hailed as a tremendously positive step<\/a>. While Buttafuoco was busy, Hagwell would have the ear of ECAC coaches and athletic directors, and, even more importantly, have the authority to make decisions.<\/p>\nIt’s clear from day-to-day dealings with the league that Hagwell is no longer out front, and\/or no longer allowed to be out front. Why?<\/p>\n
As a result, the same frustrations from the past have crept back in.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Buttafuoco denies there are any communication problems within the league, and that any issues that may exist are a normal part of any conference’s business.<\/p>\n
“That’s why last year we completed our mission statement and our vision statment, and we’re addressing those things,” Buttafuoco says. “And we identified some areas that we really wanted to concentrate this year and move forward, and that’s what we’re doing. So we’re certainly answering the issues that were raised by our athletic directors and our coaches. But sometimes, coaches’ issues aren’t necessarily supported by ADs either.<\/p>\n
“You also have to realize that some of the frustrations that the coaches express toward us is because they want us to do things that some of their institutions may not be able to do. For instance, they want us to promote the individual teams and individual players more than we do, because their SIDs [sports information directors] aren’t hockey only. You look at Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, etc. … they have hockey-only SIDs. Our schools are smaller and they don’t have the staffs like that.<\/p>\n
“So some of the coaches’ frustrations with their own situations on campus are pointed toward the league. And they get concerned, for instance, when the Hobey Baker finalists are announced. It’s not the league’s position to promote Hobey finalists.”<\/p>\n
Should I Stay or Should I Go?<\/h4>\n Though I’ve been a proponent of the ECAC’s 12 member schools forming their own hockey-only conference, you wonder, sadly, whether it matters anymore.<\/p>\n
The ECAC schools are great, filled with revered institutions and revered coaches. They are, as a whole, more rich in tradition than anywhere, dating back to the 1800s. But this kind of personal, nostaligic, home-spun aura means nothing, unfortunately, in trying to keep up with the Joneses. The ECAC is Mr. Cunningham’s corner hardware store, and the rest of hockey is Home Depot.<\/p>\n
The ECAC schools are just smaller, on average, than schools in other conferences. As a whole, they just don’t have the money to bring in the big bucks, build huge new arenas and get large TV deals.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon is not unique to college hockey. As the big money comes into any industry, the rich get richer while the less rich just spin their wheels. The idea that a rising tide lifts all boats is clearly a fallacy in most walks of life. Take a look at baseball. There was always a gap between “rich” and “poor” major league baseball teams, but never enough to seriously impact competition. But as more money flowed in, the gap widened until you have a ridiculous imbalance such as today’s.<\/p>\n
The same could be said for the cable industry, radio stations or hardware stores. A small gap always widens, as the larger entity leverages its small advantage and snowballs it until it’s a huge advantage. That’s just the dynamic of a capitalist society, and it doesn’t change unless through artificial means — and I don’t see much revenue sharing on the horizon in the NCAA.<\/p>\n
“I don’t care what league structure you have, if the schools aren’t winning games, it’s not because of what league they’re in, or whether it’s a hockey-only conference or part of the bigger picture,” Buttafuoco says. “The impression of a league is based on wins, and we’re starting to turn that around.”<\/p>\n
But the impression of a league is also based on perception. I could be a great writer, I could be a crappy writer, but how would I be treated if I came to games looking like a slob? Why has the league’s Web site improved from pathetic, to merely awful?<\/p>\n
You would expect Buttafuoco to defend the ECAC. That’s his job, and it’s in the ECAC’s self interest to keep hockey, its bread and butter. But, as a fan of, and reporter on, ECAC hockey for almost 20 years, I’m only interested in how the hockey programs, coaches and players can best thrive. None of the arguments in favor of the ECAC convince me.<\/p>\n
That the ECAC has fallen behind the other three major conferences in on-ice performance may not be anyone’s fault. But a new hockey-only conference cannot hurt, and might help.<\/p>\n
If being in an all-sport league helped that much, the Big Ten hockey conference would have figured out a way to be formed by now. But (despite the suggestion of some numbskulls to do just that), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Michigan and Ohio State — as upstanding members of the hockey community — know better.<\/p>\n
The commissioners of Hockey East, the WCHA, CCHA and CHA, are the most accessible, down-to-Earth, honest people in the sport. And when they make decisions, they have at least one eye cast towards “the sport” and not just their conference.<\/p>\n
This kind of “we’re all in it together” attitude is what makes college hockey unique, and what makes it great. That’s one reason why, whereas a single-sport conference may not be the right thing for other sports, it makes perfect sense for hockey.<\/p>\n
This ideal, combined with the frustration of dealing with the ECAC office, makes a switch to a hockey-only conference worthwhile.<\/p>\n
So, how could this happen?<\/h4>\n Would all 12 members have to vote yes? Is it as simple as flipping the switch and just deciding? Or are there logistical issues that need to be addressed, like setting up the new infrastructure, arranging the budgets, figuring out a chain of command or picking a home office? Couldn’t they just carry over exactly what they have now, and go from there with minimal change? After all, you don’t have to change the schedule, or travel partners, or scholastic requirements, or games limit or anything like that. They’d all just be leaving, together, under the banner of a new hockey-only conference.<\/p>\n
There are obvious sticking points. For example, the Division III schools (St. Lawrence, Clarkson, Union, RPI) are, in many cases, more directly tied into the ECAC in all sports. That might make it more difficult for them to break off their ice hockey affiliation. Second, there is a question on whether the NCAA would force the new conference to wait the mandatory two years (for new conferences) before regaining an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament.<\/p>\n
But most of all, it seems that the only thing holding back the schools at this point is fear of change.<\/p>\n
Certainly, it should be a unanimous move. The idea of a hockey-only conference is to continue the feeling of unity among member schools, not wreck it. But if the vote is 10-2 in favor of a move, are the two remaining schools really going to leave themselves behind to become independents? That would be suicide.<\/p>\n
Schools that are on the fence should know the rest of the hockey world is behind a hockey-only conference. There isn’t a soul on Earth that will criticize you for it.<\/p>\n
So, come June, get together, take the vote, and just do it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Is the time ripe for the ECAC’s 12 schools to form a hockey-only conference?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":140328,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
ECAC: A New Direction? - College Hockey | USCHO.com<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n