On Sat, 2 Sep 1995, Mike Machnik wrote: > Well, the elimination of the Independent bid after 1992 did not technically > mean that only conference teams could receive bids. All it meant was that > the Indeps were no longer guaranteed to receive at least one bid. It would > still have been possible for an Indep to qualify for a bid based on its own > merits, as is the case today. > > I think it is important to remember that the climate had changed > drastically with regards to Independents by the time that the bid was > eliminated. There were not nearly as many Independents playing then as > there were back in 1988 when the bid was first awarded. Most had either > already joined conferences (Merrimack, St Cloud, Kent, Notre Dame) or > dropped out of DivI (Alabama-Huntsville, US International). > > The only Indeps left after the bid was eliminated were UAF, UAA, Army, and > Air Force (discounting the minor Indeps like Canisius and UConn that were > never going to play nearly enough games to be eligible). Army was not > playing enough games to be eligible either, and Air Force's record against > DivI teams (4-17-1 in 92-93) left them out of contention too. Thus only > UAA and UAF would have been serious contenders for a bid - two teams, in > contrast to upwards of ten in 1988. > > The elimination of the bid was a good decision - leaving aside the question > of whether or not it was a good idea in the first place, its time had > clearly passed and it had served its purpose in helping the Indeps build > their programs to the point where they could enter conferences. Even UAA > and UAF would benefit within a few years by being extended invitations to > join conferences. Agreed. However, I think it is important to remember that both Alaska schools (UAF to a greater extent due to small market considerations) had HUGE problems putting together a schedule with "quality" opponents. As late as last season, the final prior to full CCHA membership, UAF scheduled Div. III and Canadian teams due to a distinct lack of takers from the Div. I conference ranks. With the rather onerous schedules imposed on conference members (WCHA in particular), it was join or die as a Div. I program. This survival instinct overwhelmed any playoff considerations. The idea was that, despite the infamous Alaska exemption, without victories against high caliber schools no Alaska (or independent) teams stood a realistic chance of being awarded an at-large tourney bid... > The biggest reason why the bid should have been eliminated was that it was > unfair to a majority of the teams in DivI. Each year from 1988 to 1992, a > team that was more deserving according to the criteria set down by the NCAA > was forced out due to the fact that an Indep had to receive a bid. In two > of those years (1988 - Merrimack, 1991 - UAA), Indeps did prove themselves > in the tourney, but it is still true that those teams would not have > qualified for the tourney on their own merits had there been no automatic > bid. Whoa, there. Merits are subjective at best where scheduling opportunities are not consistent. I find it difficult to compare schools without head -to-head competition or similar schedules. This inequity was partially remedied through the independent bid. > As to how the two Alaskas wound up in separate conferences, a question I > believe someone raised...there were a number of dynamics that played a part > here. Paramount was the unwillingness of both Western conferences to take > both teams. Besides the desire not to make so many trips to Alaska, both > conferences were pushing the upper limits of how many conference games they > could play while maintaining several nonconference slots for in-season > tourneys and other traditional NC rivalries. I think it was unfortunate > that the great UAA-UAF rivalry had to be scaled down as a result of the > teams entering different conferences, but this was more than offset by the > fact that these teams are finally now both full-fledged DivI conference > members and able to enjoy the same chance at a tourney bid that the other > teams have. Offsetting perhaps to non-believers :) Heck, even Michigan and State get to play at least four (now six) times a year! True, 8 or 10 games a year was excessive, but a lot of fans are squeezed out of witnessing this great rivalry firsthand. As has been suggested many times before, a truly Western league make a lot of sense, econimically and competitively. Some day I suspect this will become a reality, especially with the recent Californiazation of hockey. And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming... Mark Sonnier UAF '90 "Nooks in '95: Bad as Binky in the CCHA!" HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.