National Hockey Realignment Plan (Final Draft)
NATIONAL DIVISION I HOCKEY REALIGNMENT PLAN
This is it, the FINAL DRAFT of my NCAA Division I College Hockey
National Realignment Plan. This is the final product of what has been
an interesting, exhausting, and mind-numbing process. I feel that this
is the best product that I can come up with. It is a realistic vision
of what College Hockey can become if it uses a little imagination and
common-sense.
______________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
With the recent influx of Division 2 and 3 teams into the ranks of
Division I College Hockey, the need for some type of realignment of the
conferences has arrived. Conferences are becoming bigger and bigger,
which is creating scheduling problems. Some fans (like myself) are
becoming concerned about rivalries becoming less valuable as teams are
forced to give up games against each other. The WCHA, for example, has
placed a moratorium on any further applications of membership into the
league after they voted to admit Mankato State beginning in 1999-2000.
The concern is that the league will become too big, thus creating some
of the problems described above.
The new programs and their fan bases also have concerns. Some of them
are concerned that they won't be accorded the proper respect by the more
established D-I teams. Some fear not getting into a major conference
and not getting to play top notch programs on a regular basis. This has
led to some hard feelings between established programs and the new
members of the D-I family. It also leaves us with the difficult task of
finding an acceptable solution to this whole mess.
The following is a NATIONAL REALIGNMENT PLAN. It doesn't involve just
one team or one conference. It looks at the ENTIRE DIVISION I HOCKEY
LANDSCAPE, and tries to develop a comprehensive, common-sense alignment
that will serve the needs of the present as well as the needs of the
future. It likely will never happen (because of politics and the
almighty dollar), but it's a direction that I think we should go in if
we want to make College Hockey even better than it is now.
______________________________________________________________________
CONFERENCE ALIGNMENTS
WCHA (10) Great Lakes Conference (8)
Alaska-Anchorage Alaska-Fairbanks
*Bemidji State Ferris State
Colorado College Lake Superior State
Denver Michigan State
*Mankato State #Michigan Tech
Minn-Duluth Michigan
Minnesota Northern Michigan
*Nebraska-Omaha Western Michigan
North Dakota
St. Cloud State
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CCHA (8) MAAC (8) HOCKEY EAST (8)
*Alabama-Huntsville American International Boston College
Bowling Green *Bentley Boston University
*Mercyhurst Connecticut Maine
Miami (OH) Fairfield UMass-Lowell
*Niagara Holy Cross UMass-Amherst
Notre Dame Iona Merrimack
Ohio State Sacred Heart New Hampshire
#Wisconsin Quinnipiac Northeastern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ECAC (8) Ivy League (6) INDEPENDENTS (2)
#Canisius Brown Air Force
Clarkson Cornell Army
Colgate Dartmouth
#Providence Harvard
Rensselaer Princeton
St. Lawrence Yale
Union
Vermont
*-Denotes new D-I Program
#-Denotes team that has moved from another conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TEAMS IN NCAA DIVISION I: 58
______________________________________________________________________
NCAA TOURNAMENT OUTLINE
1. 16-team field
2. Automatic Bids: 12
At-Large Bids: 4
3. Automatic Bids by Conference:
CCHA---------2
ECAC---------2
GLC----------2
HEA----------2
Ivy League---1
MAAC---------1
WCHA---------2
4. Two format options:
REGIONAL FORMAT
1. Four Regional Tournaments (4 teams each).
2. Winners advance to the Final Four.
CAMPUS-SITE FORMAT
1. Seed teams 1-16.
2. Top seeds host best 2 out of 3 series for first two rounds.
3. Survivors advance to the Final Four.
______________________________________________________________________
A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF CONFERENCE ALIGNMENTS
Conference alignments were based on the following criteria:
1. Geography
2. Future growth potential
3. Tradition
4. Ease of scheduling
5. Preservation and quality of rivalries
6. Probability of acceptance by schools and conferences
Let's look at each conference in turn:
The WCHA loses two teams (Michigan Tech and Wisconsin), and gains three
teams (Bemidji State, Mankato State, and Nebraska-Omaha). This
alignment gives the league a good geographical layout with 5 Minnesota
teams, 2 Colorado teams, and one each in Alaska, Nebraska, and North
Dakota. Travel costs will be reasonable, and most rivalries will remain
intact. The one downside is the loss of long-time member Wisconsin,
whose loss will be felt by everyone. But gaining Nebraska-Omaha (a
strong, up-and-coming program) will help make up for this.
The CCHA receives a major facelift that will create another conference
in the central states. First of all, five teams are added to the CCHA:
Alabama-Huntsville, Mercyhurst, Michigan Tech, Niagara, and Wisconsin.
Then, all 7 Michigan schools and Alaska-Fairbanks are lumped together
into the Great Lakes Conference (GLC). The other 8 teams will make up
the new-look CCHA. Let's look at both conferences:
The Great Lakes Conference will preserve most rivalries and the teams
(with the exception of UAF) will enjoy short travel distances. The 7
Michigan teams will like playing each other and there is some room for
future growth. Some downsides include the loss of four current rivals
(Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Notre Dame, Ohio State), and of course the
presence of travel headache Alaska-Fairbanks.
