One correction:
 
>          Total #NLG  #teams   NLG/Team  #Teams/TCHCR top 15   Avg TCHCR Rank
>    ECAC      58*       12       4.83             1                18.89
>    CCHA      48         9       5.33             5                27.25
 
    Reverse the ECAC & CCHA "Avg TCHCR Rank"; it should be 27.25 for the ECAC
    and 18.89 for the CCHA.
 
    I am sure a lot of people are sick of what must sound like my bashing of the
    ECAC, but I want you to know where I am coming from (especially those of
    you who are newer to the list).  Remember that I was involved with the ECAC
    (RPI, 1985-86) and had a chance to see what goes on close up.
 
    I know that there is a lot of good hockey being played in the ECAC and a
    lot of good teams.  But I think the league has too many weak programs
    that aren't fully committed to being in Division I.  As a whole, I strongly
    disagree with the Ivies' self-imposed 26-game limit.  I have yet to hear
    a good argument as to why it is necessary to play fewer games than the NCAA
    limit.  Playing more games, against good competition, is how a team and its
    players improve.
 
    Recruiting is especially difficult in the ECAC because of the academic
    restrictions.  There are a number of excellent schools in other conferences
    that don't have these restrictions but still produce great teams *and*
    are above reproach.  It's not as if there is a situation like UNLV or
    Syracuse every year. When was the last time you heard of a DivI hockey team
    going on probation?  In fact, the only really bad things I have heard
    of (which I will not divulge) took place in the ECAC, so the ECAC
    is not some college hockey utopia.  Anyway, the ECAC cannot compete with
    other conferences for top players because of their self-imposed
    restrictions.  Yet, they want to be considered as equal to the other
    conferences even though by their very actions they seem to indicate they
    don't REALLY buy into the DivI concept.  As a perfect example of this,
    during the conference call to announce last year's NCAA seedings (which I
    recorded, so I will be happy to transcribe relevant parts word-for-word for
    Doubting Thomases), the committee was asked if consideration was given to
    selecting four teams from one conference, and Cornell AD Laing Kennedy
    jumped in with an answer that suggested that the ECAC deserved two teams
    just because it was one of the four conferences, and that it was bad for
    college hockey (a direct quote, I believe) to pick four teams at the
    expense of an (unnamed) conference.  WHY?  I say, pick the teams that
    deserve to get in, and if there is only one from the ECAC, or five from
    the WCHA, or none from Hockey East, then that's the way it goes.  The ECAC
    wants to have its cake and eat it too, and I am fully against that.  This
    way of thinking was the impetus that forced the five charter members of
    HE out of the ECAC.
 
    Now, I've noticed some teams have reevaluated their commitment to hockey
    and have made decisions that I think are for their good and the good of
    the ECAC.  Ben Smith, a very good hockey man, was hired at Dartmouth; given
    a few years, I believe we will see a remarkable improvement there.  Brown
    has improved tremendously from its 1-25 team of a couple of years ago.
    Army decided it was in its best interests to leave the ECAC; while this
    was too bad, it really is difficult for the military academies to compete
    with other conference members for players, and it probably is better for
    them to compete as independents.
 
    Still, I think the ECAC should make two decisions that would indicate a
    desire to remain competitive with the rest of DivI - while simultaneously
    not compromising their wish to have student-athletes continue to be
    STUDENT athletes:
 
    1) Get rid of the 26 or 30-game limit.  With the rest of DivI now limited
         to 34 games, an additional 4 or 8 games is really not that much.
    2) Stop using the academic index.  Other schools can accept good students
         and still ice good teams.  Give Michigan, Wisconsin, or BC a call if
         you need details.
 
    I don't expect either of these to take place, but I really don't feel bad
    for the ECAC when it struggles to send two teams to the NCAAs if it doesn't
    want to compete on the same level as the rest of DivI.  It's clear that
    the non-Ivies as a whole are not as far gone as the Ivies, but they seem
    too timid when it comes to who is the boss.  The Ivies need to be told
    some of these things and they need to stop pretending that they are somehow
    better than the rest of DivI because they impose all these restrictions.
    When they are put down for their quality of hockey, the response is that
    they are ACADEMIC and not athletic, but who made the Ivies impose those
    restrictions and who made them try to play in DivI under them? It's time
    to wake up and realize that the rest of DivI is passing them by.
 
    BTW, my belief is that while schools like Cornell and Harvard usually ice
    good teams, the other four Ivies are crushed by the index because there
    are only so many top students/good hockey players to go around, and these
    two schools are usually the ones they want to attend because of their
    tradition.  The other four get the "leftovers" more often than not.
 
    Again, I have no particular reason to hate the ECAC or any of its teams; I
    like to see them do well in the postseason, and I try to catch their games
    either live or on tv when I can.  But I am a college hockey fan, more than
    an HE fan, and I want to see done whatever is for the good of college
    hockey.  Too many times the ECAC and its politics have been in the way. I
    would like to see that change.
 
 
    - mike