Being an Easterner, I have been observing the debate on UAF's future home with
some degree of detachment.  A couple of common sense observations, and a few
purely subjective reactionsare prompted however.
 
>The ultimate solution for the conference, however, is going to have tobe a
>twelfth.  Look for the recruitment of someone like Northern Michigan t
>switch conferences, since there probably aren't a lot of schools in ths
>area of the country who could easily move up to DivI.
 
If my memory serves me (and I hope I'm not suffering from Walt's malaise)
Michigan Tech and Northern Michigan were CCHA teams in the 70's, switching
over for some reason in 1980 or so.  I have never understood the situation with
the teams in the Upper Peninsula.  Common sense would dictate that Michigan
Tech, Northern Michigan and LSSU all play in the same conference, and same
division, since they are the only ones who can get up there in the winter!
Adding in Minnesota Duluth, since there is a road from Duluth leading to the
UP, also would make sense.  But there must be something else at issue here.
What are the bonds between LSSU and the CCHA, and similarly the WCHA with
UNM and Michigan Tech?  And why did UNM and Michigan Tech migrate over to the
WCHA?  I think the move occurred before LSSU had a Division 1 program, so
why did LSSU opt for the CCHA?
 
Regarding UAF, IMHO the WCHA has a responsibility to clear up the Alaska
mess.  I was personally very surprised when they invited Anchorage into the
big club, since accepting UAA created probably the most geographically
disparate conference in all of collegiate sports.  Perhaps the WCHA assumed
that the CCHA had claimed UAF as its territory, but now that this misperception
has been cleared up, the WCHA has the ability to easily correct the problem.
There are any number of ways the conference could be structured to ensure that
each WCHA team wouldn't travel to the land of ice and snow (actually that
probably would better be applied to Albany right now) any more than they do
now--once a year.
 
Arguments about not playing all your opponents 4 times a year also seem
silly to me.  Beating a team 4 times instead of 2 times says very little about
the quality of one's team.  In fact I would suggest that that beating 4
different teams instead of 1 team 4 times is the more impressive statistic.
Playing each team only once at home, like the ECAC, puts more importance on
each victory, especially each home victory.  And playing two different teams
back-to-back really shows a team's mettle.  I doubt that those outside the
ECAC can understand just how difficult the infamous North Country trip is--
forced to travel through the snowy Adirondacks to face two perennial powerhouse
teams (St. Lawrence and Clarkson) on consecutive nights on their home turf.
 
So what's the real root of the debate?  Can anyone out West enlighten me?
                    _
            "NYS   // Hockey"
        Go 'Gate  //   Brian Morris
          Go RPI //      Albany, NY
          ______// [log in to unmask]
         (______/