Overall, I think the idea of schools not having NC** hockey programs getting money from the hockey version of the "Final Four" is wrong. So is the idea of Clarkson not getting any money from a tournament they participated in just because they are not considered a "Division I" school. Why should any school get money from something they had absolutely no part in, or why should money be kept from those who helped generate it? Why not give NMU basketball players NC** rings because their hockey team won the title last year? Why not keep the ring from the senior NMU player who happened to get hurt in December and was out for the rest of the season? You would never expect these last two to occur. But, then I ask... Do "Division I" schools that have Div-I hockey but don't have Div-I football or basketball share in the money generated from NC** football and basketball? We've already established the fact the football and basketball generate much more money than hockey, so are hockey programs >getting< more than they are >giving<? Profit sharing, in general is a good idea. The entire Rochester community looks forward to March because the bonus money Kodak pays employees puts a big plug into the local economy. The amount you receive is based on your qualifying wages, so all employees do not receive an equal amount, but you get your fair share. I say that if a school contibutes something, they should be able to get something back, regardless of their "classification". It looks like the money may not be distributed fairly, but if the answer to my question above is "YES", then some hockey programs shouldn't complain about this issue... Is the money shared among ALL qualifying sports programs, or just those that participate in post-season tournaments? Similarly, with "voting" - Why do non-hockey schools get to vote on hockey issues? If I am a registered "Republican", I cannot vote in the Democratic primary... Larry