PDA

View Full Version : Faribanks Daily: Rumors of the WCHA announcing two applicants this week? NMU and ??



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

uaafanblog
07-21-2011, 09:38 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is.........that I am perplexed by the fact that it isn't a hockey facility, with a gym, student rec center, etc added on. The BB and VB facilities at UAA are good enough for the level they compete at, and for the crowd sizes they bring in. Those sports will never fill a 5k arena in Anchorage. I don't care if the school goes DI in those sports, it will never happen. When you are dumping 100 million plus into a facility like that, why would you not build it for a team that could darn near fill it every game, generate revenue, and who competes at the highest NCAA level for the sport. It is a giant waste for bouncy ball, VB, and gymnastics.

People paying attention to the struggle for UAA to get it's arena funded will remember a proposition which was all-sports inclusive facility with permanent ice and an attached facility for the other sports. This is the proposal that Sarah Palin line-item vetoed. It was to be built catty-corner from East High School at the Bragaw and Northern Lights intersection. The original price tag was 110 I believe.

After that debacle the UAA Administration went gun shy. Everybody and their brother jumped on them about it being too expensive, having too many seats (was going to be 7500) and that the location sucked. It was clear that UAA was gunning to make it so that the ECHL Aces might be interested in becoming a tenant. So anyway, their gun shy state caused them to dramatically scale back the original concept. They figured they should get what they can get and then go after a hockey rink with some other effort.

Meanwhile UAF, got a new museum (100 million), a new ocean going research vessel (100 million - federal money) and other new buildings that I can't specifically remember.

So, not to be overly rude but you perplexed state is pretty much your own doing.

scsutommyboy
07-21-2011, 10:32 PM
I sincerely think there is more to the UAA arena than the public knows about. A 5,000 seat arena for D2 basketball and volleyball is a little excessive. My hunch is that either hockey will be included or they will use it to jump to D1 in other sports.

SCSU's basketball arena holds 5,000+ seats.

Pump It Up
07-21-2011, 11:17 PM
SCSU's basketball arena holds 5,000+ seats.

Just under 7,000 grand in fact. Northern State's Wachs Arena has a capacity over 8,000.

Rms123
07-21-2011, 11:36 PM
People paying attention to the struggle for UAA to get it's arena funded will remember a proposition which was all-sports inclusive facility with permanent ice and an attached facility for the other sports. This is the proposal that Sarah Palin line-item vetoed. It was to be built catty-corner from East High School at the Bragaw and Northern Lights intersection. The original price tag was 110 I believe.

After that debacle the UAA Administration went gun shy. Everybody and their brother jumped on them about it being too expensive, having too many seats (was going to be 7500) and that the location sucked. It was clear that UAA was gunning to make it so that the ECHL Aces might be interested in becoming a tenant. So anyway, their gun shy state caused them to dramatically scale back the original concept. They figured they should get what they can get and then go after a hockey rink with some other effort.

Meanwhile UAF, got a new museum (100 million), a new ocean going research vessel (100 million - federal money) and other new buildings that I can't specifically remember.

So, not to be overly rude but you perplexed state is pretty much your own doing.

Good back ground info. Why didn't they just scale back the project and still include hockey?

Rms123
07-21-2011, 11:37 PM
SCSU's basketball arena holds 5,000+ seats.

For a school basically in Minneapolis, not Anchorage.

Jimjamesak
07-21-2011, 11:40 PM
Good back ground info. My own doing?!?!?!? How do you figure?
For the same reason many of us do not like UAF, UAF can get what they want but when it comes to UAA asking for anything the rest of the State gets all up in arms.

UAA gets the students, UAF gets the money. :rolleyes:

Jimjamesak
07-21-2011, 11:42 PM
People paying attention to the struggle for UAA to get it's arena funded will remember a proposition which was all-sports inclusive facility with permanent ice and an attached facility for the other sports. This is the proposal that Sarah Palin line-item vetoed. It was to be built catty-corner from East High School at the Bragaw and Northern Lights intersection. The original price tag was 110 I believe.

