I wonder what the average attendance figure differences are between the CCHA and WCHA (5,753 in the 94-95 season)?
 
In all of this talk about balanced/unbalanced schedules, three games versus two games and so forth, I think that we're missing the absolute KEY factor in determining schedules.
 
If you're the AD attending these WCHA and CCHA meetings, the primary concern will be MONEY. For some teams, it'll be simply to keep the team going and for others it'll relate to having sufficient money for the other athletic programs. In any case, before ANY decision is made it will be first and foremost determined if it is economically viable. For example, I would think that a two game weekend series is far more "profitable" than a less frequent three game series (more difficult to fill the arena on three consecutive nights than two weekend days [for most teams]).
 
Costs seem to always be brought up when discussing the Alaska schools, however each team that travels up here is currently allowed two more season games (incentive to encourage Alaska participation with the rest of the US). For Minn., that amounts to an additional $250,000 (minimum) revenue (plus, at least initially, we gave each team $20,000 to help defray travel costs). Based on attendance averages, this likely means roughly an additional $120,000 to any of the WCHA schools. It's also financially beneficial to the host Alaska team (someone asked about Minn. [and others] moving their home UAA games to Alaska and this information should answer that question).
 
Now, if you're the AD in a decision session and the issue is an unbalanced schedule that MIGHT result in you losing the Conference Championship by one point (although you still have a playoff berth) or a couple hundred thousand dollars for a struggling sports program, which way would you go??
 
I really don't know, but somewhere it seems that the attendance in the WCHA is the highest of all the conferences. If that's true, then I would expect the WCHA to minimize tampering with financial success and growing attendance. Sure, a few more games outside of the conference (if they make money), but with each school having an equal vote the smaller schools aren't readily going to give up competitive conference games that are proven winners from both an attendance and financial standpoint -- hence an emphasis on playing as many conference games as possible plus squeeze in a few tournaments. How did UAA ever get accepted in the WCHA (and why only one Alaska team)? Simple, they could play us at home and get two more games, but they couldn't play two Alaska teams and get four games. Thus, it's mandatory that the Alaska teams be split between the conferences (and a pre-agreement made before either team got accepted).
 
I can see the interest in discussing schedules and etc., but I don't think that it's very practical unless the financial issue is equally considered along with the logical issues.
 
Lowell King, Anchorage
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.