Mike Machnik writes: >For people who aren't sure what the big deal is all about, the problem >is that the home and visiting benches are exactly opposite each other >at BC, and they are both entirely in one half of the ice. BC has an >inherent advantage for 40 minutes (without a switch) including the >end of the game because their bench is entirely in their defensive >half of the ice. There are many obvious reasons why this is a huge >advantage to the team that enjoys it. As a clarification -- the benches aren't EXACTLY opposite each other, as the visitors bench actually extends a few feet into one offensive zone. I have seen visitors use this as an advantage, where a player is leaving the ice at one end of the bench (at center ice), and the player coming on the ice enters already inside the attacking zone, right at the point. I am guessing that the reason for the asymmetry was because it was more convenient to locate the exit tunnels where they are and they wanted the team benches to exit directly to the tunnels. Presuming that being closer to the defensive end is an advantage, why is BC allowed to always choose which end they will start with? Is this a home team choice by rule? Could BU or Maine just say, "tonight we want to start at the other end"? Some of us BC fans find it ironic that Jack Parker and Shawn Walsh and a couple of others absolutely insisted on changing ends at the middle of the third period a few years ago when BC was pretty good, but lately have not been so insistent (presumably because they didn't think they needed to even out the "advantage"). Frankly, if there is any advantage to BC, we haven't seen it; at the start of this year BC kept giving up great breaks to the opposition because they were too slow at changes at the bench. (Sigh). Oh, well, we need something to use against these guys; it just isn't the same now that Shawn has mellowed out ... --------------- ---------------------- Rick McAdoo [log in to unmask] BC will return! GO EAGLES!