Mike Zak writes:
>Mike uses the NE win over BC to show that HE is a strong conference from
>top to bottom.  (Well how about Clarkson tieing Dartmouth?  Does that say
>the same thing?  Also factor in that Clarkson beat BU, so does that mean
>Dartmouth is atleast as good as BU?  BC just went to sleep and got beat by
>an inferior team, a team with only 7 wins.)
 
    You must be referring to when I wrote:
 
*    I guess this win goes to show just how solid from top-to-bottom HE is...
 
    I apologize for leaving out the :-) at the end, as we had just been
    talking (arguing?) about the overall strength of HE and the ECAC.  I
    did not mean to suggest that this game alone demonstrated that HE must
    be a strong conference.
 
    However, I will stand by my statement that Northeastern was a much better
    team than its record showed.  Motivation (or lack of it) was a key factor
    in their finishing last, not personnel.  Somehow they regained that
    motivation in the playoffs.  This is all irrelevant now, but let it
    suffice to say that many people around the league were surprised that
    the Huskies finished as poorly as they did with the team they had.
 
    I will not argue that BC did not lose to an inferior team, you are correct.
 
>                                             Now back to the subject, I
>looked at the number of games that ECAC teams played against HE teams.
>There were 43 games between an ECAC team and a HE team, while there were
>only 19 against the other Div. I teams.  So if HE is so strong, how can
>it be said that the ECAC's non-league schedule is weak?
 
    I have the following records for each league out-of-conference:
 
      v.HE      ECAC    CCHA    WCHA    Ind     non-I     TOTAL
ECAC 14-28-0     -      2-2-0   1-3-0   4-1-3  10-0-0*   31-34-3
HE      -      28-14-0  9-7-0   9-2-0  21-4-2   1-1-0    68-28-2
 
*-Colgate's scheduled game against Mercyhurst was canceled due to war.
 
    The ECAC played 42 games against HE, 16 against other DivI teams (not
    including two nonleague games played between ECAC members).  HE played
    42 games against the ECAC, 54 against other DivI teams (not including
    two nonleague games played between HE members).
 
    I said that when ECAC teams have a limited number of games that they
    impose upon themselves, and then they go and schedule some of those
    games against non-Division I teams, then I am not going to feel sorry
    for them.  That was my claim about the weak nonleague schedule.  See
    the 10-0-0 under ECAC non-DivI (not including the Colgate-Mercyhurst game)
    vs. the 1-1-0 under HE non-DivI.
 
    If you break those down, only four of those ten games took place in
    tourneys.  RPI was 2-0 against Canadian colleges and 1-0 against NCAA
    non-DivI schools in tourneys, and Yale was 1-0 against Canadian colleges
    in a tourney.  Yet, two of RPI's three non-DivI games came in the RPI
    Invitational, which they control, and Yale's game also came in its
    tournament.  So the ECAC schools had control over nine of the ten non-DivI
    games that were played, plus the one game that was canceled.
 
    In contrast, HE played two games against Canadian colleges - Merrimack
    faced one in Alaska-Anchorage's tourney, and Providence faced one in their
    own tourney.  So only PC's game was set up by them.
 
    I am not suggesting that Canadian colleges, etc. should not be scheduled.
    Rather, I am pointing out that ECAC schools should not complain that
    they cannot schedule as many games as others after they have made that
    choice to cut their own limit to 30 or 26 - and THEN go and schedule
    easier DivIII, etc. games instead of competitive DivI games.
 
    To the Ivies' credit, that one Yale game was the only game in which an
    Ivy team faced a non-DivI team this season.
 
>                                                         I think that what
>is hurting the top ECAC teams is that they don't always beat the lower teams
>like they are supposed to (as was mentioned.)
 
    Yes, I agree.  That probably hurts the top ECAC teams more than anything.
 
>                                              And that these lower teams
>get beat in their one game stints against the HE teams (Dartmouth played
>BC and BU among others, not an easy schedule.)  Another thing that I think
>contributes to the HE's strength is that they play 4 league games per
>opponent.
 
    BTW, Hockey East teams play three games against each league opponent.
    That gives them one less league game than the ECAC.
 
>           When you get the top teams winning their non-league games, this
>bolsters the rest of the league because strength of schedule goes up.  Also
>with three teams in the top ten, the lower teams are going to have a high
>sos that will not hurt the higher teams if they lose a game hear and there
>as it does in the ECAC.
 
    But it isn't just the top teams that are winning their nonleague games in
    HE.  The league has an overall DivI nonleague record of 67-27-2.  The
    ECAC's record is 21-34-3.  When the lower teams are winning their
    nonleague games, that will raise the rating and thus the strength of
    schedule of the teams above them as well.
 
 
    - mike