WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

[DrunkTrainPolka]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

You say that like these teams in the current WCHA and AHA would get to call the shots on what games they schedule for out of conference.

You are not going to get WCHA/AHA schools scheduling 1 for 1 with NCHC/B1G schools. NCHC/B1G has the travel budget, they don't care how much WCHA/AHA does or doesn't have. NCHC/B1G is going to schedule 1 for 1 with BIG/NCHC, with a mix of HEA and then fill up the rest with 2 for 1 or 1 for 0 games against other conferences.

If anything, you are going to end up with WCHA/AHA schools in 1 for 2 or 2 for 3 agreements with NCHC/B1G schools and you are going to ruin the budget because 1) they are traveling more, so more travel expenses and 2) they are traveling more, so less revenue from home games.

Like it or not, the "big" schools have most of the power when scheduling and this realignment wouldn't change that.

yes...

...and no.

the idea that i laid out, reduces travel considerably for both the AHA (by removing AF) and the WCHA (by the creation of localized regions). with that you save time, money, travel, etc, etc. money probably being the biggest thing...

in regard to NC NACHO/B1G/HEA games;

as is, we are already at a 2/1 or 1/0 type set up with these "better" conferences... there is no increase in cost pending the fact you are not increasing the number games with such said conferences.

overall, the idea would be for less travel within your conference and also overall.

if we do reduce the number of conference games by a series or two (which i am for) we can maybe play more WCHA-vs-AHA games... which can possibly be more helpful for its more balanced with a bigger chance of a higher PWR seed/placement.

winning can get to the tourney more so (against whomever) then beating the best teams once in a while.

let's stop putting the big schools on a pedestal... we can create a win-win situation in-house with the two smaller conferences.

GO TECH GOLD!

[Freddie]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

This entire thread would only have made sense if it started on 4/1 or 4/20

[davyd83]

.
here is an idea...

i am playing the agitator. but i do feel the WCHA and AHA need to shake things up to not only keep things from getting boring but also make the conferences better (as is, its no good).

between the WCHA, the AHA, and ASU you have a total of 22 teams.

have AHA give up AF... so they can go down from 11 to 10 teams making scheduling and traveling much easier and cheaper - all AHA teams would be really close to each other. AF and army can still have their bouts in the likes of the governors cup that UAF and UAA fight for every year, but in a NC way. call it the military cup.

the AHA has now 10 teams, they are set. now have ASU and AF join the WCHA making it 12.

travel in the WCHA is a big issue so create three mini-regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MNSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

play most of your games within your region and make sure to schedule games with the other two with a rotation every year. keep things simple opening up more (then now) NC games with teams around you. as an example west could play DU and CC, central can play UofMN and SCSU, and east can play MSU and MIAMI.

top two from each region moves on, together with two wild cards based on record.

maybe seed the eight teams based on the PWR? could make it exciting for it involves the NC record.

reduce travel, same money, save time, and play more NC games.

take a d*** chance, do it. DO IT!

this here is interesting and relevant;

https://uahhockey.com/blog/2018/06/2...ule-exemption/

GO TECH GOLD!
.

That’s not really going to do much to your in conference travel. You wouldn’t want to play more than 4 games each against your region.

The way the WCHA schedule currently works is there are 5 “travel pairs.”
Anchorage/Fairbanks, Bemidji/Mankato, NMU/Tech, LSSU/Ferris and BG/UAH. You play your travel partner 4 times, and one member of each pair 4 times. You play the other member of each pair twice. That gives you 28 games and the schedule completely rotates over a 4 year span. Other than your travel partner, you play each team at home 3 times over 4 years and each team on the road 3 times over 4 years. Adding 2 more “flight” teams isn’t going to save anyone money. Whether you’re going to Anchorage or Tempe, it still costs a bundle. Although UAF, UAA & UAH pay a subsidy, it generally doesn’t even cover the plane tickets. And Air Force moved to the AHA to be in the same league as Army. That’s not likely to change.

[DrunkTrainPolka]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

That’s not really going to do much to your in conference travel. You wouldn’t want to play more than 4 games each against your region.

