I really did try to stay out of this...
Graham Pugh writes:
>Mike Zak misses the point about the Ivy League. He is absolutely right
>that there are intelligent hockey players at other schools. But there are
>a hell of a lot of hockey players out there who wouldn't stand a chanc at
>the Ivies academically.
Just as there are a lot of students who couldn't handle the Ivy League
academically. And, there are a lot of Ivy students who couldn't handle other
schools.
> By the way, they probably couldn't handle
>engineering at Clarkson or RPI either. The point is that the Ivies (and
>some other schools have minimum standards which players have to meet which
>are higher than the standards at some other schools.
What are these other schools?
> This puts them at a
>competitive disadvantage (look at football, basketball, etc.)
This is their own choice. Nobody told them to do it.
> The Ivies
>have managed to maintain their competitiveness in hockey through their
>strong tradition of support for this sport.
No, this is not true, unless you call a 1-25-3 season competitive. As I
have said before, on the whole the Ivies are doing very poorly since the
institution of the academic index. From 1985-86 through 1988-89, EVERY
year three of the four ECAC teams that missed the playoffs were Ivies. I
don't have the standings from the past two seasons on hand, but I am sure
it is similar. At least twice here in the past two years I demonstrated
clear statistical evidence that since the index, the Ivies and even the ECAC
on the whole have gone downhill as compared to the rest of DivI, although
the ECAC non-Ivies tend to do much better.
Before someone attacks me for something I did not say, let me make it clear:
Each year, the upper half of the ECAC is competitive with the rest of DivI.
I have no doubt about that. But the rest of the ECAC usually fares very
poorly not only in ECAC play but also in nonleague play.
As someone who used to be involved closely with an ECAC team, I'm disappointed
that things have gone downhill like they have, but I see no other reason
than that the ECAC & Ivies have brought it upon themselves.
The only thing the "tradition of support" for hockey does is insure that
the majority of the Ivies will be among the worst teams in the nation. Most
likely, it is Harvard and Cornell who are not only competitive but very good
because their "tradition" allows them to attract that tiny percentage of
good hockey players who can also meet the Ivies' academic requirements. The
other Ivies are left holding the bag. This is how it has been since the
final group of quality players recruited before the index (Yale's Kudelski,
Wood, etc.) graduated. Is it coincidence? Maybe, but I don't think so.
> Again, this goes for some
>other schools as well.
Which other schools? Almost all the other schools I can think of which are
most known for taking pride in their upholding of high standards have good
hockey teams: BC, BU, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan Tech, not to
mention the ECAC non-Ivies. And there are many more. We hear so much
about the Ivies and even the ECAC upholding such high standards as compared
to the rest of DivI - yet there has never been a DivI team ever placed on
probation for academic dishonesty. Face it, hockey is not like football
and basketball, where this problem may not exactly run rampant but it is
known to exist too often to be comfortable for most of us. I don't know
what it is supposed to be that the Ivies are so much better at doing; the
score seems to be Ivies 0, Everybody Else 0.
If the Ivies want to cut their own throats, that's fine by me; this is what
the Hockey East schools saw coming and is what forced the split in 1983.
But the excuse that they are at a competitive disadvantage because "our
standards are higher than everyone else's" isn't going to wash with me,
because no one else made them do it. It's just more of the same elitism to
me, which I have heard from some ECAC folks to the rest of DivI and even
from the Ivies to the ECAC non-Ivies. (Notice I say "some".)
- mike
|
