My whole point was that it was best for college hockey as a whole for the
WCHA to absorb these two teams (in order to balance out the leagues
numerically) but I continued on that the decision was being made by people
who had higher priorities than the well being of college hockey as a whole.
Wasn't a value judgment, just an observation.

As to your Q/A, I have no argument there. If I was paying someone as
athletic director, he/she better damn well put my school's interest first

It's easy to label something as the best choice when it doesn't affect the
> league one's own team is in.
>
> Q:  What do you call an athletic director who puts what's best for college
> hockey ahead of what's best for his/her school?
>
> A: Fired.
>
> -- Erik
>