Illinois. Penn. St. Thomas.
These are all schools who, at one point or another, over the summer, came up in the conversation of beginning a Division 1 men's hockey program. The group ranges widely from "in the red zone" to "an endowment with an eye towards varsity hockey" to "got kicked out of the MIAC so let the speculation begin."
For all the speculation, there's no guarantee all, or even any, join the Division 1 ranks in the coming years. (The same can be said on the women's side with Northern Michigan and a plethora of other schools on fan wish lists.) That doesn't stop discussing new programs.
Any time one gets brought up, discussing what's next becomes rampant among college hockey fans. Twitter accounts have made a cottage industry of RTs and likes out of "which school should or will be the one to add hockey?"
When it does happen, an uplift of support normally accompanies a new program on the horizon.
At the same time, the fact expansion discussion is one of the few things in college hockey to break through to casual fans ends up being something I find odd because few things in the sport bring out vitriol like a massive change.
Everyone is happy to see Arizona State join 59 other men's hockey teams in the NCAA yet no one quite wants Arizona State in their conference. Penn State, in an era where attendance is down nationally, each night sells out a 6,000 seat arena. That doesn't stop both from being scapegoats for what's wrong with the sport.
Still, I'm not exactly sure why there's a disconnect between a new program possibly existing and actually existing. Why do we enjoy discussing schools starting up hockey and hate the change the new schools bring? It would make sense to hold some consistency.
My guess, however, is that the consistency comes from the enjoyment of college hockey, one of the few sports where small and big schools alike are on even footing.
On one side, there's a ton to like about the sport. It should be shared. It should grow. In fact, hockey continues to grow as the number of spots for players continues to be limited. Only three programs have added D1 men's hockey this century. Much of the talk of new programs is just that, talk.
(For every school that ends up in the end zone and scoring a shiny new program, there's a long list of failed rumors ranging from Navy to Minnesota State, Moorhead to UNLV to Rhode Island to Iowa and anywhere in between. Illinois has been discussed as a potential addition since before Penn State, itself a longtime rumored school, began its program.)
On the other side, the reality of growing the game, sharing the sport and what change means doesn't come to mind until it becomes a reality. This is a sport where each team and conference looks out for itself first and foremost. Adding new rules, whether it's recruiting or 3-on-3 OT, can be like pulling teeth.
Any new school would mean something different. Penn possibly gives the Ivy League enough schools to make it worthwhile to leave the ECAC. St. Thomas adds a geographical fit for the Upper Midwest. Illinois is in a spot where several schools recruit - the state of Illinois continues one of several hockey-mad areas in the United States without a nearby team.
It's easy to dream of expansion to the West Coast/South/Power 5/more Minnesota schools. When push comes to shove, a growing sport is also one that ends up being a changing sport; something fans know all too well with realignment and proxy battles that continue to be fought nearly a decade later.
However, that remains true regardless of expansion. At its core, the one constant of college is continued change. Players have a limited amount of time before moving on to the next level. Buildings constantly get built. Restaurants change. Go to a college campus after a five-year absence and half the time gets spent recalling memories at long-lost locales.
The entire experience is one of trying to hold onto the past as the world changes around you.
Maybe that's the best way to look at why it's fun to discuss new programs yet hate change. Depending on the year, everyone has their own version of what campus and college hockey was to them. Different rivalries. Different eras. Whether new schools are added or not, there will be change. It's inevitable.
We don't need to go far for that to be true. Something else happening over the summer besides conversations of schools beginning a Division 1 men's hockey program was the start of actual realignment.
There's no speculation. Shots were fired. In late June, seven WCHA schools decided to give notice and depart the conference. The move, which comes after uncertainty over the future of the two Alaska schools and an untenable alliance of teams, opens Pandora's realignment box once more, new schools or not.
--
If you enjoyed this blog, you can follow Nate on Twitter and like/subscribe to his Facebook page. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment