In a message dated 11/7/00 1:09:23 PM Mid-Atlantic Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

 The CHA has scheduled the "Big 4" conferences more aggressively than the
MAAC.
 The CHA has more wins against the "Big 4" than the MAAC. A CHA team earned
an at-large NCAA berth, and got to the quarter-finals, a MAAC team has not
made it. The MAAC won't win an at-large berth at least until tourney
expansion.
 CHA One of the reasons Army moved to the MAAC was that the MAAC was a
conference they could win in.

>> The CHA was thrown together at the last moment last year. There was going
to be an Independent Hockey Alliance and then it became a conference. Being
close to the Army program- it was made clear to the CHA that Army's
commitment was for one year. Cadets carry 21 credits per semester and the
nationwide travel (remember Army only played 10 CHA games last year) was
antithetical to the academics. The MAAC features a conference that other than
the Buffalo schools that the opponents are within 2-3 hours at most. For
those of you who are US taxpayers- the Cadets don't get any slack for playing
varsity sports other than excused absence from in-season drill and a team
table. The primary reason Army left the ECAC was the affect weekend travel
had on academics (there are Saturday classes and exams and January there is a
military intersession- no academic classes but an intensive military arts
study). The MAAC schools for the most part are academically compatible with
Army (as were the ECAC schools). As for the CHA vs. MAAC- take last year's
Niagara team out of the mix and the conferences are equal. I would suggest
that the MAAC schools would be only too happy to play any of the Big 4 (which
they have) whenever. Overtime I think we'll wind up with the Big 3 (CCHA,
WCHA, HE) & the smaller three.