After that debacle the UAA Administration went gun shy. Everybody and their brother jumped on them about it being too expensive, having too many seats (was going to be 7500) and that the location sucked. It was clear that UAA was gunning to make it so that the ECHL Aces might be interested in becoming a tenant. So anyway, their gun shy state caused them to dramatically scale back the original concept. They figured they should get what they can get and then go after a hockey rink with some other effort.

Meanwhile UAF, got a new museum (100 million), a new ocean going research vessel (100 million - federal money) and other new buildings that I can't specifically remember.

So, not to be overly rude but you perplexed state is pretty much your own doing.
Let's not forget the Title IX lawsuit over facilities where all UAA could do was go "Yeah, we know"

Jimjamesak
07-21-2011, 11:43 PM
Good back ground info. Why didn't they just scale back the project and still include hockey?
Because that would be impossible.

Rms123
07-22-2011, 12:16 AM
For the same reason many of us do not like UAF, UAF can get what they want but when it comes to UAA asking for anything the rest of the State gets all up in arms.

UAA gets the students, UAF gets the money. :rolleyes:

Really? No money huh........... http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/13833967/article-Parnell-should-veto--34-million-added-for-Anchorage-basketball?

It looks like they are getting their 110 million facility. So as UAAfanblog pointed out, the original price tag to include hockey was 110 million (which apparently everyone went up in arms about), and so they now are getting a facility with a 110 million price tag that excludes hockey. I don’t know every little detail behind this, but even as a Fairbanks fan, I still don’t get why they are building a 110 million dollar facility that does not include your hockey team. Just my little opinion.

Jimjamesak
07-22-2011, 12:25 AM
Really? No money huh........... http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/13833967/article-Parnell-should-veto--34-million-added-for-Anchorage-basketball?

It looks like they are getting their 110 million facility. So as UAAfanblog pointed out, the original price tag to include hockey was 110 million (which apparently everyone went up in arms about), and so they now are getting a facility with a 110 million price tag that excludes hockey. I donít know every little detail behind this, but even as a Fairbanks fan, I still donít get why they are building a 110 million dollar facility that does not include your hockey team. Just my little opinion.
Because everybody in the State told them "UAA doesn't need two arenas". They've been trying to get this built for 10 years and have needed new facilities for 20, so they took the path of least resistance.

Rms123
07-22-2011, 12:48 AM
Because everybody in the State told them "UAA doesn't need two arenas". They've been trying to get this built for 10 years and have needed new facilities for 20, so they took the path of least resistance.

Gotcha. You guys know more about this than I do! Like I said, I don't know all the details. I guess I'm just looking at it in to much of a simplistic way lol.

Lakerblue
07-22-2011, 10:17 AM
I feel the need to clarify an earlier remark.

I did not mean to speak ill of Mankato or SCSU. I see that it was merely a gopher-type person declaring to the open air the oft-spouted big ten mantra which espouses the inferiority of any other non-big ten school. To the SCSU and MSU folks who may have been splattered by my incorrectly aimed blatherings, I apologize.

Of course I want LSSU in the WCHA. And that means playing and competing with SCSU and MSU.

My point, inartfully made I agree, was that IF LSSU were to join the WCHA, the geographic center of the league would shift to the North, with BSU, Tech, NMU, and LSSU, along with both UAF and UAA. This would put SCSU and MSU at the edge of the conference (notwithstanding the obvious distances to UAF/UAA). BUT, that would also make the WCHA a league of relatively like-minded schools where hockey was the #1 sport at every member institution. Every member would have good facilities.

And my request, also rather poorly worded, was for the SCSU faithful, of which I know there are many, to see the benefits of a dedicated hockey conference, instead of engaging in the meaningless and narrow-minded worry about the WCHA not being a Minnesota-state dominated league anymore. In my opinion, that ship is gone. Moorhead? Really?

Some of the same people who (correctly) mocked the Big Ten blowhards for blowing up college hockey simply because Penn State is building a rink are now repeating the folly, on a smaller scale, by denegrading LSSU in the hopes of any hockey program by a Minnesota school, any Minnesota school, located anywhere.

And if indeed SCSU is a true national-level power, unfairly ignored by the NHC -- then arguing travel budget is somewhat counter intuitive, isn't it? Either you are a major player (wherein travel is a non-issue), or you are indeed the small time state-school wanna-be that North Dakota and Denver believe you to be. Sorry, but if you're afraid about travelling to LSSU, and would prefer to travel to Fargo to save money, then how truly big is your program and how truly dedicated to hockey is your administration.

