HAMPTON wrote:
> Bob Hamilton asked the following question in his thesis on college hockey;-)
>   
>> A question more interesting to me than why Syracuse has joined the ranks is
>> why so many others have not?  The Illinois setting brings up both
>> Northwestern U and the U of Illinois as prime candidates in many ways.
>> Also, what stops programs like Ohio U., Penn State, Indiana and others that
>> have had strong club hockey programs for years to stay club when colleges
>> with similar characteristics have D1 ice hockey?
>>     
>
> My answer is the Flames from University of Illinois, Chicago. The school has
> 250,000 students and at one point had a very good Division I hockey team
> (called the Flames for the obvious reason of is location). I am not sure if
> they were independent or part of the CCHA, but they unfortunately folded in
> the mid 1990s. Thus any chancellor, with the exception of the one at the
> University of Alabama, Huntsville (who should be a hero to all college
> hockey fans), would consider DI hockey a major risk. To make that kind of
> financial commitment (and to stand up to football, basketball, and all other
> major sports who would not want such a drain on their budgets) should not be
> expected unless there is substantial student, alumni, and financial support
> for such a move, intramural broomball notwithstanding.
>
> This is from the USCHO discussion board at by someone called "AJF"
> http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?p=2842858#post2842858
> While I was living in Illinois I asked a reasonably high-ranking UIC
> athletics official about the prospects for the return of hockey to UIC. He
> said something to the effect of "never in a million years" even though he
> was a supporter and fan of college hockey. He cited the financial commitment
> - and in particular, the cost of scholarships for the out-of-state students
> that comprised most of the team - as the major reason.
>
> Hockey is a great sport, returning large benefits to those of us
> passionately involved with it, like all those reading this. However, the
> costs are also large, and DI hockey can be classified as nothing but a risky
> venture. College presidents are not in the business of risky ventures, nor
> do they have the stomach or onions for them. So though we can always think
> of reasons  "why not" to have DI hockey, they do not come close to the
> reasons for "why not" by those who have to make the decision.
>
> Nathan Hampton 
>   
>
>
>   
The flames were indeed a D-I team and a more recent member of the CCHA 
until they eliminated their D-I hockey team. They had a decent team and 
I thought would perform in the middle of the pack. From my understanding 
at the time, the reasons given for the decision to drop the team were 
that they didn't have too good a facility and along with low attendance 
(before many of the newer CHA and Atlantic Hockey teams joined) compared 
to the other teams and that with their location in Chicago they wanted 
to spend more of their resources to boost their basketball program. It 
seems now that they don't have a hockey team to draw fans and also lack 
a good basketball team as well.

Bill K.