> Greg's entitled to his opinion, but I do believe it is being shortsighted
not
> to give the new conference an automatic bid (and that's my opinion).
 
My point was that there are excellent arguments on both sides.  Your
opinion vs. my opinion?  Yadda yadda, why subject the list to it..?  (He
says, subjecting the list to it... :-)
 
 
> Perhaps an auto bid should not be given right away.  Let the conference
> establish itself for a couple years as a viable entity.  But after that,
let
> 'er rip.
 
Is anyone arguing against this?  I'm not.
 
 
> It absolutely does.  Seeing Murray State play basketball on TV helps that
> school to recruit.
 
It is not the same thing, because hockey players do not go to school
primarily to play in the tourny, get exposed, and get drafted.  They go for
an education and hockey is their meal ticket.  I am one of those people who
only watches the first coupla rounds of the squeak tourny because the
underdogs with the auto bids are the only thing that could ever make
basketball more interesting than watching paint dry.  So I know what you
mean, but your analogy fails.
 
This brings up a point though that I think is worth considering.
Basketball is run in the interests of the top 1% of schools and the top 1%
of players.  Everything is structured around the pro connection and t.v.
Do you really want to see this happen to hockey?  It is clearly in the
interests of some media and some people to push hockey into the big time.
I do not think it is in the interests of the hockey fan, or of the average
student-athlete, At All.
 
 
> I disagree with your premise, though I know the premise is the
conventional
> thinking.  But that's way off topic.
 
Arrogant dismissal of an argument by calling it conventional wisdom is
something you're supposed to leave back in sophomore year.  Any time you
add players you dilute talent -- that is simple logic.  If you want to
argue about whether the number of slots now available has outstripped the
talent base (which is a complex argument and is not "conventional"), I'd be
willing off line -- as you say, off topic.
 
Though I might add Salvor Hardin's words: just because everybody believes
something doesn't mean it's wrong.  :-)
 
 
> I can't disagree there  :)
 
And you haven't even met the little bugger... :-)
 
> Who?  Just about only the Ivy League schools, Union and Colgate.  And
those two
> schools will come around soon enough, or drop out of Division I.  Colgate
is
> already making advances in that direction.  St. Lawrence is coming on
board
> this year because they see themselves slipping, especially in comparison
to its
> neighbor Clarkson. The Ivies will never give them in any sport.
 
I was referring to the Ivies.  And you clearly don't know much about
Colgate to suggest they either have to tow the pay-for-play line or drop
out.  Their academic rep is strong enough to carry them through.  (The case
is likely the same for Union -- please don't flame me proud Dutchmen, I
just don't know the school).  "On board" is an interesting choice of words.
 "Has abandoned a principle" is another, equally interesting choice of
words.
 
My point was that assuming that the adminstration of any new member will
eventually knuckle under to the scholarship system does not give them
enough credit for independence.  It is possible that they have a different
priority system.  Not "better", "different".
 
 
- Greg
 
Oh the hell with it.  "Better".  :-)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.