Lee-nerd wrote:
 
> ECAC: 12 teams, a perfectly balancing schedule with two conference
> meetings between two opponents, one at each home site. It strikes me that
> two games is too small a sample set to base standings on. I would prefer
> three or four, but the ECAC teams have fewer games to play. And you have
> to appreciate the perfect balance that the other conferences have been
> unable to acheive.
 
From the perspective of:
  - an ECAC fan
  - Class of '92 (not too much historical perspective)
  - freshman Hockey-L'er,
I can't understand why the other three conferences don't just play two
games against each other.  It seems like the schedules would be balanced
each year, the Alaska thing would be much less of a problem, and it would
allow for easy expansion.
 
I'm also still clueless about the whole conference thing.  Why are the four
conferences so independent of each other?  Where does the NC$$ fit in to all
this?  Are the Div I independents unaffiliated with the conferences by choice,
or because of historical/political agendas?
 
Who is in charge of Div. I hockey?
 
--
from: LTJG Kenneth A. Pavelle, NOAA
      NOAA, National Weather Service
      Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center
 
      My Homepage:  http://www.abrfc.noaa.gov/kap.html
 
"Its hard to predict anything, especially the future" -- Yogi Berra
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.