WCHA armchair expansion

[bigmrg74]

I think the whole of Division II football would love it if we did. Not that many DII teams out west as is.

Yeah, the GNAC for sure would love it if both Anchorage and Fairbanks would build small domes and add football. It would really stabilize the GNAC, and with the Alaska exemption, all those schools would be able to have an extra game that they could play if they wanted to play and if they could find a dance partner for a weekend.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

You know what's almost as good as nachos? Frito pie, mmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Did you know that Fritos Brand Corn Chips are an excellent alternate choice as fire starting material in an emergency.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

IMHO Ken Ralph was very direct about the matter.

He also had the opinion (this was just an opinion) that the WCHA would move forward as a 10 team league. They obviously have time to work that out. He made the point that they already know how to operate as a 10 team league. That may seem simply but makes sense to me.

Not to me, but I think it is a view held by quite a few Ad's in the WCHA. Possibly they think that the world will always be the same. However to be honest, the CCHA is toast as soon as the bthc is announced.( unless some of the schools who announced they would drop hockey have changed their mind)
The 4-5 teams left in the CCHA afterwards are going to need a place to play.

The WCHA has to face facts. They can make changes that benefit college hockey as a whole or do nothing and end up with egg on their face.

 

[kingdobbs]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Knowing how closely BC and Notre Dame are tied in football, I'd be interested to see if Hockey East takes a look at perhaps adding Notre Dame if they could make the travel work. In that same light, I've also wondered if Miami might be a candidate, but I haven't heard Hockey East mentioned at all in terms of expansion. Just a thought I've had.

Hockey East has no compelling need to expand. That is not to say that the onset of a BTHC might not change their mind, but just that in and of itself does not create a need to get bigger.

The facts in play:
1) Competitively, Hockey East is typically the second-best conference in Division I, and frequently the best. Miami and Notre Dame would make them better, but as a whole, they don't need to be there.
2) Hockey East is the most compact league in all of Division I. Poopoo the matter of travel distance all you want (especially if you think the Eastern perception of distance is ludicrous), but the fact that nearly every team is an afternoon's bus ride from every other is a powerful thing. Adding Miami and Notre Dame guarantees a flight every year, and kills off the possibility of doing home-and-homes throughout the whole league schedule.
3) The Big 4 (Maine/UNH/BU/BC) might welcome more competitive teams, but will the "Little Six"? Will Northeastern or UML vote to make their path to winning the league more difficult? Will PC or Merrimack (this year's results aside) vote to further marginalize themselves?

Hockey East standing pat is probably the most likely thing to happen.

 

[Squarebanks]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Actually it's only 8 hours. Flights between MSP and ANC are only about 6 hours, add in prep time you're looking at no more than 10. Plus UAA has a nice working relationship with Delta Airlines (a product of almost 20 years of constant travel on their airline) that expedites baggage handling including waiving of baggage fees and weight fees or at the least reduced rates. As for inflexibility, who cares about changing schedules when all things are planned out in advance, typically 3-4 months before the season starts, the only concerns are weather or equipment related issues, no way a group 30+ will get bumped because things are overbooked, especially when the people buying the tickets buy hundreds.

Donald may be a little heavy on the capitalist conspiracy stuff but the essence of his arguement is correct, the biggest issue of the travel is perception. All that is looked at is the number of miles to travel and they freak. UAA and UAF do it multiple times a season with little issue, as do sports teams in the GNAC.

The biggest key to this, UAF may actually be looking forward to leaving the CCHA as, apparently, they are getting taken to the woodshed on airline tickets from the Michigan schools (supposedly it's around 20 each for them). They were looking to leave the last time around but the WCHA took Omaha instead.

There are two ways to make a 12 team conference with UAA and UAF work while minimizing travel. The first solution is just to use the current pod system. Basically just pair UAA and UAF and then each season two teams have to make both trips, have those two schools do that trip in back to back weekends (in similar matter that UAA does back to back road series now) in January to minimize time lost in class. It might cost a little bit extra in hotel but that can be minimized as well.

The other solution is to have each play each once home and away and do the games in Alaska in one weekend as the GNAC schools do. It allows for more non-conference games to scheduled as well. Either way, the arguements used against having UAA and UAF in the same conference are frivilous.

