Greg writes:
>I've long felt that an interlocking schedule of some sort would be a
>great idea, and one acceptable to all parties. Some thoughts:
>
>1.  Is 26 the highest the Ivies a) have ever gone historically and, b)
>will ever go? Would it be politically possible to increase that number
>now that the maximum number of games in the postseason has been reduced?
 
Looking at the standings and overall records dating way back, it looks as
if the Ivies have always had this limit.  But the 30-game limit for the
other ECAC teams, as I said before, took effect in the first season following
the departure of the five charter HE teams - 1984-85.  I would tend to think
the Ivies are not going to raise their 26-game limit even now, but maybe
others have more of an insight.
 
>2.  Would the HE teams without natural rivalries resist playing the
>weakest ECAC teams?
 
Which ones do not have natural rivalries?  Even Merrimack, which just
entered HE, has a strong area rivalry with former DivII Merrimack Valley foe
Lowell, and MC has quickly built an intense rivalry with Northeastern.
There aren't any HE teams that do not have rivalries.  But I don't think
most would resist playing, say, each of the 12 ECAC teams once if all the
problems could be ironed out (which doesn't seem likely to me).
 
My idea was for HE to cut back to 2 games per HE opponent + 1/ECAC opp
for a total of 26 games.  The ECAC would have 22 + 8 = 30 games, however.
This would mean wiping out the 26/30 game limits, again unlikely.  But
if the Ivies were allowed 34 games, they would still have 4 NLG which
would allow tourneys.
 
In a way, this actually is similar to the "divisions" you included as a
poll question (HE and ECAC divisions).  But even though it's my idea,
I think chances of it happening are almost nil.
 
>3.  Does HE feel any incentive or desire to change at all? Does the ECAC?
 
My impression is no to both questions.
 
>4.  If the NC@! lowers the games cap further (to 32, or even 30), might
>this be achieved more or less easily? (The teams are then closer in the
>number of games allowed, but there are fewer non-conf. slots open).
 
I still don't think this would make a difference, and it certainly won't
be done without a lot of gnashing of teeth.
 
 
- mike