At 06:29 PM 4/16/96 -0500, Lee Urton wrote: [a whole lot about Alaska hockey and the future...] In the interest of brevity, I've condensed things down a lot, so here's hoping I didn't smush too much content. In a nutshell, here's an Alaskan perspective on the arguments voiced here recently: 1) The trip to Alaska is long and hard on players from the Lower 48. I, for one, do not see what the big deal is here. Minneapolis to Anchorage is a five hour flight. How long is the bus ride from the Madison to Houghton? While I wouldn't want to make the flight just for fun, it's not exactly like getting board-checked by Bob Probert. Judging from both Alaska squads' home records this season, the visitors from Outside should want to play up here as often as possible... 2) Should UAF and UAA end up in the same conference, double ditto on 1). Back in the old days (before conference membership for UAF and UAA) schools often came up and played two games each in Anchorage and Fairbanks during a single week. This often meant a Friday-Saturday series followed by a Monday-Tuesday series. Not exactly an optimum from the home team's perspective, as one school got hosed on a weeknight series. But the concept minimized travel time for opposing teams. Perhaps a Friday-Saturday-Sunday series on consecutive weekends in both towns could work. That way, a team could make the Alaska trip for a week and a half every other year. This three-game stint seems to work in the CCHA. The school hosting the second weekend's games could even make their library and computer facilities (heck, we'll throw in a professor or two to sweeten the deal) available to visiting teams for homework and such. Oops, that's gonna let some air out of the "too much missed school" balloon. 3) The WCHA now plays that funky four-game/two-game series thing and calls it a schedule. Whoa, what a complicated picture. I agree with John H. I think the current three game schedule that UAF plays in the CCHA is a model way to deal with Alaska games. Add in a divisional system and some non-conference games and you're there. This will be the real downfall, though, considering the WCHA's anal retentiveness on not letting members play and non-conference games... 4) Why not make UAF and UAA travel partners? Egad! Putting Siamese fighting fish together in a ziplok bag would be less risky... Might as well make RPI and Cornell travel partners. Or how about Minnesota and Wisconsin? (Getting the idea???) Aside from the distance factor (not really a problem, as it's only a 45 minute plane ride - in fact during the home-and-home each fall both schools make the round trip the same day to save on hotel) the two programs are currently not on the friendliest of terms. Then again, Fairbanks and Anchorage don't agree on much of anything at all except keeping that PFD check coming each fall... 5) How about a "western" conference with two divisions? Not a bad idea. But this angle must feature ample inter-division play and non-conference games to preserve ancient rivalries, which would also appear to be a divine bovine for some flatlanders. Did I miss any hot buttons? Bottom line is this: From a fan's perspective, I don't think UAF will move in with Anchorage in the WCHA. This is due mainly to the fact that the league powers will not think much has changed since they nixed UAF's bid to join 4 years ago. Too far, too expensive (though UAF pay's most of the visiting clubs travel expenses - part of league membership), too cold, whatever. Without a massive college hockey expansion out west (of the Rockies, that is), I'll predict the two Alaska schools will remain separated for some time. Praying for an early October, Mark Sonnier UAF '90, '96 (just two more classes!) HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.