PDA

View Full Version : ECAC Northeast/NE10



Pages : [1] 2 3

hawkhockey
10-21-2009, 10:04 AM
any idea what is going on with the NE10 teams in the ECACNE
Looked at the the Stonehill and SNHU schedules and they play each other 3/4 times.A number of the ECAC teams are not even on the schedule.
seems odd

CROSBYNU63
10-21-2009, 04:31 PM
With the new Mass State league there are only about 7 or eight teams left in the ECACNE

joecct
10-21-2009, 06:53 PM
With the new Mass State league there are only about 7 or eight teams left in the ECACNE8, but 12 counting the 4 NE 10 teams. Interesting that College Hockey Stats has the NE10 in one league, and the NE in another. So, are they split or not?

Guess Josh has a story to write about the off season shakeups in the D3 ECAC.

NUProf
10-21-2009, 07:04 PM
8, but 12 counting the 4 NE 10 teams. Interesting that College Hockey Stats has the NE10 in one league, and the NE in another. So, are they split or not?

Guess Josh has a story to write about the off season shakeups in the D3 ECAC.

College hockey stats has had the DII teams in the NE listed in both the NE10 and the ECAC NE (or the NE10 and the ECAC E) , and this year they have St. A's and St. M's listed in two leagues but not the other four. Perhaps the NE has finally kicked them out to enable teams to increase the number of games that count for NCAA purposes.

joecct
10-21-2009, 07:34 PM
College hockey stats has had the DII teams in the NE listed in both the NE10 and the ECAC NE (or the NE10 and the ECAC E) , and this year they have St. A's and St. M's listed in two leagues but not the other four. Perhaps the NE has finally kicked them out to enable teams to increase the number of games that count for NCAA purposes.I think the East need St A and St M to balance out the NESCAC for Interlock purposes. When the Interlock ends, to the Saints get the boot, too?

Rayolite
10-21-2009, 08:38 PM
With the new Mass State league there are only about 7 or eight teams left in the ECACNE

Checking the schedules of the NE and MASCAC, it would appear that all of the teams in both leagues are playing a number of NE10 teams. Most are playing 2, with some playing 3 or 4. It doesn't appear that the DII group had a problem scheduling enough games. And I guess that's the proof of the pudding. :D

St A's and St. Mikes are the ones missing mostly from the NE and MASCAC skeds. The interlock would pose a problem probably.

WIT SID
10-21-2009, 09:31 PM
The ECAC NE schools have a scheduling agreement with the Northeast-10 schools who were in the NE. Each NE school will play two NE-10 schools (one home, one away). The NE-10 Schools are now separate from the NE schools.

Div. II Games:
Suffolk: SNHU (H), Assumption (A)
Nichols: Assumption (H), Franklin Pierce (A)
Salve: Stonehill (H), Assumption (A)
Curry: Stonehill (H), SNHU (A)
Becker: Assumption (H), Franklin Pierce (A)
Wentworth: Franklin Pierce (H), Stonehill (A)
WNEC : Franklin Pierce (H), SNHU (A)
J&W: SNHU (H), Stonehill (A)

It is my understanding that this agreement will be in place for the 2010-11 season, with the schools remaining the same but the sites switching.

NUProf
10-22-2009, 06:56 AM
It is shameful the way that the DII schools that don't play up to DI are treated by the NCAA. Just make an exception for them and count them among the DIII hockey programs as long as they abide by DIII rules. Everybody would be happier, and we'd have a nice, balanced 12 team tournament to boot.

joecct
10-22-2009, 08:06 AM
The ECAC NE schools have a scheduling agreement with the Northeast-10 schools who were in the NE. Each NE school will play two NE-10 schools (one home, one away). The NE-10 Schools are now separate from the NE schools.

Div. II Games:
Suffolk: SNHU (H), Assumption (A)
Nichols: Assumption (H), Franklin Pierce (A)
Salve: Stonehill (H), Assumption (A)
Curry: Stonehill (H), SNHU (A)
Becker: Assumption (H), Franklin Pierce (A)
Wentworth: Franklin Pierce (H), Stonehill (A)
WNEC : Franklin Pierce (H), SNHU (A)
J&W: SNHU (H), Stonehill (A)

It is my understanding that this agreement will be in place for the 2010-11 season, with the schools remaining the same but the sits switching.Bill

Thank you.

