Mike writes:
 
> 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.
 
No, that would be an unfair advantage to UAA.  One team each year will be
scheduled to play them at home, another team on the road.  The team
scheduled to play UAA only at home should have the CHOICE of whether to
take their 2 home games or to move them to Alaska to get 2 more NC games.
Actually, I could see that it might require UAA's approval, too.
(Especially if they are paying airfare for visiting teams), but I
imagine they're more than happy to have the ticket revenue for 2 more
home games and have one less long-haul road-trip to make.
 
If it were REAL favoritism, Minnesota and Wisconsin could just not
ever skip series in Alaska, right?  Then they'd never have to give
up the home games.
 
> 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).
 
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that one year recently (I think it
was that year) St.  Cloud played NO non-conference games.  If they
didn't even use the two they were allowed, there was no reason to
sacrifice the 2 games of home ticket revenue and make a long trip to Alaska.
 
> 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.
 
I can't see this happening.  That team should have been scheduled to play
at UAA, as Wisconsin obviously was scheduled to play AT Wisconsin (since
they played only at UAA last year), but made the switch.
 
> In contrast, the CCHA showed no favoritism whatsoever towards one of
I still don't think it's favoritism but...
> 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.
 
Well, what if LSSU had said "We'll switch our games to UAF and play
extra road games so that we can get the non-conference games"?  The
situation is only different if they asked to make that switch and
weren't allowed to.
 
If it were REAL favoritism, Minnesota and Wisconsin could just not
ever skip series in Alaska, right?  Then they'd never have to give
up the home 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
 
I'm not clear on the point of your analogy here.  So what if they do?
The schools that are getting the extra home games will probably be
happy to get the extra ticket revenue.  And they might be happy not
to have to play at Maine.
 
As I see it there are 3 factors:
1) Does the team want to make the decision to sacrifice the home games?
2) Does the Alaska school want to have the extra home games?
3) Does the league have a policy preventing this switch?
As long as the league's stance on number 3 is the same for any school, I
don't see what the problem is.
 
> only difference is that Minnesota and Wisconsin have an Alaska school
> in their league and Maine does not.
 
I guess I just completely disagree with Mike about the tradeoffs here.
I'm not sure "having 2 extra nonconference games" at the expense of
two CONFERENCE home games swapped for a grueling trip to Alaska is the
overwhelming advantage to many schools that Mike seems to think it is.
Especially with the regular-season conference champs now getting
automatic NC$$ bids.  I will admit that this swap MAY only be advantageous
to top-level schools that have a tempting choice of non-conference foes.
 
> 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.
 
Right, but the fact of the matter is, we've got a pretty small sample.
Only 3 teams have had that opportunity so far:  St. Cloud, Minnesota, and
now Wisconsin.  I think it's a little early to shout "favoritism" based
on that sampling.
-Pam