You wrote:
 
    we've seen two D-I teams fold in recent years, and
     they've both been from the ccha.  i wonder if this has
     anything to do with league politics, as well as the
     individual school politics being discussed at uic.  any
     comments.
 
 
I think that both program's folding were not the result of anything
league-related.  In both cases, I believe that the schools were trying
to cut corners and they saw that hockey used a lot of scholarships and
that their teams had not met with great success.  Kent's team didn't
have long to prove itself, and I think everyone in the CCHA is completely
baffled about why Kent would pay mega-bucks to join the league only
to pull out three years later.  In the case of UIC, the team had about
10 years to prove itself, and they had one or two decent seasons, but as
of late, they had been a consistent lower-echelon program.  I think that
the school wanted to have at least one winner, and with the hiring of
a new hoops coach, they decided that the only way resources would be
available to boost his chances of success would be if money was freed up
from somewhere else.  I suspect that UIC's hockey program operated at
a loss and that substantial funds were freed by dropping the program.
My guess is that the school will be   100K better off without hockey.
 
I think that many of the successful programs run their hockey programs
and either break even or make a small profit.  I believe that Michigan State,
Bowling Green, and Michigan in the CCHA turn small surpluses in their
hockey program.  But part of the reason for that is they have good
community and alumni support that helps pay for some of their expenses,
allowing them to turn a meager profit at the gate.  I think that few
college hockey teams are going to be money-makers without corporate
sponsorships and alumni and booster donations and support.
 
In the case of UIC, I think the biggest mystery is why the school was unable
to attract much corporate involvement in Chicago.  I've always felt that
UIC was mis-managing a golden opportunity.  Chicago is a decent hockey
town.  There's not  support like in Detroit,  the Twin Cities, or Boston,
where all levels of hockey seem to be enjoyed, but there is a considerable
following none the less.  Yet UIC never seemed to be promoted adequately
IMHO.  They never seemed to draw ample corporate support and never seemed
to be able to collect much ink in the Chicago papers.  I haven't lived in
Chicago for some time, but my impression while I did live there and during
my infrequent visits back is that the Flames weren't generating the support
they needed.
 
I think that the failure at UIC raises questions about their Athletic
Department.  I'm not convinced that UIC ever had enough commitment to
hockey to make their program successful.  I think they didn't have the
cabbage to attract a top coach and that they probably couldn't attract
a top name because the institution would not commit the funds necessary
to succeed.  The institution seems to have accepted that and decided
that they will try to make hoops succeed.
 
Too bad that the other CCHA team's followers will no longer have an excuse
to make a visit to Chicago.
 
 
Tim Newman
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.