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, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

JF_Gophers said:
Hahah that would be funny. Big Ten takes Huntsville but won't take Notre Dame. :D
Click to expand...

"They deal with rockets and space and stuff. That's kind of like being AAU, and it's not like we can fall back on that elitism anymore now that we took a bunch of rednecks like Nebraska."
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

SCSU Euro said:
Not sure if you're off on your math, I'm off on my math, or if I'm misunderstanding, but don't all teams travel to both sites every other year? Let's take one team in this example, SCSU. SCSU (just like every other Western team) will travel to Anchorage every year. We will play Fairbanks every year, with every other year it being in Fairbanks.
Click to expand...
Its a proposed 10-team league so you don't play every team four times as you would in an 8-team league.

SCSU would play UAA home and away every year.

SCSU would play UA every second year. So every fourth year they would travel to Fairbanks.

Year 1 - SCSU @ UA [Fairbanks]
Year 2 - SCSU would not play UA
Year 3 - SCSU vs. UA [St. Cloud]
Year 4 - SCSU would not play UA
Repeat

Year 1 - MSU-M vs. UA [Mankato]
Year 2 - MSU-M would not play UA
Year 3 - MSU-M @ UA [Fairbanks]
Year 4 - MSU-M would not play UA
Repeat

Year 1 - BSU would not play UA
Year 2 - BSU @ UA [Fairbanks]
Year 3 - BSU would not play UA
Year 4 - BSU vs. UA [Bemidji]
repeat

Year 1 - MTU would not play UA
Year 2 - MTU vs. UA [Houghton]
Year 3 - MTU would not play UA
Year 4 - MTU @ UA [Fairbanks]
repeat

UAA & UA would play four times every year.
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

bronconick said:
So the remaining CCHA teams should take up the fallen banner of the CHA of being "available" out west if someone wants to add the sport so everyone else can feel good about themselves?

Yeah, I can't see why that idea doesn't thrill them.
Click to expand...

The remaining CCHA teams should be all for this merger. I wasn't speaking in their best interest. For me personally, I'd like to see the sport grow, and having smaller conferences is the best way to do that in my eyes. A WCHA-CCHA merger screws teams over too....namely UAH, and AHA programs that are unable to improve their situation. Conference realignment is not easy, and someone is going to end up on the short end of it.
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

dggoddard said:
SCSU would play UAA home and away every year.

SCSU would play UA every second year. So every fourth year they would travel to Fairbanks.
Click to expand...

You said 28 game regular season. So SCSU plays MTU, UAA, BSU and MSU-M 4 times each. 4x4=16
SCSU plays their rival 4 times yearly. Let's say for the sake of argument we get BG. 4
We're at 20 games. There are 8 games that need to still be played. There are 4 opponents we haven't played. So we'd play them each once, half of them on the road half in even. So let's say odd years we play at LSSU and FSU, so we'd host UA_ and NMU in odd years. Then in even we'd be at UA_ and NMU, hosting LSSU and FSU.

So how is that not going to both Alaska schools every other year?
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

SCSU Euro said:
You said 28 game regular season. So SCSU plays MTU, UAA, BSU and MSU-M 4 times each. 4x4=16
SCSU plays their rival 4 times yearly. Let's say for the sake of argument we get BG. 4
We're at 20 games. There are 8 games that need to still be played. There are 4 opponents we haven't played. So we'd play them each once, half of them on the road half in even. So let's say odd years we play at LSSU and FSU, so we'd host UA_ and NMU in odd years. Then in even we'd be at UA_ and NMU, hosting LSSU and FSU.

So how is that not going to both Alaska schools every other year?
Click to expand...
My mistake you are correct. :)

But that being said playing UAA & UA twice in Alaska every two seasons would be preferable than playing them both up there every season if Fairbanks was admitted to the WCHA. Not mention the possibility of having to go up there a third time for the first round of the playoffs.
 
Last edited:
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

dggoddard said:
Possible Schedule:

28 Games. You play every team in your division four times, plus a natural rival four times [UAA-UA, MTU-NMU, SCSU/BSU/MSUM-BG/FSU/LSSU] and the remaining four teams in the other division twice.

