Is the grass greener on the other side? Should UAA begin considering a move to the Central Collegiate Hockey Association? Let's examine it briefly.
The recent move by UNO from the CCHA has created an 11 team league. CCHA commisioner Tom Anastos hasn't committed to replacing UNO with a new member yet. Alabama-Huntsville has made official overtures to the league and CCHA officials have toured UAH's facilities. Unlike the rash decision made by the hasty WCHA, the CCHA is following it's established procedures regarding new memberships and so they won't be deciding the issue soon.
UAH needs a league home. They actually deserve one more than upstart UNO. They have more committment and history. Their best (realistically their "only") bet is to get into the CCHA. If UAA applied to the CCHA they'd almost certainly leap to the top of the list above UAH. If UAH doesn't get into a league ... they'll most likely have to fold their program. So ... UAA going to the CCHA could very well mean 57 teams in college hockey instead of 58. Not a good thing overall for the sport. But so what ...?
Air Force didn't give a shit when they dumped the CHA and created this whole sky-is-falling process of having to "save" teams. There is no reason that UAA shouldn't follow the same self involved interests. The so-called "community" of college hockey is all smoke and mirrors; it doesn't really exist. Schools and leagues don't act in the best interest of college hockey in general; they act in their own self-interests. UAA should give no consideration to how a move to the CCHA would affect the greater landscape.
UAA obviously wouldn't make any friends in Alabama by exploring membership with the CCHA. It would certainly cloud UAH's future since there is NO WAY IN HELL that the elitist WCHA would consider taking a team from "bubba-land" if UAA did gain admission to the CCHA.
The WCHA had to let us Alaska "assholes" in; and if you don't think the rest of the WCHA views UAA that way, then you don't have much experience on the College Hockey InterWebs. Never again will anything like that happen. That's why they all had such huge boners for UNO and Bemidji and why UAF lost out. It made sense provincially.
Well, it also makes sense provincially for UAA and UAF to be in a conference together. We know now such a thing isn't going to happen in the WCHA. Note here: The inclusion of UAF in the WCHA was closer to happening than you might think; I'm told it was within 24 hours of consummating. But in the end UAA voted for UNO's inclusion; they were not (as assumed by some rubes) the "abstaining" vote.
UAA still pays a portion of travel for WCHA opponents to come to Anchorage. This is how the WCHA treats UAA? The WCHA clearly has a bunch of greedy fuckers for members. For example, the "Alaska Exemption" makes Wisconsin somewhere around $200,000. And UAA has to pay for a portion of Wisconsin's travel? The largess those teams recieve from having UAA in their provincially-minded conference is almost mind-boggling (depending on school from $60K - $200K conservatively). Yet UAA still pays half their airfare? They're pretty much all double-dipping greedy assholes if you ask me.
UAA has no agreement to pay any travel subsidy for the new members according to UAA Athletic Director Dr. Steve Cobb (regardless of what you may have read elsewhere that came out of Bruce McLeod's mouth on the subject).
As part of negotiations with the CCHA, I'd imagine that UAA could gain membership without having to pay any damn travel subsidies. The same rationale I gave for UAF to move to the WCHA works in reverse for a UAA move to the CCHA. There are CCHA members that probably have a difficult time fully utilizing the exempted games they earn by coming to Alaska to play but Michigan, Michigan State, Miami, NMU, Ohio State and Notre Dame should all be able to make extra cash from the extra "Alaska Exemptions". The addition of one of the best rivalries in college hockey to the CCHA landscape is another (albeit lessor) benefit for the league.
FUCK the WCHA. I think I'll make T-shirts and sell them at home games this year. FUCK the WCHA. It has a certain odd-symmetry I think. FUCK the WCHA. It's certainly easy to type. I say the best way to FUCK the WCHA is to start winning some of it's fucking championships. How about it?
I don't really want UAA in the CCHA. I suggest it spitefully (don't underestimate spite as a reason though ... it can be a very self-satisfying emotion). I cherish the opportunity to see my team beat any number of WCHA team's that I already hate. And there's just so much to hate about our league opponents (see virtually any pre-series posts I've made here over the years). That would be very hard to replicate in the CCHA. I'd feel bad bagging on places like BGSU, Ferris Wheel, Western Michigan and LSSU. I will never feel bad disrespecting Grand Forks U. Not to mention that the CCHA has that stupid fucking shootout.
Feel free to discuss the upside and downside of such a move. I think there's an upside from just "considering" it publicly. In order to keep UAA in the conference, wouldn't WCHA members happily let UAA stop paying the travel subsidies?
