Jump to content

Talk:American Collegiate Hockey Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Club Sports[edit]

ACHA Hockey is usually considered club hockey, but what impresses me is that it's a much higher level of competition and organization than most people think of when they think of club sports. Club sports used to be scrabbling together games against whoever you could get - high school teams, JV teams, amateur teams, or whoever. This level of club sports does exist, but the ACHA seems to be something quite different - real intercollegiate competition, and not just within a few miles of home. The ACHA seems more like a parallel organization like the NAIA.

I know most schools don't list club sports on their athletics web page, but do some schools consider their ACHA hockey team to be a varsity team?--RLent 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, ACHA teams are club sports at their school. that being said, the ACHA is prob. the best thing to happen to ice hockey in the US in the past 20 years. it has organized entire generations into highly competative leagues whereas without it they would have languished in bad leagues beer leagues or not played at all. Dirk Pitt 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some ACHA teams are considered part of the Athletic Department and varisty, in ACHA Division I, Lindenwood University's team is in the athletic department as well as Scranton. In Division II, Davenport University hockey is in the athletic department, in Division III Alvernia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most of the schools the consider ACHA teams apart of their athletic Dprts are mostly non-NCAA schools, I believe it dates back to the NAIA sponsoring hockey a long time ago. --Bhockey10 (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this flagged with the notability issue I wanted to reach out and address some things and hopefully ensure that this doesn't become an issue. Different schools in the ACHA fall under different categories at their schools. As it is pointed out, some even consider them as their "varsity" program. For the most part, our members are officially considered to be "Non-Varsity" or "Virtual Varsity" teams. Perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years ago the club tag would have been fitting for most member teams, but the organization that has come down from the ACHA board all the way to our newest teams has added structure to each level and has truly set our members apart from many typical "club" sports. Ultimately ACHA teams are non-NCAA as opposed to anything else, it just depends on the type of support they get from their individual schools in many cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHAPR (talkcontribs) 22:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with NCAA Hockey?[edit]

This article doesn't address what seems to me to be the most obvious question: how does this relate to NCAA hockey? All of the language used to describe the ACHA here would apply equally well to NCAA hockey, so what is it that distinguishes the ACHA from the NCAA? I suspect that the ACHA is, or at least once was, an organization of club teams, but the ACHA's webpage and this article never really clarify that. I would suggest a high-level section titled something like "Relationship Between ACHA and NCAA Hockey". --Rkstafford 20:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uh, no. the ACHA is an organizing body, like the NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association and the NAIA National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. but unlike them the ACHA only regulated college ice hockey and only does so with teams that are not varsity, meaning they arnt funded by the school as a sport, although they are sometimes funded as a club. comparing the NCAA and the ACHA would be like comparing Ford and Toyota you can do it. But why?Dirk Pitt 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uh, no. The ACHA is nothing like the NCAA and thus should not have a wiki article. They do not regulate college ice hockey, only the NCAA does. ACHA allows teams to play under a banner that is all. A comparison would be any house league which creates a league for teams to play in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our relationship with the NCAA is separate. As is noted above, the ACHA is a governing body for collegiate hockey teams that are not NCAA teams with their schools. It is as simple as that. Non varsity/virtual varsity/club etc hockey teams at colleges and universities across the nation can apply for membership just as an NAIA school could eventually apply for membership as an NCAA school. ACHAPR —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club sport. That is all.... sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I created a userbox for all those ACHA players out there just copy and paste the following code into your userpage.

{{User:UBX/ACHA Hockey}} result:

ACHAThis user plays or has played Collegiate Ice Hockey.

Men's Division III Map[edit]

I don't know how to fix this, so I'll alert others. The Men's Division III map isn't accurate. It is missing the University of Nebraska, a member of the NCCHA. (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the maps need updated before the season starts, there's some new teams and also some existing ones moved divisions. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of Play[edit]

This article reads like it came from ACHA's public affairs dept. I have an issue with the following statement made "ACHA teams attract considerable on-campus attention and the quality of play is considered quite high, especially in the top division."

