>                                                                   He
>emphasized that if the invitation was from any other league than the ECAC or in
>any other sport, his decision would have been a definite no. But the ECAC is a
>very academically oriented league.
 
    It's unfortunate, though, that they hold this opinion about the ECAC being
    "academically oriented" and, apparently, that the other three conferences
    are not.  I have no problem with Union desiring to join only the ECAC, but
    using this situation to take implied shots at the other 32 Division I
    schools is lame.
 
Hmmm.  I didn't see it that way at all.  Just because the man chose to
illuminate the ECAC doesn't mean he 'took a shot' at the others, even implied.
Could this be masking a Freudian inadequacy ? :^)
 
 
>                                   He also mentioned that he originally said he
>would agree to it only if a women's sport would also be elevated to Division I.
 
    Am I the only one who thinks this is starting to sound political?  Why
    should a women's sport also be moved up just because Union was extended
    an invitation to join the ECAC in hockey?  Before I get attacked, my view
    is that if a men's sport should be moved up, move it up.   If a women's
    sport should be moved up, move it up.  Neither should be dependent on the
    other.  At least he (Pres. Hull) says that after talking to the women's
    teams' coaches, none were interested so the idea was dropped.  Maybe he
    realized that they have been unfair to women in the past, but I don't
    see what that has to do with the men's hockey team joining the ECAC.
    Anyway, onward.
 
     Well, the jist of the situation is the NC2A is trying to maintain a
     parity in the gender of Div I (and II and III...) programs at schools;
     It was political in the sense that he ASKED the women's teams about it.
     It would have appeared (and would in fact have been) insensitive if
     they hadn't been included.
 
     Of course I am neither involved directly with the Union situation,
     nor am I completely familiar with it and the ECAC/HE, etc.
     It does seem to me to be a very good thing for Union to make the
     jump.
 
     BTW, what is the deal with the new NCAA ruling?  Will schools like
     Union have to drop out of Div I anyway (in 1994)?  I am under the
     impression that one Div I program out of all sports at a school
     won't be allowed...   Am I wrong, or what (please tell me that I
     am!!).