Not all WCHA members are thrilled about the new Mystery Alaska plan

The WCHA leadership has been in full spin mode since the league announced their “Mystery Alaska” plan. It’s been interesting to watch as the WCHA commissioner spins this unattractive playoff plan. This would be a text book definition of a “gong show” – there is no way to explain this – it is what it is.

Today we have found out that the new format might only be around for a two year rotation – to me this suggests that the league has taken an idea and thrown it up against the wall to see if it sticks, but to also see how the nWCHA’s fan base responds to the new playoff format.

Todd D. Milewski, USCHO.COM --- The plan was born from financial and geographical issues related to Alaska and Alaska-Anchorage being in the same conference for the first time when conferences reshuffle in 2013, McLeod said.

But the league committed to it for only two seasons, possibly further illustrating the trepidation WCHA members felt about making an outside-the-box change to postseason seeding.

“Some years if they both finish in the lower half, that’s not going to taste very good,” McLeod said. “But if they both finish in the upper half, it’s going to be not good for them. They might have been able to get two in [to the Final Five] otherwise and they’re only going to get one. That’s why we did it on a two-year rotation to see how things shake out and how people feel about it. It’s not a very long commitment.”

Including all nine teams in the postseason wasn’t a foregone conclusion, McLeod said. Eight- and six-team plans were also discussed at the meeting in Detroit before the full field was approved.

Perusing the fan message boards - I have seen a mixed response from the nWCHA fans about the new “Mystery Alaska” playoff format.

It would also appear that a big number of the nWCHA fans are siding more with the ‘we don’t like the new playoff format’ or they have just basically blamed the NCHC for the nWCHA’s fortunes.

Based on what we have seen transpire in the last week in Detroit. I believe is one of the major reasons that UND, SCSU, UMD, DU, C.C. and UNO decided to leave the WCHA and go out on their own to form a new league.

There seems to be a major divide between the schools that are strapped for cash and the schools that aren’t as strapped for cash; especially in the present economy. Schools are experiencing financial constraints and reduced budgets and this is not new to college sports or to college hockey.

Let’s also not forget there there’s always going to be the “haves” and “have nots, ” this was true even in the old North Central Conference and will be true in the Big Sky Conference as well. The present WCHA schools are never really going to be able to compete financially with the schools in the NCHC, B1G or even a majority of the Hockey East schools.

The question I pose is; is it the big school’s responsibility to prop up the small schools in Division I athletics?

Also, does the nWCHA hold the moral high ground?

Another school in their geographic template UAH (BGSU is 629 miles from UAH - it's rougly 4000 from BGSU to UAA) needs to find a conference home and it would appear from the side lines that the nWCHA is basically stalling or dawdling, almost hoping that the Chargers go away.

The UAH Chargers basically have one viable option, conference membership in the WCHA where they would be able to be with other schools (except BGSU who is DI); who outside of hockey are also Division II in all their other sports.

But I digress.

Lastly, Division I college hockey is currently resembling the other major Division I college sports right now with all their conference re-alignment. It has been really ugly with the other sports changing conferences leaving teams to scramble to find a new conference home. It’s almost like natural selection, or a survival of the fittest.

I also don’t know if there are any answers or quick fixes to what ails college sports – there doesn’t seem to be any magic pill that could just fix everything. Some say that the WCHA would have been fine if the schools that left had stayed. The CCHA still might have been a conference in shambles, Miami and Notre Dame still probably would have wanted out. There would still be other issues out there that would still be unresolved.

There is also another elephant sitting in the room – the commissioner of the WCHA Bruce McLeod – no one seem to want to talk about it right now. Eventually, I believe the WCHA is going to have to cut ties with McLeod and go a different direction. Keeping him on board past the 2013-14 season is detrimental to the WCHA going forward. The WCHA needs an infusion of new blood.