NCAA hockey and the Pac-10
Recently, the NCAA's Pac-10 added a new school to their athletic conference, the University of Colorado. The University of Utah has been formally invited to join as well, but their decision is pending as of the time of this writing. So by 2012, the Pac-10 may become the Pac-12.
How does this figure into hockey? Well, there has been talk periodically among hockey fans on the West Coast as to why the current Pac-10 doesn't have any ice hockey teams. The University of Colorado also doesn't have a hockey team, and should Utah accept the Pacific Conference invitation, they don't have a team, either.
To those in the Midwest and the East Coast, there might seem an obvious answer. It doesn't snow and freeze enough out there for the talent to develop. Frankly, that's a bit short-sighted as most hockey players in North America get the majority of their ice time on indoor rinks - cold climate or not.
The state of California alone has 14 hockey teams, three of which are in the NHL - the San Jose Sharks, the Los Angeles Kings, and the Anaheim Ducks. There are also three ECHL teams, four Western States Hockey League (Junior A Tier III) teams, and four college club teams in the Pac-8 that are a part of the American College Hockey Association (ACHA; which is not an NCAA sanctioned sports entity): Stanford, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and USC. There are another 12 ACHA men's teams that are outside of the Pac-8 in California as well.
The Southern California Amateur Hockey Association (SCAHA) has "23 member clubs and is currently the largest youth hockey league in the western United States", according to their website. The California Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA) has two other member associations besides the SCAHA, the Northern California Junior Hockey Association (NORCAL) with 14 club teams, and Pacific District Hockey with five club teams.
Oregon, being much less populated, doesn't quite have the number of teams and leagues that California has. Washington State has quite a bit more than Oregon, but still not as many as California. Parts of Nevada and Arizona also have some serious youth hockey programs as well. And there have been a small number of NHLers to come out of California and Washington State. So the talent is there for recruiting for college players; obviously, as major junior teams in the Western Hockey League (WHL) have started to target those states for players themselves.
There are two issues, other than availability of talent, facing colleges and universities in the West that may want to start an NCAA sanctioned hockey team.
The first major issue is Title IX. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
What this means in practical terms is that universities are required to have as many male athletes and scholarships as female athletes and scholarships. This does not mean that there must be two of every sport - there are no NCAA women's football teams, after all. Nor does it mean that there must be an equal number of women's teams to men's teams.
What it does mean is that the number of male and female athletes should be equal. Which is why schools that have football teams have more women's sports teams than they do men's sports teams. One football team has approximately 56 athletes, and that ends up being about two to three women's teams as a general rule.
Adding hockey complicates things in that a school would either need to add a women's hockey team along with a men's hockey team, or they would have to cancel another men's program to accommodate the new hockey team so that there wouldn't be more male athletes than female athletes. And any or all of that right there can be a sticky proposition.
The second major issue is money. Not just in maintaining a team and its subsequent scholarships, but also travel costs for playing. The only sport that usually makes a profit at most schools is football, and football is what subsidizes most of the rest of the sports. Not everywhere, but at schools with successful football programs it's especially true. And that includes most of Division I football.
The way the money issue in hockey plays out is mostly travel costs. Yes, hockey is not a cheap sport to play. Equipment is expensive, and ice time can really add up fast. But there are ways around that with fundraisers and boosters to help out. Travel costs are what kill a sport like hockey out in the West even before it gets started.
For the Pac-10 schools to play hockey, the entire conference would have to add teams. Otherwise, the closest college hockey teams to the schools in that conference are the University of Denver and Colorado College in the Western Collegiate Hockey Association (WCHA). After that, every other school that has a team is in the Midwest or the Northeast - besides the University of Alaska at Anchorage, of course. And it isn't any better for the women, either.
It would be extremely difficult to add hockey to all 10 - soon to be at least 11 - universities in the Pac-10. Even on their own, with just club teams, only eight schools have teams. And even those teams are regarded as Division II within the ACHA club team structure. Anything less than NCAA Division I anything wouldn't be good enough for any of schools in this conference.
So is NCAA sanctioned hockey in the Pacific Conference a pipe dream? Not necessarily. Although, it would have a better chance at survival if most - preferably all - of the teams in the conference joined in at the same time. However, that's not very likely to happen.
The best chance for NCAA hockey in the Pac-10 would be for the California schools to make a financial commitment to the sport, and let it grow from there. There seems to be a fan interest in it, but it's the schools that make the final decision. As of right now, there has been no serious talk at the institutional level of adding hockey to the Pacific Conference.
19 comments
|
Add comment
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What about arenas? I’m sure that’s a major cost problem for some of the colleges as well.
Hockey conferences are aligned differently than the standard ones (after all, there is a team out in Alaska-Anchorage even though there’s no West Coast teams), so the issue would still more be travel and not conference (one that Alaska deals with anyways, and will accomodate for hockey).
It’d be great for four universities in the Pac-10 to add hockey at once, with potentially two of them adding women’s programs as well. I’d like to see the women participation figures for California/West Coast. We know the men’s game exploded over the last generation, how did the women’s game do?
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
I had a hard time trying to find real numbers for amateur hockey associations. I think that it’s one of those things where you’d have to contact each association to get that. Although, USA Hockey might have those numbers, too, now that I’m thinking about that. But, from what I can tell, the women’s game as grown just as much as the men’s game. In the SCAHA, for instance, there are three championship divisions for boys and two for girls.
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jun 17, 2010 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions
What about arenas? I’m sure that’s a major cost problem for some of the colleges as well.
SJSU plays at the Sharks 4-rink practice facility. The south and north rinks there have bleachers and probably holds 300-400 people at capacity. SJSU has a small but dedicated following and their games are pretty entertaining.
Stanford plays at an awful, awful rink up in Belmont (about 15 minutes north of Stanford). It’s old, run down, divots in the ice and beat-up boards. There’s another facility close to Stanford but it’s a private in-house league that’s not affiliated with the Sharks. Not sure where Cal plays but there’s limited ice up near Oakland, so probably one of the older rinks up there.
There’s nothing that can compare to a college basketball arena in terms of capacity. For example, SJSU’s basketball/events center probably holds 3000 people and they have concerts or other events there.
The CSU system is absolutely strapped for cash, so if one team put something forward, it would be Stanford.
Santa Clara also play at Sharks Ice.
For Stanford, are you talking about Ice Oasis in Redwood City? I remember visiting that place once, for a San Francisco Spiders practice/tryout/whatever back in 1995, and it was a dump then.
I think that’s a more theoretical application of Title IX than a practical one. Straight line equality is rarely what happens in Title IX cases, and plenty of universities are getting away with ‘continued expansion,’ not to mention USC has a history of unilaterally adding male sports.
I don’t think anyone is talking about multiple team expansion out West. Even Paul Kelly, who originally pointed to California en masse as an expansion target told From The Rink
“Frankly, the first college or university that decides to add Division I hockey in California will have just an absolute bounty in front of it.” emphasis addedSo, it really feels like a situation where one school has to join on its own. And it can’t be like when San Diego’s USIU added Division I in the 80s (which was a great program headed by Minnesota’s Brad Buetow), it would have to be a USC, UCLA, Stanford or Cal for the WCHA to let them in the door.
Also, while the talent is bountiful, I’ve been talking with Ducks Assistant Coach Newell Brown in preparation for the AAA prospects camp he runs every year, and he said that while there’s enough local talent to fill a competitive Division I team, two or three would be pushing it, and the school’s recruiting power across North America would become more of a factor than its geographical proximity to the state’s best talent.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Jun 17, 2010 11:50 AM CDT reply actions
I don’t think it’d be that tough to convince Canadian Junior A players to play hockey in California on a scholarship. :)
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Jun 17, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
yeah, that’s what Newelll said, but with three schools, ALL of them would have to take regular trips to Canada, which would factor into the money they’d have to invest in the program. It’s happened before, back in the 30s, USC and Loyola shipped all of their Division I hockey players in from Canada and Minnesota, and actually beat the University of Minnesota multiple times. But I think it’s a factor that makes multiple schools and schools like USIU that don’t have the cachet of the major schools (with the WCHA OR recruits) a non-option. We actually talk about this all the time at Anaheim Calling.
