Brian wrote:
>An open letter to eastern (especially ECAC) hockey fans:
 
I replied directly to Brian's final draft rather than replying to the list
because I didn't think it was worth bothering everybody with it.  But I've
changed my mind.
 
I agree with Brian that snide little comments are really uncalled for;
Brian has served what he saw as a need, and has done so at great length and
with a fair amount of logic, whether we agree with that logic or not.  The
least we can do is respect the fact that he has his opinions and has taken
the time to express them, and in a fairly respectable fashion.
 
But I will repeat here publicly what I said to Brian privately:  This plan
is interesting as an academic exercise, but it is not a summary of Hockey-L
opinions, the membership of Hockey-L has not bought into it or even asked
him to devise a realignment plan in the first place, and if the plan is
published anywhere (as it now has been) or presented to the NCAA or any of
the five current leagues, it should not be represented as a collaborative
effort on behalf of, or representing the opinions and desires of, Hockey-L.
 
As for my opinions on the plan itself - I did not express overt opinions on
the western realignment because I am not as well-informed about those
leagues and the schools that comprise them.  Doubtless were I to express an
opinion, it would in some way be flawed because I don't have all the
information.
 
But when it comes to the ECAC and Ivies, I do know where I stand; Columbia
has never had a men's varsity hockey team, and Pennsylvania has no plans
ever to have a men's varsity hockey team again.  You say twelve teams is
too many, but don't give any concrete reason as to why; meanwhile, six
teams is simply too small for a realistic, interesting ice hockey
conference, because even with nine non-conference games per season, the
Ivies would play each other four times a season.  The post-season
tournament - if they bothered to have one, since you're only granting them
one auto-bid - would be limited to semi-finals and finals, unless you let
all six teams in.
 
You've affected rivalries with the realignment plan in general, but by
splitting the Ivies from the rest of the ECAC, you'd be affecting some of
the oldest and most storied rivalries in all of college hockey, perhaps
even more than the original ECAC/HockeyEast split did.  And if you truly
believe strong rivalries can survive realignment intact because of
non-conference games, then you have as much to learn about eastern hockey
as I do about western hockey.
 
I believe the current and near-future wave of eastern expansion can be
handled by the MAAC and maybe even by expanding Hockey East just a little
bit.  I don't think division I men's college hockey is at the point yet
where we need to worry about four eastern conferences.  But when that day
comes, I don't think a purely Ivy conference is the way to do it.
 
--
Jeffrey "Beeeej" Anbinder '94                     [log in to unmask]
Reunion Campaign Officer                          (work) 607-254-6106
Cornell University                                (fax) 607-254-7168
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/jta1/
 
"Get all your facts straight before you distort them."
        - Mark Twain
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.