03/21 - B1G: MN, WI, MI, MSU, tOSU, PSU
03/23 - CCHA commissioner Tom Anastos hired as the Spartan head coach, abandons CCHA.
05/02 - Fred Pletch named CCHA commissioner.
07/09 - Motel 6: DU, CC, tUMD, NoDak, Omaha, Miami
07/10 - Shamelessly campaigning to join the NCHC, WMU starts "Why Western" initiative.
Stay in WCHA: UAA, BSU, MSU-M, MTU, SCSU
Stay in CCHA: UA_, NMU, LSSU, FSU, BGSU
Non-committal: WMU, ND
**Kids, note how both the CCHA and WCHA had five schools each, six is the minimum for a conference**
07/15 - WCHA offers NMU an invitation, NMU accepts.
**WCHA has minimum six teams required to keep a conference, CCHA has four**
**CCHA only school with full D1 (BGSU) for NCAA committee voting ability, WCHA has zero**
08/23 - WCHA and CCHA meet to discuss what's best for the leagues.
08/25 - WCHA extends invitation to remaining CCHA schools (including WMU, but minus those bums in South Bend)
08/26 - LSSU, FSU, UA_ accept. BGSU holds out. Notre Dame still is seeking a conference home, flirting with NCHC.
09/21 - St. Cloud does an about face, announces it's leaving the WCHA for the NCHC, taking uncommitted WMU with.
10/04 - Bowling Green accepts WCHA invite at last minute.
10/05 - Notre Dame announces deal with Hockey East.
Then a year and a half later, January 17, 2013, independent UAH is added to the WCHA to make 10 teams for the 2013-14 season.
Don't go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back thinking BGSU saved the WCHA.
Last edited by aparch; 07-01-2019 at 10:28 AM.
Kidding. There is always some confusion about the steps, even I needed to look up the order.
Also, edited to add in the stupid Why Western campaign. . So much for that National Championship by the end of the decade.
yeah, its sad. the act of leaving those three schools out is sad. i agree.
however, this was inevitable...
these seven schools are being pro-active and actually giving these three schools in a way a chance, by force, to get their act together. and maybe too for the NCAA to do something. noting as well that they are "exploring" a new conference; that if these three schools have something to show in the next year, maybe they will be back together, in special UAH. i also see the UAA program folding into the UAF (which is the flagship institution).
also that during the frozen four the commissioner for atlantic hockey said they were pursuing a new member to make it 12. i think that UAH was that team... and i think they are a much better fit in AH then the WCHA.
the creation of the B1G and the NACHO are/were much, much more damaging then what just happened...
the B1G/NACHO moves were nothing short of a narcissistic greed based move.
what these seven schools did however was a matter of survival. people need to understand that.
besides bowling green, all these schools have small D-II budgets...
this shake up needed to happen... and i am glad we are not getting caught with our pants down.
its going to be one hell of a year in regard to this.
GO TECH GOLD!
Anyone familiar with the AHA by-laws and the window teams need to announce leaving without penalty? Should we be expecting an announcement before October regarding any potential teams leaving? Or can they play it a little closer to the vest than our Western schools?
I can’t roll my eyes enough about the usual “Big Ten ruined college hockey” nonsense.
Prior to the BTHC, the West was a bloated mess of two oversized conferences and no room in the inn for new blood.
And make no mistake: there needs to be new blood for college hockey to thrive. If nothing else has been consistent over the history of college hockey, it's programs failing for a variety of reasons. There are too many reasons that college hockey struggles that have nothing to do with the BTHC. The BTHC wasn’t a relevant concern when UIC or Kent St or any of those programs folded, and it had nothing to do with why BGSU’s balls were on the bandsaw before and after realignment.
Fortunately, we've had more programs arise than fold over the years, and the size of D1 has grown in recent decades because of that (by about a dozen programs on aggregate over the last 25 years). For every UIC, Kent State, Findlay, Wayne State, Northern Arizona etc., we've had a Mankato, a St Cloud, RIT, UNO, and then some.
We need new programs now just as we did when MnSt, SCSU, Bemidji, UNO, Lowell, et al came knocking on D1’s door.
To court those new programs, we need space. ASU is the exception, not the rule here. We needed space, and that required realignment. It takes a special brand of delusion to think that Penn State (or Illinois or whomever) was going to come aboard and try to squeeze in to the old alignment (if the old WCHA and CCHA would let them).
The old WCHA and CCHA were awesome. They were tradition. I miss them in many ways, but I can’t sit here and pretend like the BTHC wasn’t a solution to a problem: we are always at the risk of losing program but we had run out of space to put new ones.
(Maybe some of you think the old WCHA and CCHA could've functioned as 14-16 team superleagues, but I beg to differ)
The BTHC gave us a third western conference, with room to grow. Stop pretending like that hasn't been a good thing, especially since we've now had more chatter of growth potential in college hockey than we've seen in ages. It was the MAAC, except it's
and has room to grow.
I don't want to see the Alaska schools fail any more than the rest of you, but I'm not going to whine about the BTHC causing it (indirectly, with pretty much every western college hockey program playing a role in the outcome since the BTHC was announced), when it seems like Alaskan economics are playing a larger role as it is.
Last edited by ExileOnDaytonStreet; 07-01-2019 at 11:19 AM.
I can't dispute the choices made by the devious 7. They each have the right to decide how to advance their program in the way they think best. Presumably, they have taken their action in a reasoned and responsible way taking the bylaws of their conference into consideration. It will have a huge impact on the Alaska programs and a lesser impact on UAH. However, I remain disappointed with the lack of communication and respect that they have shown the 3 "red-headed step children" that they abandoned. Communication shows respect. They have behaved poorly.
The program that effed everything up would say that. We love a niche sport. Who cares about new blood, seriously? To thrive? What are you expecting to happen? What improvement have you seen since the realignment happened? Stop pretending that the Big Ten hasn't been a good thing? LMAO TV airtime is going down and the Big Ten Network people admit it's because no one other than Minnesotans watch.
Fans don't travel because it's now a flight instead of a road trip. Conference "rivals" don't have local kids you watched play in HS. There is no trash talking at work.
The big programs were putting up profits just fine that are a great little bonus to the athletic department income statements.
Travel wasn’t the reason the NCHC formed, it was revenues. In the old WCHA there was a sense that Anchorage and Tech were leeching off the more successful programs without doing much in return. That’s where the whole “like minded” stuff comes in.
Ever since realignment happened, I believe there has been at least one NCHC team that has made the trip to either Fairbanks or Anchorage. Speaking for UAF, since realignment happened we’ve seen Denver (x2, they are coming up in October), WMU, Omaha, and St. Cloud (x2) in the Carlson Center. UAA has hosted Colorado College, North Dakota, and St. Cloud. Point being that every NCHC team except UMD and Miami has been to Alaska since realignment, some more than once. I know it’s different than an obligation to go annually or every other year, but the NCHC teams clearly aren’t afraid of making the trip.
Like everything else in life, follow the money. The big dogs (UND, DU) in the NCHC formation saw they could increase their revenues by culling the herd.
Still waiting on Minot and Moorhead to make their announcement too...
So, in essence, Tech managed to kill the WCHA twice.
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)