On Sat, 2 Sep 1995, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> Well, the elimination of the Independent bid after 1992 did not technically
> mean that only conference teams could receive bids.  All it meant was that
> the Indeps were no longer guaranteed to receive at least one bid.  It would
> still have been possible for an Indep to qualify for a bid based on its own
> merits, as is the case today.
>
> I think it is important to remember that the climate had changed
> drastically with regards to Independents by the time that the bid was
> eliminated.  There were not nearly as many Independents playing then as
> there were back in 1988 when the bid was first awarded.  Most had either
> already joined conferences (Merrimack, St Cloud, Kent, Notre Dame) or
> dropped out of DivI (Alabama-Huntsville, US International).
>
> The only Indeps left after the bid was eliminated were UAF, UAA, Army, and
> Air Force (discounting the minor Indeps like Canisius and UConn that were
> never going to play nearly enough games to be eligible).  Army was not
> playing enough games to be eligible either, and Air Force's record against
> DivI teams (4-17-1 in 92-93) left them out of contention too.  Thus only
> UAA and UAF would have been serious contenders for a bid - two teams, in
> contrast to upwards of ten in 1988.
>
> The elimination of the bid was a good decision - leaving aside the question
> of whether or not it was a good idea in the first place, its time had
> clearly passed and it had served its purpose in helping the Indeps build
> their programs to the point where they could enter conferences.  Even UAA
> and UAF would benefit within a few years by being extended invitations to
> join conferences.
 
Agreed.  However, I think it is important to remember that both Alaska
schools (UAF to a greater extent due to small market considerations) had
HUGE problems putting together a schedule with "quality" opponents.  As
late as last season, the final prior to full CCHA membership, UAF
scheduled Div. III and Canadian teams due to a distinct lack of takers
from the Div. I conference ranks.  With the rather onerous schedules
imposed on conference members (WCHA in particular), it was join or die as
a Div. I program.  This survival instinct overwhelmed any playoff
considerations.  The idea was that, despite the infamous Alaska
exemption, without victories against high caliber schools no Alaska (or
independent) teams stood a realistic chance of being awarded an at-large
tourney bid...
 
> The biggest reason why the bid should have been eliminated was that it was
> unfair to a majority of the teams in DivI.  Each year from 1988 to 1992, a
> team that was more deserving according to the criteria set down by the NCAA
> was forced out due to the fact that an Indep had to receive a bid.  In two
> of those years (1988 - Merrimack, 1991 - UAA), Indeps did prove themselves
> in the tourney, but it is still true that those teams would not have
> qualified for the tourney on their own merits had there been no automatic
> bid.
 
Whoa, there.  Merits are subjective at best where scheduling opportunities
are not consistent.  I find it difficult to compare schools without head
-to-head competition or similar schedules.  This inequity was partially
remedied through the independent bid.
 
> As to how the two Alaskas wound up in separate conferences, a question I
> believe someone raised...there were a number of dynamics that played a part
> here.  Paramount was the unwillingness of both Western conferences to take
> both teams.  Besides the desire not to make so many trips to Alaska, both
> conferences were pushing the upper limits of how many conference games they
> could play while maintaining several nonconference slots for in-season
> tourneys and other traditional NC rivalries.  I think it was unfortunate
> that the great UAA-UAF rivalry had to be scaled down as a result of the
> teams entering different conferences, but this was more than offset by the
> fact that these teams are finally now both full-fledged DivI conference
> members and able to enjoy the same chance at a tourney bid that the other
> teams have.
 
Offsetting perhaps to non-believers :)  Heck, even Michigan and State get to
play at least four (now six) times a year!  True, 8 or 10 games a year
was excessive, but a lot of fans are squeezed out of witnessing this
great rivalry firsthand.  As has been suggested many times before, a truly
Western league make a lot of sense, econimically and competitively.  Some
day I suspect this will become a reality, especially with the recent
Californiazation of hockey.
 
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...
 
Mark Sonnier
UAF '90
"Nooks in '95: Bad as Binky in the CCHA!"
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.