hockey only conference

jason · February 20, 2003, 11:31:29 AM

Wodon has a new article/editorial up at USCHO.com regarding whether the ECAC schools should break away from the ECAC and form a new, hockey only conference a la the other Big Four. (BTW, Adam, I thought the article was quite good.)

Tom Pasniewski 98 · February 20, 2003, 11:41:09 AM

The ECAC commish brought the tourney from Lake Placid to Albany because they'll sell Coke in Pepsi Arena. How could you possibly bolt from the ECAC after he did that.:-))

Seriously though, it's a great piece on a debate that's been going on for years and I think both sides of the argument are presented fairly. I would hope the NCAA wouldn't even spend a second thinking about taking away an automatic bid from the ECAC schools if they cared enough about hockey to form their own conference devoted to the sport.

rhovorka · February 20, 2003, 02:05:26 PM

[Q]The ECAC commish brought the tourney from Lake Placid to Albany because they'll sell Coke in Pepsi Arena. How could you possibly bolt from the ECAC after he did that. [/Q]
Hey, I was shocked that they sold Budweiser at Coors Field.

After hearing Buttafuoco's side of story regarding the move to Albany, I'm more apt to believe and support the conference's decision. If ORDA was really that stubborn on what sugar-water brand could be promoted, that sucks. I'm guessing the league has trouble getting big-name sponsors for the tournament (remember the Milk/Aubachon Hardware years?), so for ORDA to say they had to dump a major one because of a Coke/Pepsi turf war...I don't blame the ECAC for assessing other options.

I'm drinking Avaya from now on. :-)

Josh '99 · February 20, 2003, 02:09:17 PM

Rich Hovorka '96 wrote:

Quote[Q](remember the Milk/Aubachon Hardware years?)[/q]

Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Milk... Beer... Beer! Beer! Beer! Beer!

CUlater · February 20, 2003, 02:50:53 PM

I'm anxious to hear from all those who bashed the decision to move, on this forum and elsewhere. IIRC, some of those people believed there could be no good reason for such a decision by the league administrators and that they had acted deceitfully in dealing with ORDA (similar to the belief that there could be no good reason for a certain other decision made by a different entity's administration, which shall remain unmentioned in this thread).

Al DeFlorio · February 20, 2003, 03:59:21 PM

CUlater '89 wrote:

Quote...(similar to the belief that there could be no good reason for a certain other decision made by a different entity's administration, which shall remain unmentioned in this thread).

Still haven't heard any reason that holds water for that fiasco--never mind a good one. Feel free to tell us if you ever hear of one, CUlater.

Keith K · February 20, 2003, 04:05:09 PM

I hadn't ever thought about the autobid issue. It would seem pretty stupid to not give a bid to the ECHA though. After all, it wouldn't really be a new conference, just a new administration. Seems to me the only justification for doing this would be to support the existing ECAC structure.

CUlater · February 20, 2003, 04:12:54 PM

Had you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.

DeltaOne81 · February 20, 2003, 04:23:18 PM

So Adam tries to stimulate discussion on a new issue, and instead we return the Lake Placid and CornellPass... yay us ::yark:: - if you really feel like reliving the discussions, could you just re-read the dozen previous threads per topic?

As for the main topic, it was a very well written article, and I enjoyed it, but I'm not so sure it made a strong case for a new separate league, even though that was his conclusion. Could anyone give the details of some of these horrid ECAC administrative snafu's that a new hockey conference wouldn't make? I know they exist, I remember the sentiment, but I just can't say I can bring them to mind right now.

CUlater · February 20, 2003, 05:17:38 PM

[Q]...it was a very well written article...[/Q]

[Q]...but I'm not so sure it made a strong case for a new separate league, even though that was his conclusion...[/Q]

Aren't those two statements contradictory? If the conclusion reached is not supported by the statements made, how can the article be considered to be well-written.

FWIW, I left the article thinking "I'm not really sure why anyone thinks breaking off to form a hockey-only conference is necessary or would achieve the desired results, whatever those are."

Al DeFlorio · February 20, 2003, 06:01:15 PM

CUlater '89 wrote:

QuoteHad you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.

Yes. Money, and increased attendance because of a central, convenient location with higher capacity. Good reasons, IMHO.

I understand what you're saying. Many of us have asked for reasons on the "other" issue, but the perps have been mute.

DeltaOne81 · February 20, 2003, 06:07:10 PM

CUlater,

On second thought, I shoulda should "it was a very interesting article" and I do think it was well-written in an informative way and in a flow-way. I just didn't think it was particularly persuasive (sorry Adam) - does that make more sense? :-)

Still curious if people can bring up specific, serious examples of the ECAC screwing hockey over. Adam alluded to not returning phone calls, but what are the details behind that? or other things?

Keith K · February 20, 2003, 06:29:39 PM

I disagree. Something can be well written and well argued and still not be convincing. You can dispute the facts, disagree with the assesment of the current situation and with the expected benefits of the proposal. Just because an argument is logical and consistent doesn't make it right. The assumptions matter too.

I don't think Adam presented many arguments in this piece about why he feels the schools should break off from the ECAC. I think the point was to say that the idea is taking at some of the schools and to present his interview with Mr. Butafucco. His previous article 9which I believe he linked but I haven't read again) presents the case a little better, IIRC.

ugarte · February 20, 2003, 07:11:34 PM

If you want a good example of something extremely well written, but ultimately unconvincing, read the Supreme Court brief submitted on behalf of Bush. If you want to read a bad (and less convincing) version of it, read the Supreme Court per curiam opinion.

And if you want to read total garbage, read the Florida Supreme Court opinion that caused the constitutional crisis in the first place.

jtwcornell91 · February 20, 2003, 08:17:50 PM

Al DeFlorio wrote:

QuoteCUlater '89 wrote:
QuoteHad you heard a good reason (or one as good as those mentioned in the referenced article) for the move to Albany? Just because you haven't heard of it (or them, collectively) doesn't mean there wasn't one at the time. That's all I'm saying.
Yes. Money, and increased attendance because of a central, convenient location with higher capacity. Good reasons, IMHO.

And apparently, despite whatever we were told, not the deciding factors. I find it a little fishy that the league didn't bother to "clear this up" for about eight months.

But on the subject of splitting off to form a hockey-only conference, I'm not sure that would be a good idea given the power structure in the NCAA. Look how much clout the MAAC, who are little more than an annoyance in the context of the sport, have with the organization as a whole.