>Good points here by Mono...just wanted to weigh in on a couple.
 
Ditto ...
 
 
>> A committee on expansion should be formed between the WCHA and CCHA
>> (and,  ideally,  all four leagues) and criteria established for
adding
>> teams to 1.  Division I hockey;  and 2.  Conferences.
>
>I like the idea but each conference is going to have its own reasons
for
>wanting to expand.  At the same time, remembering back to the
cooperation
>that led to each of the western leagues accepting an Alaska school, I
do
>think that people need to talk about this issue.
 
Cooperation would be nice, but ultimately, every school is going to do
what's best for itself.  So, instead of trying to fight that, we need to
go with that.
 
I think what hockey as a whole can do is encourage things like the MAAC,
which provides a viable alternative for a secondary tier of schools ---
though even there, there are going to be haves and have nots.
 
Personally, I think schools should be realistic.  Is it better for UNO
or similar schools to create a lesser conference with a chance to win
it --- and down the road, a chance for an NCAA upset --- or join a
bigger conference with no real chance to win it? (no replies about UNO's
chances to win the CCHA - it's a general comment).  I think it should be
up to the school, but I would like to see more conferences.
 
 
>The key here is that as you say below,
>
>> As a side note,  NO school is owed membership in any conference just
by
>> declaring "Division I".  And no conference is obligated to take a
school
>> in just because it goes Division I.  A smart University would have
its
>> ducks in a row as to conference membership prior to making the jump,
>> IMHO.
>
>The problem is that we all want the sport to grow and we also want to
do
>what we can to help schools that want to be part of that growth.  But
for
>whatever reason, it may not make sense for a given conference to admit
>someone.  So you have these conflicting desires and it does make things
>difficult.
 
Good points by all ... what if the CCHA sponsored CCHA-Lite?  And I
don't mean that to sound condescending to the teams that would be in
that conference.
 
 
>Whether it be UNO or anyone else, I certainly agree that no one is owed
>anything.  And it would be wrong for a school to feel as if they are.
For
>example, if the CCHA were to admit UNO, an appropriate question would
be,
>are they doing it because they believe it is in their best interests or
>because of a sense of duty and desire to help another program?  And are
>these conflicting interests?
 
Knowing the current commissioners of most of the conferences, they
probably feel a sense of duty, but I'd imagine the member schools knock
that sense out of them quite regularly  :-)
 
 
>> In a more broad vein,  and from a developmental aspect,  are we
adding
>> far too many "Division I" teams,  without acutally having the
"Division
>> I" players?  I think the answer is yes.
 
I have beat my head into the wall repeatedly making the following point
to Mike, and not gotten anywhere ... so, what the heck, I'll try again.
 
In my opinion, there is no such thing as D-I caliber in general and
there is no such thing as a proper number of teams.  It is an absolutely
vaccuous point -- an idea warped by our perceptions and the way we have
viewed the structure to this point.
 
Does anyone look to the point guard for the 150th best college
basketball team and say "he's not a D-I caliber player"??  No.
 
But what if there were 100 college basketball programs in 1980, and all
of a sudden, in 1998, there was 200.
   Now, of course, there would be a sudden outcry that D-I play is
diluted.
 
But who's to say what the PROPER number of teams is.  Is it 40?  60?
100?  15?  Who the heck knows.  There is no such thing as the right
amount of teams.
 
We can only say for sure this one obvious point --- D-I hockey will be
more dilluted tomorrow than it was today.  That's an obvious statement.
But, as my favorite saying goes ... it's all relative.
 
You can only make the argument in relation to the current setup.  There
is no right and wrong.  If there was always 70 D-I hockey teams, we
wouldn't know the difference.
 
However many can survive is the RIGHT amount.  Just like in major league
sports ... the reason there were only 16 major league baseball teams in
1945 is because only 16 cities and owners thought it could make
money --- not because they thought it was the "right" amount.
 
Let everyone out of the cage, and make it survival of the fittest.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.