Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 10 Jan 91 14:14:03 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Granted some key individuals left after the '85 Championship. That "could"
explain a downturn in the '86 season. But your point was that the academic
standards have hurt RPI in the long run. I agree. I don't think that with
the new admissions requirements that you are going to see RPI assemble an
entire TEAM with as much talent as the '85 team. They may still be able
to recruit 1 or 2 very talented players per year, but that's it.
I also agree that the Harvards and Cornells were not hurt very much by the
new requirements. These schools can stand on their reputations as good
"academic"
schools as well as good "hockey" schools. Recruiting for them has never been
that much of a problem. However, the bottom half of the ECAC does have a
problem.
They aren't considered very good "hockey" schools. They are at the bottom of
the
worst overall league in Div I. Any of the talented would-be freshman hockey
players
with the intelligence to meet the admissions requirement are going to attend
the
"good" hockey schools. That leaves the other ECAC schools with the task of
finding
academically eligible hockey players to recruit. These schools wouldn't have
the
reputation as excellent academic colleges if everyone could get in. Only
about 5%
of all high school seniors meet their admissions requirements. Now out of
this 5% I
wonder how many are hockey players. Let's assume that 1/2 the students are
female.
Now we're down to 2.5%. If the Harvards and Cornells snatch up the good ones,
it
doesn't leave much overall talent for the rest of the league.
-kap
-------
|
|
|