College Hockey Expansion

[cberkas]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:15 PM, Rebel_Sioux said:

Illinois is going to have a team in the near future and they want an even number so ASU is probably going to be in NCHC. Otherwise they will have to join the new CCHA or the WCHA until more PAC teams make teams.

That being said, MSU is a better fit in the NCHC then some of our existing members. I say we should take ASU and MSU but that's just me. 

Illinois would make them even.

[Rebel_Sioux]

40 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Illinois would make them even.

That's my point. Adding anyone beside Illinois would give them 9.

[SiouxVolley]

The rumor that U Mary, Minot St, UM Crookston and St Thomas just a week ago would go DI seems even more interesting at this point.

A Northern Sun Hockey League:

Minnesota State-Mankato

Bemidji St

UM-Crookston

Mary

Minot St

St Thomas

St Cloud St and UMD would obviously be excluded.

The Minnesota State system put up big obstacles when Moorhead tried to add hockey.  The U Minn system would be much more supportive of UMC, which is struggling with numbers.

Minot St, Mary, and UMC all perform poorly at DII, so they must have a strategic reason for staying DII.  A:  The ability to play hockey DI.

 

The other five reform the CCHA with Oakland U.

 The autobid situation just needs two years for it to solidify.  So the seven teams get one right away and when the eastern or western six have been together for two years, they split off and get an autobid too.

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

3 hours ago, nodak651 said:

That's pretty cool.  The shell of their arena is pretty huge... guessing it could be renovated to add sufficient seating.  The arenas for Army and Air Force aren't very big either, and I think they could make this building work in Atlantic hockey.

That's a nice rink for them to work with. Thanks for sharing.

[SiouxVolley]

Here a Duluth article where a former WCHA coach proposed the breakup three years ago.  Was surprised that it took so long.

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/2735971-Matt-Wellens-column-WCHA’s-Runaway-Seven-just-as-‘like-minded’-as-NCHC’s-Original-Six

The equipment manager at Bowling Green describes the process of getting the equipment to Alaska.  BGSU spends over 30 hours traveling each trip to Alaska, so its wearing on the entire team.

https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/bgsu/2019/01/16/bowling-green-falcons-hockey-travel-Alaska-wcha-bgsu/stories/20190116121

[Yote 53]

All these teams complain about having to travel to Alaska, they only have to make the trip one or two times a season.  The Alaska teams make the trip to the continental USA multiple times each season, yet I never hear them complain about the travel.  Just saying.

[bale31]

1 hour ago, Yote 53 said:

All these teams complain about having to travel to Alaska, they only have to make the trip one or two times a season.  The Alaska teams make the trip to the continental USA multiple times each season, yet I never hear them complain about the travel.  Just saying.

Is that really relevant? If it were so easy and not such a big deal, why didn't the NCHC schools just stop complaining and live with what they had? Again, the one thing that was made readily apparent during the last conference shuffle is that every school has the right and, maybe, obligation to think of themselves first and every other school be damned. By the way, I'm not even saying the NCHC schools should have just been satisfied, but I'm not sure it's wise to have an expectation of other schools when not everyone is held to those same standards.

Besides, I'm not sure that the travel is the schools biggest issue. While the Alaska schools are subsidizing things, one really has to question whether they are really committed to making hockey work. Not just exist, but actually work. Ponder this: UAA announced in May that they were moving from their current arena (Sullivan) which holds 6500 people to their arena on campus that hold 750. They were doing it because of financial reasons, but then said they were going to expand it to 2500. My question is, how are they going to pay for that expansion? If they can't afford to be in an arena that's already there....how can they possibly afford construction to expand a different one? Now, look at UAF, they announced this spring that they were going to stay in their current arena (the Carlson Center) for this year, but were looking to move back on campus that is already built because the current one needs a new ice plant. The one on campus (the Patty) has a capacity of 1,047....they don't plan on expanding it even though the league REQUIRES a 2500 seat facility. There are now rumors that they didn't go to the member schools to get approval for this and only went to the league office to say that's what they were going to do.

