgraded to $102 million. Pegula Ice arena opened Oct 11, 2013
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

UMD21 said:
What about tUMD, you dick? Don’t you remember when we used to play 2 series/year in WCHA? What are we, chopped liver?
Click to expand...

while i would LOVE to be in the same conference as UMD, its not realistic to think that will happen in the near future.

we can still play two series every year... and trust me, it isn't happening because tech does not want to... ;)

GO TECH GOLD!
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

UMD21 said:
What about tUMD, you dick? Don’t you remember when we used to play 2 series/year in WCHA? What are we, chopped liver?
Click to expand...
Ummm, wasn't UMD one of the schools that blew up the WCHA and CCHA to form the Nacho? Who's the dick?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Slap Shot said:
They've had a Div I program for how many years now? How long did it take SCSU, MSUM and BSU to do the same?
Click to expand...

Not judging them in any way. The discussion was about scheduling, and I was simply pointing out that under the Pairwise, it's more important to win than it is to schedule highly ranked opponents. College basketball is just the opposite. You get more credit for playing Duke at Duke than you do for beating up on UMKC. It may be wiser for WCHA teams to look for possible non-con wins against AH opponents, than it is for taking on Denver, Michigan, etc. every year and having it hurt us at tournament time.
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

If you win against lower ranked teams you should still get a bid. If you win against higher ranked teams you will get a better seed. (Which could mean you only have to travel to Allentown instead of going to Manchester).

Bottom line is just win the **** games on your schedule.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

There really isn’t a convenient way to group these schools.

Even the proposed 3 conference solution forces the AHA schools (the least able to afford additional burden) to take on flights to Alabama.

Just look at the geographic disparity all around:

The outliers:
UAA
UA(F)
ASU
USAFA

Minnesota:
BSU
MnSU

Michigan & Ohio:
MTU
NMU
LSSU
FSU
BGSU

The South:
UAH

AHA West:
Mercyhurst
RMU
Niagara
Canisius
RIT

AHA East:
Army
AIC
Bentley
Holy Cross
Sacred Heart

Wildcards:
~7 D-II schools just waiting for the NCAA to be cool with just letting D-II schools play D-I. All in the AHA-East region.
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Until the non-RIT AHA schools are capable of drawing more than a few hundred fans per game, I’m not sure what you could ask them to shoulder for travel burdens.

Fantasy casting a conference for them is tough. It’s easier to envision them with the remaining D-II schools to give them more short bus rides and fewer trips past Albany.
 
ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
There really isn’t a convenient way to group these schools.

Even the proposed 3 conference solution forces the AHA schools (the least able to afford additional burden) to take on flights to Alabama.

Just look at the geographic disparity all around:

The outliers:
UAA
UA(F)
ASU
USAFA

Minnesota:
BSU
MnSU

Michigan & Ohio:
MTU
NMU
LSSU
FSU
BGSU

The South:
UAH

AHA West:
Mercyhurst
RMU
Niagara
Canisius
RIT

AHA East:
Army
AIC
Bentley
Holy Cross
Sacred Heart

Wildcards:
~7 D-II schools just waiting for the NCAA to be cool with just letting D-II schools play D-I. All in the AHA-East region.
Click to expand...

Alabama-Huntsville and the two Alaska schools pay a travel stipend to incoming schools. There are schools that are within a 10-12 hour bus trip in the UAH grouping. No, it’s not like Sacred Heart to Holy Cross or Canisius to Niagara marathons, but it’s very doable.
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

DrunkTrainPolka said:
.
play most of your games within your region and make sure to schedule games with the other two with a rotation every year. keep things simple opening up more (then now) NC games with teams around you. as an example west could play DU and CC, central can play UofMN and SCSU, and east can play MSU and MIAMI.
Click to expand...

You say that like these teams in the current WCHA and AHA would get to call the shots on what games they schedule for out of conference.

You are not going to get WCHA/AHA schools scheduling 1 for 1 with NCHC/B1G schools. NCHC/B1G has the travel budget, they don't care how much WCHA/AHA does or doesn't have. NCHC/B1G is going to schedule 1 for 1 with BIG/NCHC, with a mix of HEA and then fill up the rest with 2 for 1 or 1 for 0 games against other conferences.

If anything, you are going to end up with WCHA/AHA schools in 1 for 2 or 2 for 3 agreements with NCHC/B1G schools and you are going to ruin the budget because 1) they are traveling more, so more travel expenses and 2) they are traveling more, so less revenue from home games.

