This was sent to me, I guess by mistake.  To be honest, I have no idea what
Arthur is trying to say.
 
 
--[ FORWARDED PRIVATE MESSAGE ]--------
 
     To: VXXB97A
   From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: ECAC STRENGTH, PA PLAYERS
   Date: 02/11/95 09:33 AM
 
I seem to have a desire to make structural comments today.  Adam's post
on the need to stick together, thus supporting the ECAC, makes me recall
the reason (at least the stated reason) for the formation of hockey
east.  The ECAC limits the number of games played, and the teams not
joining hockey east made their choice, in effect self handicapping.
 
Under the rules at the time any game played in the ECAC counted in the
standings which in my opinion gave an unfair advantage to the Ivy schools
(in general the weaker teams with the notable exceptions of Cornell and
Harvard.)  The interlocking schedule with the WCHA was a direct result of
how few teams were in each of those conferences during that period and
the need for some variety in scheduling.  I know even all these years
later that I miss the rivalries which have gone to seed, even BU-Harvard
is not an annual game.
 
In effect, the ECAC made a decision to be the hockey equivalent of I-AA,
but they rarely own up to it.  Despite all of the games counting for NC$$
seeding, I think teams have a tendency to let down a bit in nonconference
games.  This may be the reason for the ECAC record against HE this year.
 
Arthur Berman  [log in to unmask]
 
 
 -------- Original message header follows --------
From [log in to unmask]  Sat Feb 11 09:33:41 1995  [PIM
3.2-342.56]
 
 
I don't beleive teams let up, necessarily, in non-conference games.  First off,
non-conference games is what determines seeding in the NCAA's.  Second, the
tournament are big deals to schools, and I know Maine wasn't letting up when
Princeton beat them.
   Again, the ECAC may not be the strongest, but it is FAR from I-AA.