Over the past few days, having read a variety of posts regarding CCHA,
WCHA, WCCHA, etc., I feel inclined to throw my hat in the ring and at
least go on record as being in favor of a schedule such as the CCHA's as
opposed to the WCHA.  I just believe it is far better to balance in the
span of two years instead of nine years.  And I further believe that you
should play all of your conference opponents an equal number of times
each year.  If you can't do that, then I feel the conference in question
needs to be re-structured into divisions (or whatever name you care to
use) to allow something as close as possible.  I realize that this is not
a perfect world.
 
Some have proposed that the CCHA is biased in its scheduling, favoring
the stronger teams, and also putting the thumb-screws to the weaker
teams.  Where this logic comes from, I just don't know.  You play two
home, one away this year against a given opponent, and then reverse the
scenario the next year.  There certainly is nothing sinister about that.
Assuming the same parameters, you can look down the road ten years and know
who will be in your building twice, and who will be there once.  Can you
predict the success of any team ten years from now?  I hardly think so.
 
As you all know, the college game is not structured as is the pro game.  You
have to RECRUIT athletes, you don't draft them in an order based upon your
previous year's performance against your peers, or based on trades.  To
propose that schedules should be based on performance is short-sighted, given
this fact, IMO.
 
Jerry Stephens
LSSU '86
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.