And folks, once again breaking D-III news first delivered in the Fan Forum!!! (No slight against you Josh, you just got here. Your previous occupant missed this one big time.)

joecct
10-22-2009, 08:15 AM
It is shameful the way that the DII schools that don't play up to DI are treated by the NCAA. Just make an exception for them and count them among the DIII hockey programs as long as they abide by DIII rules. Everybody would be happier, and we'd have a nice, balanced 12 team tournament to boot.Not going to happen. Legislation has been introduced over in D-1 land to prohibit any more play-ups with the current crop being grandfathered in.

This strikes me as putting the screws to the Canadian schools that thought of coming into the NCAA as D-II in all sports but ice hockey and then playing up. I wonder if, in a backhanded sort of way, the NCAA is trying to resurrect D-II hockey??

There are a lot of D-II schools playing D-1 hockey and the NE10 schools that are not. Something, someday, will have to give. Which way the snow blows is beyond me.

cooperalls
10-22-2009, 08:22 AM
It would be an easy solution if they did things the old way and moved teams from the Strong Leagues like back in the late 80's early 90's where leagues like the ECAC East (which were one giant league of NESCAC and East combined) then you had the ECAC West (Which was the SUNYAC and ECAC West teams combined) Then you had the NCHA/MIAC leagues and it was considered Div. II back then. Why they couldn't due the same kind of thing has to do with how absolutely dumb in thinking the NCAA is as they will allow NCAA Div. III schools to move to Division 1 in one sport but will not allow the move to Div. II in one sport which again is hurting college hockey.

I mean what teams would you want to move up to Div. II besides the NE 10 teams because obviously they had to. Take at least the teams that have finished in the top 5 most or have won their conference Championships within the last 10 years and elevate those teams to DII so that you could possibly now have half the teams in D3 move up to D2 so we could truly have three seperate leagues then maybe some of these ACHA programs at schools that are well funded could move to the NCAA.





It is shameful the way that the DII schools that don't play up to DI are treated by the NCAA. Just make an exception for them and count them among the DIII hockey programs as long as they abide by DIII rules. Everybody would be happier, and we'd have a nice, balanced 12 team tournament to boot.

joecct
10-22-2009, 11:22 AM
It would be an easy solution if they did things the old way and moved teams from the Strong Leagues like back in the late 80's early 90's where leagues like the ECAC East (which were one giant league of NESCAC and East combined) then you had the ECAC West (Which was the SUNYAC and ECAC West teams combined) Then you had the NCHA/MIAC leagues and it was considered Div. II back then. Why they couldn't due the same kind of thing has to do with how absolutely dumb in thinking the NCAA is as they will allow NCAA Div. III schools to move to Division 1 in one sport but will not allow the move to Div. II in one sport which again is hurting college hockey.

I mean what teams would you want to move up to Div. II besides the NE 10 teams because obviously they had to. Take at least the teams that have finished in the top 5 most or have won their conference Championships within the last 10 years and elevate those teams to DII so that you could possibly now have half the teams in D3 move up to D2 so we could truly have three seperate leagues then maybe some of these ACHA programs at schools that are well funded could move to the NCAA.Wonderful idea, but that is not what the Presidents want. They, not the Athletic Department, control where their school plays. Also, what may be good for hockey may not be good for the other sports.

Somebody with a long memory of D-II can tell you why everyone punted D-II for D-III. Offhand I think it was money (what else?), but I don't know who was the first to jump ship or the real reason(s) why.

NUProf
10-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Wonderful idea, but that is not what the Presidents want. They, not the Athletic Department, control where their school plays. Also, what may be good for hockey may not be good for the other sports.

Somebody with a long memory of D-II can tell you why everyone punted D-II for D-III. Offhand I think it was money (what else?), but I don't know who was the first to jump ship or the real reason(s) why.

The NCAA philosophy seems to be that it is better to keep the rules the same for all team sports. One size fits all - if special rules are made to accommodate one sport, chaos would result. I think the rules could be written in such a way so as to allow a merging of divisions in a situation in which there aren't enough teams for a national championship in one division. It could apply to any sport, but DII hockey is the obvious example.

hawkhockey
10-27-2009, 04:06 PM
Just heard that the NCAA DII committee is recommending that all DII athletes have only one year beyond High School to play a sport to be able to have 4 years of eligibility in college.
what this means for hockey in DII is that if someone were to play one year of prep school and one year of junior hockey or two years of junior hockey then the player would only have 3 years of college eligibility.
If the player were to go to DIII the one year after high school rule would not be in effect.
Why doesn't the NCAA basically say and be upfront that they don't want DII schools playing ice hockey.

