What gives? Ohio State played 39 RS games this year. 2 were in Alaska, and I guess those don't count towards the total, but that still puts them 1 game over. Did they get a Papal dispensation?
[quote Trotsky]What gives? Ohio State played 39 RS games this year. 2 were in Alaska, and I guess those don't count towards the total, but that still puts them 1 game over. Did they get a Papal dispensation?[/quote]
OSU played 37 regular season games. Last weekend's two lossess to Ferris State were playoff games.
Changing the subject, how did Ohio State go from being a national-title contender to a team that finished with a losing record?
hmm, i get the same calculations
but u forgot, they had playoffs their last 2 games
Isn't the limit 34 games? The Alaska exemption would seem to leave the Buckeyes with 35...
Isn't it pretty ridiculous at this point to still have the exemptions for games in Alaska? The two Alaska schools have been established conference members for 10+ years.
yeah but traveling that far... I mean it is a hell of a hike. isnt that why the exemptions exist? The traveling costs must be high...
[quote KeithK]Isn't the limit 34 games? The Alaska exemption would seem to leave the Buckeyes with 35...[/quote]
You're right about the 34-game limit. Might the outdoor game against Wisconsin at Lambeau Field have also been exempt? Wisconsin also appears to be a game over the limit.
[quote cbuckser][quote KeithK]Isn't the limit 34 games? The Alaska exemption would seem to leave the Buckeyes with 35...[/quote]
You're right about the 34-game limit. Might the outdoor game against Wisconsin at Lambeau Field have also been exempt? Wisconsin also appears to be a game over the limit.[/quote]The Lambeau game was also the US Hockey Hall of Fame game, so it's a good bet that it might have been exempted.
[quote KeithK]
Isn't it pretty ridiculous at this point to still have the exemptions for games in Alaska? The two Alaska schools have been established conference members for 10+ years.[/quote]
The Alaska exemption is for all sports. Not just hockey. And its to encourage teams to travel that far, otherwise it'd be pretty darn difficult to get any OOC home games out there (not impossible, but definitely difficult enough to be a significant inequity).
Oh, and it also applies to Hawaii. Get a hockey team in Hawaii, and then we're talking (although I figure the Ivy limit has no such exemption).
OK, maybe the rule should be amended to only exempt OOC games. Seems wrong to me to give automatic exemptions to half of the WCHA and CCHA teams every year. Could the leagues turn around and boot the Alaska school then? Maybe.
Oh and before someone asks, no the exemption would not be honored by the Ivy League.
[quote KeithK]OK, maybe the rule should be amended to only exempt OOC games. Seems wrong to me to give automatic exemptions to half of the WCHA and CCHA teams every year. Could the leagues turn around and boot the Alaska school then? Maybe.
Oh and before someone asks, no the exemption would not be honored by the Ivy League.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it only exempts OOC games.
[quote cbuckser]Changing the subject, how did Ohio State go from being a national-title contender to a team that finished with a losing record?[/quote]
That's a really, really good question. I've been somewhat keeping an eye on tOSU's season, since I had them pegged as a real FF threat ever since the Regional game last year. That was one solid team we eked by...and guess how many Seniors they lost to graduation from that game? Two. It's essentially the same team. Additionally, Caruso put up nearly identical stats this season compared with '04-'05:
'04-'05: 2.14 .917 (25-9-4)
'05-'06: 2.15 .915 (13-18-5)
The skaters they lost were Bittner (42G 10-14-24) and Spector (38G 3-4-7).
I don't have time right now to compare the rest of the offense or the nature of their losses and schedule strength right now.
Just baffling on the surface.
[quote Jacob '06][quote KeithK]OK, maybe the rule should be amended to only exempt OOC games. Seems wrong to me to give automatic exemptions to half of the WCHA and CCHA teams every year. Could the leagues turn around and boot the Alaska school then? Maybe.
Oh and before someone asks, no the exemption would not be honored by the Ivy League.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it only exempts OOC games.[/quote]I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. Minnesota has played 36 games this year (pre-WCHA playoffs) and the only exemptable games I can see on their schedule http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umn&gender=m are the two they played at Anchorage two weekends ago. Likewise UMD has 36, including two at UAA http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umd&gender=m .
