NCAA Hockey: California Dreamin' By Andrew Sale
Below is a contribution from user ASale aka Andrew Sale. Thanks to Andrew for taking the assignment and doing the legwork and research at my request.
NCAA Hockey: California Dreamin'
by Andrew Sale
Remember when the USC hockey team won a national title? Twice they had perfect seasons on the way to a 31-game win streak. Or when USC beat the Minnesota Golden Gophers four times in a row? Who was there when USC played Loyola outdoors at the Westwood Tropical Ice Gardens, selling out over 8,000 seats? No one? Well that’s okay, because it happened in the 1930’s.
That’s right, back in the early 1930’s ice hockey was one of the most popular college sports in Southern California. Fast forward 80 years later and the state of hockey in the Golden State is much different.
Back then coaches from Southern California would recruit Western Canadians and miners from Minnesota with promises of a college education and infinitely better weather. Unfortunately, due to firings and shifting management, NCAA hockey in California died out in the early 40’s. However, that is something that the president of College Hockey Inc., Paul Kelly, would like to fix.
Kelly’s primary job as head of the nascent organization is to promote NCAA hockey, which is currently in the middle of a cold war with Canadian major junior league hockey. Both camps claim to be the better route to the NHL for aspiring hockey players. Kelly is on a mission to increase the visibility of American college hockey, and a major part of his plan is expansion.
In recent interviews, he has specifically targeted California as a potential new market, and while none of California's colleges currently have an NCAA hockey program, many of them do in fact have hockey teams. What’s more is that some of them are quite good.
Californian colleges such as Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, SDSU, UCI and many more are all members of the lesser known known American College Hockey Association (ACHA). To understand the differences between the NCAA and the ACHA, here is a quick primer. Both leagues have separate divisions. The NCAA has Division I and Division III hockey. Division I teams may offer scholarships, and Division III teams may not. The ACHA has three different divisions, and like the NCAA, the higher the division, the higher the talent. However, the main difference between the NCAA and the ACHA is that the schools fund NCAA teams, while ACHA teams are usually funded by outside and private sources (mostly by the players themselves).
In terms of difference in talent between the two leagues, NCAA Division III teams would, for the most part, compete well with ACHA Division I teams. Although the NCAA does have an upper hand, the ACHA isn’t exactly miles behind.
Unforunately, this doesn’t change how far away these teams are from reaching NCAA status. James Anderson, president and treasurer of USC hockey was kind enough to answer a few questions about the topic. When asked how close any of these teams were to achieving NCAA status, he had this to say:
"As far as I know, of the major Southern California schools with hockey teams, (USC, UCLA, LMU, SDSU, CSULB, CSUF, CSUN, etc.) as well as other major California schools with hockey teams (Cal, Stanford, Sacremento State, San Jose St.), are not very close to achieving NCAA status, and the major cause for that is funding. For the Pac-10 schools, too much money is with the football and basketball teams because they generate the most income."
Basically, what he is saying is what school board, in this economy, would spend money on hockey when the proven moneymakers in the area are football and basketball? With the California school system in the shape that it is, it’s no wonder why they would think that way. Anderson continued on this topic and putting it into perspective, explaining that "running a legitimate NCAA hockey program costs a lot of money, especially in mild climates, and the big schools that have hockey teams (BC, BU, Denver) do not have as large football and basketball programs."
However not all hope should be cast aside, at least not for the distant future. When asked about what would need to happen in order for these teams to reach NCAA status and remain competitive, Anderson had this to say:
"For us (or any California team) to receive NCAA status, there would definitely have to be a talent influx, but unfortunately it's very difficult to bring in NCAA quality talent because we cannot provide them with the scholarships or promises of moving on to the next level. However, if we were to see a influx of talent in California, there are a number of teams that would be ready to make the jump, USC included."
So basically, a quick sum up of the college hockey situation in California is this: There is college hockey, but it isn’t funded by the schools due to economic restrictions. However, with the efforts of College Hockey Inc., there may be an increased amount of talent imported into the state and an increased amount of California talent staying local, which may lead to the creation of California’s first NCAA hockey team in over 60 years.
