At 06:29 PM 4/16/96 -0500, Lee Urton wrote:
 
[a whole lot about Alaska hockey and the future...]
 
In the interest of brevity, I've condensed things down a lot, so here's
hoping I didn't smush too much content.  In a nutshell, here's an Alaskan
perspective on the arguments voiced here recently:
 
1) The trip to Alaska is long and hard on players from the Lower 48.
 
I, for one, do not see what the big deal is here.  Minneapolis to Anchorage
is a five hour flight.  How long is the bus ride from the Madison to
Houghton?  While I wouldn't want to make the flight just for fun, it's not
exactly like getting board-checked by Bob Probert.  Judging from both Alaska
squads' home records this season, the visitors from Outside should want to
play up here as often as possible...
 
2) Should UAF and UAA end up in the same conference, double ditto on 1).
 
Back in the old days (before conference membership for UAF and UAA) schools
often came up and played two games each in Anchorage and Fairbanks during a
single week.  This often meant a Friday-Saturday series followed by a
Monday-Tuesday series.  Not exactly an optimum from the home team's
perspective, as one school got hosed on a weeknight series.  But the concept
minimized travel time for opposing teams.  Perhaps a Friday-Saturday-Sunday
series on consecutive weekends in both towns could work.  That way, a team
could make the Alaska trip for a week and a half every other year.  This
three-game stint seems to work in the CCHA.  The school hosting the second
weekend's games could even make their library and computer facilities (heck,
we'll throw in a professor or two to sweeten the deal) available to visiting
teams for homework and such.  Oops, that's gonna let some air out of the
"too much missed school" balloon.
 
3) The WCHA now plays that funky four-game/two-game series thing and calls
it a schedule.
 
Whoa, what a complicated picture.  I agree with John H.  I think the current
three game schedule that UAF plays in the CCHA is a model way to deal with
Alaska games.  Add in a divisional system and some non-conference games and
you're there.  This will be the real downfall, though, considering the
WCHA's anal retentiveness on not letting members play and non-conference
games...
 
4) Why not make UAF and UAA travel partners?
 
Egad!  Putting Siamese fighting fish together in a ziplok bag would be less
risky...  Might as well make RPI and Cornell travel partners.  Or how about
Minnesota and Wisconsin?  (Getting the idea???)  Aside from the distance
factor (not really a problem, as it's only a 45 minute plane ride - in fact
during the home-and-home each fall both schools make the round trip the same
day to save on hotel) the two programs are currently not on the friendliest
of terms.  Then again, Fairbanks and Anchorage don't agree on much of
anything at all except keeping that PFD check coming each fall...
 
5) How about a "western" conference with two divisions?
 
Not a bad idea.  But this angle must feature ample inter-division play and
non-conference games to preserve ancient rivalries, which would also appear
to be a divine bovine for some flatlanders.
 
Did I miss any hot buttons?
 
Bottom line is this: From a fan's perspective, I don't think UAF will move
in with Anchorage in the WCHA.  This is due mainly to the fact that the
league powers will not think much has changed since they nixed UAF's bid to
join 4 years ago.  Too far, too expensive (though UAF pay's most of the
visiting clubs travel expenses - part of league membership), too cold,
whatever.  Without a massive college hockey expansion out west (of the
Rockies, that is), I'll predict the two Alaska schools will remain separated
for some time.
 
Praying for an early October,
 
Mark Sonnier
UAF '90, '96 (just two more classes!)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.