Thanks, Ralph, for some good points. I am glad I am not totally out to
lunch here.

First point, well taken, go up to 34, and schedule tough opponents.
Period. That means 12 nonconf foes, a few could be MAAC and others, but
schedule mostly other solid programs. I think SLU has gotten the drift.
The rest.. I dunno. Jury is out, IMHO.

Other point is: do the nonivies WANT to go where the ivies are going? I
am not sure where the ivies are going, are they? Perhaps we have two
opposing views. I would like to think the non-ivies are moving like SLU
to try to elevate. If the ivies dont want to follow, then there are
choices. The point is the ECAC needs to decide, or the schools need
to.... at this point, I think a separate non-ivy league wold be great. 6
to 8 teams ...play four games for against each 2 home/2 away and that
makes about 28 games, like the WCHA/CCHA numbers .... then make sure the
nonconf games are really strong.

========
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
 I can
> understand where the Ivies are going, but I don't understand at all about
> Clarkson, RPI, SLU, and Union. (I'll leave out Colgate and UVM from this
> discussion.)  If these four schools want to be D-I in hockey, they really
> must go all the way and attempt to keep up with the other leagues.  SLU
> seems to be trying as evidenced by its schedule, but I can't say that about
> RPI whose OOC schedule seems to be getting worse each year.  I can see the
> D-II schools who were practically forced out of D-II, but for D-III schools
> to play D-I, they must go all out.  Colorado College seems to be successful
> with it, so why can't RPI?
>
> What can the ECAC do.  For one, they can increase the game limit to 34
> games. This needs to be across the board.  If the Ivies keep the 29-game
> limit, it will drag down the league.  (I realize that the Ivies and
> non-Ivies were at an equal footing this year with each group averaging a 6.5
> place finish, but the Ivies by their academic reputation will have a
> competitive advantage against the non-Ivy ECAC schools if all else is
> equal.)
=====

I totally agree on the comment below. See my comment above. Separate
league would  be great. HE did it, why not part of the ECAC? Traditional
games can still occur, altho perhaps only once per year. I'd rather
sacrifice a bit of tradition for competitiveness.

========
> For a second thing, the ECAC management has to understand hockey.  This just
> doesn't seem to be the case. Granted that the MAAC (see Findlay) seems even
> worse in this regard, but they haven't been trying nearly that long.  It has
> been suggested that the league should break its ties with the ECAC.  Perhaps
> that makes sense.
=========

Tony Buffa
RPI '64