Thanks to a glitch in the gateway, I just received, in a clump, a
bundle of correspondence about whether the ECAC schools are
academically "better" than those in other conferences.  Thanks to
Luiz Valente, who (as usual) chose to shed some light rather than
heat on the subject with data.
 
I went to BU.  I am not in the least bit shy about admitting
that, in a general sense, Harvard is a "better" or "tougher"
academic institution, as are some of the other schools who stayed
in the ECAC after BU and others left to start Hockey East.
Indeed, there are probably a few in the other conferences to
which I would grant that honor as well.  Anyone who knows
anything about academic institutions also knows that they vary
greatly internally, so their general "reputation" is less
relevant than the strength of the faculty, facilities and
students in particular programs.
 
This group, by definition, is concerned primarily with the
strength of the hockey programs and the balance the schools
require of players with respect to their athletic and academic
commitments.  If anyone really cares, he or she can collect
statistics regarding (i) players high school grades and SAT
scores (unless, like me, you believe that the SAT is a virtually
worthless predictor of success); (ii) the courses players take at
college and the grades they earn (including the credit load
carried); (iii) players' graduation rates (including the time
taken to complete graduation requirements); (iv) what players who
do not turn pro after leaving college are doing five or ten years
after graduation.  Once such data are available, an intelligent
conversation about the various schools' attitudes toward the
balance between academic needs and assembling winning hockey
teams would be possible.  Until then, we're all just exercising
our overdeveloped school spirit. :-)
 
Have fun gang.