It’s a long stretch, but with a lot of luck, and a bit of time, maybe NCAA hockey can return to sunny California.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There’s a good Sports Illustrated article on the Loyola/USC hockey rivalry in the 30s available here:
Hockey Goes Hollywood by Chris Warner
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on May 20, 2010 11:04 AM PDT reply actions
good piece nice insight too but i think anderson is right. Too many schools on the west coast love football and basketball and baseball which is understandable. But it’s not fair to the kids who play hockey and want to also get a good education. Hockey at Denver? good. education? not so much. bc bu wisconsin and michigan are pretty good athletic and academic schools but most ncaa hockey schools have crap education
Yeah. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Ivy League has a longstading NCAA hockey program. Harvard/Yale at the Whale is a big deal. Our own George Parros came from an Ivy League hockey program, as did Brian Hayward once upon a time. If you don’t think Harvard and Yale are academic programs then I really don’t know what you think the best schools in this country are. And if Stanford, Cal, USC and UCLA can drag in some players (even local players) with the promises of scholarships to their elite academic programs even half as well as the Ivy League then we’ve got a ball game
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on May 20, 2010 1:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
notice how i said most so you saying north dakota or umass is a great academic school? not really but i should have rephrased the post
Is UMass a great academic school? Maybe. It’s certainly not a shitty place to get an education. I went to Illinois State University. I’m sure it doesn’t sound prestigious, but I graduated from one of the top communication education programs in the country. Of course, I didn’t focus on com ed, but I think you get my point. It’s really hard to know anything about the academic value of most universities/colleges, simply because they do so much. I’ve heard people from USC complain that they hardly ever get to interact with their professors and that their degree is valuable, but their educational experience is subpar. Could be because of the particular department they were in, could be a general problem at the university, could have been that dude was lazy.
I’m just saying, institutions usually have a lot more going for them than some people realize. If I hadn’t been almost forced to go to ISU, I probably would have never gone and learned what a great school it actually is.
No, I won’t “notice.” The Ivy League makes up HALF of the ECAC. The idea that a kid playing hockey and wanting to get a good education doesn’t have options is laughable. There are plenty of great hockey players who didn’t get into their hockey program of choice (North Dakota being one of them) and chose to go to an Ivy League school to get a world class education. If you’re a great hockey player in California, I’m sorry, but there’s no way you’re mad you can’t go to Stanford if you’ve got acceptances to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell and Brown. The idea that something unfair going on there is ridiculous.
Plus, there’s nothing wrong with the leftover “most” you’re referring to. I know someone that went to North Dakota, and it’s actually a good option for many programs if you’re living in the Midwest. There are plenty of schools in California that have that same niche appeal. Look at the agriculture programs of UC’s Riverside, Merced and Davis, schools that might not be on your radar because you’re not into agriculture. Good for you, but it doesn’t make them bad schools. Point is, even if you are haughty enough to look down on good schools like Boston University, Michigan, Minnesota, etc. being a Californian who is good at hockey can get you into Harvard. So you have no real point except to probably make it obvious that you didn’t know the Ivy League was well-represented in NCAA hockey.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on May 20, 2010 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Since you’ve clearly done more leg work than I have Andrew, what exactly is the process of becoming an NCAA team? Do the schools just approve it and file some paperwork with the NCAA, or is there an evaluation process that the NCAA conducts and requirements that need to be fulfilled?
I didn’t ask him to do research that specifically, and he wasn’t able to get too many people on the phone. Fromy college sport crazy friends I’ve heard that you can’t join division iii as a division I school. So we’d be talking about a direct jump and colleges applying to join the WCHA. I don’t think there are enough schools to talk about a new conference, so it would really just be one school lobbying the WCHA.
So that’s one school willing to commit itself to division I, which involves school scholarships and title ix and the wcha actually saying yes.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on May 20, 2010 1:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

by 












