John H., among others, have written some interesting things concerning
balanced schedules, Alaska trips, etc. Let me comment (all the below is
IMHO, of course):
 
Re: CCHA vs WCHA balanced schedules
 
I choose to respectfully disagree with those who have stated that the
CCHA is more balanced, schedule-wise, than the CCHA.
 
JohnH says, correctly, that the CCHA schedule balances every two years,
while the WCHA balances every NINE years, again correct. However, what is
at issue here is not how often the schedules balance out. I think it is
great that every two years the CCHA teams will have played three home and
three away games with every team. But that does not mean that the
schedule is balanced, primarily because teams are different from year to
year.
 
In one year, taken in isolation, WCHA teams play two home and two
away games with seven teams of nine teams in the conference, while having
just two teams holding the unbalanced part.
 
While in the CCHA, in one year, again taken in isolation, EVERY team
plays an unbalanced schedule of two-one home-away games. I understand
that some are played on "neutral" sites, like the Joe, but we all know
how neutral that is: about as "neutral" as Minnesota playing their
Wisconsin border battle game at the Target Center.
 
Let's take Michigan this year. They had to play twice at: WMU, LSSU, and
BGSU, three teams in the top five (Michigan is another). Is that a
balanced schedule? Next year it will balance, of course, and Michigan
will host LSSU, WMU, and BGSU twice. But are any of those teams going to
be as good next year as they were this year? Obviously this question
depends on many factors that are not clear yet: graduation, injuries,
recruits, etc. But it is possible that the teams will change
significantly enough that these are not the "power" teams in the conference.
 
Back to the WCHA: sure, the wacky schedule can, under certain
circumstances, show an obvious bias. We are all familiar with the shining
example: Colorado College won the the WCHA two years ago, by one point,
and only had to play Minnesota two games, not four. This hurt their
schedule so much, they didn't make the NCAA tournament, leading to the
now famous (infamous?) CC rule.
 
Okay, but we all know how rare this kind of circumstance is. Has it
popped up again since? Has there ever been any danger that the regular
season champions from each conference wouldn't make the Big Show? No --
it is like Mike Legg's goal: impressive, amazing, but very, very rare.
 
JohnH raised a point about Minn playing at Alaska Anchorage in the
1994-95 season, when they should have hosted them. this game Minn two
extra non-conference games they wanted. Sure, this unbalances the
schedule even further, hopelessly throwing the "nine year plan" into
disarray.
 
So what? There is little, if anything, to be gained by making the
schedule exactly balance out in nine years. This is taking a longer view
of the proceedings than is necessary (or even desirable). With the
turnover rate of college students, it makes little effort to balance out
every nine years: best to try and be as balanced as possible in one year,
or so the WCHA teams seem to believe.
 
Obviously the CCHA scheduling office has a different view. Better to
balance out in two years, despite the fact that only 3/5 of the players
on any team (on average) are the same over a two year span. If there is
some advantage to playing at a neutral site (like more $$, I suppose) one
year but not the next, this throws off the two year schedule, as well.
But nobody cares. It all NEARLY balances out, which seems to be good
enough for the teams involved.
 
Kenneth Michael Baker writes:
 
> However; they are more concerned about having 32
> games probably because it is a nice number to work with.
 
He is referring to the WCHA here, and this sentiment really bothers me.
It seems clear that a good number of college hockey fans here on the list
believe that the WCHA has set upon this number of 32 for no good reason.
Many go so far as to suggest that 32 is chosen precisely *because* very
few non-conference games are available.
 
Again, let me say: there is no evidence available to support this claim.
It seems clear to me (and I could be wrong, of course) that the WCHA is
merely trying to keep the schedules as balanced as possible within any
given year while *still allowing* non-conference games. The higher-ups
clearly DON'T want the half-and-half schedule that the CCHA has. The
choice then becomes:
 
1) Play a perfectly balanced schedule with no non-conference games
 
2) Play a slightly unbalanced schedule allowing for a few non-conference
games
 
3) Play a wildly unbalanced schedule allowing for many non-conference games
 
Which do you prefer? The WCHA likes choice 2.
 
Baker asks:
 
> Also, how are other schedules (WCHA, Hockey East, ECAC) on balance and
> possible bias with 10, 9, and 12 teams respectively in each of these
> leagues?
 
As far as I can tell, the break down is as follows:
 
Hockey East: 9 teams, a half-and-half schedule like the CCHA. Ask any
team having to play twice @BU and twice @Maine in one year how unbalanced
this is.
 
ECAC: 12 teams, a perfectly balancing schedule with two conference
meetings between two opponents, one at each home site. It strikes me that
two games is too small a sample set to base standings on. I would prefer
three or four, but the ECAC teams have fewer games to play. And you have
to appreciate the perfect balance that the other conferences have been
unable to acheive.
 
As far as I know, all uneven schedules are not decided on a year to year
basis by strength of team in any conference. I assume there was a set
schedule in each conferece as to who plays who in what year, and it is
strictly followed (ignoring teams dropping out, like Kent and UIC).
 
My feeling about the newly proposed merger between the CCHA and the WCHA
is this: if there is going to be a "super-conference" with 22 of 45 teams
available in three divisions that play each other unevenly, why not just
break up into three different conferences, and leave the remaining games
as non-conference? Why all the smoke and mirrors?
 
Finally, one last comment on the Alaska travel situation. I don't think
it is possible to compare bus rides and plane rides. A five hour bus ride
is not comparable to a five hour flight, nor is 45 minutes by bus the
same as 45 minutes by air. It would be great if that were the case, but
anyone who suggests that it is hasn't had much experience flying (or too
much, perhaps).
 
                                -Lee-nerd
                                [log in to unmask]
 
 
"It is not written in the stars that I will always understand what is
going on - a truism that I often find damnably annoying."
                                -Robert Heinlein
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.