Now, on Friday, the Alaska governor announced that he was vetoing the state's budget and forcing the U of A system to cut $130 million from their budget. This after the hockey programs were on the chopping block last year from the last budget cycle. The rumor I've seen is that adding all of these things up is what caused the other 7 schools to act in the manner that they did. It was the last straw for them and they needed to give notice by July 1 so as to not break the league bylaws. Again, certainly not ideal, but I get the feeling that there is a lot more that's been going on beneath the surface than previously thought. In fact, if the frustration has been building as long as it seems, I'm surprised there haven't been more leaks of dissatisfaction.

You've also got the Alabama Board of Regents who not even 5 years ago tried to kill the Huntsville program. Now, there is a proposal to build a new arena for hockey, but the Board of Regents has proven time and again that Alabama football gets the money and everyone else gets the crumbs that fall off the table.

So, add all of those things up, and you've got a few schools that are concerned about the stability of at least two and, seemingly three schools, that they are supposed to be partnering with. If we all put ourselves in the shoes of the administrators, what are they to do? Are they supposed to just trust the government of Alaska that they are going to come through and fund programs that they seem to want to kill? And do we trust the the Alabama Board of Regents to come through? Or do we act to sink an already sinking ship instead of waiting to drown along with it? 

It is a horrible position for all 10 schools. I'm just not sure why anyone thought it would end in anything other than this. All the low budget schools were put in the same conference (because it was really the only option) that has the highest expenses, told to figure it out and not to complain about it. It just wasn't and isn't realistic.

[nodak651]

If UAH gets their arena built, I could see the WCHA welcoming them back.

[nodak651]

I think they made this announcement to start a 7 team conference, eliminating UAA, UAF, and UAH, as a way to entice ASU as the 8th team.  When ASU shuts them down, they take UAH back, or possibly a Atlantic team..

[SWSiouxMN]

Would Illinois be starting only a men's team?

[SWSiouxMN]

I honestly do not blame any of the 7 schools for taking action.  Sometimes you have to make the decision before the decision is made for you. 

 

[Yote 53]

Oh, I don't blame them for taking action.  My earlier comment had to do with coaches complaining about their team fatigue and how travelling to Alaska is so difficult.  The Alaska teams' travel schedule is much more difficult.  As far as costs, as has been pointed out the Alaska schools were subsidizing travel.  

[SIOUXFAN97]

1 hour ago, nodak651 said:

I think they made this announcement to start a 7 team conference, eliminating UAA, UAF, and UAH, as a way to entice ASU as the 8th team.  When ASU shuts them down, they take UAH back, or possibly a Atlantic team..

agreed.

[tnt]

17 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Oh, I don't blame them for taking action.  My earlier comment had to do with coaches complaining about their team fatigue and how travelling to Alaska is so difficult.  The Alaska teams' travel schedule is much more difficult.  As far as costs, as has been pointed out the Alaska schools were subsidizing travel.  

I agree.  Doesn't UND try to get that trip as often as they can because they get to play a couple extra games on the schedule because of the Alaska rule.   

[bale31]

45 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Oh, I don't blame them for taking action.  My earlier comment had to do with coaches complaining about their team fatigue and how travelling to Alaska is so difficult.  The Alaska teams' travel schedule is much more difficult.  As far as costs, as has been pointed out the Alaska schools were subsidizing travel.  

You're right, Alaska is subsidizing travel, but not like they used to. Now, they subsidize travel so that it's the same amount as the next most expensive trip in the conference. I agree that the Alaska teams have it worse, but that's not a reason to not take action.

As for the extra games for Alaska travel, that all sounds great, but with having both the Alaska schools in conference, it doesn't do a whole lot of good. On one hand, if you're taking two trips to Alaska, you need to fit in some extra rest for your players. While it is possible to do (as the Alaska schools prove), it's not real helpful to keeping your players healthy. Secondly, it's proven to be almost impossible for schools to schedule another home series with a non-conference opponent. In general, you need to schedule a return trip to the extra school you're playing. At some point, that catches up to your team and you have to have a more away non-conference games in a given season. Essentially, you end up with a really unbalanced schedule after a while and you're not gaining the extra revenue from those extra home games.

