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!!