This is simply biased nonsense. As someone who has seen every level of hockey played, and coached at many different levels, ACHA hockey is not even close to being on par with Major Junior (CHL) hockey, and probably equates to Junior B in overall skill level. Have seen a number of ACHA games, mainly in Tucson and Tempe AZ, and again, the quality of play does not impress at all. I would move that the above statement be removed from the article due to bias, or provide credible hockey sources that echo the sentiment expressed as the sourced nhl.com article is merely quoting personnel involved in the ACHA. 12:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

You're reason for removing seems more opinionated than the statement. It is properly cited so it can stay. That quote doesn't compare ACHA to Major Junior hockey at all. It just states that the quality is quite high and teams attract on campus attention that most other club sports don't. Top ACHA teams are on par with NCAA DIII and most of the ACHA DI teams have higher attendance than NCAA DIII teams. Penn State is leaving the ACHA for NCAA but even before the announcement the PSU team was one of the few sports with significant coverage in the school's paper along with basketball and football. I just skimmed the article but if you find anywhere where the ACHA is compared to Major Junior hockey that's probably a location of vandalism and needs to be fixed. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Top ACHA teams are on par with NCAA DIII" and how did you come to this conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted[edit]

Reason - Fails to meet wiki standards. College hockey is covered by NCAA. ACHA is not professional nor top level amature. NCAA D1 and D3 may be notable, but not ACHA

To Bhockey10 - Let me make this clear. Lets say I start a 5 year old boys hockey league in Austin Texas. Can I create a wiki article for that league? No, why? Because it is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia. WIkipedia creates standards and policys which are agreed by not just one person but by many, highlighting what should and should no be in an encylcopedia. This community has set a stardard for hockey which is a player has to have played 100 games at or above the echl level to be notable. ECHL is not that high a level if you are to think about it in comparison to the best hockey players in the world. This standard applies not only to stand alone pages, but to notable lists as well. Going back to my 5 year old boy league. This league does not meet the standard of wikipedia. Under this same standard the ACHA falls short. Under guidelines a strong case can be made to have this page removed. The ACHA is not a pro league and is not a top amature league. This is covered by the page which speaks to NCAA hockey. Do you see how this can now be a problem? Every hockey league in the world can create a wiki page and create a list of 'notable' people. What would happen to the creditablity of wikipedia if this were to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL would appear to believe the ACHA is noteworthy. (<--this link is already used as a citation in the ACHA article.) The NHL has even promoted the ACHA championships via their social media account. And the claim that college hockey is covered by NCAA is specious. Unlike basketball, football, track & field, etc., for a great many schools the ACHA the highest level of ice hockey available. I'm not talking schools nobody's ever heard of; among the ten 4-year public/private institutions with the highest enrollment, six compete in the ACHA with no NCAA hockey program above it. Just last season it was 7 of 10 (Penn State created their NCAA hockey program this year -- nearly all of their team's upperclassmen were ACHA players last season). Both the men's and women's ice hockey teams representing Team USA in international competition at the Winter World University Games are comprised entirely of ACHA players. Additionally, it seems obvious that if a much lower league like the NAIH is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, then the ACHA is as well. Perhaps the content of this page could be improved; but the claim that the ACHA is not noteworthy enough to deserve a page to begin with is entirely without merit.
Based on the above, and per the removal guidelines in Template:Notability, I have removed the 'notability' tag. In its place I have put the seemingly more appropriate Template:Primary_sources.
Fishbert (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ACHA is the premier governing body - or league, if you prefer - for hundreds of collegiate hockey players across the nation. We have been working for over 20 years and have not only grown year-to-year, but have graduated a number of teams and alumni to the NCAA level. There are countless more schools who do not have the ability to have an NCAA varsity program and the ACHA allows for this. Considering that the primary draw of players comes from outside major junior leagues (CHL, USHL, NAHL), there is an expected drop off when comparing NCAA teams and ACHA teams. Therefore the same comparaison could be made when considering "notable players". Having a player sign a professional contract and succeed is awfully notable for just about anyone in any sport no matter which way you view it. Playing a certain number of games is a fair argument and perhaps should be excercised here, but we're proud of each and every professional player that comes from developing in the ACHA, just as the NCAA is certainly proud of every alumni that makes the NHL. ACHAPR —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The ACHA is the premier governing body - or league..." Incorrect, the NCAA is the premier governing body. Furthermore, wiki policy is clear, this page does not meet the standard. Remember this is a CLUB sport. In any event, you should not shoot the messanger, if you don't like the policy then have it changed. If not, then follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedia pages for other collegiate club sport organizations, including National Club Baseball Association, the National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association, and a number of College rugby club organizations like the Ivy Rugby Conference, the Atlantic Coast Rugby League, Southeastern Collegiate Rugby Conference, East Coast Rugby Conference, amongst others, I'm sure. So, clearly, there is precedent for "just" club athletics to be considered notable on Wikipedia. On top of that, the ACHA is definitely one of the largest, organized, and established club sports organizations, with over 20 years of history, 400+ teams spread across three divisions, and a multitude of conferences, which all have Wikipedia articles of their own. I'm sorry, but that's all clearly notable enough, despite what some random editor with an axe to grind may have to say. RPH (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use your poorly designed argument. The city of New York peewee house league has over 400 teams. This equates in to thousands of players. Then they should have a wiki page as well? hmmm...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players section[edit]