Many of the schools in the WCHA are now forgoing those extra games that they can schedule because there is little to no advantage for them to do that. They end up scheduling an extra bye weekend instead.

[cberkas]

I had to laugh at USCHO Fan Forum coming up with the conference name "Shady Seven" 

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

43 minutes ago, cberkas said:

I had to laugh at USCHO Fan Forum coming up with the conference name "Shady Seven" 

Can't blame them for doing what's in their best interest, but the execution was pretty shady.  If you can't look someone in the eye before/while/after screwing them over then don't do it.

[farce poobah]

On 7/1/2019 at 1:57 PM, bale31 said:

There is a certain irony that this sentiment is posted on a thread that is dedicated to "College Hockey Expansion". I was just reading over on USCHO that one of the positives that people have liked to point out over the last 7ish years is that the breakup of the old WCHA and CCHA and formation of BTHC and NCHC created all sorts of supposed opportunity to spawn new programs. Fast forward 7 years and no one wants to allow anyone new into their conferences. Big Ten has a superiority complex. The NCHC has a fear of others bringing them down. The WCHA has real financial issues. So, what opportunity is really is there for expansion? To go independent? 

I guess this just leads me back to the point I tried to make in my original post.... college hockey lost it's innocence when all of these changes started. There is no "greater good of college hockey" any longer, if there ever was. Many of us idealized what college hockey was and it isn't that any more. It's all about how much money can go into each individual college's pockets. It's just unfortunate.

Thanks for your thoughts.  Always good to read what you have to say.

This feels more like a temporary step back than a long-term stagnation of college hockey out west.    The immediate catalyst, of course, being the budget crisis in Alaska.  If I were the AD at any of the 7 departing schools, and two of the teams said they were moving to tiny arenas that are inadequate for modern D-1 hockey, I would have kicked them out (aka leave the WCHA).  UAH's non-inclusion feels more fixable, as in a way to put external pressure in support of UAH proposals to their governance in Alabama.  

It was only 20 years ago that Mankato became a full-fledged member of the WCHA, and there's been a steady increase in D-1 teams out west, going back to Omaha and Bemidji as well.  And there are certainly other good candidates, starting with natural rivals of Arizona State: UA and UNLV.  

I disagree with "the NCHC has a fear of others bringing them down".  The record indicates "sick of being dragged down by other schools that disagreed with their views of how to move forward."  (Read Schlossman's excellent series on the history of the formation of the NCHC, including the part about expletive ridden tirades and the failure to replace a failing Commissioner.)

Edit:

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4512561-nchc-series-part-1-how-nchc-was-formed

 

 

[tnt]

32 minutes ago, farce poobah said:

Thanks for your thoughts.  Always good to read what you have to say.

This feels more like a temporary step back than a long-term stagnation of college hockey out west.    The immediate catalyst, of course, being the budget crisis in Alaska.  If I were the AD at any of the 7 departing schools, and two of the teams said they were moving to tiny arenas that are inadequate for modern D-1 hockey, I would have kicked them out (aka leave the WCHA).  UAH's non-inclusion feels more fixable, as in a way to put external pressure in support of UAH proposals to their governance in Alabama.  

It was only 20 years ago that Mankato became a full-fledged member of the WCHA, and there's been a steady increase in D-1 teams out west, going back to Omaha and Bemidji as well.  And there are certainly other good candidates, starting with natural rivals of Arizona State: UA and UNLV.  

I disagree with "the NCHC has a fear of others bringing them down".  The record indicates "sick of being dragged down by other schools that disagreed with their views of how to move forward."  (Read Schlossman's excellent series on the history of the formation of the NCHC, including the part about expletive ridden tirades and the failure to replace a failing Commissioner.)

 

 

Bruce McCleod was a joke.

[bale31]

8 hours ago, farce poobah said:

 

I disagree with "the NCHC has a fear of others bringing them down".  The record indicates "sick of being dragged down by other schools that disagreed with their views of how to move forward."  (Read Schlossman's excellent series on the history of the formation of the NCHC, including the part about expletive ridden tirades and the failure to replace a failing Commissioner.)

