Mike writes:
>Hmmm.  I didn't see it that way at all.  Just because the man chose to
>illuminate the ECAC doesn't mean he 'took a shot' at the others, even implied.
 
    Well, he could have spoken of the good aspects of the ECAC and how honored
    Union was to have been invited, without even mentioning that they would
    have quickly rejected an offer from any other academically-inferior
    conference.
 
>Could this be masking a Freudian inadequacy ? :^)
 
    I don't think so, I've just grown accustomed to hearing some ECAC people
    (not all, mind you) put down the other conferences because the ECAC
    perceives itself to be academically superior to everyone else.  Remember,
    Jim even said he thought the comment was meant to be taken negatively.
 
>     It was political in the sense that he ASKED the women's teams about it.
>     It would have appeared (and would in fact have been) insensitive if
>     they hadn't been included.
 
    I can't agree because I don't think this situation concerned the women's
    teams.  In my opinion, what would be insensitive would be if next year,
    say, a Union women's team applied to move up and was denied right after
    the men's hockey team had been given the green light.  Anyway, it's a
    minor point and everybody seems to have come out of it happy (the women
    had a chance to move up if they so desired and the men's team was not
    held back in their quest to move up), so no use arguing about it.
 
>     BTW, what is the deal with the new NCAA ruling?  Will schools like
>     Union have to drop out of Div I anyway (in 1994)?  I am under the
>     impression that one Div I program out of all sports at a school
>     won't be allowed...
 
    I am sure you have seen the replies thus far, but to add: no, Union
    will not have to drop out; they can petition to play Div I hockey
    but will not be able to share in the revenue from the Div I tourney.
    I personally don't like this decision, but it was a compromise between
    the people who would have effectively chopped Div I hockey in half
    and the people who wanted to keep the status quo, so I guess we can
    look at what could have been and be happy that hockey wasn't affected
    as badly as we feared.
 
 
    - mike