As AdamMcg83 points out... way more info to be considered than just the specific AUS roster cap. Reality is... Roster Cap is an AUS rule because it directly effected the parity within the league first and foremost. (Yes... it also extends Nationally when AUS teams are at the U Cup as well... but this is secondary). Improved balance, especially with the quality of Teams 4 through 7 was what the schools were looking for. Example: Dal and UdeM struggled to compete year after year and UNB had 8 players sitting in the stands who would have been the TOP players in these programs.
(People forget... doesn't mean those players would have chose those schools & UNB was player rich because they built a revolving recruit following over time with unprecedented success.) Nonetheless... this was the argument that teams/schools hitched their wagon to. Breaking point came... rule added. Period.
Agreed the AUS administration is misguided, misinformed and often acts with immediate knee jerk reactions to specific situations, without fully analyzing the total repercussions of the actions. That said, wondering if those who are upset/disagree with the special exemption provided to X have looked at the alternative? The alternative would likely have been 2 forfeited games. (Lost gate/revenue at UNB and UPEI + a bunch of playing/competitive implications)
I would assume (this is a risk with the AUS) that the exemption granted to X applies solely to those games scheduled on Feb 8 & 9. Meaning any players added to the roster in addition to the 22 player cap are not eligible to compete outside of Feb.8/9. They aren't available for the playoffs... and X isn't gaining a competitive advantage over the rest of the league moving forward.
Without the exemption... St. FX could have claimed (and this would have been 100% supported at all levels/including in the courts if need be) they would have to forfeit the 2 games due to concern for the safety of the remaining players. The lack of players (doesn't matter the reason... self inflicted or not) does pose a significant risk to the players in the lineup (these are players who were NOT suspended). Lots of posts referencing player cap and the "risk" associated with having a few injuries. If that is true when a team can dress 15-18 skaters... What is the risk in icing 10 or less skaters? At this level of hockey, to those 8-10 players... the risk is significant. X was already dealing with injury issues prior to the suspensions. The "relief" was requested as an alternative... to forfeiture.
If X had to forfeit...
1) What does that do to the "competitive balance" of the league standings and playoffs?
(a) UPEI granted 2 free points - UdeM would/should have an issue with this as this could impact playoff seedings/opponents and home ice advantages.
(b) Would eliminate the 3 team tie scenario & potential playoff seedings.
(c) UNB - would miss out on the opportunity to "stick" it to their hated rival (especially the UNB fans!)
(This is just for some of you on this forum!)
(d) PLAYOFFS Balance:
- UdeM plays 2 tough games on the final weekend. Their 1st rd opponent - gets Saturday off to rest for a Wed. start.
- Acadia plays shorthanded on Wed/Fri. Very taxing to the rostered players. Their 1st rd opponent - gets to rest (both suspended and non suspended players). Does this provide them with a competitive advantage for their series? Can be argued it does on some level.
(E) MOST IMPORTANTLY (from AUS perspective)... What kind of "appearance" does this leave the league with? Think about it... 1 of the teams involved in the incident that garners National and international continuous attention has to forfeit their final 2 games. Does this add or subtract from the fire?!?! Does it increase or decrease the media coverage?!?!?
Any true fan of the AUS and any of it's member schools would agree... this incident needs cold water and not gasoline thrown into this fire right now!
Understanding the basis for most of the opinions on here... and I personally agree with some of the points and logic listed. Unfortunately... when you consider the alternative... decisions and opinions may change.
I know for me - I believe if the cap is a rule, it is a rule and teams should be held to it. But if I was on the conference call and had a vote in the matter... I would vote to extend "special circumstances" status to X for Feb. 8/9 games. Not as a support to St. FX... but in a "best interest of the AUS" and all of the schools in the conference. In this case, the alternative is a far less desired one and has a far greater impact for more than just one school/team than St. FX.
