John wrote:
>As for the WCHA debate, it's clear that Minnesota and Wisconsin
>are getting treatment that I disagree with.  Whether or not it's
>"special" treatment is dependent on whether or not other teams
>have the same options available to Minn and Wisc (as, I believe,
>Mike mentioned).  If all non-Alaska WCHA schools can pick and
>choose where they will play games versus UAA, then there is
>no special treatment...but the policy still sucks.
 
Two questions come to mind here (first one most likely hypothetical, but the
second one is more of a practical question [well, as practical as I ever get):
 
1) Given that last year Minnesota and this year Wisconsin have opted to play
   their only two scheduled games against UAA in Alaska to allow them to play
   extra games, couldn't a team scheduled to play UAA four times during the
   season opt to play ALL four games in Anchorage, such that they can take
   advantage of the same exemption?
 
2) If those games were scheduled to be played in Minneapolis and Madison,
   respectively but were switched to Anchorage, who payed the travel costs
   for the games, UAA or Minn/Wisc?  IMO, if the game is scheduled for one
   of the lower 48 by the "round-robin" scheduling of the conference but the
   games were shifted to give a team in the lower 48 a chance to add extra
   games to their schedule, then the Alaska school should not be held re-
   sponsible for the travel costs of the visiting team.
 
Just an opinion from a very idle East Lansing.
 
G. M. Finniss
Michigan State University
5 months and one day until the start of the 1995-96 season
 
"Payed"?  Boy, my mind's going.  Please make that "paid" and don't tell my
spelling teachers.