The NCAA News - News and Features

December 22, 1997

Melting the Divide

By the year 2000, Divisions I and III hockey could have a common site for their championships, thus unifying the college hockey community. But some think the move could be harmful.

BY STEPHEN R. HAGWELL
STAFF WRITER

The turn of the century could be a historic time for men's collegiate ice hockey -- at least in Divisions I and III.

That's because the Division III Men's Ice Hockey Committee currently is reviewing a proposal from the Division I ice hockey committee that could result in the sport conducting its first common-site championship in 2000.

Under the proposal, the Division I semifinals and final would be played on Friday and Sunday of the championship weekend; the Division III championship game would be Saturday.

The Division III quarterfinals and semifinals would be played at campus sites using a two-game series with a "minigame" tiebreaker system.

Currently, Division III championship games are conducted on the campuses of competing institutions.

"We as a committee feel that it is in our best interests to seriously consider the proposal," said Francis T. O'Brien, director of athletics at the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, and chair of the Division III ice hockey committee. "Playing at a common site has some very appealing aspects.

"Philosophically, we need to look at why we would make such a move. If we go forward and are successful, then that would be great for Division III hockey and the athletes who are participating. But, staying with the format we have is also a very positive thing."

Three weeks later

If adopted, a common-site championship would result in the Division III championship being held approximately three weeks later than it is currently scheduled. The Division III championship semifinals and final are held on the weekend of the third full week in March; the 2000 Division I championship is scheduled for April 7 and 9 in Providence, Rhode Island.

The sites of the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Division I championships are Albany, New York (April 6 and 8); St. Paul, Minnesota (April 5 and 7); and Buffalo, New York (April 4 and 6), respectively.

Any proposal for common-site championships put forth by the Divisions I and III ice hockey committees will have to be approved by the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet and the Division III Championships Committee.

Joseph A. Marsh, men's ice hockey coach at St. Lawrence and chair of the Division I ice hockey committee, said the Division I committee decided to propose a common-site championship because it believes such a scenario would enhance the sport.

Marsh pointed out that men's lacrosse has enjoyed huge success with a similar format. He believes ice hockey can reap similar results.

The Divisions I and III Men's Lacrosse Championships have been staged at a common site since 1992. During that six-year period, the Division III championship has made dramatic gains in attendance, highlighted by a record crowd of 18,586 at the 1996 championship. Before 1992, the championship attendance record was 4,855.

Other common-site championships include the National Collegiate and Division III Women's Lacrosse Championships and the Divisions I and II Men's and Women's Indoor Track Championships.

"We think it's very important for the college hockey community to be unified if we're going to really develop this game," Marsh said. "We think (a common-site championship) would bring a lot of the hockey community together. It's certainly something that you could really develop sort of a carnival atmosphere for.

"We think it would do wonders to promote the game not just at the Division III level, but at the Division I level as well. We have a lot of kids and people at the Division I level who don't realize how good the Division III level really is, especially when you're talking about championship-caliber teams at that level.

"We think it would be great for the game. It certainly would bring our different divisions together and create a lot more unity."

Seeking consensus

Whether men's ice hockey adopts a common-site championship format hinges on the ability of the Division III community to come to a consensus.

To date, that has not happened.

Earlier this fall, the Division III committee surveyed athletics directors and coaches at member institutions that sponsor ice hockey. Of the 43 institutions that responded, 22 favored a common-site format.

Advocates contend that a common-site championship provides the best of both worlds for Division III because it retains the on-campus environment while also providing the opportunity to compete at a first-class facility.

Advocates further contend that competing at the Division I site would benefit the championship by dramatically increasing exposure for the student-athletes and institutions. They state that a common site would enable student-athletes to showcase their talents in front of a much larger audience.

In 1997, the Division I championship game attracted 17,537 fans, the Division III championship 1,600.

"This clearly is a tremendous opportunity for the small schools to be associated with the kind of hoopla that goes with the big environment," said Tim Coghlin, men's ice hockey coach at St. Norbert College. "It literally is a once-in-a-lifetime trip for most of these kids. I can't imagine a better opportunity for us than to build a tie-in to the Division I setting.

"Look what you gain by coming in (to the Division I site). You've already got national media people in, and it's possible that ESPN might eventually pick up the game. Even if they don't, we're certainly going to get more attention."

Opponents acknowledge that a common site provides a number of positives; however, they contend that abandoning the on-campus setting for the championship game and extending the season by three weeks are negatives that outweigh any positives. They add that moving the championship game to the Division I site would reduce from four to two the number of teams that currently experience the championship environment.

"I know the atmosphere in the Division I tournament would be something really special, but by the same token it's pretty special when it's held at an on-campus site," said Middlebury coach Bill Beaney, who has guided the Panthers to three consecutive Division III titles. "So what if it's only 2,000 people? If it's 2,000 people in a small rink, that's an exciting time as well.

"Even though you're playing your national championship there, you still have a feeling that you're the second show in town. Why not be the No. 1 show? And yet, I understand what people are saying and I totally understand why there's a movement for us to seriously consider that."

Coach recalls lacrosse move

B. J. O'Hara can relate to coaches on both sides. As men's lacrosse coach at Hobart College, O'Hara opposed the decision in 1992 to stage the Division III men's lacrosse final at the Division I site.

O'Hara said it's important for Division III coaches to examine the issue thoroughly.

"If it isn't a good fit, if the Division III kids aren't happy, then I wouldn't do it," O'Hara said. "By the same token, if it's a good fit and doesn't create any problems for the Division III teams, I think it would be a great experience for the kids and everyone involved.

"Our fear was that, moving into the Division I championship, the Division III game might become a sideshow or JV game, so to speak. We wanted to make sure that we retained our identity, and that our kids were treated with respect and received the recognition they deserved.

"In retrospect, I've gone on record to say that this is one of greatest things that has happened to Division III lacrosse."

Coghlin believes the same thing can happen in Division III men's ice hockey. Stating that he's not dissatisfied with the current format, he is firm in the belief that the championship can attain a higher level.

"The one thing we don't want to do is sit on our hands and say, 'We're pretty happy with the status quo,'" he said. "Right now, we're in a position where we're looking at something that could be a huge opportunity. If we try it, and four years from now it doesn't work, what did we lose? We can go back to the format that we like better."

Beaney doesn't find fault with such a position; however, he believes adopting a common-site format will hurt the Division III championship.

"I've been to a number of Division I national championships and I know what they're all about," he said. "I think to piggyback on that there are a lot of positives for that. I can't think of a negative other than what I've explained.

"It's just different. It's not that same feeling you would have hosting it at a smaller institution where it is the biggest show in town. I hate to lose that, but I can appreciate what the games might be.

"Personally, I think it would be a mistake for us to take another step toward trying to emulate Division I athletics. We aren't Division I, and I don't think we ought to try to emulate Division I."

Proceeding with caution

O'Brien said the issue is not something the Division III committee is taking lightly. He said the committee is intent on studying all aspects of the proposal before making a decision.

"We understand that many coaches would like to try it to see if there would be 13,000 people at a Division III championship game, and if ESPN would cover it," O'Brien said. "At the same time, nobody wants to lose the championship atmosphere we have. So, if we went to an off-day and there were 1,500 people in a 15,000 seat arena, that obviously is not what we're looking for.

"What we need to do, and are going to do, is proceed with caution. At this point, we're in the process of exploring the issue to determine what is best for Division III."