At 01:28 PM 2/26/96 -0500, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
>I'm going to be honest here and say that after 11 years, I've come to
>the decision that I'd rather see more conference games.  However, I
>come from the HE perspective where we only have 24 conference games,
>whereas the WCHA has 32.  Maybe the "best" number is somewhere in
>between.
 
First of all, 24 has a nice ring to it.  Anything between two-thirds and
three-fourths of the 34 game limit, IMO.  4 or 5 non-conference weekends
spaced throughout the season would suit me just fine.  Or perhaps the
revival of a few more tournaments for us 5-or-6-hour-at-a-time fanatics...
 
>The biggest reason I would like to see more conference games in HE is
>that with few exceptions, any conference game is better than any
>nonconference game.  There is more excitement around the game, both
>teams know each other and so do both teams' fans, and so on.
 
I disagree.  Some fans are excited by fights or cheap beer, so should we
advocate lesser penalties for pugilism or call for a nation-wide happy hour?
True, there exists a different kind of excitement between conference and
non-conference games.  I for one like the contrast between a "must win"
conference game and an exhibition-type wide open affair that often results
from a key non-conference match-up.  And what if a team is mathematically
eliminated from the playoffs with two or three series to play?  Is the
"spoiler" role enough to draw fans to otherwise meaningless conference
games?  The UAA-Denver series this weekend was great hockey but meant
absolutely nothing in the WCHA scheme of things, as neither team could move
up or down in the conference standings.  I for one would've love to have
seen UAF in town to close out Brush's career...
 
>Sure, there will be the great matchups throughout the year that
>generate fan interest like Maine-Michigan or BU-Minnesota, but those
>are few and far between.  And it seems that when it comes to big
>nonconference matchups, it's a case of the "haves" and the "have
>nots".  For example, Maine and BU are attractive to opponents from
>other leagues, and so is BC, but the rest of the HE schools are not
>going to be able to get a matchup with Michigan or MSU.  It is like
>this in every league.  There's something unfair about that.
 
I agree, to a point, but you can say the same thing for in-conference play.
We'd all love to shape our schedules around top-drawing opponents but you
have to take the chaff with the wheat (speaking from a truly chaff
perspective :).  Personally, I enjoyed last year's games against Merrimack
as much as (if not more than) the Maine and Colorado College series.  Try
and tell the players involved that those games didn't mean anything.
 
Plus, as a selfish alum, I'd like to see my CCHA Nanooks play more against
the WCHA Seawolves now that I live in Anchorage.  I imagine a lot of
far-flung RPI, Minnesota and Michigan alums (among a zillion other schools I
could name) would like to see their alma mater visit their locales for a
non-conference series.
 
I suspect the players and coaches might like "breather" games scattered
throughout the season to try out new lineups or size up possible tourney
foes in advance.  Sure, it won't add points toward a conference crown, but
it adds flavor to the game.  Let's not all apply Buchananesque protectionism
to justify conference affiliation.  I'm with Tony B: hoops (gag) definitely
has a leg up on hockey here.
 
Mark J. Sonnier, C.P.M.
[log in to unmask]
UAF '90
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.