TO:, please assume good faith toward myself as well as the other editors. You have been Bold, the action has been reverted by myself and other editors, before continuing to remove the section, it is time for a civil discussion. See BRD Cycle. Please discuss before we mass-deleting sections, as I've said before, there's three types of players on the list:

  • One: The notable players section does have some players that meet the notability standards for stand-alone articles (they have their own articles!) Those players should 100% be included.
  • Two: Players that have had extended careers in minor pro hockey, or in Europe and are close to meeting the 100+ game standard. I personally think those should be included but I am open to a civil discussion here on the article talk page between you, me, and other interested users.
  • Three: Some players have played only a handful of games in minor pro hockey. I don't have an opinion either way, they can be kept since they played some pro hockey or they can be removed from the list.
There are only TWO players that have a wiki page that are on that list. ONLY ONE meets wiki standards, while that other only played a handful of games in the ECHL.
Therefore, the rest of the players do not meet the standard, and thus, should not be included. If you wish to revise the list to only include the ONE person, please feel free. However, please do not re-add those players who do not meet the standard of 100 ECHL games. Best
I kept the players with articles (their individual notability is a separate issue not for this talk page or discussion); players that have played in the highest level of their respective country's league; and long-time minor leaguers (mostly ECHL or its predecessors that could have articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AAHL is not even close to the ECHL. Turkey and Poland are not notable leagues. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO TO: You are throwing around Wikipedia notability guidelines without appearing to understand them yourself. As stated quite clearly in the notability guidelines: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." I have reverted your changes to the notable players section based on this improper application of Wikipedia notability guidelines to justify article content removal. Fishbert (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Poland. I don't need to say more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You -do- need to say more, actually... saying more is a rather critical part of having a civil discussion with other editors (which has been asked of you in regards to your persistent content removing edits). As was pointed out earlier by another editor, in keeping with the BRD Cycle, you have been Bold, your edits have been reverted (by multiple editors), and now it is time for a civil discussion. Dropping token comments in the talk page (such as "it's Turkey and Poland. Sorry." ... [-delete-]) does not equate to having a civil discussion. To avoid this descending into an edit war, please stop the disruptive editing practice of persistently and unilaterally removing page content (un-reverting multiple other editors) without FIRST having a civil discussion and allowing the community to arrive at a consensus.Fishbert (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow wiki policy. Need I say more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please tell us which wiki policy gives you free reign to forego civil discussion per the BRD Cycle and persist with disruptive editing. As has been pointed out before, the notability guidelines you've frequently bandied about apply to pages themselves; not to page content. If there is some other guideline you are attempting to adhere to with your disruptive behavior, perhaps a civil discussion here in the talk page is a better way to communicate this to the rest of us. A good outcome of civil discussion may be to clearly define a standard for inclusion/exclusion of players to the list in question. But as it stands right now, per the disruptive editing guidelines, it is inappropriate for you to continue to bull-headedly un-revert the other editors who have tried to engage in a such a civil discussion with you about the changes you are intent on pushing through.Fishbert (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about you READ the entire HISTORY of the discussion and NOT JUMP IN and cherry pick. If you did, you would note that WIKI POLICY is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page standard inclusion/exclusion criteria for "notable players in professional leagues" section[edit]

