Gary Hatfield writes:
>With regards to Minnesota, the Gopher's were originally scheduled to play
>their ONLY two games with UAA in Minneapolis.  The Gophers asked to play
>them at UAA so that they could play the tournament games.  As a consequence,
>the Gophers played 18 road and 14 home games in the WCHA last year.  In a
>normal year, Minnesota (or anyone else) would play 2 at UAA and 2 at home.
>The 2 at UAA would then give them 2 extra nonconference games.
 
Understood.  But...
 
>As I see it,
>no preference whatsoever has been given to Minnesota or Wisconsin in this
>matter. Perhaps it is unfair that all the teams in the WCHA and CCHA get to
>play extra games, but there is NOT any favoritism going on here with regard
>to Minnesota and Wisconsin.
 
The only way I could see this *not* being favoritism would be if every
time a team was scheduled to play UAA only twice in a season, they
automatically played the games in Alaska, so that they could still get
the extra two NC games.  That hasn't been the case.
 
In 1993-94, St Cloud played UAA only twice.  The games were at St
Cloud and SCSU only got to play 2 NC games while everyone else played
4 (or more).
 
This coming season, besides Wisconsin, UAA will play one other team
only 2x.  It will be interesting to see if UAA travels to that other
team - and if so, to learn whether that team requested to play at UAA
and was told no.
 
In contrast, the CCHA showed no favoritism whatsoever towards one of
its better and more visible teams, LSSU...when the schedule came out
and had LSSU hosting UAF this coming season, LSSU had no choice but to
pull out of the RPI Invitational.  The CCHA effectively said, this is
the way the schedule works...next year you'll get your turn to play
the extra games.
 
I don't buy the argument that playing 18 league road games and 14 home
makes up for it.  How about if Maine offers to play 14 league away games
and 10 at home so that they can schedule an additional two games?  The
only difference is that Minnesota and Wisconsin have an Alaska school
in their league and Maine does not.
 
There are two issues here: 1) is there favoritism in the WCHA towards
Minnesota and Wisconsin because of their popular in-season tournaments
and/or their status as the biggest and best draws in the league?  I
think this is what Rick Comley may have been suggesting in his
comments back around the time of NC$$ selection.
 
And, 2) are the teams that get to go to Alaska in a given season
because of the schedule of the conference they happen to be in
receiving an unfair advantage over teams who have no option to go to
Alaska?  Remember, the exemption was created back when UAA/UAF had
difficulty scheduling opponents.  It was a reward of sorts for your
agreeing to make the trip to Alaska and help out the Alaska programs.
And, it was open to anyone who wanted to go.  That's not the case now.
The positive aspect of the rule is that it allows a little more NC
play, but I'm not sure that makes up for the unfair advantage the
WCHA/CCHA schools get in extra games.
 
I've got to say, with no disrespect at all intended towards my friends
from Minnesota, I am not surprised that they are saying, "Don't get
bent out of shape."  I am curious to hear whether other WCHA folks
(not Minnesota or Wisconsin followers) see it the same way.
 
NOTE: also, as I said in my first message on this subject, it's
certainly possible that the WCHA has a policy that *anyone* playing
UAA only twice in a given season can ask and be allowed to play the
games in Alaska, thereby still getting to play the extra NC games like
everyone else.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93