My brief and probably unnecessary comments about academic standards at Ivy
League schools seems to have ignited a lot of repressed anti-Ivy sentiment
out there.  As far as I can tell, just about everyone who subscribes to this
list is disgusted by the abuses which occur in big division I basketball and
football programs.  They also feel that college hockey programs do not suffer
from the same level of corruption.  I don't have any first-hand knowledge of
this - maybe someone can tell me:  Are there hockey players out there at some
schools (I don't KNOW which schools they might be) who get a free ride
financially and academically?  Do most of them graduate?  If these problems
truly are confined only to football and basketball programs, then maybe the
restrictions on admissions and academic performance put in place by the Ivy
League are totally irrelevant for college hockey.  My suspicion is that if
college hockey grows and prospers as many would like it to, the same pressures
which result in violations of academic integrity in big-time sports will affect
hockey too.
 
As for the Ivy League and ECAC bringing this upon themselves, no one disputes
this.  They have chosen to follow guidelines based on some perception of the
proper balance between athletics and academics.  The virtue of doing so is
debatable (witness endless arguments over the meaning of test scores, etc.).
What is certain is that these guidelines have opened these universities up to
charges of "elitism" and put their sports teams at a competitive disadvantage.
If Ivy hockey programs go the way of Ivy football programs, it will be by the
choice of those universities.  BUT, if Cornell ever beats Michigan in football
(as likely as a skating rink in hell), you bet I'll crow about it.  The rules
a university wishes to follow are part of the character of the institution,
just as the location, the students, etc.  Somebody got on my case for saying I
thought it was great that Clarkson beat Wisconsin last year, because Clarkson
is a small school in a small town and Wisconsin is the opposite.  This isn't
a condemnation of Wisconsin, which has a good academic reputation and is in a
very nice city.  It's a celebration of the qualities I like about Clarkson
(when they're not playing Cornell).  As such it's a completely biased statement.
So if I cheer about Harvard winning the national championship, a lot of that is
because I respect the rules about scholarships and recruiting followed by that
institution.  If you think those rules are elitist and irrelevant - hey, that's
your opinion.
 
Mike Machnik writes:
 
>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.
 
Would you like to offer a solution which is consistent with the goals of the
Ivy League?  Or do you just think the goals (or attempts to implement them)
are flawed?
 
>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".)
 
I guess you already answered that.
 
                                Graham M. Pugh
                                Cornell '84
                                LET'S GO RED!!!!