Like it or not, the "big" schools have most of the power when scheduling and this realignment wouldn't change that.
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

KaMiGo said:
You say that like these teams in the current WCHA and AHA would get to call the shots on what games they schedule for out of conference.

You are not going to get WCHA/AHA schools scheduling 1 for 1 with NCHC/B1G schools. NCHC/B1G has the travel budget, they don't care how much WCHA/AHA does or doesn't have. NCHC/B1G is going to schedule 1 for 1 with BIG/NCHC, with a mix of HEA and then fill up the rest with 2 for 1 or 1 for 0 games against other conferences.

If anything, you are going to end up with WCHA/AHA schools in 1 for 2 or 2 for 3 agreements with NCHC/B1G schools and you are going to ruin the budget because 1) they are traveling more, so more travel expenses and 2) they are traveling more, so less revenue from home games.

Like it or not, the "big" schools have most of the power when scheduling and this realignment wouldn't change that.
Click to expand...

yes...

...and no.

the idea that i laid out, reduces travel considerably for both the AHA (by removing AF) and the WCHA (by the creation of localized regions). with that you save time, money, travel, etc, etc. money probably being the biggest thing...

in regard to NC NACHO/B1G/HEA games;

as is, we are already at a 2/1 or 1/0 type set up with these "better" conferences... there is no increase in cost pending the fact you are not increasing the number games with such said conferences.

overall, the idea would be for less travel within your conference and also overall.

if we do reduce the number of conference games by a series or two (which i am for) we can maybe play more WCHA-vs-AHA games... which can possibly be more helpful for its more balanced with a bigger chance of a higher PWR seed/placement.

winning can get to the tourney more so (against whomever) then beating the best teams once in a while.

let's stop putting the big schools on a pedestal... we can create a win-win situation in-house with the two smaller conferences.

GO TECH GOLD!
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

This entire thread would only have made sense if it started on 4/1 or 4/20
 
DrunkTrainPolka said:
.
here is an idea...

i am playing the agitator. but i do feel the WCHA and AHA need to shake things up to not only keep things from getting boring but also make the conferences better (as is, its no good).

between the WCHA, the AHA, and ASU you have a total of 22 teams.

have AHA give up AF... so they can go down from 11 to 10 teams making scheduling and traveling much easier and cheaper - all AHA teams would be really close to each other. AF and army can still have their bouts in the likes of the governors cup that UAF and UAA fight for every year, but in a NC way. call it the military cup.

the AHA has now 10 teams, they are set. now have ASU and AF join the WCHA making it 12.

travel in the WCHA is a big issue so create three mini-regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MNSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

play most of your games within your region and make sure to schedule games with the other two with a rotation every year. keep things simple opening up more (then now) NC games with teams around you. as an example west could play DU and CC, central can play UofMN and SCSU, and east can play MSU and MIAMI.

top two from each region moves on, together with two wild cards based on record.

maybe seed the eight teams based on the PWR? could make it exciting for it involves the NC record.

reduce travel, same money, save time, and play more NC games.

take a d*** chance, do it. DO IT!

this here is interesting and relevant;

https://uahhockey.com/blog/2018/06/20/widespread-conference-schedule-exemption/

GO TECH GOLD!
.
Click to expand...

That’s not really going to do much to your in conference travel. You wouldn’t want to play more than 4 games each against your region.

The way the WCHA schedule currently works is there are 5 “travel pairs.”
Anchorage/Fairbanks, Bemidji/Mankato, NMU/Tech, LSSU/Ferris and BG/UAH. You play your travel partner 4 times, and one member of each pair 4 times. You play the other member of each pair twice. That gives you 28 games and the schedule completely rotates over a 4 year span. Other than your travel partner, you play each team at home 3 times over 4 years and each team on the road 3 times over 4 years. Adding 2 more “flight” teams isn’t going to save anyone money. Whether you’re going to Anchorage or Tempe, it still costs a bundle. Although UAF, UAA & UAH pay a subsidy, it generally doesn’t even cover the plane tickets. And Air Force moved to the AHA to be in the same league as Army. That’s not likely to change.
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

davyd83 said:
That’s not really going to do much to your in conference travel. You wouldn’t want to play more than 4 games each against your region.

