Thanks to a glitch in the gateway, I just received, in a clump, a bundle of correspondence about whether the ECAC schools are academically "better" than those in other conferences. Thanks to Luiz Valente, who (as usual) chose to shed some light rather than heat on the subject with data. I went to BU. I am not in the least bit shy about admitting that, in a general sense, Harvard is a "better" or "tougher" academic institution, as are some of the other schools who stayed in the ECAC after BU and others left to start Hockey East. Indeed, there are probably a few in the other conferences to which I would grant that honor as well. Anyone who knows anything about academic institutions also knows that they vary greatly internally, so their general "reputation" is less relevant than the strength of the faculty, facilities and students in particular programs. This group, by definition, is concerned primarily with the strength of the hockey programs and the balance the schools require of players with respect to their athletic and academic commitments. If anyone really cares, he or she can collect statistics regarding (i) players high school grades and SAT scores (unless, like me, you believe that the SAT is a virtually worthless predictor of success); (ii) the courses players take at college and the grades they earn (including the credit load carried); (iii) players' graduation rates (including the time taken to complete graduation requirements); (iv) what players who do not turn pro after leaving college are doing five or ten years after graduation. Once such data are available, an intelligent conversation about the various schools' attitudes toward the balance between academic needs and assembling winning hockey teams would be possible. Until then, we're all just exercising our overdeveloped school spirit. :-) Have fun gang.