Last I heard it was 25 tickets (you're welcome, Rick Comley). Like UAA with Delta, we have arrangements with Alaska Airlines that waive baggage fees and all that other good stuff. Quite frankly, if Alaska Air ever starts flying to Detroit that will probably help us out a lot.

If I were the WCHA (or CCHA for that matter), I would WANT both of the Alaska schools. Why? Double the refreshment, double the fun, and double the exemption revenues. Travel can be dealth with; I'd even venture to say that hockey is about the whiniest of the NCAA sports when it comes to travel. Long plane rides are the norm in football and basketball.

Contrary to our dear friend Alaska Hockey's ramblings, I think if it hadn't been for Blais at UNO, UAF would be in the WCHA already. The WCHA doesn't strike me as a league that would leave that kind of money on the table. UNO had stated for years they wanted to stay in the CCHA because of the ties to the big football schools (Michigan, OSU, Notre Dame, etc.), since Nebraska is a football-heavy state. However the minute they hired Blais that attitude did a 180.

Now here's a scenario, hypothetical of course, for you and Donald to ponder: Let's say BTHC happens, and the CCHA kids that got picked last are trying to salvage what's left of a conference that has been dominated, both competitively and financially, by the two big Michigan schools since forever. If the CCHA went to UAF and UAA and said that they would renogiate the travel deals to a fraction of current levels, in order to get double the number of exemptions for the remaining schools (equating possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional revenue), would you want UAA to make the jump to the new CCHA?

 

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

If I were the WCHA (or CCHA for that matter), I would WANT both of the Alaska schools. Why? Double the refreshment, double the fun, and double the exemption revenues.

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

The exemption only matters if you have no problem filling your non-conference schedule with home games. If you can't then the exemption just adds to the difficulty in fining enough non-conference games. (I suspect that UAH would be glad to fill any of those dates they can)

The only way that both teams are in the same conference is is the conference schedule is set up so that teams only have to make one trip up to AK during the regular season. Such as with a 12 team conference where you play each team once (2 games) either home or away, except your rival who you would play both at home and on the road. That would work out to a 24 game conference schedule allowing 12 non-conference games.

I suspect that the remaining WCHA teams will want to remain in a 10 team conference. The CCHA will have the opportunity to add UAH, or raid Atlantic Hockey for Niagara, and/or Mercyhurst if they need teams.

 

[darker98]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

Once the B10 hockey schools leave the CCHA the rest of the teams will be much richer. " don't know how to make the roll eyes"

 

[Squarebanks]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

Teams are not going to want to make 2 trips up per season, particularly if they have to pay for both of them and when the alternative is a simple bus trip away.

You wouldn't have to make two trips per season.

The exemption only matters if you have no problem filling your non-conference schedule with home games. If you can't then the exemption just adds to the difficulty in fining enough non-conference games. (I suspect that UAH would be glad to fill any of those dates they can)

The exemption doesn't matter? Tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars might be used to wipe your rear end at Minnesota or Wisconsin, but to a smaller school that's a big chunk of money.

The only way that both teams are in the same conference is is the conference schedule is set up so that teams only have to make one trip up to AK during the regular season. Such as with a 12 team conference where you play each team once (2 games) either home or away, except your rival who you would play both at home and on the road. That would work out to a 24 game conference schedule allowing 12 non-conference games.

That was my point. As it is now, five (or is it six?) CCHA teams only go to Fairbanks once every other year. That means that every other year they are losing out on the exemptions.

With UAF and UAA together, just set the schedule so that you go to Anchorage one year and Fairbanks the next year. Rinse, wash, repeat, and you get an exemption every year.

I think the potential of a large amount of extra annual revenue more than outweighs ****ing and moaning about getting on a plane once a year.

I suspect that the remaining WCHA teams will want to remain in a 10 team conference. The CCHA will have the opportunity to add UAH, or raid Atlantic Hockey for Niagara, and/or Mercyhurst if they need teams.

You might very well be right that the WCHA stays at 10 and flips the bird to the rest of the non-B10 schools. But they would be pretty **** stupid to not consider the money they would leave on the table.

 

[Alton]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

The exemption is limited to 2 games per season per team.

