>
>     Also, the cutting of scholarships and coaching personnel doesn't make
>     sense, and I expect this to get voted down.  What I think will pass
>     will be the 34-game limit.  This would be unfortunate because it would
>     reduce the number of nonconference games teams would play and thus
>     make it harder to select teams in March, but too many people are crying
>     that the season is too long.  Not so in my opinion - as the Ivies have
>     shown, you don't HAVE to play 38-40 games; yet, conversely I believe
>     it hurts them since they don't get a chance to improve by playing many
>     good teams from outside the ECAC.  But that was their call.
 
I remember hearing some discussion (on the local radio, maybe also in
the papers) about this when the season began. Here is what I think I
remember, but I could be wrong, (I didn't take notes....):
 
      * a committee of college presidents made the proposal, which
	covers all sports (with different details) other than
	basketball and football. The big complaint was that these
	"non-hockey people" don't understand hockey, which is
	"different" from the other "non-major" sports. (Of course,
	backers of every sport can make that argument...)
 
      * someone (Wisconsin? the WCHA office?) was trying to do
	something. What they had to do, according to NCAA procedure,
	was get some number (10?) of college presidents (or was it just
	either presidents or faculty reps? the NCAA is strange on
	things like this...) to request some kind of action (once
	again, I am not sure what action, either an amendment,
	reconsideration, delay in implementation, or what???)
	Otherwise, I think the changes are automatic.
 
      * they couldn't get the required number, which surprised me,
	because it is small, and I would have expected most division-I
	school to oppose the new rules.
 
      * action has to be taken this year, because of a moratorium on
	rule changes next year (or the first year after a change is
	made, or something like that)
 
Speculation (by the radio guys) was that Ivy-League schools were for
(or not opposed to) the change, since (the radio guys said) it would
have minimal impact on them.
 
	Sorry I don't have all the details....
 
		--david
 
--------
david parter					[log in to unmask]
university of wisconsin -- madison		computer sciences department