> I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but maybe the "bonus"  
> provides some incentive for teams to be willing to travel to another  
> school's rink and play games there.

While I'm sure playing against a "name" opponent is part of the thinking
when scheduling non-conference games, money is probably the biggest
factor. The schools that can host a holiday tournament do that, because
it brings in money, prestige, and (maybe) high-quality opponents. The
can't and won't give up the money.

Schools schedule their remaining non-conference games based on money,
logistics, who-is-friends-with-who, what they think will be a good
experience for their team, and sometimes, what they think is good for
college hockey.

Should a "powerhouse" that schedules a new program (or a "recovering"
program) that won't be a tournament contender for several years (at
best) be penalized for doing a good deed and putting them on the
schedule?

This is not a new problem -- the archives are full of discussions about
the lack of non-conference games, this league or that league should
change their schedule or their attitude in order to schedule more
non-conference games... I don't think that part will change anytime
soon. 

What could change, maybe, is how those games and other factors are used
in the formula for picking the tournament (of course, the best way to be
assuring of a good spot in the tournament is to win all your games).

     --david