July 15, 2009
WCHA Moves a Wash for College Hockey
by Adam Wodon/Managing Editor
The WCHA's gain, is the CCHA's loss. If you ask the CCHA — despite what WCHA officials say — the WCHA's expansion is a net neutral for college hockey.
There was a palpable tension during the process of the WCHA adding a 12th team to its league, openly and aggressively courting CCHA member Nebraska-Omaha to enter with Bemidji State.
Despite a long history of cooperation between the leagues in college hockey, and personal cordiality between CCHA commissioner Tom Anastos and WCHA commissioner Bruce McLeod, the situation was clearly touchy, to say the least.
The WCHA has talked a lot about doing what is best for college hockey. But while adding Bemidji State — after BSU had run out of options to keep its program viable — was certainly a gracious and strong move by the WCHA to benefit Bemidji State, its effect on college hockey as a whole is more neutral if it negatively impacts the CCHA.
McLeod tried to sell it, saying that UNO's move can be an overall benefit to college hockey as a whole, because the chain reaction effect could result in saving Alabama-Huntsville as well.
"I have a long relationshp with Tom, and we openly discussed this, including three weeks ago in San Antonio at meetings of the (NCAA) championships committee," McLeod said. "Tom is first class all the way. As an individual, I have nothing but good things to say.
"Having said that, we went into this process above board, to do it the right way best we could. Part of that was keeping Tom informed. I hope he would say we followed through on that. It's clear he didn't want to lose Omaha. It speaks to their caliber. And actually, he made some other suggestions to me — why not think about these things.
"I've proven in the past with involvement getting the WCHA going — I work for the WCHA — but I need to step back and look at what's best for college hockey in general. Hopefully if it (WCHA expansion) worked out with Omaha or someone else, that would open a slot (for Alabama-Huntsville). That may not have be the same caliber or attractiveness (as UNO), but that we could save another program. ... I hope that happens."
Still, there is no question that the CCHA takes a hit — at least in the short term — from this switch. No offense to Albama-Huntsville, but its program, and the commitment to the program, do not currently approach what Nebraska-Omaha is.
The CCHA has declined to comment, except to say in a statement that it was "disappointed" in losing Nebraska-Omaha.
UNO is doing what is in its best interests, and the WCHA is doing what's in its best interests — these things are par for the course in college athletics, and understood.
But CCHA people have been understandably irked by the WCHA's insistence that this is "best for college hockey."
No doubt there was never a bulletproof solution to any of this, but who is the WCHA kidding? A better overall solution — at least geographically — was probably to pluck away Fairbanks, not Omaha.
There was some talk of a joint session with the two leagues' members schools, with the hopes of hammering out what was the best for everyone. The WCHA was not interested.
Also, despite McLeod's hopes, Alabama-Huntsville's admittance into the CCHA is no sure thing. And, sources say, its chances are only barely improved with UNO's departure. There are still many logistical concerns among the CCHA membership. These hurdles can be overcome, but UNO's departure was not UAH's magic bullet.
The CCHA should know more in August, when a formal report is made to its membership by those who have been doing the due dilligence on UAH's application.
gamingwithbabyJul 15 2009, 10:13 pm
And just how, prey tell, is another team folding good for college hockey? The only thing preventing UAH's admission to the CCHA is misguided bias towards the program because it's location. Such has always been the case for the Chargers. Other teams look down their noses at their program simply because their geographical location, despite the fact that UAH is no more difficult to travel to than teams like UNO or BSU. In the case of the latter, travel to UAH is a dream. So, tell us, why? Why should the CCHA just thumb their noses at the Chargers and let them fall by the wayside?
uaafanblogJul 15 2009, 10:48 pm
UAH is a good program. They've more than paid their dues to D1 hockey. Regardless of Adam's comparisons to UNO, their school and core group of fans is staunchly committed to maintaining their program at the highest possible level. The fact that Adam doesn't see that is evidence of the regional bias that permeates D1 college hockey. They all claim they want college hockey to grow ... they just want it to grow next door to them instead of places like Alaska and Alabama.
CHN EditorJul 16 2009, 12:02 am
I don't see how the overused term "regional bias" has any bearing in this matter. If we want to get technical, I don't live near any of these places, and have no bias. The reporting here was about what irked CCHA people. Not much more than that. Everyone wishes UAH well.
uaafanblogJul 16 2009, 7:28 am
Ok Adam, Let's say that tomorrow Saginaw Community College fully funded a D-1 program to start this year and they're building a 4,000 seat arena and have 3000 season ticket holders. Who would you favor entering the CCHA in 2011; SCC or UAH? I just I'm just not convinced you give any weight to UAH's history. And I guarantee lots of folks in Michigan would eat that idea all up and UAH would be out in the cold. What if UAA wanted to jump to the CCHA? Would the WCHA take UAH? Hell no they wouldn't ...
boom boomJul 16 2009, 9:44 am
Trading UNO for UAH is a perceived loss for the CCHA, but don't underestimate UAH's ability to compete in the CCHA if they are admitted. Mr. Wodon looks at this as a negative, but would he rather have had both BSU and UAH fold? He was continually dismissive of BSU's chances of getting into the WCHA, and we know how that turned out. He now thinks the CCHA will spurn UAH and stick with 11 teams? Yeah, right.
