Hmmmmmmm, a person from Clemson telling us about schools talking about
schools trying to squeeze money out of their teams.....
 
Anyway if we actually make money out of flying all the way up to Alaska
Fairbanks I would be flabbergasted, stunned, shocked, and otherwise
suprised.  If we traveled to Alaska Fairbanks during the semester I would
be seriously "displeased."  However we don't, and we don't.  Remember
that the teams travel to Alaska during breaks in the school year, not
during the middle of classes.  As to making money I don't see where
Alaska Fairbanks could afford to pay other CCHA teams what it costs to go
there, and even spliting revenue from the game would not cover the cost.
Universities such as OSU, ND, UM, MSU, etc, etc have large enough budgets
to afford to send teams, as do the other member schools.  Beyond that
lets face it, does not seem to me that Alaska Fairbanks brings in huge
crowds that would make bringing them down here worth it.  Frankly I think
one coule make a better claim that it isn't fair of Universities to risk
the lives of the team by making fly on some of these airlines nowadays!  :)
 
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Matt Hills wrote:
 
> Maybe I am simply missing the point, but I have to pose this ques-
> tion anyway. Why is Alaska being added to the CCHA? It seems unfair
> to me to ask the athletes in the CCHA to travel for such a long dis-
> tance and time all the way to Alaska to play hockey. Don't get me
> wrong, I have nothing at all against Alaska, I have been there my-
> self and it is quite a beautiful place. However, there is no denying
> the fact that it is isolated. This issue appears to have been ignored
> by the CCHA in adding to the league in the same way that the Big 10
> ignored the travel time issue in adding Penn State to the Big 10. I
> know that the conferences are out to make money and they no doubt
> make more money by adding additional teams. This is what it is all
> about, no doubt, money. That is a really sad statement that the CCHA
> and college athletics in general overlook the mission of a college:
> education of its students. When a league/school forgets about the
> detriments of this travel time on a student's academic life for the
> sake of increased revenue to the league and school, it shows leagues
> and schools increasingly for what they are becoming: greedy, money-
> mongering institutions that do not care about the welfare and edu-
> cation of the students, athletes or not. I might understand how im-
> portant the revenue generated by a huge spectator sport like football
> is to the general welfare of the student population, but let's face
> it; no matter how much we all love hockey, it remains a second-tier
> spectator sport at most schools that does not generate even a
> fraction of the revenue that football does. I would venture to say
> that hockey generates almost no revenue to most division I schools
> and should never override the academic obligations of students at
> the university. Let us not forget that the hockey players remain
> students like all the others at a university, no matter how much
> they are recruited (paid??...) ;-)
>