I'm kind of amused by the designations of the various regions.   Saw
a couple of Connecticut players who play for eastern schools on the "West"
team.   How on earth were the regions assigned,  or were they simply
disregarded for hockey (would make a lot of sense:-)
 
        I don't want to get into the US / Canadian thing,  but perhaps I
can make a couple of observations and then beat a hasty retreat.   A lot of
schools are very close to the border.   Their natural geographic "sphere of
influence" (if that is the correct phrase) might be inferred to include
large parts of Canada.   What I think the test should be,  however,  is how
many non-hockey playing Canadians do those schools enroll?   Not many,  I
suspect.   So let's be up-front.   The sphere of influence is for recruiting
only and has to do with proximity of the schools to the players' homes.
 
        Secondly,  statistics can be misleading.   Many of the HE schools
quoted listed far in excess of 20 players on the roster.   Would it not
make sense to make the comparison between players who get appreciable
playing time?
 
        I am concerned here primarily about perceptions on the part of the
NCAA.   Sports with high percentages of foreign participation do not get as
much respect as they should.   Soccer and skiing are two prime examples.
The common perception is that many schools simply hire teams from overseas in
both of these sports.   That has led, in the case of skiing, to a real decline.
I was at Clarkson at the same time C. B. Vaughn (world speed record and later
C. B. Sports) was skiing for St. Lawrence.   He was something else to watch.
Today,  several large trees are growing on the outrun of St. Lawrence's
60 meter hill.   They haven't haven't had a ski team in more than a decade.
And it wasn't gender equity that did it.  The same root cause is also slowing
soccer's development.
 
        Have a good 4th,  folks.
 
        -- Dick Tuthill