Well, UMTC wasn't meant to be "cute."  It seemed to me there was a push a couple of years ago to make the abbreviations for the teams to completely correct, hence UMTC.

Secondly, I didn't suggest any of this was going to happen.  I was merely pointing out what I thought was a more logical geographic arrangement of the Division I teams.

Tom Rowe 

-----Original Message-----
From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Erik Biever
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Geographic alignment

A few comments:

The Wisconsin - Minnesota hockey rivalry dates back to 1922 and is quite well known.  The cute reference to 'UMTC' doesn't add clarity.

Michigan Tech has made it clear that it doesn't intend to leave the WCHA.

Air Force has made it clear that it doesn't want to join the WCHA.  Coach Frank Serratore's comment on travel:  "We're not the Bus Force."

-- Erik

Rowe, Thomas wrote:
> OK, OK - all smoke.  You are never going to get serious league realignment because folks like their traditional rivalries.  What would the world of hockey be without Wisconsin v. Minnesota (UMTC)?  But if the CHA is going to disappear and those teams have to go someplace, maybe some minor realignment becomes possible?
> 
> Note first that the East has it cozy.  Density of teams, short travel distances - it really doesn't make much sense to try to divvy them up differently.  Second, Alabama is an outlier and you really can't do much about that.  Likewise, the two Alaska teams are forever isolated.  Interestingly, especially when you consider great circle routes, travel distances to and from them don't change much regardless of which conference they belong to so it doesn't make any sense to do something with them.  But why should Air Force be in the ATL conference other than that's where a traditional rival (Army) is?  Geographically it doesn't make much sense.  That's the most obvious move to me.  So here is what I think:
> 
> Start with the 5 big conferences as they currently exist and make these changes:
> 
> ATL loses Air Force but adds Niagra, Robert Morris and Alabama.  That brings them to 12 teams.
> 
> CCHA loses UN-Omaha but adds Michigan Tech.  For MTU this adds travel time for league play, but UN-O saves more than MTU loses.  OTOH, this isn't necessary so is the least important change proposed.
> 
> WCHA loses MTU, but adds Air Force, BSU, and UNO.
> 
> With or without the UNO-MTU switch, this yields 4 leagues of 12 teams (HE is unaffected) and may be the best we can do geographically.  Of course, convincing folks to make these changes is another problem, but can anyone suggest a better realignment?
> 
> Tom Rowe
> 
> .
>