According to [log in to unmask]:
>
>  Phil writes:
>
>  ...stuff deleted...
>  >Why would this rule apply to hockey??
>
>  >Any of the big 10 schools that have a hockey program are NOT in the big 10!
>  >They're in the WCHA or CCHA. Would a rule that applies to one conference
>  >then weave it's way into another conference??
>
>  In a word  YES!
>
>  The Big Ten has certain academic requirements (among many others), so does
 the
>  WCHA and NC$$.  An athlete at Minnesota participating in hockey would have to
>  meet the requirements for all conferences that govern the SCHOOL!!! However,
 an
>   athlete in football is only governed by the NC$$ and the Big Ten.
>  It's not fair, but that's the way it is.  On occasion a hockey player has met
>  the NC$$ requirements and the WCHA requirements, but NOT the Big Ten
>  requirements and has been ruled ineligible.
>
>  So, this 40% rule will eventually affect those Big Ten schools with hockey
>  programs.
>
 
Well, geez . . . if you want to follow that logic, then how far do we extend it?
 
Let's see since Michigan is a member of the bigger 10, and of the CCHA, the
rules apply to both the Big 10 conference teams at the campus AND the CCHA
conference teams on the campus . . . or does it extend further?  The bigger
10 is imposing their will over a conference they supposedly have no control
over . . . namely the CCHA.  So now, does the CCHA have to follow the bigger10
rules?  Does that extend to the OTHER CCHA teams?  and then to the other
conferences that THEY are members of??
 
Already you say that one conference has extended their rules over another
in the case of the WCHA team.  So how far does the 'extension' travel?
 
This is bad!
 
--
Phil Ritzenthaler       Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD)
Systems Administrator   The Ohio State University
                        UUCP: ...!{pyramid,killer}!cgrg.ohio-state.edu!phil
(614) 292-3416          INTERNET: [log in to unmask]