Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:32:33 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I don't think the comment is meant to either encourage or reflect Ivy/Big 10
plans to split off. I think it translates to "all you people who are
complaining about getting bounced by autobids should stop complaining -- it
could be worse."
The Ivies and the non-Ivy ECAC members fully realize their mutual value to
one another. Without the non-Ivies the Ivies are... well, they're Ivy
football, utterly marginalized. Without the Ivies, the non-Ivy ECAC members
are aother MAAC waiting to happen.
Whether the Big 10 would ever think about going its own way is something I
don't know about. It sure would cause a big realignment in the west.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Powers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:22 AM
Subject: Jack McDonald bombshell (re: Ivy and Big Ten)
> From this USCHO story:
> http://www.uscho.com/news/2002/03/18_004304.php
>
> "I hope that the visionaries of college hockey realize that we have 60
> institutions playing Division I college hockey for only five automatic
> bids. The math is not in anybody's favor. We have the opportunity to
> create more automatics in a very, very easy way.
>
> Do you know what they are? Forget if we don't expand the bracket. There
> are two more automatics right under our nose and no one is talking
> about it. The Ivy League and Big Ten. Whether we're 12 or 16, those
> automatics are there and we're wasting them. The NCAA recommends that
> half of the field be automatic bids. Right now, we're at 12, we'll have
> six automatics, when we go to 16, we'll have six, we could have eight.
>
> My point is that by having more automatics, we allow everybody, we
> could now have 8 automatics for 60 schools, that gives every school a
> better shot."
>
> Are we looking at something like this driving an Ivy / ECAC split or
> a Big 10 split?
>
> Has this been thought through with regard to the effect of a Big 10
> on the CCHA and WCHA, which are not necessarily viable entities
> without the Big 10 schools?
>
> And then there's the fact that the main reason fans are enthusiastic
> about tournament expansion is the gain in at-large bids, given the
> logjam in the 11-16 area of the Pairwise.
|
|
|