Steve Rockey writes:
>I believe some of the correspondence on this list is mistaken.  There has been
>no substantive change in admission standards for hockey players in any of the
>ECAC schools for a decade.  When the ECAC and Hockey East parted company the
>ECAC's aim was to not change the way they were doing things.  The procedures
>and guidelines were merely to provide the league with some method of
>verification if a member were to stray.
 
!!!
 
I believe this is untrue.  I have it on the authority of several people who
are or were administrators at Hockey East schools that the split occurred
because of the institution of the index, which occurred in the mid-80s and
NOT more than a decade ago, and specifically because the Ivies spearheaded a
movement to force all ECAC teams to conform to these standards.  Officially,
Hockey East claims that the formation of HE came about because the Ivies
were considering "forming their own league" and that the five charter members
of HE decided to form their own league rather than wait to see what happened.
But what I have been told is that the Ivies threatened to leave if the rest
of the ECAC did not conform, and a number of ECAC non-Ivies were frightened
of being left alone, so they agreed.  The HE schools opted not to go along with
this and left.
 
If anyone has other information, I'd love to hear it.
 
>The allegation that the ECAC is in decline is incorrect. In the decade since
 the
> schism of the ECAC and
>the schism of the ECAC and HE the ECAC had done very well in terms of
>National Champions, runner ups and making the final 2 + 2.  There are many ways
> to
>to cross compare the leagues but in the final analysis the best rating is how
>the best from each league plays against each other--the NC** tournament
>especially the final 2 + 2 where your presence is determined by play not by
>seeding.
 
You miss the point.  I have never claimed that the best ECAC teams cannot play
with the best in other leagues, in fact, I have specifically said that they
can.  What I say is that the current policies have developed a rift between
about half of the ECAC and the other half, with the bottom teams being
annually among the very poorest teams in DivI.  So even though the ECAC has
sent six different teams to the Final Four (sue me) since 1984-85, with two
champions and three runners-up, where are the rest of the ECAC teams?  No
need to argue something we agree on.
 
How about this?  The ECAC has sent 7 of its 12 teams to the NC** tourney since
1984-85.  That's not bad.  Hockey East has sent 7 of its 8 teams, including
Merrimack as an Independent in 1988, but it's still 6 of 8 if you don't
include MC.
 
BTW, in much of the discussing I've done on this subject in the past, I don't
include RPI because all of the 1985 team was recruited prior to the index
taking effect.  The 1985-86 freshman class at RPI was the first one recruited
with the index.  That would make 5 teams in the final four, 1 champion and
6 of 12 in the tourney.
 
"The final analysis" is not how the best from each league play against each
other, it is how the ENTIRE league plays against other leagues.  And the
ECAC has consistently had the worst nonleague record of all DivI leagues.
I have posted the exact numbers before, but let me assure you this is true.