Content-Type: |
TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:02:05 +0100 |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Comments: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Greg Berge writes
> Why wouldn't it? Let's say you're the UNC rep on the committee. The only
> ice you've ever seen is in your drinks, and you couldn't care less if the
> hockey tourny is 16, 12, or 0. Skirting the issue of why you're voting at
> all, what would be the rationale for not simply accepting the hockey
> schools' consensus, whatever it was? There's obstinacy I suppose, but I
> would think the political log-rolling instinct would be far stronger.
I assume the reason they'd vote against it would be that 16/52 is still above the
NC$$'s official maxmum for percentage of teams in the tournament. You know,
"the rule of law" and all that.
John Whelan, Cornell '91
[log in to unmask]
http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
"We've got a whole mess of penalties" -- Cornell PA Announcer
Arthur Mintz, after the Cornell-Union brawl 1998 December 4
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|