WCHA armchair expansion

[moose97]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

If Miami left and was a premier cause of the CCHA folding and the end of the WMU and BG hockey programs, they're going to want to skip the next dozen years worth of Mid-American Conference meetings and plan on not getting any favors in conference scheduling.

Really? No blame for OSU, MSU, Mich? No blame for poor attendance? No blame for an inability to fundraise to keep up with the rest of D-I hockey? It would all be on Miami?

 

[College Hockey Weekend]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

If Miami left and was a premier cause of the CCHA folding and the end of the WMU and BG hockey programs, they're going to want to skip the next dozen years worth of Mid-American Conference meetings and plan on not getting any favors in conference scheduling.

In my opinion, the question isn't "Will the CCHA fall?", it's "How far will they fall?". If I'm the CCHA right now I'd be more worried about getting my ducks in a row so that they don't fall further off the map than they need to and do everything they can to keep the conference together.

 

[bronconick]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Really? No blame for OSU, MSU, Mich? No blame for poor attendance? No blame for an inability to fundraise to keep up with the rest of D-I hockey? It would all be on Miami?

An 8 team CCHA minus MSU/UM/OSU is hanging on and #4/5 overall. A 6 team CCHA centered primarily in the State of Michigan barring an economic turnaround by 2014 is probably a handful less programs and a lonely Fairbanks.

And hey, maybe the threat of being shut down would be what gets Kalamazoo's downtown arena put on the ballot. Then I could be smug about my team's "fundraising to keep up" like people who get the state to pay for most of their new arena.

 

[thebrain]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Without Minnesota and Wisconsin, why would Notre Dame turn up its nose at the CCHA for the WCHA remnants?

Given that scenario, I think ND becomes the hot commodity between the CCHA trying to stop their bleeding and the WCHA trying to get some name recognition to replace the Gophers and Badgers.

I could see Niagara being interested in leaving Atlantic Hockey for the CCHA.

 

[dggoddard]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Think about it for a second: AF Cadets are everywhere!

Air Force can't recruit Canadians, doesn't have to worry about bugetary/travel costs and loves winning in the AHA. They aren't going anywhere.

The WCHA has hired a consulting company to help them through the transition, but there's just too much dead wood in the remnants of the WHCA for it to survive long term.

Four 6 team divisions. Play teams in your division four times each. Play four other teams in other divisions twice.

WIS
MN
PSU
MSU
MI
OSU

UAA
UNO
CC
DU
Notre Dame
Miami

UMD
MSU-M
SCSU
MSU
UND
AK

WMU
FSU
Tech
LSSU
NMU
BG

 

[moose97]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

And hey, maybe the threat of being shut down would be what gets Kalamazoo's downtown arena put on the ballot. Then I could be smug about my team's "fundraising to keep up" like people who get the state to pay for most of their new arena.

BSU got $5 million in donations just for hockey before an arena was anything close to a done deal. So what's Western and BG's excuse?

 

[thebrain]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

BSU got $5 million in donations just for hockey before an arena was anything close to a done deal. So what's Western and BG's excuse?

That it's always someone else's fault...

 

[Buck LeVasseur]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Would you rather play in a conference with Ferris State, Lake Superior State, Northern Michigan, Western Michigan, Alaska, Miami, and Bowling Green, or in a conference with North Dakota, Denver, Colorado College, Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud State, Nebraska-Omaha, Bemidji State, MSUMankato, Alaska-Anchorage, and Michigan Tech?

This, of course, would be in there were no other major conference changes.

In that scenario, Miami and Notre Dame are virtual locks year in and year out for an NCAA tourney birth. Put them in a conference with the remnants of the WCHA and suddenly it's a battle every year for the tourney. It depends how the administration views the situation. Either play in a really tough conference and be battle tested for if/when you make the NCAA's, or be happy making the tournament every year while dominating a lesser conference. Considering the auto-bids would likely be the same, if I'm Miami I'd stay in the weaker conference.

 

[thebrain]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

In that scenario, Miami and Notre Dame are virtual locks year in and year out for an NCAA tourney birth. Put them in a conference with the remnants of the WCHA and suddenly it's a battle every year for the tourney. It depends how the administration views the situation. Either play in a really tough conference and be battle tested for if/when you make the NCAA's, or be happy making the tournament every year while dominating a lesser conference. Considering the auto-bids would likely be the same, if I'm Miami I'd stay in the weaker conference.

Would Miami and Notre Dame be getting top recruits to play those schools? How much money would that conference tournament make? Will WMU, LSSU, and BGSU still be around? Notre Dame will have a quality arena soon too. How many people in South Bend would come out to see Notre Dame vs. Lake State or Bowling Green? I see what you're saying, but where will they make more money?

