>        ...   the limit on games in the regular season was lowered from 38 to
> 34  ...
 
This is very annoying from the point of view of the WCHA (and CCHA?),
who traditionally have played a 2-game series each weeked. The
stated purposes of the change are (not in any particular order):
    1) to shorten the season in terms of total length
	It will do this by two weeks for WCHA teams, assuming a
	densely packed schedule.
    2) to reduce the amount of time student-athletes are
    taken out of class for trips
	For WCHA teams, it means 1 less trip per year (well, if both
	cancelled series are non-conference road trips, it would be two
	less trips). The WCHA schedule generally isn't like basketball,
	with at least one midweek game and one weekend game -- almost
	all games are Fri-Sat night, with sometimes an odd Sat-Sun or
	Sun-Mon series.
 
Speculating on the effect of this rule on the WCHA:  currently the WCHA
has 9 teams. Each team plays a 2-game home series and a 2-game road
series against each team, for a total of 32 league games (I believe
that the conference tournaments are not counted in the limit). This
leaves only TWO more games for each team -- either non-conference early
in the season or a holiday tournament.
 
It also means that the WCHA could NOT add a tenth team without a change
in format. Years ago, when the WCHA was 10 teams (Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Minnesota-Duluth, North Dakota, Colorado College, Denver, Michigan
Tech, Michigan State, Michigan, and Notre Dame), each team played 7 of
the other teams in a 4-point home series and a 4-point road series, and
1 of the other teams in a home only 8-point series and the other team
in a road only 8-point series. A balanced schedule is much nicer.
 
> This "Division I school" distinction becomes important because of another
> change that was implemented in the NCAA tournaments.  Starting this season,
> non-Division I schools that are participating in Division I tournaments
> cannot share in the proceeds.  ...
>                                                  ...  This could hurt a
> number of smaller sports, since the revenue from hockey at these colleges is
> often counted on to support a significant part of the athletic program.  In
> addition, cutting four games from the season could end up costing some of
> the top schools up to $200,000 in lost ticket sales.
 
A few weeks ago on the "WCHA Game of the Week" on TV (the championship
game from the Badger Hockey Showdown, actually), someone from North
Dakota was interviewed between periods (sorry, can't remember if it was
the A.D. or the faculty representative). He was upset about this rule,
because it will hurt them. He said that even though only a few NCAA
schools (compared to the size of the NCAA) play division I hockey, the
Division-1 hockey tournament is the #3 money-maker for the NCAA.
 
I think it is insulting for the NCAA to 1) make significant money on
the tournament, 2) not share it with all the schools that play
division-1 hockey, and 3) classify hockey as a non-revenue sport.
 
Wisconsin's Chancellor, Donna Shalala was quoted in the paper a few
days ago about the convention: she said that she was for the reform
package, but would try and get hockey classified as a revenue sport. I
am not sure what exactly this means, but I think that the way they
voted, revenue sports (football, basketball) had specific "reforms"
while all the non-revenue sports had the same "reforms" applied accross
the board (10% cut in scholarships, etc).
 
	--david