It's interesting that Army is leaving the ECAC after the 1990-91 season,
because (and you read it here first) they just *might* squeak their way into
the playoffs this year, which would be their first postseason berth since
they came into the league in 1984. (Note that the Cadets were not playing a
full league schedule for their first two seasons in the ECAC)  Anyway, Mike
Machnik writes:
 
>                                             The Cadets have been
>    in the ECAC as a full-time member for five years, but after a
>    study done on athletics at West Point, it was concluded that
>    the hockey team isn't competitive enough to maintain an ECAC
>    Division I schedule.
 
Other reasons given by US Military Academy athletic director Al Vanderbush
for the move were:  the opportunity to play a wider variety of teams (in the
ECAC, Army plays only eight non-league teams), and having a better shot at
making the NCAA tournament as an independent (whoa, I don't know about this
one).  Vanderbush also mentioned the difficulty Army has in recruiting
players, specifically that the academy cannot accept Canadians and that the
requirement to serve at least five years in the US Army would not be
particularly attractive to potential NHL draft picks.
 
By the way, this is the second time that Army has left the ECAC.  The Cadets
were an original member of the ECAC when formalized league play began in
1964 (they were actually the second seed in the ECAC tournament that year),
and they dropped out of the ECAC in 1973.
 
>    The next question has to be: will any of the ECAC East/West teams
>    make the jump to Division I and fill Army's slot in the
>    soon-to-be-11-team ECAC?  Top contenders seem to be RIT and Union.
 
Babson has also been mentioned as a possibility.
 
Jim Teresco writes:
>About the possible move to Div 1 for Union. Some of the concerns that
>have been expressed are that the program may get out of control. They do not
>want to start accepting students only because they play hockey.
 
This is certainly an important point, and one that has occasionally been
raised at schools which already have Division I programs.  Mike has
previously mentioned on the list that there were such concerns about the
hockey program at RPI a few years ago and that they may have been a factor
in the school's decision to dump coach Mike Addesa.
 
>                                                                Many feel that
>the only way to be competeitive at the Division I level would be a letting the
>hockey players slide academically.
 
This is definitely A way, and it's probably the easiest way, but it is not
the ONLY way.  Good coaches who stress hard work on the ice and in the
classroom can put together pretty solid programs.  Simple mathematics will
tell you that not everybody in Division I can have a "competitive" program
every year, but it's a terrible idea to try to gain an edge by making
academic allowances for hockey players, or players in any other sport.
 
I have to laugh a little when I hear people talk about how students who
participate in college sports should be given special consideration because
of the extra time taken up by practices, games, and so forth.  As if sports
were the only extracurricular activity that could put a strain on a full-
time student.  What about those students who have a job or two because they
are working their way through college?  As another example, there are
students who choose to write for or edit the college newspaper (maybe as
part of a journalism class or something), and if the paper is a daily, that
can take a hell of a bite out of your schedule.  Some students are attending
college full-time while raising families, and I'm sure that the demands of a
family would take a lot more out of a student than hockey practice would.
(As an aside, it might be interesting to ask Colgate forward Jamie Cooke
about this, since he is doing both)
 
>            Do you think that the hockey players at your schools keep up
>academically with other students?
 
I would answer that with a qualified yes.  Obviously, if they don't make
passing grades, they become academically ineligible and get kicked off the
team, at least for a while (this has happened at Cornell in the past).
However, most of the Cornell players are making what might be viewed as sort
of a concession to hockey, having chosen "less rigorous" majors like
business management or agricultural economics.  For what it's worth, at
Cornell and other institutions a lot of student non-athletes do the same
thing.  This is not to say that the team is taking the easy way out; there
are some Big Red players who are in the traditionally more difficult majors.
We've got a couple of biology majors, a pre-med, a pre-dental (a HOCKEY
PLAYER in PRE-DENTAL??), and an engineer.  And these guys aren't bench
warmers, either.
 
The point is, it takes dedication to be a full-time student (even in an easy
major), and it takes a lot of dedication to be a student and take on extra-
curricular activities, whether they be sports or some of the others I've
mentioned above.  Anyone who is involved in a college sport and needs
special allowances to remain academically eligible ought to seriously
consider whether they should be involved in the sport -- or whether they
should be at that college at all.
 
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86
LET'S GO RED!!
 
"They came out with that survey in _Newsweek_ last year -- did you see this?
 It said if you are a single woman over 30, there's a less than 20% chance
 you'll ever get married.  They should do another survey.  They should find
 out how many women over 30 ever bought _Newsweek_ again."
-- Rita Rudner