I'll gladly discuss this further over email, but I wanted to clarify the
reasoning behind my analogy for anyone on the list who might still be
following this discussion:
 
John Haeussler writes:
> Pam Sweeney writes...
> >Do people in the CCHA complain that Michigan has an unfair advantage
> >if Notre Dame moves its home game against Michigan to Joe Louis??
 
> I haven't heard anyone complain, albeit it is
> advantageous for both teams.  In the scenario
(snip)
 
> The motives for the move and the benefits are substantially
> different.  I don't see how the UND-Mich and UAA-Minn
> examples can be equated.
 
I'm saying they're at least SOMEWHAT equivalent in their effect on
other teams in the league, ie, they may be in competition with a
team that had the advantage of playing more home games than road games.
Certainly there are differences in the MOTIVES of the teams, but they
don't have much effect on the other teams in the conference.  (Unless,
say, their strength-of-schedule goes up/down if Minnesota wins/loses
to say, BU or Michigan in their additional non-conference games.)
 
My assumption is that the purpose of the WCHA is to maximize the common
good of all its teams. If both teams have a say in the matter and deem
it mutually beneficial to move the game (for whatever reason), then the
only reason for the league to prohibit it would be if it had a detrimental
effect on the OTHER teams in the league.  I do admit that there IS such a
detriment to be considered here, and I think it's the same one as in the case
where, for example, Notre Dame moves a game to Joe Louis (although,
obviously in the UAA case, it's an advantage of 2 additional home games,
so it IS a more pronounced advantage).
 
-Pam Sweeney
Go Gophers!!!