** Reply to note from Garrett Lanzy, Michigan Tech <[log in to unmask]> 04/18/96 10:32pm -0400
> The makeup of the MacInnes Division. Obviously, the intent here
> is to keep the Michgan schools "together". However, it results
> in much further travel for the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio
> schools. That may be seen as "unfair" to them.
>
> - Breaking up of some of the "traditional" rivalries that
> currently exist. Would St. Cloud be happy with not having
> the chance to play Minnesota every year? BGSU - Michigan?
> Etc. Unfortunately, I think we can all agree that there
> would be no way to have such a division structure and
> still satisfy everyone on this point.
As much as I'd like to see an all Michigan division, an arrangement of this sort is very
unfair to the other schools, because of travel and disrupted rivalries. The other problem I
can see with a MEGA conference like this is getting teams into the national tourney. The WCHA
and CCHA put six teams into the tourney this year. It's not unlikely, with 16 teams in the
conference playoffs, that one of the top six teams will make an early exit in round one. That
happened this year with WMU, but with 16 teams you'd have one extra round, and a first rounfd
loss might appear more significant. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can imagine a lot of
complaints from others about one conference getting 6 or seven teams into the national
tourney.
Instaed of a formal Mega conference, with three-8 team divisions, how about a formal
aggreement between the CCHA and WCHA for interconfernce play. How about 2 conferences with
two 6 teams divisions (same 24 teams). Each team would play the other teams in its division 3
times (5 teams/15 games). Then they would play one game against each team in the other
division of their conference (6/6). Then they would play each team of the other conference
once (12/12). This would require travel partners of course. The result would be 33 games
against 23 opponents. The schedulae would balance every two years. Each conference would have
separate playoffs, thus maximizing their chances of getting teams in the national tourney.
Increased travel and fewer games against conference teams are a problem of course. Also,
after a few years of this arrangement, the games against "non-conference" teams wouldn't
appear to be non-conference games anymore, because you'd see the same teams every year,
assuming of course you had TV coverage and went to games. A possible alternative would be to
play two games against teams in the other division of your conference and one game against
each of the teams in one of the divisions of the other conference. This would still give you
33 games but you'd only play 17 opponents. The advantage here would be that you'd see
different non-conference teams from year to year (the non-conference schedule would balance
every 4 years). Thus, non-conference games would still seem to be non-conference games.
Perhaps we could expand this to all conferences? For example, you'd play your conference
schedule as usual, but you'd be obligated to play at least half the teams in another
conference each year (in addition to any other non-conference games you'd play). You'd rotate
through the conferences each year. It would take a long time for the non-conference schedules
to balance however, 12 years I think. This is similar to the way the NFL divides
non-conference games.
On the banks of the Red Cedar there's a school that's known all,
Their specilaty is farming and those farmers play...HOCKEY!
_______________
/ _________ \
| / \___|
| \____________ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
\____________ \ THE Pioneer Land Grant College
___ \ |
| \_________/ |
\_______________/
Michael Smar ([log in to unmask])
M Go Blow!
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
