Union sucks

[MNetravali]

After truly taking the time to sort through the comments of Union President Hull, I must admit that I am insulted that we have to play them.  By not fielding the best possible team, they hurt our conference and our RPI rating.  I really feel that Union should be removed from the ECAC.  Our conference would then have an even number of teams (with Dartmouth becoming RIP's travel partner).  We would also then have room to schedule 2 more non-conference games against stronger opponents (i.e. BC, Maine, UNH, Michigan, UND).  Does anyone disagree?

[ugh]

You'd also have only five sets of travel partners. Do the math on that one.

[Al DeFlorio]

Union chooses to play by the same set of rules as Ivy League teams.  Why should that be viewed as a problem?  I respect them for it.

[MNetravali]

You make a strong point.   Good thing this is not my problem to solve.  But I still think that Union should go.

[MNetravali]

But the other Ivy schools are not satisfied with a .500 record, which President Hull clearly stated is satisfactory at Union.  I have no problem with not having athletic scholarships, but if you are fileding a team you should at least have a desire to do better than .500.

[Will]

It's not the rules that Union chooses to play by that bothers me.  What bothers me is that it now becomes apparent that Union's administration (or at the very least, President Hull) isn't totally behind their hockey team, and don't try to do their best to make Union a great team; instead, they'll merely settle for a .500 team.  Within the ECAC, that's all fine and good, but outside of the ECAC, we need all of our teams doing the best they can.  It seems like Union could care less if they win those games or not, which harms the rest of the ECAC.

[ugarte]

ugh wrote:

You'd also have only five sets of travel partners. Do the math on that one.

That doesn't strike me as a very big deal.  Each week could have one home-and-home with travel partners and bye weeks (or added opportunities for the additional OOC games).

[Ben Doyle 03]

I think this might just be what the ECAC needed to cut a team instead of adding one. The current WCHA and future HE will both field leagues of ten teams, there absolutely no reason the ECAC cannot do the same.

I hope the league sees this as an opportunity and gets rid of the Dutchmen helping rid the "Z" from the EZAC.

just my $.02:-)



Post Edited (01-16-04 12:47)

[A-19]

it is time for the ivies to leave the ecac and form our own hockey conference.
with 5 other teams, each school could play 4 games against one another, eliminating the need for travel partners. (you could also do 3 games and rotate the extra game per year, adding an ooc opponent on the odd day). this also leaves 10 or so games for out of conference games. the upside is that the ivies have much better records, rpis etc, and this also frees up our schedule for more difficult out of conference opponents. the negative is that we wouldn't receive an autobid i don't think. but someone could claw their way to the top, i think.
harvard, cornell and brown and dartmouth are consistently strong teams in the past few years, and yale fields a good squad some years. princeton would be the worst team, but they might come around.

[rhovorka]

I had pondered this after reading President Hull's comments.  Really, there is nothing that says they have to keep playing up to D-1 in hockey.  If Hull is concerned about the purity of Union athletics in the terms of D-3 reform , then maybe D-3 is a better place for them.  They were there before, there are plenty of regional schools nearby.  Skidmore, Hamilton, the SUNYs...

Should this happen, coupled with UVM leaving , you actually have a couple of options for the ECAC to maintain the current travel-partner system.  Bring in 2 schools from the ones already being discussed by fans.  For example, Holy Cross and a Buffalo area school (Niagara/Canisius) would allow Dart. and HC to pair up, Cornell would go with the Buffalo school, and RPI to pair with Colgate.  Quinnipiac could also fit in there with one of the above teams.  Several options.



Post Edited (01-16-04 12:53)

[Greg Berge]

Those comments in the wake of the announcement suggested the league was considering expanding *beyond* 12.  If they wanted to keep the balanced scheduled, the next stop is 16.  Shiver.

[cquinn]

I can't see the Ivy schools supporting a larger league as long as the 29 game limit is in place.  Also, even with the recent success of the Ivies in hockey, I would hate to see us break into a 6-team league that might eventually get as much respect from the other conferences as I-AA football.

[Ben Doyle 03]

Okay, so we drop Union and pick up Quinnipiac and Holy Cross. pair HC with Dartmouth and QU with RPI. Saves the travel partner system and solves the logistics of travel (kinda). looking like this:

Cornell - Colgate
Princeton - Yale
Sucks - Sh*t
Dartmouth - HC
RIP - QU
SLU(t) - Clarkson

just an idea ... :-D



Post Edited (01-16-04 14:30)

[RedAR]

The sad thing is that Union was traditionally a team that, despite their losing seasons, would beat Cornell.

In anycase, how the hell does Hull come off talking about academic purity when they play in a league composed of the Ivies?  Is he delusional?  I don't know about the rest of you, but if it hadn't been for hockey, I doubt I even would have known of an "academic" institution called Union.

That being said, it must be extremely frustrating for Leahman, his staff, and the players to face internal adversity as they try to compete against schools with administrations that actually do care.

[Al DeFlorio]

RedAR wrote:

I don't know about the rest of you, but if it hadn't been for hockey, I doubt I even would have known of an "academic" institution called Union.

Firstly, Union has a very strong academic reputation--certainly far superior to Quinnipiac and nearly all, if not all, of the AH schools people are bandying about as possible ECAC hockey additions.

It's also worth remembering that an earlier, apparently very different-thinking Union president decided to make Union a hockey power and brought in Ned Harkness to do it.  Ned achieved his usual success on the ice, but the faculty revolted, resulting in the departure of both Ned and the president.  That's indicative of the institution's priorities, and, as I said above, I respect them for it.

Perhaps they should be Division III NESCAC.  Maybe the flap over this Division III "play-up" scholarship business will be the catalyst for their moving back.