Edit:

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4512561-nchc-series-part-1-how-nchc-was-formed

 

 

Not that it really matters at this point and, frankly, it's splitting hairs, but the NCHC schools were never really dragged down by others. There was a fear that they would be, but they never played in a conference that didn't have MN and WI in their voting bloc. By all means, all indications are that it was headed that way though.

I'm not sure that there is anyone outside of Penn State and, maybe, Michigan and Michigan State would say that things are better off now than they were 10 years ago. Personally, I think if everyone would have just taken a few deep breaths and taken their time in making decisions, things would be much better off for everyone right now. Maybe we would have ended up in the same place, but there would have been a lot less scrambling. Maybe this newest round of changes has been talked about a lot more than we know, but this seems to be more of the same. Hastily made decisions that seem to be driven out of panic rarely turn into good things.

[ArchyAlum11]

So there are a few things to be considered here, first of it has to be acknowledged that the Hockey at the Alaska schools has been on a ventilator and steadily declining for a while now, at UAA this is way more pronounced UAA has always been at the bottom of the WCHA even after the realignment, at UAF however there was a chance that they could have rebounded in and rebuilt the program in the way the MNSU and MTU did, however when the NCAA decided to throw the book at UAF and then beat them to a bloody pulp with said book over a minor self-reported infraction that included a three year ban on recruiting, that stopped the team’s improvement dead in its tracks, then after the ban was lifted this same Governor tried to eliminate hockey  at both schools, with the budget cuts this time its almost assured that hockey at least one of the schools, and likely both will be gone in two years anyway. It would be nice if there was some way to keep UAF alive until some of the Pacific northwest schools start to add hockey as the travel would be less burdensome from Seattle, Boise or Astoria then from MN and MI. But unfortunately, it looks like time has run out for the AK schools.

So why are these seven schools looking to leave the what I think there are a few reasons.

1.       To ditch the three teams that are consistently in the bottom 10 of the national pairwise and are the most far flung league. This not only improves the league in the pairwise it also frees up more money for the teams to spend on upgrading facilities, cost of attendance, scholarships and hiring more/better staff. I think the current commissioner is overly obsessed with the idea of expansion rather than trying to build up the teams they have, for example when UAH was added it may have helped even the numbers, but it created a league with too many bottom feeder teams. In the earlier days that was okay, most of the teams were focused on survival then MNSU, MTU and BGSU began to make serious efforts to build/rebuild there programs, New coaches were brought in, facilities were upgraded, and more money was put toward cost of attendance and the quality of hockey at all three schools shot up, then more recently some of the other smaller teams started to take similar approaches, NMU and LSSU both went out and hired new coaches and started to invest more money into their programs and what happened, NMU and LSSU both moved up in the overall standings and became a serious threat in the conference winning home ice advantage over much more storied programs. For these programs they see a real opportunity to have a chance to break into the top of the national pack and become a relevant player in the league, also possibly being able to get a sport without having to win the tournament championship. This is very hard to do when the three of the worst teams in the league are dragging down the conference record.

2.       Force another round of realignment- So as has been discussed before, Miami and WMU are not always thrilled about the amount of long-distance travel required, Likewise Mankato and Bemidji are often less than thrilled about the long bus rides out to MI and OH. A big reason that WMU and Miami have not looked at moving into the new WCHA was the Alaska schools as well UAH, now with the AK schools like out of the Mix its entirely possible that WMU and Miami would look to reexamine their own conference membership, does this mean they will switch? Not necessarily, I imagine there will be a number of things they look into before switching, however without the Alaska schools I imagine it would be much more tempting, even if UAH was added to the new conference later to event out the numbers, that would still create just one long distance trip a year, and from a drag perspective would be only slightly worse that CC is on the NCHC. As to the NCHC it very likely that MNSU and BSU would both apply to be members and from a rankings perspective this would be at worst a lateral move for the NCHC MNSU has in the last few years ranked higher than WMU and even held the coveted no.1 spot several times both in the pairwise and pols, Bemidji has generally been with in a few places of Miami and is often in the receiving votes categories. So this move would ultimately compact the leagues geographically effectively recreating the old WCHA in the NCHC and the old CCHA in the new league, minus the Big10 and Alaska schools.