The recent move by UNO from the CCHA has created an 11 team league. CCHA commisioner Tom Anastos hasn't committed to replacing UNO with a new member yet. Alabama-Huntsville has made official overtures to the league and CCHA officials have toured UAH's facilities. Unlike the rash decision made by the hasty WCHA, the CCHA is following it's established procedures regarding new memberships and so they won't be deciding the issue soon.
UAH needs a league home. They actually deserve one more than upstart UNO. They have more committment and history. Their best (realistically their "only") bet is to get into the CCHA. If UAA applied to the CCHA they'd almost certainly leap to the top of the list above UAH. If UAH doesn't get into a league ... they'll most likely have to fold their program. So ... UAA going to the CCHA could very well mean 57 teams in college hockey instead of 58. Not a good thing overall for the sport. But so what ...?
Air Force didn't give a shit when they dumped the CHA and created this whole sky-is-falling process of having to "save" teams. There is no reason that UAA shouldn't follow the same self involved interests. The so-called "community" of college hockey is all smoke and mirrors; it doesn't really exist. Schools and leagues don't act in the best interest of college hockey in general; they act in their own self-interests. UAA should give no consideration to how a move to the CCHA would affect the greater landscape.
UAA obviously wouldn't make any friends in Alabama by exploring membership with the CCHA. It would certainly cloud UAH's future since there is NO WAY IN HELL that the elitist WCHA would consider taking a team from "bubba-land" if UAA did gain admission to the CCHA.
The WCHA had to let us Alaska "assholes" in; and if you don't think the rest of the WCHA views UAA that way, then you don't have much experience on the College Hockey InterWebs. Never again will anything like that happen. That's why they all had such huge boners for UNO and Bemidji and why UAF lost out. It made sense provincially.
Well, it also makes sense provincially for UAA and UAF to be in a conference together. We know now such a thing isn't going to happen in the WCHA. Note here: The inclusion of UAF in the WCHA was closer to happening than you might think; I'm told it was within 24 hours of consummating. But in the end UAA voted for UNO's inclusion; they were not (as assumed by some rubes) the "abstaining" vote.
UAA still pays a portion of travel for WCHA opponents to come to Anchorage. This is how the WCHA treats UAA? The WCHA clearly has a bunch of greedy fuckers for members. For example, the "Alaska Exemption" makes Wisconsin somewhere around $200,000. And UAA has to pay for a portion of Wisconsin's travel? The largess those teams recieve from having UAA in their provincially-minded conference is almost mind-boggling (depending on school from $60K - $200K conservatively). Yet UAA still pays half their airfare? They're pretty much all double-dipping greedy assholes if you ask me.
UAA has no agreement to pay any travel subsidy for the new members according to UAA Athletic Director Dr. Steve Cobb (regardless of what you may have read elsewhere that came out of Bruce McLeod's mouth on the subject).
As part of negotiations with the CCHA, I'd imagine that UAA could gain membership without having to pay any damn travel subsidies. The same rationale I gave for UAF to move to the WCHA works in reverse for a UAA move to the CCHA. There are CCHA members that probably have a difficult time fully utilizing the exempted games they earn by coming to Alaska to play but Michigan, Michigan State, Miami, NMU, Ohio State and Notre Dame should all be able to make extra cash from the extra "Alaska Exemptions". The addition of one of the best rivalries in college hockey to the CCHA landscape is another (albeit lessor) benefit for the league.
FUCK the WCHA. I think I'll make T-shirts and sell them at home games this year. FUCK the WCHA. It has a certain odd-symmetry I think. FUCK the WCHA. It's certainly easy to type. I say the best way to FUCK the WCHA is to start winning some of it's fucking championships. How about it?
I don't really want UAA in the CCHA. I suggest it spitefully (don't underestimate spite as a reason though ... it can be a very self-satisfying emotion). I cherish the opportunity to see my team beat any number of WCHA team's that I already hate. And there's just so much to hate about our league opponents (see virtually any pre-series posts I've made here over the years). That would be very hard to replicate in the CCHA. I'd feel bad bagging on places like BGSU, Ferris Wheel, Western Michigan and LSSU. I will never feel bad disrespecting Grand Forks U. Not to mention that the CCHA has that stupid fucking shootout.
Feel free to discuss the upside and downside of such a move. I think there's an upside from just "considering" it publicly. In order to keep UAA in the conference, wouldn't WCHA members happily let UAA stop paying the travel subsidies?