Sometimes I have to remember which issues got discussed on which forum. In
this case I probably should have remembered that the issue of scheduling
was debated quite fully on the USCHO board, but not here. In reply to
Andrew Christianson's post, the following thoughts come to mind.
 
        The reason that the MAAC had no establishment teams on their schedules
this year was not for lack of their trying to get the games. They were met
with refusal. Should the MAAC be penalized for that situation? I think not.
 
        Now, I have heard that some HE schools have scheduled a limited number of
games with MAAC teams for next year. UConn, for instance, will play in the
UMass Lowell Tournament and the JC Penny Classic in Maine. That is much
appreciated, and coaches who think outside the box in that manner are to be
applauded. But many other MAAC teams are still having difficulty scheduling
the establishment. In fact, the ECAC seems to have a veritable MAAC-Phobia
(a perhaps justified fear of losing:-):-) and will once again schedule no
MAAC teams next year. That despite the fact that at least one ECAC team
will travel out to Bemidji rather than play a MAAC team of equal strength
in their own back yard. When I mentioned this last week on USCHO, I was met
with protestations of the ECAC's more restrictive number of games making it
difficult for them to schedule, and the Ivies being more restrictive still.
Ironic that it is an Ivy going out to Bemidji and using up two of those
precious and very restricted NC games isn't it?
 
        All I can say is that this argument about the MAAC's scheduling, as if it
were entirely their fault, is getting a little old to those of us who have
seen the other side of the coin. What some folks seem to want is a
scheduling catch-22 which maintains MAAC isolation maintained into
perpetuity. That won't fly.
 
        -- Dick Tuthill
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.