I feel I deserve an equal opportunity to clear some things up here, thus this goes to the list. Apparently some of the discussion is boring some people, but I try to send things that I believe interest a sufficient number of readers. I will try to make a better effort to take offline topics that reach the point of being beaten into the ground, however. Still, it is not fair for a hockey-l policeman to come on the scene, say his piece and then expect everyone to reply personally, so that the list only gets his point of view. And there were definite opinions expressed throughout the posting that I feel need to rebutted. (And I agree with some of what he said, too.) I am sorry for having to do this and forcing you to delete this now if you don't want to see it. I respectfully request that any replies to me be sent personally, and I will answer offline. But be assured that the following is not meant to be a flame, just an "equal-time" response. Any flames in response can be sent to /dev/merrimack_hockey_east_wins. :-) Derek writes: >Can we stop, or at least slow down, this ludicrous Clarkson/anti-Clarkson >drivel. And maybe some of the my-school-is-more-academic-than-yours/ >no-it-isn't (or ECAC vs. the world) discussions. You are mistaken. I never saw it as anti-Clarkson, and I doubt many others did, at least people not associated with Clarkson. And I have no reason to have anything against Clarkson. What is wrong with being objective? And again, the ECAC/Ivy discussions. I have to wonder just how much you may have read of what I said, along with some people who jumped in and said "stop this anti-Ivy talk". It is not anti-Ivy or anti-ECAC or anti-academic talk. I am talking about hockey. I believe that the policies being pursued by these schools are detrimental to Division I hockey. That's why I brought it up a couple of years ago, and that's why when someone suggested that the Ivies/ECAC were more academic and better, I had to give the opposing point of view. Maybe there would be some new thoughts on the subject, and I'm happy to say there were. I don't expect everyone to agree with me when I express controversial opinions, like breaking away from the NC**. And I do read and think about the things other people say in response. How can you hold an informed opinion if you do not understand both points of view? I realize some people just want to see scores & stories and maybe that's it. That's not all that this list is for. Let me quote from the list charter that I wrote in September, 1989: "...for discussion of ...college hockey." That includes issues pertaining to college hockey. That was part of my intention. >Hey, I'm a Clarkson alumni and I root for them. But I find the drivel >that sometimes escapes from the mouths of the Clarkson students almost >enough to want to disown them and deny any connection with them. I won't comment on this other than to say I think you are going a little bit too far in your criticism. >And as for others, particular Mike Machnik, I used to like your posts. >But they seem to be just a way to make sure that you stay ahead of >Brian Farenell in the battle to be the #1 poster to Hockey-L. That would presume that there was a battle. Sorry if you think that's why I post as much as I do. Someone had to be #1, and it happened to be me; I never gave any thought to who it might be until seeing the listing. Again, I have tried to post information that I believe is useful to people. Perhaps it just happens that I am able to get more of this information than many others. I would certainly be happy to stop if enough people asked me to. >I like Hockey-L. It has a lot of good facts that I can't get elsewhere. >There is a lot of interesting analysis. Even some of the bantering is >interesting. I hesitate to drop to Hockey-D since it sound like I might >loose some of this (and I dislike digests anyway). I hope you and others do not become too turned off by what I believe was a minor problem, caught before it got too big, and which I admit helping to cause. One of the difficulties is that even though the list gets bigger and bigger, I still feel a desire to respond to quite a few things as I did when there were only a dozen people on it. Except that now instead of 3 articles a day, there are dozens. I'll try better to watch what I reply to and perhaps condense my replies on a single subject into one mailing. But the last thing I want is for conversation on controversial subjects to be choked off, which is what I fear may happen now. >Know when to say enough is enough. The beginning argument was interesting, >but its turned into a holy war/cold war. Sigh...believe it or not, that is not the case, at least not on this end. As I have said, I am in agreement that the biggest problem was perhaps posting to the list replies that only one or two people were probably interested in. I am usually not guilty of holding personal conversations on the list. As far as this mail goes, it is again a case of someone expressing an opinion and then trying to prevent opposing opinions from being expressed publicly, which is why I send this to the list. That is something that truly annoys me. Had you sent your mail to the few people you are trying to address, that would have been fine, and my reply would have been private. >As for Clarkson, they have had good teams for a while. They had teams that >were contending for the ECAC crown (before the Great Split with HE) and >were sometimes nationally ranked in the top-5. So being a good team isn't >new. Please, read what I said. I said they have always been good, but that they are now entering a period of serious contention for the national title. There is a difference. > And they played Concordia when I was there (late 70's), so this rivalry >has been going on for a while. In fact, I remember Concordia beating Clarkson. Again, where is the relevance? Try to be objective. Playing Canadian schools will not help you as far as ratings vs other DivI teams goes. Many other schools used to play a number of Canadian teams, but as US college hockey improved, they stopped scheduling those teams. Now most games between Canadian and DivI schools are not close, at least not like a decade ago. If Clarkson continues to play these games, instead of trying to schedule teams that might help their schedule strength, then it is simply hypocritical for them to be upset in March when they don't get seeded as highly as they think they should be. >They had an amazing goal tender, and the Clarkson fans gave him a few >standing ovations for the amazing stops he made. At least back then the >Clarkson students could recognize and appreciate opposing teams talent. Sweeping generalizations are not a good way to get people to agree with you, even though you may have a point. I understand you are trying to ask Clarkson fans to appreciate other teams as well, but not all (or even most, I'd bet) Clarkson fans are guilty. - mike