Over the past few weeks, we've been discussing the Hockey East 50-minute
game, and one of the things that I've been wondering about is how the NCAA
fits into this whole situation.  Once they approved the two 25-minute
periods, I was curious as to what the NCAA's plans were in regards to
evaluating the shorter game and continuing it in Hockey East and in other
leagues.  As has been mentioned many times, the new format is a major
change, and there's some question (at least on this mailing list) as to
whether it's a desirable one.
 
With all that in mind, I wrote to Laing Kennedy, Cornell's Director of
Athletics and a member of the NCAA's hockey playoff selection committee, and
asked him if he could shed some light on a few of these concerns.
Specifically, I asked:
 
   1.    What factors did the NCAA consider in allowing Hockey East to
         switch to the 50-minute game?
 
   2.    I understand that the new format will be "evaluated" after next
         season and a decision will be made on whether to continue it or
         not.  What criteria will be used by the NCAA/Hockey East in this
         evaluation?
 
   3.    Is the NCAA considering the 50-minute game for all of college
         hockey (including Division I, II, III, the independents, etc.)?
 
Laing wrote back to me, and I've quoted some portions of his letter below.
He gave me some interesting information and a few twists on this whole
situation, which I've also commented on.
 
(from Laing Kennedy's letter)
   "The Division I NCAA Hockey Committee has no jurisdiction over league
    play, only as it applies to the eligibility of the participants.
    Therefore, each league can establish their own format."
 
Aha -- I didn't realize that.  Apparently, the NCAA feels that the 50-minute
game should not affect Division I eligibility in the way that, say,
scheduling too many games or playing against a lot of non-Division I
competition does.  Since Hockey East is not forcing non-league opponents to
play the new format, I guess this idea is justified.  It does give the
individual leagues a fair amount of leeway, however, and may make
standardization of college hockey (an NCAA goal; see below) a little more
difficult.
 
   "It is my understanding that Hockey East will only be using the 25 minute
    period games in the first half of the season, and at that time will
    evaluate the situation as it applies to their league."
 
I don't know whether this means that Hockey East is going to switch back to
the standard format in the middle of the season or not.  It sounds like they
are, but Laing is away on vacation, so I was not able to confirm this with
him.  If that is the case, then Hockey East is making the situation even
more ridiculous.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to play league games in a
different format than non-league games anyway, and it makes even less sense
to play only HALF the league games in the new format and then switch.  On
the other hand, if Hockey East has committed to playing ALL league games
next season in the 50-minute format, they should do their "evaluation" after
the season is over, not halfway through it.
 
   "It is also my understanding that the 25 minute period games will only
    continue in Hockey East if other Division I leagues also move to the 25
    minute games.  In other words, we will be looking at a standardized
    national format of either three 20 minute periods or two 25 minute
    period games for all Division I hockey."
 
This is kind of an interesting agreement.  I tend to doubt that the other
three leagues would move to the shorter game even if Hockey East found it to
be a rousing success (and how are they going to determine that, anyway?).
Here's a case where the well-known Western snobbery toward Eastern teams may
be sort of beneficial to college hockey.  My guess is that the Western
leagues will dismiss this whole 50-minute game as a foolish Eastern idea
(which, to a point, it is) and that they won't even bother looking at how
the games go -- unless, of course, the Western leagues are having cable TV
contract troubles.  I haven't heard that they are.
 
As for the ECAC, well, this league has been known to try things that
probably are viewed as strange, like the academic and recruiting
restrictions, best-of-two rather than best-of-three quarterfinal series, and
the qualifying round game introduced last season.  However, the ECAC is
going into its 30th season next year, and I think they've been around long
enough and built up enough tradition that they wouldn't be monkeying around
with the structure of the game.  At least, I hope so.
 
I've heard this "standardized national format" talk before, although it was
in reference to the league and NCAA playoffs.  However, if the NCAA has no
jurisdiction in what game format a particular league uses (from above), I
don't see how they're going to be able to enforce any standardizing.  I'm
not sure what will happen if Hockey East wants to continue the 50-minute
format in future seasons and no other league does.
 
   "The experiment by Hockey East is just that--an experiment, with no
    binding intention to continue the 25 minute periods either in Hockey
    East or in other leagues.
 
   "At the present time the NCAA is not considering a change to a 50 minute
    game for all of college hockey.  However, we will be looking at the
    Hockey East experiment."
 
Well, it's good to hear that Hockey East's 50-minute format is apparently
not part of an NCAA move toward the shorter game -- I had my suspicions.
Again, I'll express my sincere hope that HE's experiment is as big a flop as
_Ishtar_ (as what?) was.
 
Aside to Mike Zak:  You're right, I should have mentioned Clarkson as a
prominent team in the ECAC (but ya didn't have to tell me six times! :-)
:-).  Although they've only won one championship (in 1966), the Golden
Knights always seem to make a lot of noise in the ECAC playoffs, and during
the 1970-1984 period that I was referring to, they won the regular season
title three times (1977, 1981, 1982).  Last year's recognition of Clarkson
by the NCAA with a berth in the postseason playoffs was long overdue.
 
Also, thanks to Neil Shapiro for posting the list of college players drafted
by the NHL.  Has anyone seen a list of players taken in the supplemental
draft?  All I know is that three Cornell players were drafted; junior (next
year) defenseman Paul Dukovac was taken with the second pick, junior center
Joe Dragon was taken fifth, and senior goaltender Jim Crozier was taken with
the 20th pick.  I can't even find out which teams took these players!
 
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86
LET'S GO RED!!
 
"I wasn't KISSING her.  I was whispering in her mouth."
-- Chico Marx, to his wife when she caught him with a chorus-girl