I’m basically looking at USC. They’re a private school, they’ve gotten around Title IX before, they play at the Ducks practice facility at Anaheim Ice, they have the major school cachet where I think the WCHA would be happy to have them, and they won’t be competing for anything meaningful in football for the next two years (heh heh).
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Jun 17, 2010 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
As a current USC student, I’d love to see there being an actual Division I hockey team. They have club hockey teams for both men’s (woo, Pac-8 champions!) and women’s hockey, so there is a hockey background set in place. Granted, their home rink is in Anaheim, which kind of sucks for games, but I would think that they would set something up to get fans to games, like a bus or something.
The only problem is the whole Title IX thing – they did lose 30 scholarships in what my friends and I call “the jealously punishment.” Now, I haven’t really read into whether it’s just football scholarships or total scholarships, but I’m thinking that they’re in no position to offer men’s hockey scholarships. Or women’s hockey scholarships, since they’ll invariably need something to balance that out.
And then as a San Jose resident, I’d looove for SJSU to become a Div I hockey school. I mean, they’re not in the Pac-8, but they’re good – they made the ACHA championships this year, and play in Division I club hockey. But that would pretty much only happen if they take away money from their football program, which sucks already. And they’re pretty much broke otherwise, being a CSU and all.
"I think I realized after the second or third punch, I should have taken his helmet off sooner." - Ryane Clowe
Proud member of the "Re-Sign Marleau" Club
Fools and Sages
Scratch that – SJSU is Division II club hockey. But according to the team website, “The team has grown to become a perennial Western powerhouse, finishing 1st in the West Region and 10th in the Nation in 2005-06, and posting an impressive 118-44-7 record over the past five seasons.” Nice.
"I think I realized after the second or third punch, I should have taken his helmet off sooner." - Ryane Clowe
Proud member of the "Re-Sign Marleau" Club
Fools and Sages
yeah, I think Arizona may be the only Division I club hockey out west.
USC actually won a national championship in the pre-NCAA tournament era of college hockey, so there is some history, however brief, to their program. I know they’re under the microscope now, but that’s not really new. USC laughed in the face of Title IX before and has always faced accusations on par with what they’re being punished for now. I think it’s that ‘above the law’ attitude that makes them the most likely candidate. Anaheim Calling actually interviewed the President/Treasurer of USC’s ACHA hockey program about the prospect of NCAA recently, but that was before the school was punished.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Jun 17, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Nothing more than a pipe dream at this time and the issue of having a serviceable Arena for the teams to play in is a major stumbling block. We an talk about this till we are blue in the face but it’s not on the radar. Don’t you think they would have done this already?
Not necessarily. It might’ve been on the table at one time, but it could’ve been shot down. Besides, how will anyone know that people are interested if it’s not talked about?
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jun 17, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m not quite that optimistic, thanks.
There's nothing quite like the sound of a frozen puck hitting the glass. It makes me happy.
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community.
by Cassie McClellan on Jun 18, 2010 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions
What was old is now new again
http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/archive/index.php/t-982.html
by cubanpuckstopper on Jun 17, 2010 3:53 PM CDT reply actions
Colorado and Colorado State have club teams. I know Utah State has a club team, not sure about Utah.
Some of the teams that have sprouted up in recent years have already folded. They need support from the school, a big sponsor, or support from local hockey orgs to make it work long term. Travel is a huge expense.

by 
















