First, I'd respond to the complaints that division play is inherently
unfair by saying, that's why the playoff champion wins the automatic bid.
   Second, my personal favorite idea for solving the WCHA/UAF dilemma is
simple.  Get rid of the WCHA and CCHA.  Instead, improve Western hockey
(not being an expert on the East, I'll avoid it) by forming the Great Western
College Hockey Association (GWCHA).  The catch is, to do this correctly, we'd
need 24 teams.  There would be only 22 by combining the 2 leagues, so we'd
have to add Air Force and convince Arizona to move on up.  Then, we could
put the 24 teams into 4 divisions, keeping the Alaska schools together with
the 3 from Colorado and Arizona.  Dividing the other 18 is more difficult from
a rivalry standpoint (with  less obvious geographical borders involved) but
it can be done.  While this would require an adjustment of thinking, imagine
how good it would be to see MSU play Wisconsin on a regular basis (not
necessarily every year, but periodically and maybe in postseason).  The 6
western NCAA bids could then go to the four division winners, plus the
playoff champion, and one (or two, if the playoff champ is a div. winner) other
team.  Admittedly, under this proposal, not every team would make the playoffs
(I like a 16-team deal myself, with the first round being double-elim. at
campus sites and then the 8 survivors would have a blowout weekend in St. Paul
or Detroit or other suitable rotating place), but this would match what the
CCHA used to do and what the ECAC still does.  I know it'll probably never
happen, but it sure is worth dreaming about, since the thing college hockey
lacks (compared to college basketball) is those intersectional games which
help to build a national following and a national perspective.
 
   As for Mr. Joubert, remember that an 11-year-old, while he should know
proper behavior, has an excuse not to (bad parenting, whatever).  That's why
children aren't considered adults, especially at 11.  A player should not use
violence in that situation.  (Indeed, despite the example of Buddy Ryan,
violence is not an acceptable response to that situation by anyone.)  He is
getting paid (indirectly) to show some restraint.  My opinion for acceptable
heckling would be to concentrate less on things people are not responsible
for (say, looks) and more on what they can control, such as slashing 11-year-
olds or falling down on the ice often.  I don't know about using names for
heckling (an example being the treatment MSU fans like myself gave to that poor
Buckeye whose last name was Rex-- we thought that name was better for a dog, so
we barked at him whenever he had the puck).  It would be a better world in some
ways if we all confined ourselves to only positive cheering, but as John says,
good heckling has its place.
 
--Chris Paine,
  former MSU back-row heckler