Eric Maiwald writes:
>While it would seem reasonable to absorb Alaska-F in the WCHA, this
>is causing all kinds of scheduling problems.  It does not seem to make
>sense to have one conference with subdivisions while none of the others
>have such a layout.  Granted, Hockey East had a similar set up this year
>but they did not have separate divisional playoffs and standings.
 
I was never happy with the way HE handled its divisional scheduling.
First, I think that whenever there is an imbalance in scheduling, you
have problems - whether it be that some teams play 4x and some 3x, or
that some teams must travel to the best team in the league twice and
others only once.  The ECAC is the only conference left with a
balanced schedule.
 
The "divisions" in HE were set up by looking at the teams' combined
records for 1989-90 and 1990-91 and ranking them 1 through 8.  Teams
1, 4, 5, and 8 went in one division (BC, PC, UNH, Lowell) and teams 2,
3, 6, and 7 went in the other (Maine, BU, Northeastern, Merrimack).
The league originally said that the divisions would be re-evaluated
and changed every two years according to the records over the previous
two years.  This is Year 3 of the divisional scheduling and the
divisions haven't changed.  That means that for two straight years,
one scheduling division is top heavy.  The divisions this season should
be: Maine, PC, Lowell, Merrimack; BU, UNH, BC, Northeastern.
 
And however you look at it, I thought the divisions for scheduling
should have resulted in two actual divisions within the conference, to
be fair.  That was not even close to happening, it seems.
 
At least with UMass coming in, we'll return to each team playing the
same number of games vs each other team.  But I still don't like the
idea that, for example, some teams have to go to Maine 2x and others
only once.
 
>Army is a special case since they
>seem less interested in maintaining their program (just my observation!!).
 
I suspect Army would take quite an exception to this. :-)  Rather, I
thought that Army left the ECAC because they recognized they could not
compete with the other conference teams for players on the same equal
footing, and they preferred to be able to go around and play various
other teams (DivI or not) as well.  (That helps them recruit more from
around the country.)  It's just a case of Army belonging someplace
different than a conference.  They are as interested in maintaining
hockey and having it thrive there as people in Wisconsin or Minnesota
are.  Hockey at West Point is actually quite popular and draws well.
Army used to be DivII for many years, so to even be somewhat
competitive with many DivI teams shows the strides the program has
taken.
 
Charlie Shub has talked about Air Force also getting into the WCHA or
something similar.  I fear that they will find themselves in the same
position as Army for many of the same reasons.  Should all parties
agree, I would like to see USAFA give it a shot and would hope for
their success, but I'm not too confident they would fare better than
Army.
 
The challenge for DivI hockey and, really, for all of college
athletics, is to realize that there is a place for everybody and to
find that best possible place in which everybody belongs.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<<< Color Voice of the (9-10-2) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>