Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

The committee responsible for presenting budget cut ideas to their state legislature has released their recommendations.

Here's a link to the full report, but I've attached an image breaking down each option on the table. Essentially the only team with a sliver of a chance of surviving is UAF, but it seems like both teams might be getting the axe.

Any idea what the time frame would be? It's getting too late for athletes transfer and still be able to play this season.

I've heard it could be as early as November to hear about the program's fates.

I guess that means that they would play out the 2016-2017 seasons and players could transfer for next year. I was worried they'd make the decision before the start of this school year and just cut the programs immediately.

I know it's bad for college hockey to lose teams, but the Alaska schools don't really bring much. They are well below avg most years, it's a huge expense to play there (I know they subsidize the cost by about half), the travel is a huge inconvenience, and they don't have much to bring to any conference.

It stinks for those programs and kids, but it is probably better overall for the WCHA.

It's Alaska...why is that even a state? Oh yeah...Oil. and fishing..Oil.and fishing ..watching the Russians. Oil.and fishing ..watching the Russians and Sarah Palin's rack.

Can't think of anything else...

I'm glad Alaska and Hawaii participate in the NCAA. It's good for America.

College hockey is the marquee sport up there. Perhaps seeing these options will convince the Alaska legislature to get creative and find a way to preserve college hockey.

Schadenfreude wrote:I'm glad Alaska and Hawaii participate in the NCAA. It's good for America.

College hockey is the marquee sport up there. Perhaps seeing these options will convince the Alaska legislature to get creative and find a way to preserve college hockey.

That would be a great thing, as I hate seeing ANY D1 hockey program go under.

I'm wondering the effect it would have on OUR athletic department budget, if we don't have to go to Alaska? Could it be a positive?

factman wrote:I'm wondering the effect it would have on OUR athletic department budget, if we don't have to go to Alaska? Could it be a positive?

Financially it would be slightly beneficial. We receive a subsidy that takes care of a good chunk of the travel cost, but it doesn't cover everything. It's also a very grueling trip. But, you never want to see programs go under (especially in your conference).

I think this will be a recurring theme in a number of places....State legislatures will be asking "You're spending how much on sports"?

Anchorage is not recruiting -
http://www.ktva.com/hockey-other-sports ... dget-cuts/

bgbill wrote:Anchorage is not recruiting -
http://www.ktva.com/hockey-other-sports ... dget-cuts/

There was a feeling that even if the axe were to fall there would be another season or two before things closed up shop. It sounds like that's not the case anymore. Thomas probably knows more than what's been released publicly.

BGDrew wrote:

bgbill wrote:Anchorage is not recruiting -
http://www.ktva.com/hockey-other-sports ... dget-cuts/

There was a feeling that even if the axe were to fall there would be another season or two before things closed up shop. It sounds like that's not the case anymore. Thomas probably knows more than what's been released publicly.

Yeah, that article is not good, It looks like the last season of college hockey in AK likely will be this season. The best case scenario if the programs can be saved, they're going to be terrible basically picking up the leftovers since recruiting is (at best) on hold. If they're saved this round of budget cuts, long-term the programs could still be in trouble from not getting recruits => continued losing seasons => decreasing attendance => decreasing tix and merch sales... it's a vicious cycle for programs in trouble.

It is important to note it's still possible UAF's program doesn't get cut. UAA's demise is considered to be very likely, though.