> It seems strange that you could theoretically have 14 teams in each of
> DI, DII, and DIII and still have a national championship.
Yes there are NCAA sports currently who meet the minimum requirement for a
national championship by counting multiple divisions.  It also turns out
that if a sport is an Olympic sport, the NCAA is suppose to move that one
along to a national championship, and thereby improve the growth of the
players for the Olympics.
 
> Regardless, I hope to see a women's NC$$ championship soon. They are
> going to do the unofficial (ACHA?) tournament again this year, right?
Yes, the US Nationals, under the coaches, USA Hockey and the NC$$ (over on
the side) will be held this year - probably in Minnesota.
 
As soon as possible everyone involved would like to see the NC$$ step in
and run the women's national title, hopefully in 2000.  In 2000 the
coaches group plans to put on a D3 US Nationals, which appears to be
perfect timing with all the fine development in that division.  Basically
we could easily end up with an NC$$ DI National Title and D3 US Nationals
as kind of a NIT of women's hockey.
 
As to RPI's situation - take it away Ryan Stone!
 
For those of you still counting - I'm wrong again!  There are currently 41
women's varsity teams not 40.  MIT has gone varsity this season.  They
will join the ECAC DIII league next season along with Colby.  The 47
number for 1999-2000 still looks good as neither Bates (ECAC D3) or
Findlay (Ohio) look ready for varsity status yet.  Per the rules of the
ECAC DIII, Bates should be heading in that direction, sometime soon.
 
And last, and not least, Pizza Bob's and I still can't believe Michigan
doesn't already have a women's varsity.  What in the Yost Ice Arena is
going on?
 
 _____________
/
 good shooting
 hungerf
_____________/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.