NUProf
10-27-2009, 04:49 PM
Just heard that the NCAA DII committee is recommending that all DII athletes have only one year beyond High School to play a sport to be able to have 4 years of eligibility in college.
what this means for hockey in DII is that if someone were to play one year of prep school and one year of junior hockey or two years of junior hockey then the player would only have 3 years of college eligibility.
If the player were to go to DIII the one year after high school rule would not be in effect.
Why doesn't the NCAA basically say and be upfront that they don't want DII schools playing ice hockey.

See my response above about the one size fits all philosophy - its easier to administrate if nobody has any exceptions. Not saying that's reasonable, but that's the way it is.

hawkhockey
10-27-2009, 05:47 PM
See my response above about the one size fits all philosophy - its easier to administrate if nobody has any exceptions. Not saying that's reasonable, but that's the way it is.
I totally agree with your comment/post. However,it would be a shame to see the DII teams drop the sport.
I suppose a club team is better than to try to overcome NCAA obstacles and one size fits all rules.

icefan27
02-15-2010, 04:05 PM
Does anyone know why the non ECAC East teams (Assumption, Franklin Pierce, SNHU & Stonehill) do not increase their schedule to the 32 games allowed by the NCAA for D-II hockey teams. It was my understanding that as members of the ECAC Northeast conference, the schools agreed to the D-III 25 game limit. But now, since they are no longer part of the ECAC NE Conference, why not increase the schedule to 32 games and take advantage of one of the only "perks" of a being a D-II team?

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
02-15-2010, 11:42 PM
Does anyone know why the non ECAC East teams (Assumption, Franklin Pierce, SNHU & Stonehill) do not increase their schedule to the 32 games allowed by the NCAA for D-II hockey teams. It was my understanding that as members of the ECAC Northeast conference, the schools agreed to the D-III 25 game limit. But now, since they are no longer part of the ECAC NE Conference, why not increase the schedule to 32 games and take advantage of one of the only "perks" of a being a D-II team?

I could see them all getting one or two other teams to play them, but with a lack of significant extra OOC games available, and games against DII teams not counting, if they were to play a full 32-game schedule, the only way would be playing each other more times.

Right now, their conference schedule sits at 15 games, with 3 games against each of the other NE-10 teams, and one game against each of the D-II ECAC-E teams. Then, as part of the "cordial divorce", they play 4 games against ECAC-NE teams. We're up to 19. As of right now, they fill in 6 OOC games with MASCAC and some lower-tier SUNYACs. That is the summary of their current 25-game schedule. St. A and St. M already only play 3 games outside of their 2 conferences (19 East + 2 NE10 = 22 conference games), to add another game against each of the 3 would be to ask them to play NOTHING but conference play, so that will never happen. To expand to 32, they can either:

a) Play play 5 against each other (15), 1 each against the ECAC-E DII Schools (2), the ECAC-NE scheduling arrangement (4), and add 3 more other OOC games (9), totalling 32. But I'm not even sure there are enough spare OOC games out there to accommodate this.

b) Play each other 6 times (18), the each against the ECAC-E DII Schools (2), the ECAC-NE scheduling arrangement (4), and play their current 6 other OOC games, totaling 32.

Of course this all means that the NE-10-only schools will play 17 or 20 NE-10 conference games, to St. A's and St. M's 4 NE-10 conference games (one of which is also an ECAC-E game). If the current arrangement was unfair to the the 2 schools, either of these arrangements will be ridiculously unfair.

Now, if the ECAC-East kicked the 2 schools out, they could play 5 games against each opponent (25), the ECAC-NE scheduling arrangement (4)*, and only have to worry about 3 other OOC games!

*Note that the scheduling arrangement does not include St. A or St. M, and so they would have to find a total of 7 OOC games, compared to the 3 they currently have to worry about, but they could get them from the 9 OOC games the others free up in this arrangement.



Bottom line: as things stand, in terms of conference alignment, there are simply not enough OOC games available.

NUProf
02-16-2010, 03:52 AM
Good analysis. It's the same issue that come up when people say why don't the MCHA teams get rid of their 20 game league schedule so they can play more NC games. There's a limited number of NC games available, and unless something happens to free up slots, teams don't want to burn their NC games against random opponents, especially ones that don't help them in the race for Pool C/Seeding

joecct
02-16-2010, 09:28 AM
But, if the interlock ends, then the NE-10 will have 6 teams and a 20 game (4x) conference schedule. If every CCCP D-III school agrees to lay at least one NE-10 school, that would help them out. They could also serve as cannon fodder mid season exhibition opponent to a D-I school in lieu of the D-1's playing Canadian schools.

edit: how in the heck do you do the strikeout??