In an attempt to resolve the disruptive editing that's been going on with this page, here is an explicit section where we can discuss civilly as a community the question of who should and should not be included on the list of "notable players in professional leagues". As has been pointed out before... 1) general wikipedia notability guidelines do not apply to page content; indeed, page content standards should be allowed to be more loose and open (to a degree) than page creation standards; and 2) the BRD Cycle clearly indicates that discussion in an effort to achieve consensus should occur before any further disruptive editing takes place; it is not appropriate to drop one-liner decrees in the talk page and continue to push the same edits on the article page, we should be working together in here, not fighting with the edit button.Fishbert (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the name of the section, "Notable players in professional leagues", may be misleading. I don't think it was ever intended as a claim that the players are notable as an absolute themselves (as in, deserving of their own individual wikipedia article), but that they have been note-worthy within their professional league. The metrics framework of the wikipedia general notability guidelines may still be of some use to us here... perhaps we can draw a line that for a player to be considered note-worthy in their professional league (even if it is a league in Turkey or Poland or wherever), they need to play in at least 100 games to show they are not just a flash in the pan in that league. And if they play in multiple leagues (as many in the list now appear to have done), perhaps we should say that they need to play at least 100 games in any one single professional league to show they are not just "bar hopping" around different leagues.Fishbert (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem. This policy ALREADY is in place, as it has been said before,it is the 100 game standard at the ECHL level. However, YOU have failed to follow that policy, and as a result, YOU are trying to create your own. HOW ABOUT YOU START FOLLOWING POLICY which clearly STATES that it DOES apply to LISTS and PAGES . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia notability guidelines (see the direct link I posted previously) explicitly state they apply to articles and list articles only, and that they do not apply to page content. The list you continue to disruptively edit, rather than discuss civilly, is page content and as such does not fall under the Wikipedia general notability guidelines you continue to hide behind in pushing your unilateral disruptive edits. Another editor has previously warned you on your talk page about trying to apply Wikipedia policy that it is obvious that you do not understand. On my talk page you have claimed that BHockey10 and yourself have reached an agreement via civil discussion upon a standard for the list content, but reading this talk page (especially when taken in the context of accompanying edits to the article) it is clear that there has been very little civil discussion taking place, and that no agreement has been reached (indeed, you falsely accuse BHockey10 of engaging in an edit war over the content you claim to have reached agreement over). As myself and other editors have implored you repeatedly, participate in a civil discussion here in the Talk page BEFORE making further disruptive edits to the page content (token comments dropped in the Talk page accompanied by continued disruptive edits is not a civil discussion, and is not per the BRD cycle [see the direct link BHockey10 posted previously]). This is a community effort where we must work together; it is not your personal page to mold and shape as you see fit in a unilateral manner.Fishbert (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed. Please see history, and do not jump in claiming that you know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the history. What I see is an attempt by BHockey10 at a civil discussion, followed by your accusation of that editor conducting an edit war because he wouldn't just let you have your way. I don't see any consensus on a page standard for including/excluding players on that list. What I do see quite clearly is an openly hostile attitude from you toward working together with others to improve an article (this attitude is evident here, in page edit comments, and on user talk pages; your interaction regarding the ACHA with TheOriginalSoni on your own talk page—which you removed earlier today [April 7, 2013]—is probably the best example). That is precisely the intent of this section of the article talk page; to work together with others to improve the article. You may either participate in this process civilly and in good-faith, or you may continue being a disruptive editor (as mentioned on your user talk page, you clearly tick the boxes of being tendentious, not engaging in consensus-building, and rejecting or ignoring community input) and continuing to have your disruptive edits reverted per the "dealing with disruptive editors" guidelines.Fishbert (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Editing[edit]

Dear Fishbert and Bhockey10, have you even checked the list of notable players to see if it is correct? I have! Please explain why you keep adding Nick Pappas to the list, when his stats are incorrect and he is the only listed player on hockeydb for his acha team! Furthermore, you both have added him several times, and if you take a look at his dates, it says he played from 1995 - 90. HOw is this possible? Do you even check what you're editing, or do you just like enganging in edit wars?

Nick Pappas (whoever he is) may or may not be appropriate to include in the list; same as the other players you keep unilaterally removing from the list. Reverting your disruptive edits is not the same as declaring someone is correctly included; it is asserting that the reason given for exclusion—that the individuals do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines—is invalid, as the policy clearly states it does not apply to page content. I have attempted to spark a discussion above to create a clear and defined page standard for who should and should not be included in the list. I encourage you to participate (civilly and in good-faith... not something I've seen from you in here thus far) before continuing to press your unilateral disruptive edits.Fishbert (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to address the issue - like always. Please explain why you keep adding cleary incorrect information. Do you think this is helpful? Instead of reverting my edits, why don't you check to see what is being reverted is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the date typo and removed a semi-pro team from the "Nick Pappas" entry of the list. What is listed there now appears to be entirely accurate, according to the previously-cited source.Fishbert (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rv the page, because the info on Nick Pappas is incorret. Please see hockeydb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The info on Nick Pappas was correct per previously-cited source (hockeydb) and you removed a lot more than just Nick Pappas. You are using this one player as an excuse to further push your disruptive edits. Participate in civil discussion on this talk page; do not continue to be a disruptive editor.Fishbert (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki policy is clear, many players in the list are not notable. Stop adding your name. Further failor to follow policy will lead to a block request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you -repeatedly- and by -multiple editors- (one of which made the point on your talk page, that portion of which you later deleted), you are applying a policy incorrectly. Wikipedia guidelines on notability state quite clearly, "They [Wikipedia notability guidelines] do not limit the content of an article or list." Stop being a disruptive editor; engage in civil discussion in the Talk page so that the community can arrive at consensus on the article content.Fishbert (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]