I don't see the folks in Grand Forks worrying about travel costs.

4four4
07-22-2011, 11:26 AM
I feel the need to clarify an earlier remark.

I did not mean to speak ill of Mankato or SCSU. I see that it was merely a gopher-type person declaring to the open air the oft-spouted big ten mantra which espouses the inferiority of any other non-big ten school. To the SCSU and MSU folks who may have been splattered by my incorrectly aimed blatherings, I apologize.

Of course I want LSSU in the WCHA. And that means playing and competing with SCSU and MSU.

My point, inartfully made I agree, was that IF LSSU were to join the WCHA, the geographic center of the league would shift to the North, with BSU, Tech, NMU, and LSSU, along with both UAF and UAA. This would put SCSU and MSU at the edge of the conference (notwithstanding the obvious distances to UAF/UAA). BUT, that would also make the WCHA a league of relatively like-minded schools where hockey was the #1 sport at every member institution. Every member would have good facilities.

And my request, also rather poorly worded, was for the SCSU faithful, of which I know there are many, to see the benefits of a dedicated hockey conference, instead of engaging in the meaningless and narrow-minded worry about the WCHA not being a Minnesota-state dominated league anymore. In my opinion, that ship is gone. Moorhead? Really?

Some of the same people who (correctly) mocked the Big Ten blowhards for blowing up college hockey simply because Penn State is building a rink are now repeating the folly, on a smaller scale, by denegrading LSSU in the hopes of any hockey program by a Minnesota school, any Minnesota school, located anywhere.

And if indeed SCSU is a true national-level power, unfairly ignored by the NHC -- then arguing travel budget is somewhat counter intuitive, isn't it? Either you are a major player (wherein travel is a non-issue), or you are indeed the small time state-school wanna-be that North Dakota and Denver believe you to be. Sorry, but if you're afraid about travelling to LSSU, and would prefer to travel to Fargo to save money, then how truly big is your program and how truly dedicated to hockey is your administration.

I don't see the folks in Grand Forks worrying about travel costs.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying the college hockey world should not be happy with schools like MSU-Moorhead starting up a college hockey program? IMO, the WCHA should be thrilled with adding a potential 200,000 area population.

Lakerblue
07-22-2011, 12:06 PM
RE: Moorhead. Nothing wrong with new programs. I would reserve judgment on that program until they actually have the startup money, scholarship money, coaches money, travel money, and they've taken care of the title IX issues. Seems to me that the Moorhead program's present situation is more speculation, hopes/dreams, and phantoms than reality. They are barely halfway to their goal of the initial exploratory fundraising. The very concept of preferring a non-existant unfunded private-varsity program to established and funded programs (UAF, LSSU) seems to support the presumption that some people at some Minnesota schools want the WCHA to remain a predominantly Minnesota conference -- reality notwithstanding. And they will find roadblocks and arguments -- such as travel costs -- to keep their little worldview as narrow as possible.

And as an aside, the size of the metro area means virtually nothing in college hockey. For examples see the "mamoth crowds" at Robert Morris (Pittsbrugh metro area 2,447,293); Anchorage (374,553); Buffalo metro with Niagara and Canisius (1,135,509). And the boost college hockey recieves from the media coverage in these areas (hint -- not much).

And as an aside, nobody who gives the Moorhead concept any small amount of thought is greatly fooled. The small but dedicated hockey boosters in Fargo/Moorhead have tried for years to get either NDSU or Moorhead State to consider D-I hockey, always without success. Part of the reason was the lack of a stadium. Now they have a stadium surrounded by a muddy parking lot in West Fargo. I didn't realize that the city of Fargo were so keen to passionately support MSU athletics (another hint -- they aren't).

And I highly doubt that there is likely any real media expansion for college hockey in Fargo -- because the area is already saturated by Sioux supporters who are unlikley to suddenly switch from the most passionate fans in the nation following UND to suddenly buying MSU jerseys at the tiny bookstore in Moorhead.

