RE: MEDIA COVERAGE
I used to want college hockey to grow.  I now appreciate and
love the size that it is.  Growth isn't important to me, and that's
a selfish attitude.  There are several advantages to playing on
a smaller stage, and I reap some of those advantages.
(E.g., availability and cost of tickets, availability of players,
even availability of the coaches and media.  I don't want to
stroke any egos, but look at some of the coaches and media
we have on Hockey-L.  We've got some big time folks here,
people.  I believe that they're more available to us than those
in similar positions in other sports.)  Sure, I'll bitch about the
coverage with everyone else.  But if you call me on it, I have
to be honest and say that I don't mind college hockey still being
"small-time".  These days, I bitch more about the quality of the
coverage than the quantity.
 
Btw...Neil Koepke (Lansing State Journal) IS the best college
hockey beat writer in my book.  I'm also beginning to appreciate
Geoff Howell, which comes right back to the availability issue.
If you want to pick Geoff's brain about something, e-mail him.
Chances are he'll give you a solid response.  (Blame me if
your mailbox gets flooded, Geoff. :-)  We also get opinions from
Steve Klein and Jon Barkan from USA TODAY, Keith "CCHA
webmaster" Instone, etc.  Their posts aren't out there on the web
for others to access.  They're right here, as part of a discussion
among those of us that love college hockey.  They're interactive.
Take advantage of it.
 
RE: ELITE SCHOOLS, NON-CONFERENCE GAMES, MEANING
I like the CCHA.  I like Ferris State.  I like going to Sault Ste Marie.
I don't need all of the Big Ten teams to be in the same conference.
Every game can't be a big game among spirited rivals.  Does
Michigan get up to play Michigan State?  Yes.  Does Michigan get
up to play Ferris State?  Generally, no.  Does Ferris State get up
to play Michigan?  Generally, yes.  Does Ferris State sometimes
jump up and slap the big boys in the face?  Yes.  What's wrong
with that.  You don't have to get geeked up for every game to enjoy
it.  Sure, look away from the big name schools for a moment.  There
seem to be haves (Lake Superior) and have nots (FSU, for example).
But, it can almost always be turned around.  Look at CC in the 1990s.
Look at Miami.  They came out of nowhere to win the CCHA a few
years ago.  They're back in the second division now, but there's
still that possibility that they'll come flying forward with little warning.
I think it's easier for a big name school (ala Michigan) to recover
from a down cycle, and the big name schools do have down
cycles.  But the little guys can do it, too.
 
I think one of the major problems with the current state of college
hockey is the conference formats.  I point the finger at the WCHA,
but the CCHA (with UIC) plays almost as many games.  The
gawdawful 32-game WCHA schedule has got to go.  It makes no
sense.  It has no balance.  Sure, travel cost are generally higher
for non-conference games, so some additional money commitment
is necessary, but I'm not saying to cut the conference schedule in
half for crissakes.  The CCHA and WCHA currently each have ten
teams.  That begs for a 26 or 27 game schedule.  Think of having
two divisions of five.  Play division opponents four times each and
non-division opponents twice each.  26 games.  Balance.  If you
don't like the idea of divisions, you can still play a 26 game schedule.
How about playing everyone three times each?  27 games.  Due
to travel costs, this makes more sense for the CCHA than the WCHA.
It doesn't balance in one season (one team has two home games)
but it balances over two seasons.  The current WCHA schedule
balances what, every millennium?
 
Now I get to disagree with Steve Klein.  I see your point about
having the meaning/value of every game out on the table.  I'm
aware that MSU's loss to NMU in December 1992 kept MSU
out of the 1993 NCAA tourney.  Pretty harsh indeed.  My argument
is, *I* was aware of the potential consequences in December
1992.  I learned about the selection process and the RPI from
folks on Hockey-L like Keith, Mike and Erik.  If I can figure it out,
the coaches should be in the know.  You can never really tell,
right?  The MSU-NMU game only became vitally important
because of what happened the remainder of that season.  Still,
the coaches should have it in their mind that, hey, we may be
on the bubble at the end of the season and this team may be
on the bubble with us so we better win today...
 
I'll grant that "information" wasn't as readily available then as it
is now, but if any coach doesn't have some math/stat geek feeding
him RPI numbers and such that coach is in the dark.
 
The only key is knowing the NCAA criteria.  That isn't always clear,
particularly for tournament seeding, but it's usually straight forward
for tournament selection.
 
Every game counts.  It may have not always been the case, but
if you don't know what you need to do to get into the NCAA tourney
or achieve whatever goal you're trying to achieve, that's your fault.
I'll use Michigan Tech as an example here.  No one is disputing
that they were on a roll in February and March.  But, it was clear
what they HAD to do to get into the NCAA (namely, win the WCHA)
and they didn't do it.
 
What I really think college hockey needs is just a little more support
from the current administrations.  Some refurbishing here, a little
extra in the travel budget there and we can tweak the current system
(not overhaul it) to make college hockey even better.
 
If I've made any sense, I'm doing better than I think.
 
 
John H ([log in to unmask])
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.