 

[Biddco]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Air Force can't recruit Canadians, doesn't have to worry about bugetary/travel costs and loves winning in the AHA. They aren't going anywhere.

The WCHA has hired a consulting company to help them through the transition, but there's just too much dead wood in the remnants of the WHCA for it to survive long term.

Four 6 team divisions. Play teams in your division four times each. Play four other teams in other divisions twice.

WIS
MN
PSU
MSU
MI
OSU

UAA
UNO
CC
DU
Notre Dame
Miami

UMD
MSU-M
SCSU
MSU
UND
AK

WMU
FSU
Tech
LSSU
NMU
BG

I've seen you post this before and I am assuming someone asked you about having an auto bid? Would they rather have this huge confrence rather than lose an auto bid?

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

InEither play in a really tough conference and be battle tested for if/when you make the NCAA's, or be happy making the tournament every year while dominating a lesser conference. Considering the auto-bids would likely be the same, if I'm Miami I'd stay in the weaker conference.

The best recruits want to play against the best competition they can. And that's why most schools want to play in the toughest conference they can, so they can draw the highest level of recruit.

 

[Rhett]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

There's a supposition here that none of the non-B10 WCHA programs will backslide and all of the CCHA besides Miami and Notre Dame will be mortally stricken by the formation of the B10. The reality is that some schools in both conferences will suffer and some schools in both conferences will fill the competitive void left by the departing programs. The identities of some of these schools seem predictable, but we'll probably all be surprised by a couple of cases.

I think everyone here is educated enough in college hockey to know that the 10 remaining WCHA programs are collectively more attractive opponents than the 6 non-Miami, non-Notre Dame remaining CCHA programs. I think the pull of those WCHA programs is being overstated, however, and there are several reasons to believe that, assuming no one else folds or switches conferences pre-emptively, Miami & Notre Dame will stay put.

The main issue is, of course, economics. Travel to the WCHA schools is going to be more expensive. Niether conference can envision a lucrative television contract, even if one raids the other, so that cuts against conference changes that raise costs. Most revenue comes through ticket sales, but Miami and (to a lesser extent) Notre Dame are on the fringes of the college hockey universe, and WCHA does not have the type of all-sports 'name' programs that can be expected to drive the needle much further than the (at least) more local CCHA programs. Even a slight up-tick, once again, would not offset the travel.

There is also a loyalty/tradition component. Nowadays, this isn't worth much more than a tiebreaker when compared to the value of the dollar, but since the WCHA's case is underwhelming, it probably still holds a good deal of value here. Miami abandoning WMU & BGSU is almost unfathomable considering their MAC ties. There are, no doubt, strong relationships across the CCHA schools, which would be harder to sever when you consider how a conference shift could imperil the conference and some of its members' programs. I also think there would be outside pressure (CHI, commissioners, etc.) to maintain the integrity of the conference for as long as possible, at least until things stabilize, and attempt to make sure that everyone finds a chair.

 

[UML]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

All this uncertainty is why Hockey East is best

 

[Biddco]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

All this uncertainty is why Hockey East is best

I have been thinking that...All the eastern schools do not have anything to worry about

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The fact that teams recieve up to two additional games for making a trip to Alaska incentivizes keeping the two Alaskan programs in separate conferences, in order to (1) share the burden of travel among as many schools as possible and (2) share the benefit of the extra games among as many schools as possible. When they joined their current conferences after the Great West collapsed, I think the powers that be at western hockey schools understood this. I'm not sure how much people remember these facts when they comment on the situation, since just this week Rick Comley mentioned he thought the Alaska schools should be in 1 conference during his (likely final) weekly press conference.

Also, the Alaska schools are such outliers that claiming they are a better geographic fit in the WCHA than the CCHA is basically a semantic argument. Sure, technically Fairbanks is closer to more WCHA cities than CCHA cities, but the distances to all are so great and the flights are so long, that there isn't a significant functional difference.

When there are some programs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, etc., then we might see a conference worth moving both Alaska schools to. Until then, keep them apart. It just makes more sense.

NO. It doesn't. Unless your viewpoint is wholly colored by self-interest. Then yeah it makes more sense.

Every other active rivalry in college hockey (except MTU/NMU) is contested within a conference. To say that UAA and UAF can't have theirs just because they're a 5 hour plane ride from Minneapolis or a 6 hour plane ride from Chicago or Detroit is nothing short of hilarious.

How many college hockey teams take 6 hour bus rides EVERY WEEKEND? Or longer? UAA and UAF have (to slightly different degrees) long paid the majority of travel expenses for any school coming here to play.