[quote RichH][quote cbuckser]Changing the subject, how did Ohio State go from being a national-title contender to a team that finished with a losing record?[/quote]
That's a really, really good question. I've been somewhat keeping an eye on tOSU's season, since I had them pegged as a real FF threat ever since the Regional game last year. That was one solid team we eeked by...and guess how many Seniors they lost to graduation from that game? Two. It's essentially the same team. Additionally, Caruso put up nearly identical stats this season compared with '04-'05:
'04-'05: 2.14 .917 (25-9-4)
'05-'06: 2.15 .915 (13-18-5)
The skaters they lost were Bittner (42G 10-14-24) and Spector (38G 3-4-7).
I don't have time right now to compare the rest of the offense or the nature of their losses and schedule strength right now.
Just baffling on the surface.[/quote]
I remember a lot of OSU fans emphasizing at the end of the season how much Bittner would be missed for his leadership contributions. I think leadership is one of the first things to question, when a team with so much talent struggles.
First the Ivy League needs to change its mind about post-season football.
[quote KeithK][quote Jacob '06][quote KeithK]OK, maybe the rule should be amended to only exempt OOC games. Seems wrong to me to give automatic exemptions to half of the WCHA and CCHA teams every year. Could the leagues turn around and boot the Alaska school then? Maybe.
Oh and before someone asks, no the exemption would not be honored by the Ivy League.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it only exempts OOC games.[/quote]I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. Minnesota has played 36 games this year (pre-WCHA playoffs) and the only exemptable games I can see on their schedule http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umn&gender=m are the two they played at Anchorage two weekends ago. Likewise UMD has 36, including two at UAA http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umd&gender=m .[/quote]
Minnesota played UAF which is ooc.
[quote Jacob '06][quote KeithK][quote Jacob '06][quote KeithK]OK, maybe the rule should be amended to only exempt OOC games. Seems wrong to me to give automatic exemptions to half of the WCHA and CCHA teams every year. Could the leagues turn around and boot the Alaska school then? Maybe.
Oh and before someone asks, no the exemption would not be honored by the Ivy League.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure it only exempts OOC games.[/quote]I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. Minnesota has played 36 games this year (pre-WCHA playoffs) and the only exemptable games I can see on their schedule http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umn&gender=m are the two they played at Anchorage two weekends ago. Likewise UMD has 36, including two at UAA http://www.uscho.com/schedules/team.php?season=20052006&team=umd&gender=m .[/quote]
Minnesota played UAF which is ooc.[/quote]
Yeah, but they hosted UAF, they didn't go to Alaska.
Yes, i do believe the rule counts for conference games too, which I'm not so sure I like. However, if it gets some more Alaska/Hawaii teams into conferences, at least it's served it's purpose.
[quote RichH] we eeked by[/quote]How come there's never a spelling cop around when you need one?
[quote ugarte][quote RichH] we eeked by[/quote]How come there's never a spelling cop around when you need one?[/quote]
Wait...jy3 is around, and you use that joke on me?? ;-)
[quote RichH][quote ugarte][quote RichH] we eeked by[/quote]How come there's never a spelling cop around when you need one?[/quote]
Wait...jy3 is around, and you use that joke on me?? ;-)[/quote]
fo sho ::nut::
[q]Yes, i do believe the rule counts for conference games too, which I'm not so sure I like. However, if it gets some more Alaska/Hawaii teams into conferences, at least it's served it's purpose.[/q]I'm very sure that the rule did apply to conference games once upon a time for exactly the reason that Fred cites - it helped to get these teams into conferences. I'm just not sure sure it needs to be a permanent exemption. At this point it just seems to be a benefit to WCHA and CCHA teams who get to exeed the games limit regularly.
I remember hearing somewhere that Minnesota made sure they played UAA on the road every year (with or without a home series as well) to take advantage of the exemption. This could easily be checked by looking at schedules, but I don't care to do that right now.
[quote KeithK]At this point it just seems to be a benefit to WCHA and CCHA teams who get to exeed the games limit regularly.[/quote]
It's a pretty long flight; I'm not sure I'd call it a benefit.
