Steve Rockey writes: >I believe some of the correspondence on this list is mistaken. There has been >no substantive change in admission standards for hockey players in any of the >ECAC schools for a decade. When the ECAC and Hockey East parted company the >ECAC's aim was to not change the way they were doing things. The procedures >and guidelines were merely to provide the league with some method of >verification if a member were to stray. !!! I believe this is untrue. I have it on the authority of several people who are or were administrators at Hockey East schools that the split occurred because of the institution of the index, which occurred in the mid-80s and NOT more than a decade ago, and specifically because the Ivies spearheaded a movement to force all ECAC teams to conform to these standards. Officially, Hockey East claims that the formation of HE came about because the Ivies were considering "forming their own league" and that the five charter members of HE decided to form their own league rather than wait to see what happened. But what I have been told is that the Ivies threatened to leave if the rest of the ECAC did not conform, and a number of ECAC non-Ivies were frightened of being left alone, so they agreed. The HE schools opted not to go along with this and left. If anyone has other information, I'd love to hear it. >The allegation that the ECAC is in decline is incorrect. In the decade since the > schism of the ECAC and >the schism of the ECAC and HE the ECAC had done very well in terms of >National Champions, runner ups and making the final 2 + 2. There are many ways > to >to cross compare the leagues but in the final analysis the best rating is how >the best from each league plays against each other--the NC** tournament >especially the final 2 + 2 where your presence is determined by play not by >seeding. You miss the point. I have never claimed that the best ECAC teams cannot play with the best in other leagues, in fact, I have specifically said that they can. What I say is that the current policies have developed a rift between about half of the ECAC and the other half, with the bottom teams being annually among the very poorest teams in DivI. So even though the ECAC has sent six different teams to the Final Four (sue me) since 1984-85, with two champions and three runners-up, where are the rest of the ECAC teams? No need to argue something we agree on. How about this? The ECAC has sent 7 of its 12 teams to the NC** tourney since 1984-85. That's not bad. Hockey East has sent 7 of its 8 teams, including Merrimack as an Independent in 1988, but it's still 6 of 8 if you don't include MC. BTW, in much of the discussing I've done on this subject in the past, I don't include RPI because all of the 1985 team was recruited prior to the index taking effect. The 1985-86 freshman class at RPI was the first one recruited with the index. That would make 5 teams in the final four, 1 champion and 6 of 12 in the tourney. "The final analysis" is not how the best from each league play against each other, it is how the ENTIRE league plays against other leagues. And the ECAC has consistently had the worst nonleague record of all DivI leagues. I have posted the exact numbers before, but let me assure you this is true.