Mike wrote:
 
>By conference, the DivII-III schools playing DivI hockey are:
 
>CCHA (3 of 12): Alaska-Fairbanks, Ferris State, Lake Superior.
>ECAC (4 of 12): Clarkson, RPI, St Lawrence, Union.
>Hockey East (2 of 9): Mass Lowell, Merrimack.
>WCHA (8 of 10): Alaska-Anchorage, Colorado College, Denver, Michigan Tech,
> Minnesota-Duluth, North Dakota, Northern Michigan, St Cloud.
>Major Independents (0 of 2): none.
 
>I think a year or so ago we went over this and determined exactly how
>many there were, and this is what I remembered.  Please correct me if
>I am wrong on any of these.
 
That looks like the list that we came up with, after many wrong
guesses, at that time.  I remember how amazed I was to learn that only
2 WCHA teams are Div-I schools (Minn and Wisc).  Also North Dakota's
hockey program is apparently the only Div-I program in any sport in
either of the Dakotas.  There are very few schools that are Div-I in
hockey and also play football in Div-1A (Minnesota, Wisconsin, MSU,
Michigan, OSU, BC, Notre Dame, any others?).
 
>Something I have been thinking about lately is how the NC$$ looks upon
>these schools.  Hockey has been getting a higher visibility within the
>NC$$ and generating more revenue.  Some of the NC$$ legislation
>enacted in recent years has been designed to prevent schools in lower
>divisions from moving only their basketball and/or football programs up
>to DivI to get a slice of the big bucks.  Will the same happen with
>hockey, and will it hinder any attempts to help the sport grow by
>having teams move their hockey programs up?
 
I had thought that this problem only occurs in basketball because it is
very cheap compared to football--less players and thus less
scholarships, smaller stadiums, cheaper uniforms, etc.  I would suspect
that hockey is more comparable to football in this regard than it is to
basketball.  I don't think that any of the 17 teams that Mike listed
are playing Div-I primarily to make money.  RPI has had a Div-I team
since about 1950 and although I suspect that it has been profitable (I
have no first-hand knowledge), I also suspect that nearby Siena has had
more recent financial success and publicity by being Div-I in
basketball than RPI has had in hockey over 40 years.  Certainly, here
in Washington, I heard much more about Siena's appearance in the NIT
than RPI's in the NC$$ hockey tournament. :-(
 
However, perhaps I am wrong, as apparently among the reasons that RPI
is considering going to HE is because of money and exposure.  I guess
that the exposure factor shouldn't be taken lightly.  I have certainly
heard more about RPI here recently in connection with Joe Juneau being
traded to the Caps than I had ever heard before.  (I sure hope that no
one, hockey player or other student, goes to RPI intending to learn to
speak English and fly airplanes. :-) )
 
Besides for cost, I think that the two major things that are hurting
the spread of college hockey are 1) the fact that hockey at any level
is still not followed by significant numbers of people in vast sections
of the country and 2) gender equity.  Factor 1 is slowly changing,
however the gender equity problem is a real problem.  Perhaps schools
should be encouraged to introduce men's and women's programs
concurrently to not affect the ratio.  (Actually, if both a men's and a
women's team is added, it would be a positive influence since the goal
is 60-40.)
 
 
Does anyone know what the date is that hockey teams are allowed to
release information on new scholarship recruits?  I know that it is
sometime this month.
 
Ralph Baer   RPI '68, '70, '74
Eagerly awaiting to hear about RPI's first recruiting class in two
years.