The new-look CCHA will feature three new D-I programs
(Alabama-Huntsville, Mercyhurst, Niagara) and four established D-I
programs, including long-time WCHA member Wisconsin. Five of the eight
teams are within reasonable distance of each other (Bowling Green,
Mercyhurst, Miami, Notre Dame and Ohio State) while three are a little
further away than most of us would like (Alabama-Huntsville, Niagara,
and Wisconsin). This alignment will give emerging programs a good
opportunity to develop themselves against established programs.
Downsides include the loss of rivalries for the four members of the
current CCHA.
Now let's look at the shakeup in the east starting with the MAAC. The
newest conference in Division I will see one team depart (Canisius) and
one new program arrive (Bentley). This will leave the conference with 8
teams.
Hockey East will lose one team (Providence), and will be left with 8
teams. This should solve any current scheduling problems.
The biggest changes will happen in the ECAC. First of all, the Ivy
League schools are taken out of the ECAC and are given their own
conference. The ECAC then adds Canisius and Providence to round out the
conference at 8 teams. These adjustments open up some breathing room
for future expansion, cut the ECAC down to a more reasonable size, and
maintain geographical balance. The downsides include the loss of
rivalries between ECAC and Ivy League schools, and that the Ivy League
is a six-team conference. Geography was not a big problem with most
schools within driving distance of each other, but some adjustments were
made when needed.
Two teams (Air Force and Army) will remain independents as both schools
seem to like it that way.
The NCAA Tournament will feature 16 teams. There will be 12 automatic
bids and 4 at-large bids. Each league will get 2 automatic bids except
for the Ivy League and the MAAC. The Ivy League probably won't want a
post-season tournament, so their bid will go to the regular season
champion. Also, six teams is probably too small to get two automatic
bids. The MAAC will get another automatic bid once they become more
established as a D-I conference. A probationary period is probably
warranted here.
There are a couple of format options. One would establish four
regionals with four teams each. The winners would advance to the Final
Four. The other option is to seed the teams 1-16, and have the higher
seeds host 2 out of 3 playoff series at campus sites for the first two
rounds. The survivors then advance to the Final Four. Either one is
workable in my opinion.
______________________________________________________________________
SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
The following are answers to some questions that I have been hearing
over and over again.
Why is UAF in the Great Lakes Conference and not the WCHA?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked into putting Fairbanks into the WCHA and I finally decided that
the benefits didn't outweigh the costs. No matter where you put the
Alaska teams, it's going to be a travel problem. By plane, the distance
saved by putting UAF into the WCHA is not significant enough to warrant
having the WCHA shoulder the burden of having both Alaska schools. This
is an imperfect solution, but it's the best we can do until there is a
conference on the west coast or the rocky mountains.
Why are you "gutting" the CCHA, and not other conferences?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figured that there would be a backlash from CCHA fans on this when I
wrote my first draft and sure enough there was. But I can tell you that
I have nothing against the CCHA. It's a great conference and they have
a great tradition. But the fact is, most of the problems with the
recent expansion involve the CCHA more than any other conference. Right
now, there are 11 teams in the CCHA, with Omaha coming in soon to make
it 12. Then you have Niagara applying to get in, you have
Alabama-Hunstville moving up to D-I and they'll probably want to get in,
and there are rumors of other schools in the central U.S. starting
Division I Hockey. Now the question is this: Where are these teams
supposed to go? A new conference is the only reasonable answer to this
problem. If something isn't done soon, the CCHA will become too big to
maintain quality and tradition. Games against rivals will become "just
another chance at 2 points". My plan does not slash and burn the
league. It carefully divided the league into Michigan and Non-Michigan
parts (with a few exceptions). I was as delicate as I could be, and I
believe that it will be better in the long-run then what we have now.
Why separate the Ivy's from the ECAC?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several reasons for this. Number one, the ECAC is too big at
12 teams. Downsizing it to 6 teams and then adding 2 outside teams will
make the league better. And the second reason is related to the
differences between the Ivy League and almost every other athletic
conference in the country (hockey or not). The Ivy League schools have
different priorities when it comes to athletics than most other schools
do. They emphasize academics over athletics, they don't offer athletic
scholarships, ect. As a result, there has been some tension in the ECAC
between the Ivy League and non-Ivy League schools. By giving the Ivy
League schools their own conference, they can do things their way
without offending the non-Ivy League schools. In addition, if the two
remaining Ivy's that don't have hockey (Columbia and Pennsylvania)
decide to start programs, they'll have a place to go. I understand
concerns about lost rivalries with the ECAC, but non-conference games
and tournaments will help alleviate this problem.
______________________________________________________________________
As usual, comments and/or questions are welcome. Either e-mail me, or
leave a message on the Editorial Response Board. Until
next time, see you later. :-)
GO TO THE EDITORIAL INDEX PAGE.
GO TO THE MAIN INDEX PAGE.