Respectfully, I have a few problems with this last message in Tony's
argument, which I think was sent in order to justify his opinion that the
non-ivies should all break-off from the ECAC and join either HEA or a new
conference.

> In general, I believe better competition raises the level of your team,
> in any sport.

I'd be hard to find anyone who disagrees with that statement.

> That is why a lot of college teams from mid-level
> basketball leagues play early season games vs. high level leagues. As an
> example, consider that my mediocre Cal Poly squeakball team is playing
> USC this weekend, they of the Pac-10, and Cal Poly will get creamed, but
> will probably learn a lot more than playing yet another Cal Baptist team
> and winning in a rout.

First of all, the squeakball model is MUCH different than hockey.  300+
programs playing at the D-I level vs. 60+, and that accounts for different
scheduling options.  Just about every program would love to play a
large/ranked school for non-conference matchups in both sports.  With 300
teams I would think that it's hard for big-name squeakball teams to
accomodate.  Cornell happened to play Georgia Tech this season and Princeton
played Duke on Wednesday but the ACC can't accomodate every weak-conference.
Big Schools don't mind scheduling a small/bad program every now and then to
flex their muscles to the media and home-fans.  Even though the systems are
different, I think hockey scheduling has done a very good job at getting AH
and CHA teams as well as the weaker programs in the other 4 conferences
shots at some big-name programs out-of-conference.  Mercyhurst alone has
Michigan, OSU, WMU, Cornell, SLU, Clarkson, and RPI this season.  I think
this trend will eventually make D-I hockey stronger on the whole, and
validate the newer NCAA Tournament auto-bids.

Secondly, this part of the argument doesn't support having the non-ivies
bolt.  You point to playing strong OOC schedules helping.  If anything,
being in HEA takes away many strong opponents to put on an OOC schedule.  (I
realize that paragraph sets up the following, which I'm getting to)

> Clearly playing in HE night after night means playing at a notch or two
> higher level, and eventually teams in HE have a big advantage (like 3 or
> 4 NCAA slots each year, versus 1, maybe 2?, for the ECAC).

OK.  I agree with your "higher level of play being good" statement.
Everyone wants a chance to play top teams often.  But which is a better
situation to have: a league consisting of haves and have-nots, or a league
of parity?  (For comparison, which is looked on as a more favorable
competative situation: MLB or NFL?)  Personally, I think both situations
have upsides and downsides. Those 3-4 NCAA slots aren't "designated" for
HEA...does Merrimack or Northeastern have this "big advantage" of the NCAA
"slots" that you credit?  Maine, BU, BC, and UNH are still going to win many
recruiting wars and will remain the powerhouses of that league.  The
experience players get by playing more games vs. those top teams may be
offset by the decreased chance of having any more meaningful playoff
runs...a negative for the players, fans, and athletic depts.  Also, how
would HEA members look at the current bottom half of this "lesser" league
wanting to come in?  It would dilute the overall strength of the league,
which probably isn't viewed as a positive.  As pointed out, the Ivies have
been holding up their side of things in the ECAC in recent years.

The above is just the other side of the coin, and something to think about.
Switching leagues isn't necessarily the magic pill to resurrect decaying
programs, *if* that's the reason it's even being considered.

The non-ivies aren't held to the game restrictions, or any other policy that
the Ivy League schools adhere to.  I don't think you can single out the Ivy
teams as the only cause of the issues the ECAC as a league faces.  I fail to
see how the Ivies are "holding back" the UVMs of the ECAC.

--Rich