The non-Alaskan teams would only have to play both UAA & UA in Alaska once every four seasons. Plus the teams going up there each season could go up on the same week as another school and flip-flop. Viola - One trip to Alaska per year and possibly no classes missed if they can swing it over breaks.

Assume the Alaska schools could cover the hotel bill as it would save on airfare. You could shave two days off the hotel bill by scheduling a Saturday-Sunday series the first weekend and Thursday-Friday series the second weekend

West
UAA
MTU
SCSU
MSUM
BSU


East
UA
NMU
BG
FSU
LSSU
Click to expand...

So you're going to convince the Alaska schools to play half of their conference home games on weeknights as opposed to weekends and to play more of their home games during holiday breaks, which traditionally are not great attendance nights? Now you want the schools that are traveling to miss 8 school days instead of six when they have to play both. For a Friday/ Saturday & Wednesday/ Thursday setup, teams generally leave on Wednesday. So you lose 3 school days that week, plus the entire following week. By traveling to both stops separately, they would lose Wed-Fri in each of those weeks, for a total of six days. The NCAA has limits on the number of class days that can be missed. And when you consider that those Mankato-Lake State or Bemidji-Ferris trips are 2 day bus rides, giving up two extra days for Alaska is not a good idea.
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

A new merged W-C CHA really makes no sense for the schools that would be in the new conference. Many posters have already given the obvious points - Loss of an auto bid and it really sends the NCAA back to the conference gridlock it had before this all started. Because if you think the new boys out west around going to take on a new program just because they have space, think again. They'll look to the W-C CHA and say, "Hey, you guys have room, you take them. They're not good enough to compete in our league..." If this wasn't the case, they would have already taken Western or anyone else who wanted to join them.

The one possibility that could make sense is a fixed schedule interlocking between the WCHA and CCHA. Just do it on a trial basis and then see how it goes before you lock in for a decade of games. If it sets up a four year rotation, play through two years of it and then make a long term decision. With an interlock schedule, teams can ease into their new league, but still have some preset games against old rivals. This worked well getting HE up to speed in the 1980s so I think it would work again. Plus it would save teams from having to find a relatively high number of non-conference opponents. Or it could be viewed as a way of sticking it to the NaCHo and BI6Ten programs. "Oh, sorry we can't come to your BI6 NaCHo rink and play this year, our NC schedule is already full. Why don't you just play each other again and drive down your RPI farther with a few more losses..."

I would be VERY suprised if the CCHA and WCHA merged. It wouldn't be good for the members of either league or the NCAA hockey scene in general. Plus I think UAH would riot if the conferences are "full" after all this is over. I would be fine with the WCHA picking them up after the Bemidji / UNO additions a few years back. That was in the best interest of the WCHA, so now they should do something in the best interest of college hockey.

I honestly think that the WCHA will poach a few more CCHA teams and that the AHA will lose a few teams to the CCHA who want to up their number of financial packages. It think 8-9 team conferences would be best for college hockey because it allows room for future moves (new teams or conference changes) without a dozen other dominoes having to fall for one move, like happened this time.

Ryan J
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

davyd83 said:
So you're going to convince the Alaska schools to play half of their conference home games on weeknights as opposed to weekends and to play more of their home games during holiday breaks, which traditionally are not great attendance nights? Now you want the schools that are traveling to miss 8 school days instead of six when they have to play both. For a Friday/ Saturday & Wednesday/ Thursday setup, teams generally leave on Wednesday. So you lose 3 school days that week, plus the entire following week. By traveling to both stops separately, they would lose Wed-Fri in each of those weeks, for a total of six days. The NCAA has limits on the number of class days that can be missed. And when you consider that those Mankato-Lake State or Bemidji-Ferris trips are 2 day bus rides, giving up two extra days for Alaska is not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Appears to me that the Alaskan schools don't seem to have a lot of leverage in these negotiations. Not sure that I agree with your math, but I've made a few miscalculations so i'll let it slide. :)
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

dggoddard said:
My mistake you are correct. :)

But that being said playing UAA & UA twice in Alaska every two seasons would be preferable than playing them both up there every season if Fairbanks was admitted to the WCHA. Not mention the possibility of having to go up there a third time for the first round of the playoffs.
Click to expand...

