A note of introduction here...
 
     My name is James Alexander.  I'm a graduate of UAF attending school in
Michigan and I'm an avid Nanook fan.  I've been on HOCKEY-L before, but I
recently re-subscribed.
 
> From:         Keith Instone <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: Alaska-Fairbanks in CCHA
 
> Third, the CCHA has a pretty good deal going right now with its 30-game
> schedule...
> ...("play 1 team at home tonight, another on the road tomorrow" is the
> preferred weekend for most teams).
 
     It seems to me that all of the arguments against admitting UAF are
purely logistical.  Instead of looking at this issue solely from the point
of view of the teams and/or the schools, how about considering the fans'
position?  I don't know about the rest of the college hockey fans, but I
LOVE seeing a large variety of teams play; the larger the variety, the
better!  Watching the home team, YOUR team, compete against a rival is the
essence of being a sports fan.  The fact of the matter is that the Nanooks
are a strong and competitive team.  They always play a good, physical game.
Isn't that what hockey is all about?  The reason that sports programs exist
is so that people can enjoy them; I think we would do well to keep that
ultimate goal in mind.  Logistical difficulties alone should never prevent
an organization from attaining its goals.
 
> Fourth, UAF fits in with the WCHA much better, geographically and
> theoretically. Heck, UAF could apply for membership in Hockey East,
> and probably spend less time in total travel to CCHA sites. Is it
> faster to fly into Detroit and then bus to Ferris, or just to fly to
> Boston?
 
     Wait a minute.  As Keith alludes to here, the distance from Fairbanks
to ANYWHERE else in the U.S. is so great that it doesn't matter much if UAF
is traveling to Denver or Boston.  So what difference does it make if they
theoretically fit in better with the WCHA?  The theoretical point may be
valid, but it makes little practical difference.
 
> Yes, I want UAF to join a league. But I don't think they fit in with
> the current CCHA structure. They fit in better with the current WCHA
> structure. Now, if the structure of the CCHA were to change
> drastically, perhaps by playing an interlocking schedule with the WCHA,
> or by stealing NMU and Tech (14 teams = 26 league games), or whatever,
> then I think UAF could be included.  But not the way things work now.
 
> Keith
 
     I can't dispute your facts or the conclusions you reach from them
because I don't have enough information.  But if the CCHA refuses to admit
UAF because of logistical difficulties, it will be in an indefensible
position.
     I don't know the CCHA officials personally, but I'm certain that they
have a great deal of collective experience in collegiate sports
administration.  Given that, they must certainly have known (or should have
known) the potential problems that existed when they admitted UAF as an
affiliate member.  They ALSO should have known that UAF expected to be
admitted as a full member after a season or two of affiliate membership.
Otherwise UAF would never have accepted affiliate membership.  Instead,
they would have applied to the WCHA.
     Since the CCHA should have been aware of the logistical difficulties
and the fact that UAF expected, and reasonably so, to be admitted as a full
member, how can they now refuse to grant full membership?  The time for the
CCHA to make these objections is past.  If they had a concern about
logistical problems then they never should have given UAF affiliate
membership in the first place.
     The only thing UAF should have had to prove is its ability to compete
with the other CCHA teams, and it has done that.  The Nanooks have either
beaten or made a strong showing against every CCHA team that they have
played.
     Whose interests is the CCHA designed to serve, the fans' or the
organization's?  The real question the CCHA must consider is whether it is
going to emphasize competition or administration.
 
James Alexander
UAF '92
GO NOOKS!!