[quote Trotsky][quote KeithK]At this point it just seems to be a benefit to WCHA and CCHA teams who get to exeed the games limit regularly.[/quote]
It's a pretty long flight; I'm not sure I'd call it a benefit.[/quote]The Gophers seem to disagree since they've managed to have a series at Anchorage every year for the last eight. In three of those years UAA didn't make a matching trip to the Twin Cities. WCHA teams play conference foes 2 or 4 times per season, but typically the site of the games in a 2 game year alternates. By comparison, both St. Cloud and UMD each had two years during this span where their only games against UAA were in Minnesota.
Just to be precise, UMTC didn't have a road series against UAA in 2005. But they did travel to Alaska for an early season tournament in Anchorage. These games were exempt too, so the Gophers still got their extra two games.
I find it irritating that some teams are able to routinely exceed the games limit using a rule that acheived its purpose years ago.
[quote KeithK]
I find it irritating that some teams are able to routinely exceed the games limit using a rule that acheived its purpose years ago.[/quote]
I wouldn't say it achieved its purpose years ago. Only in as far as hockey is concerned. But remember this is an all sports rule. If an Alaska or Hawaii school wants to start a new sport... or a new AK or HI school wants to start one... the rule still serves a purpose.
So, you might say, eliminate it for the WCHA and CCHA. Well, the only problem is, if conferences started seeing that the rule would be eliminated after a few years, they'd be less likely to want to take the AK or HI school in at all.
Kinda like a tax incentive. If you say "hey, if you Mr. Corporation, do this thing we want you to do that will be a long term committment, you will get a tax break each year for part of your expense." But if you added "for the next 3 years only" onto that rule, then its distinctly less of an incentive
[quote DeltaOne81]Kinda like a tax incentive. If you say "hey, if you Mr. Corporation, do this thing we want you to do that will be a long term committment, you will get a tax break each year for part of your expense." But if you added "for the next 3 years only" onto that rule, then its distinctly less of an incentive[/quote]Well yes, but then I don't like the social engineering of tax incentives either. :-D
[quote KeithK][quote DeltaOne81]Kinda like a tax incentive. If you say "hey, if you Mr. Corporation, do this thing we want you to do that will be a long term committment, you will get a tax break each year for part of your expense." But if you added "for the next 3 years only" onto that rule, then its distinctly less of an incentive[/quote]Well yes, but then I don't like the social engineering of tax incentives either. :-D[/quote]
Whether you like it or not, it still serves a purpose. And continuing it continues to serve a purpose. That's the only point :)
I agree that the exemption is designed with a specific prupose in mind. The question is whether it's needed as a permanent thing or if the need for it diminishes or vanishes once a team becomes established within a conference. My sense is that it would, but I could be wrong.
Of course, as with any exemption or loophole, you create the possibility for some to abuse it. I won't call what the Gophers have done with respect to UAA "abuse", but it's at least an unintended consequence of the rule.
I don't think you're getting my point - although I could be wrong. Lets say the NCAA passed a rule saying that the WCHA and CCHA can no longer play extra games due to in conference away games at UAA/UAF. That's it - only the WCHA/CCHA and only with respect to their inconference games with UAA/UAF.
Lets then say that University of Alaska-Juneau (if there's such a thing) wants to start a D-I hockey program. Or heck, even University of Hawaii - Honolulu if we really wanna get crazy. Or Hawaii wants to start up a squash team and join a conference even.
It would now be harder for them to join, because the WCHA and CCHA - or whatever conference was looking at whichever non-48 state team - would say, sure, we could get the exemption for a little bit, but we're gonna lose it a few years down the line. Perhaps that would make the difference, perhaps it wouldn't, but it *does* make it some amount less appealing.
To go back to the tax example, lets say the government said, "sure, you can buy a house and deduct your mortgage interest, but in 5 years we might come to you and decide you no longer need it, and take it away. We've done it before." Would that affect the behavior of future people considering buying a home? You're darn right it would.
So even though the rule may have already worked with respect to UAA and UAF, taking away the rule now - even for only that specific situation - would hurt future Alaska and Hawaii teams trying to get into conferences. So allowing the WCHA/CCHA to not count games at UAA/UAF *does* *continue* to serve the purpose of making it easier for all future Alaska/Hawaii teams to get in conferences.
You can think its not worth the inequity, but it does continue to serve its purpose.
I do get it. I just don't agree. Or maybe you're right and I just don't like it.