Frankly, when it comes to the service academies, I prefer the philosophy 
that we accommodate them in college athletics by inviting them to 
compete where their typical competition level alone may not command a 
sufficient draw, like when Notre Dame schedules Navy in football. 
Distinguish that from putting service academies in situations where 
pressure to stop looking like the doormat of their league could start 
altering considerations for admissions or how students allocate their time.

While it may be "to each his own" in deciding what skills you admire 
when you grab that radio to scream for air support, I'd rather have that 
answered by a guy in the cockpit who didn't miss classes chasing after 
his NCAA championship ring. Things that create conflicts between 
education's primary purpose and less worthy considerations aren't so 
crucial when they merely reduce the skill my self-serving Wall Street 
jerk brings to the task of increasing my return. How service academies 
spend their time has deeper implications. Notwithstanding Hobey Baker's 
prowess as an aviator ('cept maybe on that one last flight), I'd like to 
keep athletics an incidental and secondary function of the students in 
service academies, structured in whatever way aids them in serving their 
primary purpose. It's not a situation where the tail should be wagging 
the dog. Their considerations aren't my alma mater's considerations.

Bob Griebel


Rowe, Thomas 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: - Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Burton
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Geographic alignment
>
> I disagree beating C.C. this season doesn't prove anything other than C.C. 
> was down this season.
> I respectfully disagree that AFA could compete in the WCHA on a regular year to year basis.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Erik Biever" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Geographic alignment
>
>
>   
>> I think Air Force has proved they could successfully compete in the WCHA. 
>> (Smart fans will note that they missed this year's Frozen Four by 
>> *that*
>> much.) They have their own valid reasons for preferring membership in 
>> Atlantic Hockey.
>>
>> -- Erik
>>
>> Eric Burton wrote:
>>     
>>> Air Force joined the AHA so they could play Army, they are not going 
>>> to move to the WCHA, We can talk about this till we are blue in the 
>>> face but it isn't going to happen. Also, Air Force couldn't compete 
>>> on a regular basis against the WCHA teams would end up in the cellar 
>>> of the WCHA on a consistant basis. The AHA is a good fit for them.
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>