There is one reason and one reason only that the WCHA and CCHA conspired to keep the Alaska schools in separate conferences. Because the coaches at that time (and probably now) are vaginal surrogates. Yep. It needs to be said.

UAF and UAA travel to the lower 48 every season. Yet historically both finish in the 20-30 KRACH range year after year. That's 6, 7 or 8 such road trips every year.

I've broken down the amount of money that each WCHA school makes by taking a trip to Alaska. With the schedule as it is ... not every school gets to maximize this revenue stream. So they come up during the tournaments that UAA and UAF host every year. It's a pretty simple calculation to figure out exactly how much money a WCHA school makes from playing a home game. Most people could do it in their head. I used to use $15 per seat as a factor and in Wisconsin's case it was still **** near a quarter of a million dollars of revenue from the Alaska exemptions.

Do UAF and UAA get any exemptions from their multiple trips? No. Instead they get punished by their hegemonic conferences. They pay for travel and the visiting schools get to go back and make oodles of cash just because they were brave enough to take a five or six hour plane ride?

The time has come to start calling all this what it is. It's a straight up old style monopolistic trust. I honestly believe that should someone actually bring up a court case that the NCAA, WCHA and CCHA would face some severe penalties. UAA and UAF though haven't been interested in pursuing that path, instead they've quietly gone along with the status quo for the sake of continuing to play. As the WCHA and CCHA break down with BTHC departures, UAA and UAF will combine their efforts and use the power of Alaska/Hawaii rule to better advantage. No longer will the BS excuse that taking a six hour plane ride is a burden prevail. Because it isn't. It's just that simple.

 

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

NO. It doesn't. Unless your viewpoint is wholly colored by self-interest. Then yeah it makes more sense.

Every other active rivalry in college hockey (except MTU/NMU) is contested within a conference. To say that UAA and UAF can't have theirs just because they're a 5 hour plane ride from Minneapolis or a 6 hour plane ride from Chicago or Detroit is nothing short of hilarious.

How many college hockey teams take 6 hour bus rides EVERY WEEKEND? Or longer? UAA and UAF have (to slightly different degrees) long paid the majority of travel expenses for any school coming here to play.

There is one reason and one reason only that the WCHA and CCHA conspired to keep the Alaska schools in separate conferences. Because the coaches at that time (and probably now) are vaginal surrogates. Yep. It needs to be said.

UAF and UAA travel to the lower 48 every season. Yet historically both finish in the 20-30 KRACH range year after year. That's 6, 7 or 8 such road trips every year.

I've broken down the amount of money that each WCHA school makes by taking a trip to Alaska. With the schedule as it is ... not every school gets to maximize this revenue stream. So they come up during the tournaments that UAA and UAF host every year. It's a pretty simple calculation to figure out exactly how much money a WCHA school makes from playing a home game. Most people could do it in their head. I used to use $15 per seat as a factor and in Wisconsin's case it was still **** near a quarter of a million dollars of revenue from the Alaska exemptions.

Do UAF and UAA get any exemptions from their multiple trips? No. Instead they get punished by their hegemonic conferences. They pay for travel and the visiting schools get to go back and make oodles of cash just because they were brave enough to take a five or six hour plane ride?

The time has come to start calling all this what it is. It's a straight up old style monopolistic trust. I honestly believe that should someone actually bring up a court case that the NCAA, WCHA and CCHA would face some severe penalties. UAA and UAF though haven't been interested in pursuing that path, instead they've quietly gone along with the status quo for the sake of continuing to play. As the WCHA and CCHA break down with BTHC departures, UAA and UAF will combine their efforts and use the power of Alaska/Hawaii rule to better advantage. No longer will the BS excuse that taking a six hour plane ride is a burden prevail. Because it isn't. It's just that simple.

It's not the travel cost in time that matters, it is the travel cost in dollars that does. Not to mention that the whole trip becomes a logistical nightmare for all teams (I recognize that this is no less the case for the AK schools, but they are more used to challanges). UAA and UAF agreed to the travel-funding arraingment when they applied to join the conferences. They can end that arraingment any time that they want by leaving the conference, the fact that they have not means that the administrations would rather continue with the status quo then go back to independent status.

Would many of the larger schools be willing and able to make trips up to one of the Alaska schools every year? Most likely. Would that correspond to being able to fill a full slate of games? Highly unlikely.

I was under the impression that any susbsidy of the travel costs for the WCHA schools was slowly being phased out. As things stand UAA shouldn't be paying any travel subsidies toe MSUM, BSU, or UNO since they joined the conference AFTER UAA.