Furthermore, with UND playing high stakes hockey games in the super conference, in their Imperial Palace up North, I would find it hard to believe that Bison fans are going to be interested in supporting MSU (mentioned above in this post) to play in what will be percieved -- fairly or not -- as a second-rung league. The League which for which the Sioux were allegedly too good. No -- more likely the 200,000 person population of which you speak will either keep following Sioux hockey, or ignore hockey altogether in favor of Bison football and Basketball.

The team in Moorhead would draw a few thousand. It would be a proram relegated to the media coverege reserved for all Moorhead sports - behind Bison and Sioux events, and any serious high school events. THIS is the situation some of you would prefer to adding established programs like UAF and LSSU? I find that very, very telling indeed. Expanding a persons worldview is not a bad thing, so don't fear Sault Ste. Marie, or Faribanks, or Marquette. Don't fear a transition away from the WCHA's traditional base in Minnesota. Obviously things change. As Einstein once said, "Fear of change is fear of life, because life is ever changing."

Shirtless Guy
07-22-2011, 12:40 PM
RE: Moorhead. Nothing wrong with new programs. ...blah blah blah...THIS is the situation some of you would prefer to adding established programs like UAF and LSSU? I find that very, very telling indeed. Expanding a persons worldview is not a bad thing, so don't fear Sault Ste. Marie, or Faribanks, or Marquette. Don't fear a transition away from the WCHA's traditional base in Minnesota. Obviously things change. As Einstein once said, "Fear of change is fear of life, because life is ever changing."I have said the WCHA is likely to be MSUM, SCSU, BSU, MTU, NMU, UAA, UAF, MSU-Moorhead because all indications from LSSU (the school, not the fans) is that they really aren't interested in the WCHA.

laker_one
07-22-2011, 12:53 PM
...all indications from LSSU (the school, not the fans) is that they really aren't interested in the WCHA.

The LSSU admin has not given any clear indications of its plans or desires - at least not publicly. But if the WCHA were interested, I can't believe they wouldn't jump at the chance. Every Laker hockey fan I've talked to is hoping we somehow end up in the WCHA.

JohnsonsJerseys
07-22-2011, 01:04 PM
Of any school who might change conferences, LSSU is the best position to go WCHA or CCHA from a geography standpoint. On the CCHA side they can make a ton of bus runs through lower MI (K-Zoo, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Erie, South Bend, Big Rapids) all bus rides under 10 hours. UAH would be 16 hours out, and likely a flight, as would be UAF. If the WCHA wants LSSU they'll be busing across the UP every weekend with the longest trips being Mankato (11.5 hrs), St Cloud (10.5 hrs), Bemidji (10.5 hrs) and of course flights to UAA. Moorhead at 12 hours would also be a long haul by bus. Although it would be cool to have all three UP schools together, the CCHA likely makes more sense, by the slimest of margins from a travel stand point for LSSU.

At this piont, putting all three UP schools together is likely no more important than it was to keep all the MN schools together. But how cool would an all-MN D-I six-team conference have been, maybe even seven if UND was "good enough" to join? You could have done the same thing in MI a few years ago with Wayne State, but Tech would have hated the bus rides.

Ryan J

Lakerblue
07-22-2011, 01:07 PM
I have said the WCHA is likely to be MSUM, SCSU, BSU, MTU, NMU, UAA, UAF, MSU-Moorhead because all indications from LSSU (the school, not the fans) is that they really aren't interested in the WCHA.


I know. I doubt MSUM is going anywhere. But I also know my own AD is, how shall I say, not that bright.

Shirtless Guy
07-22-2011, 01:19 PM
I know. I doubt MSUM is going anywhere. But I also know my own AD is, how shall I say, not that bright.I assume LSSU's issue is trying to decide if they want to invest enough in the program to be competitive in the WCHA or invest what they have been and play in the CCHA-Lite.

aparch
07-22-2011, 01:23 PM
Of note, it's not startup money Moorhead needs. My impression from listening to their press conference is that they want to have the endowment money in three months to make hockey self sustaining. They have facilities in place, and want to spend for a good coach. They just want the financial protection to keep the team for the long haul and to drum up community support.

I really feel that if they wanted to, they could announce the team immediately.