Jim writes:
>	About the possible move to Div 1 for Union. Some of the concerns that
>have been expressed are that the program may get out of control. They do not
>want to start accepting students only because they play hockey. Many feel that
>the only way to be competeitive at the Division I level would be a letting the
>hockey players slide academically. How does everyone at Div I schools feel
>about this? Do you think that the hockey players at your schools keep up
>academically with other students?
 
    I don't think it is necessary to "let the hockey players slide" to be
    competitive in Division I.  This is the argument used by some of the
    ECAC/Ivy people as to why their teams don't do as well - that THEY
    put a higher priority on academics than other schools/leagues, so
    it's ok for their teams to be awful.  Well, I'm here to tell you that
    this argument doesn't wash.  Many of the best schools in the country
    have fantastic hockey programs - BC, BU, Wisconsin, Michigan, to name
    just a few, and their players are students too.
 
    I think everybody equates Division I with cheating, taking courses
    like Basket Weaving 101, paying players, etc. because of the scandals
    that come out in basketball and football.  My experience has been that
    hockey is not like that.  Sure, there will be the occasional incident
    here or there - but when was the last time you heard of a hockey team
    being placed on probation in Division I?  The last NCAA team I recall was
    Plattsburgh - and they are in Union's conference, the ECAC West.  I
    think the last Division I team was Denver, nearly 20 years ago.
 
    The decision to let players slide is up to the coach and the school. If
    Union has a coach with integrity (I don't know much about him, so I
    can't comment one way or the other), a guy who cares about his players'
    academic well-being as well as their play on the ice (and I believe
    most Division I coaches fall into this category), then there is nothing
    to worry about.
 
    Merrimack's board of trustees faced this same dilemma when deciding whether
    or not to let the team move up to full-time Division I and Hockey East.
    The school isn't well known throughout the country, but in the area it
    is respected as a school that turns out quality students and people.  It's
    made up mostly of business students, although they have been making a
    move towards attracting science students with the construction of a brand
    new science and engineering building.  (They rejected some alumni who
    wanted a new hockey rink.)
 
    So, the trustees didn't want Merrimack to be known as a hockey school,
    which sounds just like what the people at Union and RIT are saying.  And
    there were the concerns about players being allowed to slide by in class.
    But one of the things that made them decide to vote yes was the integrity
    of the coach, Ron Anderson.  He may be the most respected coach in the
    league right now, or at least he's up there.  I'm sure that it was the
    Jim Hrivnak incident that made up the trustees' minds for sure.
 
    Of course, Hrivnak is now playing for the Washington Capitols and he
    holds nearly every Merrimack goaltending record.  You can't overestimate
    how important he was to the team.  He played a huge part on the 1988 team
    that went to the Division I quarterfinals, splitting a total goals series
    at Lake Superior.  And in 1988-89, Merrimack was once again on its way to
    a third straight ECAC East title and battling with St Cloud for the
    independent bid to the NCAAs.
 
    After the fall semester in 1988, Hrivnak's senior year, it was determined
    that he had fallen below the school's standards for academic probation.
    I don't recall whether he failed a class, whether his GPA was too low,
    or what it was.  But the important factor is that while he didn't meet
    the school's standards, he WAS over the NCAA requirements.  Theoretically,
    he could have been allowed to finish the year.  Maybe some people would
    have been upset, but they were heading to the NCAAs again and selling
    out the building every night with fans who wanted to see Hrivnak play.
    Plus, the two backup goalies had played a combined total of, I believe,
    30 minutes.
 
    The result?  Hrivnak was declared academically ineligible for the spring
    semester of his senior year.  The team was 18-4 (ended up 27-7) and
    just about to play a big series with Clarkson and St Lawrence when the
    announcement came.  Hrivnak left school and signed with Washington (he
    has been returning summers to finish his degree).  And, when Anderson
    was asked about the decision, he said that there was no decision, that
    that was the way things are done.  St Cloud got the bid, not Merrimack,
    partly because, as the committee put it, "availability of key players
    was an issue".
 
    So there's no doubt in my mind that a school can maintain its integrity
    and field a successful Division I program, if it wants to.
 
    There's another factor in all of this that I think is worth considering
    for a school.  How many of you out there had heard of Merrimack before
    you heard of its hockey team?  Similarly, look at Boston College.
    In the first few years A.D. (After Doug - Flutie), the number of
    applications to BC skyrocketed, many of them from out of state students.
    They had discovered BC from football, but after further investigation
    realized that the school itself appealed to them.  That means BC can
    accept even more highly qualified students, since they have so many
    more to choose from.  This is one of the reasons I believe in collegiate
    athletics, that they can have such a positive effect on a school.
 
    As to how players are doing in school, without naming names, I have
    found it interesting that often the players who don't take school
    seriously are the same ones who don't take hockey seriously.  It is,
    again, up to the coach and school to set regulations that must meet or
    exceed NCAA rules.  And to enforce them.  I only know of one incident
    where some pressure was put on an instructor to pass players who would
    have become ineligible.  Let's not talk about that or where it was (not
    Merrimack).  I also know that virtually every team has its players
    monitored by coaches and faculty for their academic progress - MUCH
    more than typical students.  And most players will graduate and do well
    in school.
 
    Finally, Jim, you write that Union does not want to start accepting
    students only because they play hockey.  Well, I know that Division II-III
    teams recruit just like Division I teams, and they try to get players
    to attend their school who normally wouldn't go there.  If they are
    concerned about feeling pressure to bend their standards to accept
    poor students just because they play hockey, then all they have to do is
    decide that they won't do it.  The only reason a school cheats is because
    it wants to.  No one makes it cheat.
 
    Maybe I should have sent this to your paper out there. :-)
 
 
    - mike