As an RPI fan who was disconnected from the whole sport from 1964 til
the mid 90s (thanks to hockey-L), I would like to hear more about this.
I dont understand how a taste can last 16 yrs..

========

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Also an aside to Ralph Baer, re: RPI.  From my vantage point (which is
> certainly a Hockey East one), I think the school is still suffering from the
> Mike Addessa hangover.  Perhaps Brian Morris could speak to this but I don't
> think that a large segment of the RPI administration has ever gotten over
> the fact that first, he recruited kids who could win a national
> championship, then he won the championship and then he had the whole racial
> thing blow up in his face.  I would bet that a large group at RPI said
> "never again".  It's too bad, because back in the '60's and '70's the school
> was just as fine an academic institution as it is now, and they still played
> competitive hockey (I still puke every time I recall RPI's upset of UNH in
> the '74 ECAC quarterfinals).

=======

I mentioned Stanford previously as a great shining example... the ECAC
seems to equate academics with lack of athletic success, by definition.
As someone mentioned, the academics can be USED as a recruiting tool,
you CAN have your cake and eat it too.

=========
> What the ECAC schools have to realize is that you can do both.  You can have
> a superior academic institution and play competitive sports.  Just look at
> Stanford, Duke, Michigan or even Divsion III Middlebury.  I don't think
> anyone would disparage their academics but they still compete and win.
> These ECAC schools could do the same.  JMHO
=======

The bottom line burning question: does the ECAC listen? If so, do they
care? If so, when will they do anything? If not, do the member schools
have the guts to leave and reorganize ala HE????

Tony Buffa
RPI '64