This is a collection of thoughts that all come, more or less, under the topic
of FOR THE GOOD OF THE SPORT.
 
SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - Good for the sport??? How can this be? While I'm as
critical of the NC$$ as anybody on the list, and I'm sure they were thinking
of the $$ rather than the AA when they cut the number of scholarships, I see a
gem in this pile of refuse they've laid. Put yourself in the shoes of the
coach at Mankato State, or Union, or Kent, or even coach Ric at ND. Your talent
pool goes up with every scholarship that gets cut. As an analogy, take football
before scholarship limitations. Every kid with talent in the midwest wound up
at Michigan, Ohio State, or Notre Dame. Similar stockpiling occured at schools
like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc...  The result was that every year we
got treated to another Ohio State team getting pounded on New Years Day by USC.
Contrast this to the current state, where teams can't stockpile talent, and
almost any Big Ten team has an opportunity to lose to Washington. This parity
has led to a great increase in the overall popularity of college football,
even if folks at some of the traditional powers might be less than overjoyed
at seeing an upstart like Georgia Tech or Colorado get some glory.
 
I'm not saying that scholarship cuts aren't a pile of something. The football
situation involved a redistribution of talent, not an overall reduction in
the number of available scholarships. I'm just saying that the pile isn't
quite as high as it appears to be.
 
 
WCHA-CCHA INTER-LEAGUE PLAY - I think this has a much better chance of
succeeding than the WCHA-HE agreement. I'm basing this conclusion on the
following premise, which I THINK is accurate, but if it isn't, I feel confident
than somebody on the list will correct me :-) That premise is that one of the
reasons the WCHA-HE agreement did not last is because Eastern teams did not
draw well when playing at the smaller Western schools. That is, taking a
Minnesota or Wisconsin off the schedule and replacing them with a Boston
school with which there was no traditional rivalry, meant fewer fans in the
stands. Which meant fewer $$. Which meant big problems at schools where
hockey was the only division 1 sport and the primary income sport. I think
(hope) this would be less of a problem with CCHA teams.
 
Most of this is coming from dimly remembered conversations with dubious sources
in bars, so I may be full of NC$$ hockey program improvements, but I remember
being told that one of the reasons that Northern and Mich Tech left the CCHA
for the WCHA was that WCHA teams were better draws (remember, this is during
the halcyon days of the WCHA, when Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota took
turns winning titles), and that one factor in Notre Dame dropping hockey was an
attendance drop following their switch from the WCHA to the CCHA. Going back
further, the reason behind their exodus from the WCHA was the travel costs
associated with the Colorado schools. Like I said, all this may be horseapples,
and if it is, don't be shy about letting me know (any CCHA historians out
there?). But the point is, $$$ counts a lot, especially to schools that
otherwise aren't big players in college athletics, as the folks at Ferris will
tell you.
 
At any, rate, if that was the case, I don't think the success or failure of
such an agreement is going to rest upon the response to the LSSU vs Northern
or Minnesota vs Mich State matchups that we're all drooling over. I think it
hinges on the response at the CCs, Denvers, UICs, and Kents. If Ferris has
to replace a "bus charter" series with a "plane charter" series in Colorado,
and that series doesn't draw as well as the NMU or UM game it displaced,
there'll be problems.
 
 
BREAKING AWAY FROM THE NC$$ - Unquestionably good for the game. It's a shame
those swine in Mission, Kansas have all those teams in other sports to hold as
hostages.
 
But enough rambling. Back to the Olympics...
 
 
Bob Schwartz
[log in to unmask]