CHN EditorJul 16 2009, 10:46 am
Guys ... I certainly own up to what I've written in the past ... it's right here: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/11/14_commentary.php .... But saying I have anything against any of these teams, is untrue by a mile. UNO didn't seem feasible at the time ... but they since changed athletic directors, and that set off a lot of change, unforseen at the time. .... I was skeptical of BSU's chances back then, b/c I didn't see a way to make it all work with 12 teams ... but things changed, I was wrong ... no doubt. Mike Chambers had it dead on - but I don't think it was for the reasons stated at that time. In fact, I know it wasn't. .... Anyway, in response to "uaafanblog" - if that's what you mean by "regional bias" - then yeah, I guess there's a bias. But of course conferences in one area would prefer to stay in that area. That's why Hockey East didn't take Niagara, for example. Why is that odd?
CHN EditorJul 16 2009, 10:48 am
In addition, in response to the person who said that I think the CCHA will spurn UAH .... where did I say that? I was reporting on what CCHA insiders have been discussing - which is that it's no sure thing - there are a lot of problems they still have with it. It had nothing to do with what I think will happen.
boom boomJul 16 2009, 11:12 am
I know you are not rooting against anyone, but its been hard as a BSU and college hockey fan to read all of your skepticism about the survivial of the remaining CHA teams. I couldn't believe that the WCHA wouldn't want a program like BSU, and I can't imagine that the CCHA will stay at 11 teams and let UAH die. They will get it done. Yeah, its not the best that the WCHA's gain is the CCHA's loss, but the W has far more to offer (read: money and prestige, in that order). I don't always agree with your opinions, but I do appreciate your work on these subjects. Thanks.
CHN EditorJul 16 2009, 11:32 am
thanks "boom boom" (did I really just say that? :)) ... and I hear you. But my skepticism never had anything to do with rooting against it. I've always felt bad and thought the whole thing stinks. Everything that happened since November was the result of an extremely fortuitous set of circumstances for many schools involved. There was good reason to be very skeptical in November - and there was NEVER a discussion among all the commissioners as to what to do. ... This article here, is as much to point out the testiness of all that occurred, as much as anything ... which is in direct contrast to the idea that the leagues all got together to decide this as a whole - which was the premise of that article in November that I was disagreeing with.
WoodyJul 16 2009, 1:32 pm
How many teams does college hockey have to lose before the NCAA goes back to a 12 team tournament? I really doubt people want to go back to this tournament setup. And, I don’t think it is fair to hang these schools out to dry when it’s conference affiliation that will prevent these programs from folding; particularly when these schools want to keep their D1 hockey programs. I truly believe this was/is a bad situation for college hockey no matter what the conferences end up looking like. Losing BSU and UAH would look bad for the sport as a whole. This situation as a whole really is a no win situation for college hockey. But at least we have something to discuss this off season.
Jul 16 2009, 6:03 pm
Adam: I know the regional bias doesn't seem like a big deal to someone sitting in the middle of the college hockey world. But from Alabama and Alaska it's always apparent and very often troublesome.
Shany94Jul 16 2009, 10:10 pm
It was a different time and landscape two years ago, but the CCHA didn't come rushing in to save Wayne State before that program was terminated after less than 10 years in existence. There were other factors, such as WSU not having a viable home rink, unlike UAH; but I believe Michigan and Michigan State did not play the Warriors unless they hosted them, and that was with a team in their own backyard. Would things have been different now, if WSU was still around, with Nebraska-Omaha jumping to the WCHA and a 12th CCHA team needed/wanted? Probably, but we'll never know. Admitting UAH still isn't a slam dunk, though, just because a 12th team is desirable and UAH really has no other place to go. The CCHA might be hedging its bets that Bowling Green folds in a year or two and leaves them with an even 10 teams - and leaves UAH out. I'd hate to see the Charger program die, but it could happen.
MelvinJul 17 2009, 4:38 am
Don't let Adam kid you UAH is going to be in the CCHA. mark my words. I would be nice to know who Adam's source is that UAH is not a done deal?
MahaskaJul 17 2009, 6:16 pm
A few random thoughts... 1. If the WCHA is so concerned with doing good deeds, why didn't they take BOTH BSU and UAH, and leave UNO and the CCHA out of the equation? 2. Bowling Green ... stay or go? Does the CCHA take UAH to get 12 teams now, or plan on BG folding and working with 10? 3. Will the powers that be at the NCAA ever grow some nads and do something to stop teams from leaving, or heaven forbid, actually give some incentives for new teams to start up? They should have at least tried to not only save the CHA, but added more teams to it to help it prosper. Why was Air Force allowed to move to Atlantic Hockey? They can play Army in a non-conference game just as well. Seems like the conferences have more power than the NCAA. 4. Where's the room for future expansion? If UAH goes to the CCHA, we'll have 4 conferences with 12 teams each, and 1 with 10 teams. Lots of teams have been rumored for years as wanting to join Div1. What about Canadian teams? Is the NCAA even looking ahead?
BP in KCJul 21 2009, 1:15 pm
I think the CCHA will attempt to strike a deal with Michigan Tech. If successful, the logical "new" 12th team for the WCHA would be Air Force and Alabama-Huntsville takes their place in Atlantic Hockey.
rinkratAug 1 2009, 11:48 am
You guys need to look harder into this issue. This is not solely about geography, allow significant. However, this is about what UAH brings to the table for the CCHA and the member institutions. Does the financial support from UAH rival other CCHA schools support of their programs? Unfortunately I don't think so. There is likely a big-time budget discrepancy between what UAH supports compared to any of the other CCHA members. In addition, is the arena setup in Huntsville conducive to having a big-time college hockey program...I have heard that UAH doesn't have much pull with the Von Braun Center and they dictate to them when games are played. The CCHA will not agree with a facility setup that is not beneficial to their schools (i.e. games played when they should be played - Friday/Saturday nights). The CCHA doesn't want to lose members, but they need to look hard at whether UAH will benefit the league and each institution.
Comment on this Article
