Topic #1:
 
My opinion of the RPI/ECAC/Hockey East situation:
 
As I see it, the possibility of a move to Hockey East was a result of
three factors coinciding:
 
1.  Buddy Powers wanted to move to Hockey East.
 
2.  Hockey East added another team, resulting in an odd number of
    teams in the conference.
 
3.  RPI's dissatisfaction with ECAC Hockey.
 
I believe Buddy Powers wanted to move to Hockey East from the
moment he came to RPI.  RPI's dissatisfaction with the ECAC is long-
standing.  There are people at this school who vehemently hate the
ECAC.  But it was only when Hockey East added Massachusetts-
Amherst as the ninth member was it feasible for Hockey East to
approach RPI about entering the conference.  With Buddy Powers in
support, the ball got rolling.
 
When Dan Fridgen was hired as the new head coach, after the press
conference I was taken aside and told it would be announced in a few
days RPI would stay in the ECAC.  I was a bit surprised and asked
how close the discussion was.  Apparently, it wasn't close at all. With
Buddy Powers gone, one of the three motivating factors disappeared.
In the interim, between the end of the season and RPI's announcement,
the ECAC made changes, such as adding two games to the schedule
and getting a TV contract.  This is what RPI was looking for and the
dissatisfaction lessened.  All that remained the same was Hockey East's
desire for an even number of teams in the conference, and RPI was not
concerned with Hockey East's problems.
 
I theorize that RPI, through the committee, was worried about the
question of academic standards.  A move from the ECAC, and the
famed "academic index," might give the perception RPI was looking
for reduced requirements for players entering the program, hence RPI
would be relaxing its academic standards.  Hockey East schools follow
NCAA academic requirements, ECAC schools are somewhat stricter.
Let us note these are minimum standards.  I am certain the
overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of the hockey players in
Hockey East would also be able to play in the ECAC without any
problem.  We're probably talking a handful of people who may be just
below the line of admittance.  I have never heard of Hockey East
schools playing fast-and-loose with their players' grades to ensure
winning programs, except for Maine, and that was only one player.
Nonetheless, there are people who do think Hockey East's standards
are sufficiently lower, and this would allow better recruiting and
therefore a better hockey program.  It was these incorrect perceptions,
I believe, that the committee also had to address and they provided an
additional reason to remain in the ECAC.
 
So, when the decision was made, only one of the three motivating
factors existed in favor of moving and the question of academics was
likely decided against Hockey East.  So the decision to stay in the
ECAC makes sense.
 
Topic #2:
 
RPI vs. Rensselaer
 
This is all because, in 1987, the school was looking to project a more
"friendly, human" image.  So instead of the cold, harsh RPI (and the
bullet), the school was to be known as Rensselaer (with the gray-bar
logo).  As an alum, I prefer RPI.  As a radio announcer, I prefer RPI.
It's catchier and easier to say.  As well-intentioned this idea was, it was
flawed for two reasons:
 
1.  As Tony Buffa stated, people identify with RPI more than
    Rensselaer.  It's easier to spell.
 
2.  It didn't change the character of the school.  It is still cold and
    harsh, to a certain extent.  This week's Polytechnic had an article to
    that effect.  You can call an apple an orange, but it will still taste
    like an apple.
 
However, the idea the school is now "Rensselaer" is administration
policy.  It's fun to walk around campus and locate the "bullet"
someplace, since it's been almost totally removed.  Get your souvenirs
while they last!
 
Finally, I don't miss the bullet as much as the swarm.  I really liked the
bee, especially since we have no mascot whatsoever now.
 
 
Kurt Stutt
[log in to unmask]