Lowell King writes:
>It is our understanding that the "NCAA schedule exemption" for teams
>playing in Alaska
>has nothing, in particular, to do with hockey.
Agreed. This exemption is listed in the NC$$ Manual in many sports
other than just hockey. And I agree with the importance of the
exemption with regard to sports other than hockey, too. My thought is
that perhaps the rule should be amended so that it only applies to
teams not in conferences - although if there is a real threat that in
that case the Alaska schools would be kicked out of their conferences,
I would *not* support such a change.
Perhaps it would be better to leave well enough alone and not take the
risk, and I can understand this point of view.
>Obviously, some kind of incentive was
>needed for any Alaska college team to be even remotely considered as
>a part of the U.S.
>-- i.e. for us to schedule and play "lower 48" teams.
I wanted to point out that many schools other than just the WCHA and
CCHA schools have shown an interest in helping the Alaska schools
survive and grow, as well as other programs. I know that Merrimack
has felt a kinship with the other Independents since MC joined Hockey
East, dating back to Merrimack's days as an Independent, and MC has
played many of the teams like UAF, UAA, Air Force, Army, UAH,
etc. partly because Ron Anderson and Bob DeGregorio think it is
important to support these programs - it was not that long ago that
Merrimack was wondering where its future lay until HE invited them in.
The result is that a school like Merrimack which takes this approach
(it's also true that MC doesn't have the clout to be able to schedule
schools like Michigan or Minnesota, the nickname issue aside) is going
to suffer in the RPI rating because of its strength of schedule. In
coming years, this could be a concern if the program continues to
improve and can challenge for an NC$$ bid. I believe it was Shawn
Walsh who said recently that this was a real problem for schools that
wanted to support others trying to build their program (and Maine has
been another that has done this) but were wary of having their SOS
hurt by playing those teams. It's a problem without an easy answer.
You could draw a comparison to HE taking in UMA with the stronger
schools knowing that their SOS is going to take a hit in the short
term from having to play them 3 times a year. They're taking the hit
knowing that it's for the good of the game and the league to bring in
a UMA and help them grow.
>Many of the WCHA schools are small. As a thought, I wonder how long
>the bigger schools
>would continue to play these smaller schools if the WCHA or NCAA
>totally ignored some of
>the special needs of these schools ...
With regards to the smaller schools that have been playing hockey for a
while, you can find them spread amongst all of the four conferences.
I do believe that most schools, if not all, have a desire to see the
sport grow and want to support those teams that need it. But it's
also true that most of the smaller schools even in the WCHA have been
around for a while and that the bigger schools have developed strong
rivalries with them. It's as much of a benefit to the bigger schools
that they play the smaller ones, partly because of the rivalries that
their fans have come to enjoy *and* because they need games.
Getting back to Merrimack, the big reason they were invited into HE
when they were was that HE had lost the interlocking schedule with the
WCHA and needed more games. I'm not sure what would have happened if
the WCHA and HE had continued their agreement - Merrimack had plans to
play 1989-90 and 1990-91 as an Independent and then hoped to enter HE,
but if an invitation was not forthcoming, they very well might have
continued as an Independent and then returned to DivII when the DivII
tourney was reinstated in 1992.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
|