The way the WCHA schedule currently works is there are 5 “travel pairs.”
Anchorage/Fairbanks, Bemidji/Mankato, NMU/Tech, LSSU/Ferris and BG/UAH. You play your travel partner 4 times, and one member of each pair 4 times. You play the other member of each pair twice. That gives you 28 games and the schedule completely rotates over a 4 year span. Other than your travel partner, you play each team at home 3 times over 4 years and each team on the road 3 times over 4 years. Adding 2 more “flight” teams isn’t going to save anyone money. Whether you’re going to Anchorage or Tempe, it still costs a bundle. Although UAF, UAA & UAH pay a subsidy, it generally doesn’t even cover the plane tickets. And Air Force moved to the AHA to be in the same league as Army. That’s not likely to change.
Click to expand...

with 28 games (14 series) that each team plays, consider MTU;

this last season tech played two series against UAH, BSU, NMU, MSU, & UAA - one series against FSU, UAF, BGSU, & LSSU.

now considering the regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

i would have tech play;

four series against MSU, BSU, & NMU (12 series) - one series against a west region team (let's say at home), and one series against a east region team (let's say away).

the following year, you keep the 12 series within your region but you play another west team away, and another east team at home.

as an example;

year 1, UAF at home and LSSU away
year 2, UAA away and FSU at home
year 3, AF at home and BGSU away
year 4, ASU away and UAH at home

then you repeat flip-flopping things...

the travel time and cost is considerably less. its a fact.

want to increase the number of NC games by two? play only one region per year.

year 1, UAF at home
year 2, LSSU away
year 3, UAA at home
year 4, FSU away
year 5, AF at home
year 6, BGSU away
year 7, ASU at home
year 8, UAH away

and personally, because of the rivalries, i would love to play MSU, BSU, and NMU eight times per year; besides the travel, attendance would be better.

and do you think the alaska teams will complain about playing each other four more times? do you think they will complain about having denver and phoenix as airports to land on? doubt it...

is ASU and AF joining the WCHA a pipe dream? so be it...

while not as good, you can accomplish the same 'type of thing' with two regions of five teams each.

just ideas... the day everybody agrees on this, its the day nobody is thinking.

GO TECH GOLD!
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

DrunkTrainPolka said:
with 28 games (14 series) that each team plays, consider MTU;

this last season tech played two series against UAH, BSU, NMU, MSU, & UAA - one series against FSU, UAF, BGSU, & LSSU.

now considering the regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

i would have tech play;

four series against MSU, BSU, & NMU (12 series) - one series against a west region team (let's say at home), and one series against a east region team (let's say away).

the following year, you keep the 12 series within your region but you play another west team away, and another east team at home.

as an example;

year 1, UAF at home and LSSU away
year 2, UAA away and FSU at home
year 3, AF at home and BGSU away
year 4, ASU away and UAH at home

then you repeat flip-flopping things...

the travel time and cost is considerably less. its a fact.

want to increase the number of NC games by two? play only one region per year.

year 1, UAF at home
year 2, LSSU away
year 3, UAA at home
year 4, FSU away
year 5, AF at home
year 6, BGSU away
year 7, ASU at home
year 8, UAH away

and personally, because of the rivalries, i would love to play MSU, BSU, and NMU eight times per year; besides the travel, attendance would be better.

and do you think the alaska teams will complain about playing each other four more times? do you think they will complain about having denver and phoenix as airports to land on? doubt it...

is ASU and AF joining the WCHA a pipe dream? so be it...

while not as good, you can accomplish the same 'type of thing' with two regions of five teams each.

just ideas... the day everybody agrees on this, its the day nobody is thinking.

GO TECH GOLD!
Click to expand...
I like the smaller regions but I think having such a large percentage of games against three teams is a good thing. Possibly cut it back to 6 games against each in your region. (Ex: 4 at the Mac / 2 at the LiBerry this year switch next year)

That would give 3 extra weekends: An extra home vs other region, an extra away vs other region and an extra NC weekend.

I would still prefer the breakdown I mentioned earlier: home and away (4 vs each team) in your own region for 12 games. Two home series against teams from each other region for 8 games. Two away series against teams from each other region for 8 games. Total 28 conference games.

Teams would play every team in other regions one weekend every year.

Might not cut travel expenses as much as DTP's model, but it would be a good balance of the schedule.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

I can't see why AF would make the move. They are consistently one of the better teams in AHA. It might take a bit to be that kind of team in the WCHA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top