Did I correctly understand the post from UIC to the effect that gender
equity has progressed so far that the NCAA is now dictating to schools that
if their pep band plays at men's basketball games that they also have to
play for women's basketball games (and in this case instead of hockey)???
  That,  to me,  sets a very serious precedent.
 
     The gentleman from Wright Patterson also raised a related issue.
  Suppose that a school,  currently in gender compliance,   with a  50-50
split in its gender population,  wanted to institute men's hockey and go D-1
with the full compliment of scholarships.   Now,  let us assume that would
put this school out of gender compliance;  so,  they also start a women's
hockey team.   Does the school also have to offer the same (or let's say
approximately the same) number of scholarships to women,  or is the
establishment of the women's team enough?   What I'm getting at here is the
"two for one" thing we keep hearing about.   Is that really the effect of
the law?
 
     On a different subject,  I have it from a reliable source,  who asked
not to be named,  that Niagara would not be admitted to the ECAC D-1
conference if it applied.   Apparently Mike's argument about the balance
between Ivy and non-Ivy is the governing influence.   (The Ivies currently
have veto power over anything they don't like.)   I also happen to agree
with the poster who said that the non-Ivies stay in the ECAC because it
tones their image.   And to private schools,  image is just about
everything.
 
     -- Dick Tuthill
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.