This is simply untrue. Please refer to NCAA Bylaw 17.12.5.3 (i).

 

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

You wouldn't have to make two trips per season.

In any setup to fill a 28 game conference schedule some teams would be required to make 2 trips up to AK each season.

The exemption doesn't matter? Tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars might be used to wipe your rear end at Minnesota or Wisconsin, but to a smaller school that's a big chunk of money.

The exemption only matters if it INCREASES the number of home games that you can play, if you can't fill those game, end up going on the road for those games the exemption doesn't bring in any additional revenue.

You must be able to schedule additional home games for the exemption to result in increases revenue as opposed to just increased costs.

It's not that the exemption doesn't matter, just that it isn't as simple as exemption=more revenue.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

I see what you're saying Squarebanks, get both Alaska schools into a league so that the whole league would be able to get to use the Alaska Exemption. Could work, you would just have to base all of your scheduling around getting teams there first, and probably working it for whenever a team would have to go to both schools that season, they could just go to Fairbanks one week, and then Anchorage the next. Locking up all of the Alaska schools in one league would slash the number of schools that get to enjoy that occasionally, and would make getting non-conference games with them a bigger deal. I could see how that might work out to be a good deal.

 

[Almington]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

This is simply untrue. Please refer to NCAA Bylaw 17.12.5.3 (i).

I stand corrected:

(i) Hawaii or Alaska. Any games played in Hawaii or Alaska, respectively, against an active Division I member
institution located in Hawaii or Alaska, by a member located outside the area in question; (Adopted:
1/9/96 effective 8/1/96)

My point that you need to fill those exemptions with home games to increase revenue still stands.

 

[darker98]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

I see what you're saying Squarebanks, get both Alaska schools into a league so that the whole league would be able to get to use the Alaska Exemption. Could work, you would just have to base all of your scheduling around getting teams there first, and probably working it for whenever a team would have to go to both schools that season, they could just go to Fairbanks one week, and then Anchorage the next. Locking up all of the Alaska schools in one league would slash the number of schools that get to enjoy that occasionally, and would make getting non-conference games with them a bigger deal. I could see how that might work out to be a good deal.

Yes, Teams like Western Michigan will be lucky to break even making an extra trip up and hopefully getting 2 more games at home.

 

[4four4]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Long plane rides are the norm in football and basketball.

Contrary to our dear friend Alaska Hockey's ramblings, I think if it hadn't been for Blais at UNO, UAF would be in the WCHA already. The WCHA doesn't strike me as a league that would leave that kind of money on the table. UNO had stated for years they wanted to stay in the CCHA because of the ties to the big football schools (Michigan, OSU, Notre Dame, etc.), since Nebraska is a football-heavy state. However the minute they hired Blais that attitude did a 180.

Once UNO hired Trev Alberts is the day everything changed. From what I have heard he privately wanted UNO to be in the best college hockey conference in the country.

Let's say BTHC happens, and the CCHA kids that got picked last are trying to salvage what's left of a conference that has been dominated, both competitively and financially, by the two big Michigan schools since forever.

For good or bad the BTHC is happening in our lifetime. PSU would not have gone Division one if they felt the BTHC wasn't in their sight.

 

[Red Cows]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Contrary to our dear friend Alaska Hockey's ramblings, I think if it hadn't been for Blais at UNO, UAF would be in the WCHA already. The WCHA doesn't strike me as a league that would leave that kind of money on the table. UNO had stated for years they wanted to stay in the CCHA because of the ties to the big football schools (Michigan, OSU, Notre Dame, etc.), since Nebraska is a football-heavy state. However the minute they hired Blais that attitude did a 180.

This is totally untrue.

UNO wanted into the WCHA from the get-go in 1997. They tried, too.

The WCHA wanted us and they wanted us to wait two full seasons for full membership! UNO got huffy and said, fine, we'll take our 6,389 season ticket holders and sellouts, so far, of every game we have played so far in our (then) 8,314 seat arena and go to the CCHA, who will admit us right away, and, that's what they did. This was a "we're trying to establish our program" decision more than anything else, and, a little bit of ego. I don't know where you got the notion that you did that this had anything to with UNO wanting to be in the CCHA because of it's ties to big football schools. That's just utter nonsense and doesn't make an iota of sense, anyway.There is no way UNO could benefit from it even if it WERE true. What does Nebraska being a "football heavy state" have to do with this on any level? UNO plays Division 2 football.