But we'd play go up there twice every other year if we just did the old 10-team WCHA rotation as well. I don't see the need for divisions if we do merge. And if you happen to have to go up three times because they're hosting us, oh well, that's your fault for finishing bottom half.
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

beaverhockeyfan said:
Agreed! If the CCHA can stay viable, that is one less bid in the at large pool.
Click to expand...

Well, if there was no question at all that the CCHA could stay viable, they wouldn't have been having this discussion. Obviously the question of long-term survival for the CCHA is an unknown, so it would be in their best interests to consider another option.

The major problem is that the three teams not assumed to be gone to other leagues (BGSU, Ferris and LSSU) have had question marks in recent history about the future of their program, and those questions are arising again now that they have no big-time partners. Worst case scenario is that the new CCHA has six teams, four recently taken from an East Coast league (in which two have been playing with the same East Coast partners for over a decade); yes, that preserves their autobid, but is it really a stable conference? Adding UAH doesn't really add any extra stability either.

The question the CCHA leftovers have to be asking themselves is: Do we really want to willingly be relegated to third-tier status, in a conference built on shaky ground, now that our best five programs have walked or are all but gone, all for the sake of maintaining an autobid? NMU obviously didn't. WMU doesn't. The rest don't have much of a choice.

They would be foolish not to at least explore all potential options, is really the main point I'm going for.
 
I don't really like the idea of both leagues meaging. However, I do like the idea of them working out a deal for an interlock schedule. Say both leagues get to 8 teams, ideally with the Alaska schools in separate leagues, and a home for Alabama Huntsville as well. With each league at 8, and with both getting a trip to Alaska every year, that's 28 games right there. If they wanted to, they could give each other 8 games and lock out the other schools save for the schools that both go to Alaska. I think they could work out a deal to where they would get 4 interlock games per year, and that would give them all room to get a few other games as well. Some of the schools that are fairly close, like MTU and NMU could opt to there they host one school Friday night, and then host the team that was at the other school the other night.
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

kingdobbs said:
The major problem is that the three teams not assumed to be gone to other leagues (BGSU, Ferris and LSSU) have had question marks in recent history about the future of their program, and those questions are arising again now that they have no big-time partners. Worst case scenario is that the new CCHA has six teams, four recently taken from an East Coast league (in which two have been playing with the same East Coast partners for over a decade); yes, that preserves their autobid, but is it really a stable conference? Adding UAH doesn't really add any extra stability either.
Click to expand...
So why would the WCHA want these 'unstable' programs?

Sean
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

FlagDUDE08 said:
I think that's the first time I've ever heard the team that just won the national championship be referred to as a "cupcake".
Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse Skeeterman's deep hate for the dogs. The last 2 years UMD has had a **** good team. But if you look what they have done over the last 11 years in the WCHA, he does a have a point being that they have a winning season 5 out of the last 11 years under their current coach.

With that being said, at least when they have a good team, they have made it count. FF appearance, Conference Tournament title, and now National Title.
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

Bronzebacks said:
With that being said, at least when they have a good team, they have made it count. FF appearance, Conference Tournament title, and now National Title.
Click to expand...
Which is why, as an SCSU fan, Skeets is so bitter ;)
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

Biddco, I'm bitter too. SCSU has not been able to get the job done when we have had all of the tools necessary to do so. In all fairness, it did take you 50 years to complete the same task. ;)
 
Re: WCHA, CCHA talk merger (08-03-11)

One advantage of the rest of the parts pooling together is a stable pool from which to schedule. I hate to remind people of this, but schools are not going to do what you want because you think its a good idea... they aren't going to go for 20 game schedules, they aren't going to go for small leagues. Small leagues of disparate interests can turn on their heads quickly... I'd think all the maneuvering of the mid-west D2 schools would tell that already.... nevermind the results of the last couple of months. So, 6-7 team leagues are really unstable to begin with especially when at the fringes. The Big12 at least as something that binds them together. The Western League (I ain't calling them that) could see itself fall apart but each program is essentially stable with a common goal.

Also note that while shares of NCAA bids may be enticing... having a stable core amongst several members is something to build on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top