3.       UAH as the 8^th team, if you had asked me a few years ago which teams would survive realignment I wouldn’t have picked UAH over the Alaska schools, but fate can be a cruel mistress. UAH has a few key advantages over the AK schools.

a.       The most obvious is that it is in the same time zone and is a much shorter flight or a long bus ride, compared to a long haul flight for the AK schools.

b.       I has survived as an independent before, it was difficult but since it is much closer to the rest of the college hockey world than Alaska, it is easier to for them to schedule non-conference match-ups.

c.       Investment- UAH just proposed some major investment projects which includes a brand spanking new multipurpose facility, no word on if this is a facility that will include separate actual arena and basketball court or if its just one space that can be converted for hockey, if the latter then the Chargers would also need a dedicated practice facility to my guess is on the former. If these projects are approved then it would go a long ways toward demonstrating that the Chargers are making a commitment to raise there program up, now that doesn’t mean it will happen overnight but it could make there program more attractive to the kind of blue collar players that have there choice of being an occasional player at an elite program or a regular player a program looking to build.

Ultimately, UAH has a lot of work to do if they want the other schools to over look the travel distance and poor record, but a good performance over the 2019 -2020  would go a long ways toward mitigating that.

 

In any case it should be an interesting couple of years.

[ArchyAlum11]

17 hours ago, cberkas said:

I had to laugh at USCHO Fan Forum coming up with the conference name "Shady Seven" 

While I definitely prefer the world where you look a man in the eye and tell them the truth, my guess is they kept this quiet for legal reason, I'm also guess that is why they announced when the did. Deadlines and contractual agreements trump all.

[ArchyAlum11]

On 7/1/2019 at 8:57 PM, SiouxVolley said:

"The U Minn system would be much more supportive of UMC," 

 

The U of M would never allow Crookston to add hockey, if the U of M had it its way they would be the ONLY school, in Minnesota  with a D1 athletics program, and all the state universities would go back to being teachers colleges. Don't make the mistake conflating the wishes of John Mariucci with the wishes of the U of M, The U of M lobby Machine only wants one thing, total dominance over Minnesota Higher Ed. They are big reason why Minnesota, one of the highest taxed a wealthiest states per-capita in the union only has a single D1 institution, never-mind the face that MNSU, UMD and SCSU are all large enough and theoretically have enough of budget that could handle the move to D1 FCS but are still sitting static at D2.

[HockeyFan31]

10 minutes ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

The U of M would never allow Crookston to add hockey, if the U of M had it its way they would be the ONLY school, in Minnesota  with a D1 athletics program, and all the state universities would go back to being teachers colleges. Don't make the mistake conflating the wishes of John Mariucci with the wishes of the U of M, The U of M lobby Machine only wants one thing, total dominance over Minnesota Higher Ed. They are big reason why Minnesota, one of the highest taxed a wealthiest states per-capita in the union only has a single D1 institution, never-mind the face that MNSU, UMD and SCSU are all large enough and theoretically have enough of budget that could handle the move to D1 FCS but are still sitting static at D2.

Not sure I buy all this.

[SiouxHawkGuy]

19 minutes ago, ArchyAlum11 said:

The U of M would never allow Crookston to add hockey, if the U of M had it its way they would be the ONLY school, in Minnesota  with a D1 athletics program, and all the state universities would go back to being teachers colleges. Don't make the mistake conflating the wishes of John Mariucci with the wishes of the U of M, The U of M lobby Machine only wants one thing, total dominance over Minnesota Higher Ed. They are big reason why Minnesota, one of the highest taxed a wealthiest states per-capita in the union only has a single D1 institution, never-mind the face that MNSU, UMD and SCSU are all large enough and theoretically have enough of budget that could handle the move to D1 FCS but are still sitting static at D2.

Mankato needs to be FCS and in the NCHC.