Coach Cavanaugh writes:
>I find it interesting that when the numbers are NEEDED for
>some quota schools such as Canisius College are included by
>Division I folks...... BUT any other time we they would just
>as well remind us that we are not eligible for any consideration.
 
True...it is ironic that these numbers will be used to justify, for
example, inviting 12 teams to the DivI tourney, although not every
DivI team will be able to go.  Though, the opposite argument is that
it is the decision of those schools not to go by not meeting the
qualifications.
 
>If you want a TRUE picture of Division I teams:
>1. Look at how many are eligible for a NCAA bid at D-I
>   at the end of the year - ????? my guess 43.  That means
>   a schools munt play , what 25 NCAA D- I games.  This throws
>   out Canisius, Holy Cross, U. Conn, Fairfield, Iona, etc.
 
first - I forgot Fairfield and Iona.  So if we take the 42 conference
teams and add Army & Air Force (leaving out UMass in case the NC$$ has
not counted them yet), then toss in 7 teams we know to be DivI (the
five above plus Villanova & St Bonaventure) but who play in the ECAC
non-DivI, that gives us 51 DivI teams.  WHERE does the NC$$ come up
with 49?!?  I have wondered this for years.
 
When I think of DivI, I also tend to think of those teams who are
typically eligible for the DivI tourney (43 last year).  This changed
in 1989 when the 20-game rule was established - and this rule wouldn't
even have been put in if the Independent bid never existed.  But there
were teams that were making serious runs at the Independent bid (and
who got it, like Merrimack in 1988) but played fewer than half as many
DivI games as the conference teams.  I think Merrimack played only 14-15
technically DivI games in 87-88, maybe 3-4 of which were against
minor indeps like Holy Cross and UConn, and only a handful were
against DivI conference teams.
 
The thing is, before that 20-game limit effectively excluded teams
like UConn and Canisius from consideration for the DivI tourney, there
was not really any distinction - you were either DivI, or you weren't.
Now we have a handful of teams who are in limbo.  I think that is a
problem and one that the NC$$ hockey committee should address.  If
they are going to consider letting the DivII programs play in the
DivIII tourney, then let the DivI limbo programs play in it as well.
 
>The NCAA the last few years has put in legislation that prevents
>a BASKETBALL situation where a school can only have their
>Basketball team at D-I and all other sports at D-III.  With
>the money involved in basketball they wanted to prevent a
>school from "stacking" resources into one team fr
>for national attention, exposure, and $$$$$.
>
>My "gut" feeling is that some of this exists in hockey
>with the schools whose only program at D-I is their
>hockey program.  How many (17) schools have hockey at
>D-I BUT other sports are not.
 
This is a good point...but I do think there are some differences in
the situations.  There really isn't a problem with schools pushing
their hockey programs up to DivI just to get in on the money - only
Union has moved up to DivI over the last few years.  Of the others,
most are in DivI either because they were truly dominant in DivII or
lower (Lowell), they were forced up by the ending of DivII in 1984
(Merrimack, UAA, UAF), or else they have been in DivI for a long time
(RPI, etc.).
 
Also, although hockey is supposedly the third biggest money maker for
the NC$$, the lack of a huge tv deal like hoop has means that there
isn't THAT much money to be made in DivI hockey as opposed to DivIII.
I say that because there are many, many DivIII programs who draw
better and are more popular than DivI programs.  In the examples of
Lowell and Merrimack, I know both moved up because of a desire
to play at a higher level (Lowell won something like 3-4 straight
DivII titles; Merrimack went something like 66-2 in DivII over 3
seasons before entering HE) and not primarily because of monetary
considerations, and I think this is true for most programs.  In fact,
both schools' attendances suffered when they moved up, especially
Merrimack which went from selling out every night to being lucky to
get 1,000 people in a 3,600 seat building.
 
However, now I'm thinking of St Cloud which wasn't really a power in
DivIII but suddenly decided they wanted to go DivI - they hired Herb
Brooks who built a superb team (what kid WOULDN'T want to play for
Herb) and within a couple of years they were in the WCHA.  But I think
that's more of an exception.
 
I certainly believe there is a problem when DivII/III schools can move
their programs up and compete for (and win) a DivI national
championship, but a handful of DivI schools look like they will never
be able to compete for any national championship.  Yet, to a certain
extent this is because those schools' administrations have decided to
direct the funds elsewhere and keep hockey at a lower level than most
DivI programs.  I truly think the fairest thing to do is to allow
those DivI schools who don't want to make the huge financial
commitment that hockey requires, to compete for the DivIII nat'l title
if they choose to - given that their hockey program begins to follow
DivIII regulations.  This would also allow those programs to either
stay where they are or even upgrade their programs further if they
wished.
---
Mike Machnik           [log in to unmask]    [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMN* 11/13/93