 

[UML]

Knowing how closely BC and Notre Dame are tied in football, I'd be interested to see if Hockey East takes a look at perhaps adding Notre Dame if they could make the travel work. In that same light, I've also wondered if Miami might be a candidate, but I haven't heard Hockey East mentioned at all in terms of expansion. Just a thought I've had.

Hockey East will not be looking at adding these two. If anything maybe UConn down the road.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Last I heard it was 25 tickets (you're welcome, Rick Comley). Like UAA with Delta, we have arrangements with Alaska Airlines that waive baggage fees and all that other good stuff. Quite frankly, if Alaska Air ever starts flying to Detroit that will probably help us out a lot.

I know it was an outrageous number for you guys, like I said the Michigan schools are taking you to the woodshed.

If I were the WCHA (or CCHA for that matter), I would WANT both of the Alaska schools. Why? Double the refreshment, double the fun, and double the exemption revenues. Travel can be dealth with; I'd even venture to say that hockey is about the whiniest of the NCAA sports when it comes to travel. Long plane rides are the norm in football and basketball.

I'd agree with that. I think a lot of it has to do with the regionalization that dominates college hockey still. Oh it's gotten better in the years but any team outside of Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New York, or New England is constantly whined about in one respect or another. It's one of things that, to me, inhibits expansion as well.

Now here's a scenario, hypothetical of course, for you and Donald to ponder: Let's say BTHC happens, and the CCHA kids that got picked last are trying to salvage what's left of a conference that has been dominated, both competitively and financially, by the two big Michigan schools since forever. If the CCHA went to UAF and UAA and said that they would renogiate the travel deals to a fraction of current levels, in order to get double the number of exemptions for the remaining schools (equating possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional revenue), would you want UAA to make the jump to the new CCHA?

Now that's a tough call, mostly because of the potential revenue we'd be giving up. I think it depend on making a good projection on what would happen. How is the WCHA tournament gonna be affected? (This is a big moneymaker for every WCHA team right now, obviously losing Wisconsin and Minnesota is going to have an effect on it but how much?) Would recruiting be affected? (Probably not but you don't know for sure) Would UAA be more competitive and have a better record? (This alone could have a huge financial impact, Anchorage is a notorious fairweather town) How much would UAA save from buying tickets compared to the money lost from leaving the WCHA would be a huge question.

Looking at it I'm 50/50 either way. I'd have to know the details to make a choice.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

I see what you're saying Squarebanks, get both Alaska schools into a league so that the whole league would be able to get to use the Alaska Exemption. Could work, you would just have to base all of your scheduling around getting teams there first, and probably working it for whenever a team would have to go to both schools that season, they could just go to Fairbanks one week, and then Anchorage the next. Locking up all of the Alaska schools in one league would slash the number of schools that get to enjoy that occasionally, and would make getting non-conference games with them a bigger deal. I could see how that might work out to be a good deal.

It really puts UAA and UAF in a better bargaining position for non-conference games certainly and, as a bit of quid pro quo, potentially for the members of their conference. Think about it, schools would be looking to travel to Alaska for the tournaments or NC games and UAA and UAF could drive hard bargains by saying "Ok but you'll have to schedule games against another member of our conference." It might be crazy but it could work on schools if UAA and UAF can make it work.

 

[darker98]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

It really puts UAA and UAF in a better bargaining position for non-conference games certainly and, as a bit of quid pro quo, potentially for the members of their conference. Think about it, schools would be looking to travel to Alaska for the tournaments or NC games and UAA and UAF could drive hard bargains by saying "Ok but you'll have to schedule games against another member of our conference." It might be crazy but it could work on schools if UAA and UAF can make it work.

I do not see this working.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: WCHA armchair expansion

Now here's a scenario, hypothetical of course, for you and Donald to ponder: Let's say BTHC happens, and the CCHA kids that got picked last are trying to salvage what's left of a conference that has been dominated, both competitively and financially, by the two big Michigan schools since forever. If the CCHA went to UAF and UAA and said that they would renogiate the travel deals to a fraction of current levels, in order to get double the number of exemptions for the remaining schools (equating possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional revenue), would you want UAA to make the jump to the new CCHA?