The way the WCHA schedule currently works is there are 5 “travel pairs.”
Anchorage/Fairbanks, Bemidji/Mankato, NMU/Tech, LSSU/Ferris and BG/UAH. You play your travel partner 4 times, and one member of each pair 4 times. You play the other member of each pair twice. That gives you 28 games and the schedule completely rotates over a 4 year span. Other than your travel partner, you play each team at home 3 times over 4 years and each team on the road 3 times over 4 years. Adding 2 more “flight” teams isn’t going to save anyone money. Whether you’re going to Anchorage or Tempe, it still costs a bundle. Although UAF, UAA & UAH pay a subsidy, it generally doesn’t even cover the plane tickets. And Air Force moved to the AHA to be in the same league as Army. That’s not likely to change.

with 28 games (14 series) that each team plays, consider MTU;

this last season tech played two series against UAH, BSU, NMU, MSU, & UAA - one series against FSU, UAF, BGSU, & LSSU.

now considering the regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

i would have tech play;

four series against MSU, BSU, & NMU (12 series) - one series against a west region team (let's say at home), and one series against a east region team (let's say away).

the following year, you keep the 12 series within your region but you play another west team away, and another east team at home.

as an example;

year 1, UAF at home and LSSU away
year 2, UAA away and FSU at home
year 3, AF at home and BGSU away
year 4, ASU away and UAH at home

then you repeat flip-flopping things...

the travel time and cost is considerably less. its a fact.

want to increase the number of NC games by two? play only one region per year.

year 1, UAF at home
year 2, LSSU away
year 3, UAA at home
year 4, FSU away
year 5, AF at home
year 6, BGSU away
year 7, ASU at home
year 8, UAH away

and personally, because of the rivalries, i would love to play MSU, BSU, and NMU eight times per year; besides the travel, attendance would be better.

and do you think the alaska teams will complain about playing each other four more times? do you think they will complain about having denver and phoenix as airports to land on? doubt it...

is ASU and AF joining the WCHA a pipe dream? so be it...

while not as good, you can accomplish the same 'type of thing' with two regions of five teams each.

just ideas... the day everybody agrees on this, its the day nobody is thinking.

GO TECH GOLD!

[MTUHuskies]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

with 28 games (14 series) that each team plays, consider MTU;

this last season tech played two series against UAH, BSU, NMU, MSU, & UAA - one series against FSU, UAF, BGSU, & LSSU.

now considering the regions;

west - UAF/UAA/AF/ASU
central - MSU/BSU/MTU/NMU
east - LSSU/FSU/BGSU/UAH

i would have tech play;

four series against MSU, BSU, & NMU (12 series) - one series against a west region team (let's say at home), and one series against a east region team (let's say away).

the following year, you keep the 12 series within your region but you play another west team away, and another east team at home.

as an example;

year 1, UAF at home and LSSU away
year 2, UAA away and FSU at home
year 3, AF at home and BGSU away
year 4, ASU away and UAH at home

then you repeat flip-flopping things...

the travel time and cost is considerably less. its a fact.

want to increase the number of NC games by two? play only one region per year.

year 1, UAF at home
year 2, LSSU away
year 3, UAA at home
year 4, FSU away
year 5, AF at home
year 6, BGSU away
year 7, ASU at home
year 8, UAH away

and personally, because of the rivalries, i would love to play MSU, BSU, and NMU eight times per year; besides the travel, attendance would be better.

and do you think the alaska teams will complain about playing each other four more times? do you think they will complain about having denver and phoenix as airports to land on? doubt it...

is ASU and AF joining the WCHA a pipe dream? so be it...

while not as good, you can accomplish the same 'type of thing' with two regions of five teams each.

just ideas... the day everybody agrees on this, its the day nobody is thinking.

GO TECH GOLD!

I like the smaller regions but I think having such a large percentage of games against three teams is a good thing. Possibly cut it back to 6 games against each in your region. (Ex: 4 at the Mac / 2 at the LiBerry this year switch next year)

That would give 3 extra weekends: An extra home vs other region, an extra away vs other region and an extra NC weekend.

I would still prefer the breakdown I mentioned earlier: home and away (4 vs each team) in your own region for 12 games. Two home series against teams from each other region for 8 games. Two away series against teams from each other region for 8 games. Total 28 conference games.

Teams would play every team in other regions one weekend every year.

Might not cut travel expenses as much as DTP's model, but it would be a good balance of the schedule.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[komey1]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

I can't see why AF would make the move. They are consistently one of the better teams in AHA. It might take a bit to be that kind of team in the WCHA.

[gfmorris]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

I can't see why AF would make the move. They are consistently one of the better teams in AHA. It might take a bit to be that kind of team in the WCHA.

I think they'd be fine.

GFM

[joecct]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Doings down in rocket land

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ne...the-Future.php

[gfmorris]

Re: WCHA + AHA + ASU = BETTER (for all)

Doings down in rocket land

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/ne...the-Future.php

Ha! Fort Myers (where FCGU is) is farther from Huntsville than BGSU.

GFM