 

[AKJD]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Regarding sharing the burden of travel, cry me a river. Regarding equally distributing the benefits of extra games, there's nothing saying that the teams from the league without an Alaska school couldn't come up here for non-conference play. Both teams would have a freed up weekend to play a non-conference series, as their rivalry could be moved to league games, and there's still the two tournaments. That makes six teams that could take advantage of the exemptions, and if you reduce league games, you could add more non-conference weekends as well. That's a pretty good portion of a league that could make it every year. Those that don't see the benefit, would never have to play up here again, and those that do, could continue to do so.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The best recruits want to play against the best competition they can. And that's why most schools want to play in the toughest conference they can, so they can draw the highest level of recruit.

If Miami and Notre Dame are making the tourney every year and doing well the recruits will go there. I know you think the sky is falling, but It is not. The WCHA and CCHA team will be just fine. they will have less money in their pocket from the Big ten schools leaving, but the good programs will be just fine.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

It's not the travel cost in time that matters, it is the travel cost in dollars that does. Not to mention that the whole trip becomes a logistical nightmare for all teams (I recognize that this is no less the case for the AK schools, but they are more used to challanges).

If the difference between packing their own bags into a bus and having airline baggage handlers put it inside a plane translates to "nightmare" then I guess you have a point. Or could it be all the singling out that TSA does to UND players at the airport in Grand Forks. No doubt that team is really tired of having to go through full body scanners and being singled out for full body patdowns randomly: nightmarish.

Truth is travel to Alaska is looked at as a problem because people look at a map and think, "wow, that's a long way away." Perception. Nothing more. And there isn't a program in the WCHA that isn't fully cognizant of exactly how to make the trip to Alaska in the most efficient way possible. They've all done it plenty of times. If needed, I'm sure the helpful staffs at UAA and UAF can provide advice as to tricks of the trade and potential gotchas. We're helpful like that.

UAA and UAF agreed to the travel-funding arraingment when they applied to join the conferences. They can end that arraingment any time that they want by leaving the conference, the fact that they have not means that the administrations would rather continue with the status quo then go back to independent status.

Yes they can. And just as Bucky has an alternative when it chooses to leave the WCHA ... UAA and UAF have alternatives (other than just being independent); none are particularly easy to make come to fruition ... yet they exist. In any case, yes ... the UAA and UAF administrations have chosen to "get along by going along" ... so far.

Would many of the larger schools be willing and able to make trips up to one of the Alaska schools every year? Most likely. Would that correspond to being able to fill a full slate of games? Highly unlikely.

There is no doubt that affiliation with the WCHA (the best conference blah blah blah) is the preferred model still for UAA. The relative uncertainty of scheduling year to year is a somewhat daunting prospect for the UAA administration. However, that said ... the prospect of some breakaway group of post-BTHC WCHA schools (i.e... the BHHC) does immediately give UAA and UAF some small measure of clout with which they can and should position themselves as a primary player in such discussions. The only thing they really want is to be in the same conference. Such a small demand (especially with the prospect of increased revenues for whoever else is involved) won't likely be a show stopper for their inclusion. An eight team conference of UAA, UAF, DU, CC, UMD, SCSU, Mankato and UND isn't perhaps the WCHA but it would have some strength in relative terms to anything else that forms. There are of course many configurations with which such a group might ultimately take shape.

I was under the impression that any susbsidy of the travel costs for the WCHA schools was slowly being phased out. As things stand UAA shouldn't be paying any travel subsidies toe MSUM, BSU, or UNO since they joined the conference AFTER UAA.

The phase-out has/is occurring thusly ... UAA pays the same amount today that it did when it joined. Has nothing to do with inflation. It's bookkeeping (it's been explained in detail to me ... however I'm not wel-versed in accounting). It goes into a WCHA pot (the word "fungible" comes to mind as applicable). MSUM, BSU and UNO take the same share out of that pot as does UofM or UW. So it's painted as a lesser subsidy (even by UAA) ... only because the existing schools got a little bit less of the largess pie. The WCHA isn't a purely capitalist model ... it's more of a mixed Socialist/Capitalist enterprise (all NCAA conferences in all sports are thus).

 

[komey1]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

I could see Niagara being interested in leaving Atlantic Hockey for the CCHA.

I think they would leave in a heartbeat. Plus, Huntsville would LOVE to be in a conference.

If the CCHA were going to look to expand, I would target Niagara and RIT. I think the Tigers would take a HARD look at that considering their own scholarship limitations. The upside of RIT is that fundraising for a new area has started and I expect would be big enough to play in either the CCHA or ECAC should the opportunity come.