The attractiveness of having exempt games in your pocket is directly proportional to the number of butts in the seats that your arena regularly has. After the Big Ten schools in the CCHA attendance this year was ....
Miami - 3065
Western - 2983
Notre Dame - 2667
NMU - 2541
BGSU - 2169
LSSU - 2103
Ferris - 1743
St. Larry - 1646

The math from there is 2nd grade. There really isn't enough money in exemption for pretty much any of those schools to be very interested. 2 extra games at home for Miami (@ $20 a pop) is $120,000 ... 2 extra games at St. Larry (@ $20 a pop) is just $65,840. Compare that to 2 extra games for North Dakota (@ $25 a pop) is $575,000.

Let's imagine that all things breakdown into total chaos after the BTHC forms shall we? UAA and UAF band together and go shopping for other members to form the NWHA. Here's the schools you approach first ...

UND - 11500 per game
UNO - 8049 per game
CC - 6772 per game
SCSU - 5935 per game
UMD - 5897 per game
DU - 5423 per game

Now .. onto some incentives to perhaps bundle into the sales package ...

UAA and UAF structure three tournaments each to which they invite teams who love to get the exemptions -- we know Michigan, Michigan State, BU, BC, Maine, Mass Lowell, Vermont, Mass, Yale, RPI all take the invitation to come here whenever it is offered in the past because all of those school get attendance in their home rinks from 3000 to 8000 per game meaning they ALL make between $120,000 and $320,000 for two home games (using the $20 per pop number). Naturally, there are schools other than the ones I've listed above that would say yes to a tournament invitation.

So you might have a tournament season that looked like this for example...

UAF, DU, Vermont, UAA ...
UAA, BC, UAF, SCSU ...
UAF, Maine, UAA, UND ...
UAA, Yale, UAF, UMD ...
UAF, BU, CC, UAA ...
UAA, UNO, UAF, MSU ...

That way each of the six non-Alaska conference members gets two non-conference games to help fill out their schedule. They pocket the additional two exemptions from playing against an Alaska school in Alaska. Yes, they have to take an additional trip to Alaska to play ... but it gives them a chance to play typically highly rated teams in non-conference games on a neutral rink. That's RPI/Pairwise bonus stuff there.

I deliberately left Minnesota and Wisconsin off the tournament invitee list because fans at both of those schools have convinced me that their programs will not be interested in traveling up to Alaska to make money. All the schools I did list (as well as the potential conference members I've listed) have in the past attended non-conference tournaments in Alaska in order to gain the additional exemptions in years they weren't otherwise scheduled to come here.

A 21 game schedule might be a good way to approach the thing. UAA and UAF could cluster their home schedules somehow to ease the travel of each member for example ... DU arrives in Anchorage on Thursday, plays UAA on Saturday and UAF on Monday/Tuesday. The next week CC plays UAF on Saturday then UAA on Monday/Tuesday. In both cases DU and CC would be back in school on Wednesday. UAA and UAF would likewise play three game series on their road trips. Perhaps even three different teams .. DU on Friday, CC on Saturday and UNO on Monday.

Of course, making something like that work scheduling-wise eliminates to so degree the weekend 2 game series perhaps. Maybe it works .. maybe it doesn't. Just the first thing that comes into my head when you've got 7 other teams to play against. Or maybe a team plays UAA on a Sunday/Monday then UAF on Thursday/Friday (or some other variation).

I'd tend to think that there is an attractive way to promote the concept via scheduling. Maybe those schools would be more interested in a longer conference schedule? If so, then you play 28 conference games and UAA and UAF wouldn't host 3 tournaments each.

So those seem to me to be just a few ways that you make membership attractive to schools who would all be looking for a conference should the sky fall when the BTHC forms. The primary point is that UAA and UAF have a bit more clout when they work together on such things.

Lastly, I'm not one to think that calamity will be the result of BTHC formation. But if it did, UAA and UAF could help build a fairly strong conference out of the ashes.