I don't think anyone was dissing the service academies nor do I think anyone
should be dissing anyone else's school. But the facts speak for themselves.
The service academies are at a disadvantage since they give no athletic
scholarships, their coaching staff is limited to recruiting US born players
and the "hot" young prospects who may have their sites set on playing
professional hockey might be somewhat put off by knowing that their
professional careers couldn't start until their obligatory time spent in the
military is over.

That doesn't mean that Army and Air Force can't have good years.  This past
season proved that.  It's just that the restrictions put on the staff and
players of the service academies suggests that one of them would have a
tough time competing successfully with the top echelon hockey programs over
the long run.

That being said, I don't think that is dissing a service academy

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Rowe, Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Do we really need to dis the service academies here?  Many programs have up
> and down years and many conferences have perpetual strong teams and
> perpetual doormats even though on any given year things can get turned on
> their heads.  Since Air Force isn't going to give a hot HS goalie a
> scholarship based on his hockey prowess they compete with those that can
> under a handicap.  OTOH, the service academies attract high quality young
> men and women who typically have the physical attributes of athletes.  Given
> the right coach and a tradition of excellence in a sport, there is no reason
> to believe they couldn't compete in the top echelon year after year.
> Notice the secondary aspect of this argument - they're not good enough for
> us so they have to play in that loser conference, like ATL or CHA where even
> the best team would get wiped out by our lesser teams.....  Oops.  Might
> want to rethink that one....
>
> Tom Rowe
>
>