"Anthony J. Buffa" wrote:
> I dont know about the ECAC/MAAC proposals to shorten the season, so I
> cant comment, but I hope it doesnt go through.
I've unfortunately lost the link to the article that talks about this.
I originally got it through USCHO, but I think it was posted on the message
board by somebody and wasn't a USCHO article -- please correct me if I'm
wrong, 'cause I'd like to read it again. Anyway, as I recall, the proposal
was not to lessen the number of games played but to push the starting date to
later in October. I think the proposal included moving the start of on-ice
practice (currently October 1) to October 15, but I'm not sure about that.
> However I do know this,
> if you look at some of the teams, they are already in the mid 40s, and
> by tourney's end will be close to 50 games played. Speaking as a faculty
> person at a D-I school, I think that is pushing it a bit. Is it
> STUDENT-athlete or student-ATHLETE?
Michigan and North Dakota currently lead the pack with 44 games each. If they
meet in the title game, they'll each end up with 46, which is perhaps getting
uncomfortably close to the 48-49 games some teams were playing in the
early-mid '80s before the regular-season limit was dropped to 34, with
"exceptions". Both of these teams got two extra regular-season games for
participating in the exempted Ice Breaker Cup, and both got two more for
playing in Alaska (Michigan for the Nissan Classic at Anchorage, North Dakota
for two league games at Alaska-Anchorage).
> Let's talk regular season only: roundball plays typically 30. By
> tourney's end they play at most 35. To me that is about the max. I think
> the current 34 regular season hockey limit should be strictly adhered
> to, and teams that currently exceed that with "exhibition" or "Alaska"
> trips should not be able to do that. 34 is certainly plenty for the
> regular season.
As I recall, the games-in-Alaska exemption was put in place to help support
the then-independent Alaska teams by making it attractive for opponents to
schedule trips up there. Since both Alaska teams are now in leagues, perhaps
this exemption isn't needed as much, at least for league games. But then, if
the exemption were removed, would the CCHA and WCHA suddenly sour on having
the Alaska teams as league members?
I guess I'm OK with maintaining the Alaska exemption. I'm not so sure about
exempting things like the Ice Breaker Cup.
> The ECAC and MAAC should instead act to get their members up to 34 (I
> believe the non-ivies in the ECAC already play 32), and leave it at
> that.
I don't think the MAAC has any regular-season limits in place.
Both Quinnipiac and UConn played the NCAA max of 34 regular-season games, and
I didn't see any exemptions on their schedules.
The non-Ivies in the ECAC do play 32; the Ivies play 29. It used to be that
all games an ECAC team played counted toward those limits, even if they were
exempted under NCAA guidelines (i.e. trips to Alaska), but I believe in the
last few years, some non-Ivy had an Alaska trip and went past the 32-game
limit, so I guess there's some softening of restrictions there. Still,
I doubt those limits will be officially changed any time in the future; it
took many years to push the non-Ivy limit to 32 (from 30) and the Ivy limit to
29 (from -- gasp -- 26).
As I understand it, the proposal in question originally came from the
ECAC (the Ivies, most likely) and the MAAC was asked to present it to the NCAA
in the hopes that it would be better received from a sizeable multi-sport Div.
I conference (as opposed to the ECAC, which although multi-sport is spread
over Div. II and III as well). And when the dung hit the fan, the
ECAC apparently withdrew its support of the proposal rather quickly, which
should have been a clue to the MAAC. Why the MAAC would have been interested
in this proposal in the first place, other than the member teams' previous
affiliations with the ECAC, is beyond me.
--
Bill Fenwick Email: [log in to unmask]
Digicomp Research Voice: (607) 273-5900 ext 32
|
