So, what’s it going to be? The Alabama-Huntsville Chargers, or the Lake Superior State Lakers? Alabama-Huntsville, or Ferris State — or St. Cloud State, or Minnesota-Duluth, or everybody’s current darling, the Bemidji State Beavers?
How would you like to have to make that choice?
After the CCHA rejected UAH’s application for admission to the league, many people were quick to condemn the league for allegedly not acting in the best interest of college hockey, my own excellent colleague and friend Jim Connelly going so far as to accuse the CCHA of long-standing elitism.
If columns, message boards, blogs and my own inbox are any indication, the league’s decision was overwhelmingly unpopular. For over a year, in my column I had advocated the admission of both UAH and Robert Morris to the league, something that would have — before the WCHA poached Nebraska-Omaha — brought the number of teams in the league to 14, perhaps forcing the league to move to two divisions or all of college hockey to consider some adjustments in alignment.
I, too, am disappointed in the outcome of the vote. I would have loved to have welcomed the Chargers and their enthusiastic fans into the CCHA fold, loved to have written about the program regularly, loved to have seen the CCHA expand into a more southern market.
However, I knew that there had to be more at stake than the preservation of one hockey program when the CCHA member schools voted rather unexpectedly last week. That the vote happened when it did was the unexpected part, and after giving the vote some time to percolate in my brain, I suspect that the outcome would have been different if two things weren’t occurring: The departure of Nebraska-Omaha, which will weaken the league in certain ways; and the growing influence of the Big Ten Network.
As unpopular as the CCHA’s decision was to reject the application of the Alabama-Huntsville Chargers, perhaps the league is trying to keep intact more than its own soon-to-be 11 members.
The loss of UNO is a blow, both in terms of the CCHA’s footprint and revenue. The Mavericks are in the thick of USHL country, an area in which the CCHA recruits heavily. UNO is one of the bigger schools in the league, and the hiring of head coach Dean Blais is no doubt an indication that the program is on solid ground. Omaha is one of the bigger media markets in the CCHA. UNO’s decision to leave no doubt shook the CCHA member schools.
A weaker CCHA does college hockey no good, and the member schools may have been forced to circle their collective wagons when the WCHA actively pursued and won UNO’s membership.
Now, anyone who reads me regularly knows that I’m not the smartest chick around, but given enough time, I can connect dots when the numbers are clear enough. There was serious talk in college hockey circles that Penn State, a Big Ten member school, would make a decision to field a Division I team in May of this year. Obviously, that didn’t happen — but the talk was loud enough for anyone who knew the situation to hear it, and it’s still a strong possibility. The addition of Penn State would bring to six the number of Big Ten teams playing college hockey, six being the magic number to force the Big Ten member schools to vote on a Big Ten hockey conference.
There is pressure by the Big Ten Network for the current Big Ten member schools with Division I hockey programs — Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State and Wisconsin — to play each other more regularly, so that the network can show the games and make more money. There’s even talk of having some sort of Big Ten hockey hardware, some sort of trophy for the member teams, which would require that each plays each other, every season.
In theory, more Big Ten hockey play has some merit; the name recognition of the schools involved could heighten the profile of college hockey. The scheduling, however, is difficult for all of the Big Ten schools involved, given their current conference obligations and the number of teams playing.
While heightening the profile of the sport through Big Ten Network exposure is something that may help all of college hockey, don’t think for a minute that the Big Ten Network — or the Big Ten, for that matter — gives a fig about anything other than its own bottom line. Go to the Big Ten Network’s Web site and find a press release dated Dec. 20, 2006, the release that talks about the Network’s offices and studios in Chicago. Accompanying the release is a photo of five executives, each holding athletic equipment: a soccer ball, a volleyball, a football, a basketball and a baseball glove. There is no hockey puck, no stick, no mask — natural, perhaps, because there is as yet no Big Ten hockey conference, but so metaphoric in terms of the sport we college hockey fans love.
There is no Big Ten hockey conference — yet. Make no mistake about how the Big Ten Network plays in this. While college athletics should be about student-athletes, and everyone involved in college athletics knows people — coaches, administrators, faculty — that do their best to make sure that college athletics is about student-athletes, it’s all about money, plain and simple, to the people who can profit from it, and the Big Ten Network would make much more money from a Big Ten hockey conference than it possibly can from two WCHA teams and three CCHA teams whose schools are otherwise affiliated with the Big Ten and who occasionally play each other.
And were the Big Ten to force its league on two current WCHA and three current CCHA members, the results would be detrimental to all of college hockey, make no mistake about that. For the two leagues where there are already haves and have-nots because of the differences in the make-ups of the schools, think of what would happen if the haves depart.
So, do you want to lose Laker hockey? Husky hockey? The Beavers? The Bulldogs? The Falcons?
If the only way to keep the Big Ten wolf at bay is to maintain the strongest possible CCHA, and the only way CCHA member schools thought that keeping their conference strong at this time was to reject Alabama-Huntsville, then the CCHA has made an unpopular decision that I have to respect.
Given the ripple effect that a Big Ten hockey conference could produce, I’d say that the CCHA just took one for the team — the entire college hockey team, not just its member schools.
So go ahead and get your hate on if you have to when the Chargers open their road season in South Bend and their home season against Western Michigan, even though the coaches and players had no say in what happened last week and are clearly happy to play you. Go ahead and get your hate on as your ECAC and Hockey East teams step up and give the Chargers weekend series this year … if you’re Clarkson and Mass.-Lowell. Go ahead and get your CCHA hate on as you welcome the Nebraska-Omaha Mavericks into your league in 2010.
The CCHA has demonstrated throughout its history a commitment to building the sport of college hockey. All it takes is a little history lesson to see that the league itself was born from a love of college hockey and through the years did its best to nurture and foster blossoming D-I programs. Kent State, St. Louis, the University of Illinois-Chicago, Ohio University — all defunct CCHA programs that did not go under for lack of love from the league.
Other non-conference teams that are gone, like Findlay and Wayne State, benefitted from a close association with the league, and many CHA and AHA programs — Mercyhurst, RIT, Robert Morris among others, even Huntsville, if it’s honest — will tell you that they’ve benefitted from generous scheduling on the part of CCHA teams with whom they may not even have personal ties. I can’t tell you how many CCHA coaches have told me that scheduling up-and-coming programs is the right thing to do, and not just the guys who coach in the have-not schools of the league. I can’t tell you how many CCHA coaches reminisce about how their own CCHA teams, whether they were playing or coaching back in the day, had difficulty filling their schedules because other leagues didn’t want to travel or take them in for a non-conference game. They remember, and that memory colors how everyone associated with the actual game in the league does business.
Condemn the CCHA, if it makes you feel better. But if you want to do some good, direct your ire at a more accurate target, the Big Ten Network and the machine of greed that drives so much of our culture.
I’m the first to criticize the league when I think the league warrants it, so I’m not merely being a homer here. Nor am I suggesting that the CCHA voted last week in a completely altruistic manner; nobody does. Nor do I know anything concrete about why the member schools voted the way they did.
But maybe the CCHA is trying to tell us something and is not at liberty to say it out loud, in so many words.
If that’s the case, hear the message — but don’t shoot the messenger.