(04-04-2016 08:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:09 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Almost all conferences would be better off as single-sport conferences. College hockey, in which almost all conferences are hockey-only and Division II universities can easily compete with Big Ten programs if they feel like making hockey a priority, makes this abundantly clear.

Instead, everyone keeps trying to emulate the Big Ten/Pac-10 model, in which every member tries to support a comprehensive athletic program across all sports. Plus in the '90s, NCAA rules were changed to make single sport conferences extremely disadvantageous to run, particularly in the revenue sports. By making all-sports conferences almost mandatory, costs are artificially inflated and universities are forced into bizarre alliances which see them traveling halfway across the nation in order to play a volleyball game, just to maintain membership in a conference with peer institutions in a completely different sport (e.g. football). This all serves to keep the Big Tens/P5s permanently ahead and mid-majors permanently behind.

I do not believe this would be the case if all the rest formed single-sport conferences instead of all-sport conferences. I'd argue that the Atlantic-10 is the closest approximation we have of a basketball-only conference, and that's why they're the only non-P5/former Big East conference to consistently get at-large bids to the tournament. You can justify almost any geographic configuration in a revenue sport. Gonzaga and VCU in the same conference? Sure, it's only 1 flight every 2 years for each of them if it's basketball-only. Unfortunately the rules were changed to require them to fly every other sport out there too, in order to keep the Big Ten model on top. Without that advantage, you get college hockey.

If the Big 10 was smarter? They should have invited MIT, Johns Hopkins and other AAU schools to the Big 10 in the early 1900's before rules changes to make divisions of colleges and universities. Imagine where these schools would be today in football and all that? All these rule changes have actually hurt the NCAA and the P5 schools more than they think when you have many P5 schools are in the hole on athletics.

Other than Penn, most of the Ivies and other elites schools made voluntary decisions to de-emphasize athletics around the 1920s - look at their win-loss records. So any additions would have had to be before that.

But at that point, the Big 10 was considered a very geographically spread-out conference. The sprawling SIAA had just split into 3 smaller conferences, and the Big 10 didn't want to repeat that mistake. Michigan actually left from 1907-1917 to play a more local schedule. Adding East Coast schools would have been unthinkable.

Besides, MIT & Hopkins were never serious football programs.

The only AAU football powers that were geographically acceptable were Carnegie Mellon, Case, and Wash U. But Wash U was in the Missouri Valley (along with the forerunners of the Big 8), and their football still became so bad that they were effectively kicked out in 1928. Would Carnegie & Case have become like Northwestern/Notre Dame/BYU/USC? Maybe, but odds are more likely that they still would have ended up like Chicago and Wash U (who they share a conference with today).

(04-05-2016 07:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 08:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:09 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Almost all conferences would be better off as single-sport conferences. College hockey, in which almost all conferences are hockey-only and Division II universities can easily compete with Big Ten programs if they feel like making hockey a priority, makes this abundantly clear.

Instead, everyone keeps trying to emulate the Big Ten/Pac-10 model, in which every member tries to support a comprehensive athletic program across all sports. Plus in the '90s, NCAA rules were changed to make single sport conferences extremely disadvantageous to run, particularly in the revenue sports. By making all-sports conferences almost mandatory, costs are artificially inflated and universities are forced into bizarre alliances which see them traveling halfway across the nation in order to play a volleyball game, just to maintain membership in a conference with peer institutions in a completely different sport (e.g. football). This all serves to keep the Big Tens/P5s permanently ahead and mid-majors permanently behind.

I do not believe this would be the case if all the rest formed single-sport conferences instead of all-sport conferences. I'd argue that the Atlantic-10 is the closest approximation we have of a basketball-only conference, and that's why they're the only non-P5/former Big East conference to consistently get at-large bids to the tournament. You can justify almost any geographic configuration in a revenue sport. Gonzaga and VCU in the same conference? Sure, it's only 1 flight every 2 years for each of them if it's basketball-only. Unfortunately the rules were changed to require them to fly every other sport out there too, in order to keep the Big Ten model on top. Without that advantage, you get college hockey.

If the Big 10 was smarter? They should have invited MIT, Johns Hopkins and other AAU schools to the Big 10 in the early 1900's before rules changes to make divisions of colleges and universities. Imagine where these schools would be today in football and all that? All these rule changes have actually hurt the NCAA and the P5 schools more than they think when you have many P5 schools are in the hole on athletics.

Other than Penn, most of the Ivies and other elites schools made voluntary decisions to de-emphasize athletics around the 1920s - look at their win-loss records. So any additions would have had to be before that.

But at that point, the Big 10 was considered a very geographically spread-out conference. The sprawling SIAA had just split into 3 smaller conferences, and the Big 10 didn't want to repeat that mistake. Michigan actually left from 1907-1917 to play a more local schedule. Adding East Coast schools would have been unthinkable.

Besides, MIT & Hopkins were never serious football programs.

The only AAU football powers that were geographically acceptable were Carnegie Mellon, Case, and Wash U. But Wash U was in the Missouri Valley (along with the forerunners of the Big 8), and their football still became so bad that they were effectively kicked out in 1928. Would Carnegie & Case have become like Northwestern/Notre Dame/BYU/USC? Maybe, but odds are more likely that they still would have ended up like Chicago and Wash U (who they share a conference with today).

What you say about the Ivies isn't true.

Cornell won NC's in the 30's, had #1 rankings in the 40's, and heisman finalists in the 70's.

Princeton won the 1950 NC, won the heisman in '51, and had an undefeated team in the 60's

Dartmouth knocked off a #1 Cornell in the 40's, and (from what I understand - albeit I'm not a Dartmouth fan), had the last hurrah of the Ivies in the 70's.

Yale and Harvard were also very relevant until the 70's.

(04-05-2016 07:17 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 01:22 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You CAN'T be an affiliate member in basketball. If a conference wants to extend membership to Georgetown, that would be as an all sports, full voting member. So no P5 is going to offer a bid to any of them.

Yo can be a non-FB member of an FBS conference (as Arkansas Lafayette is in the SBC) ... but any large number of those introduces the inflexibility in realignment decisions and goal conflicts between football-first and non-FB schools that the C7 were escaping in the first place, so it would be hard to see any of them wanting to go back into that mess.

EXACTLY! It was the amalgamation off the football and basketball schools that was widely credited for dooming the "Old" Big East. Why in God's name would "New" Big East members want to repeat that all over again??

IMO, the answer would be they wouldn't.

(04-06-2016 03:33 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 07:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 08:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:09 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Almost all conferences would be better off as single-sport conferences. College hockey, in which almost all conferences are hockey-only and Division II universities can easily compete with Big Ten programs if they feel like making hockey a priority, makes this abundantly clear.

Instead, everyone keeps trying to emulate the Big Ten/Pac-10 model, in which every member tries to support a comprehensive athletic program across all sports. Plus in the '90s, NCAA rules were changed to make single sport conferences extremely disadvantageous to run, particularly in the revenue sports. By making all-sports conferences almost mandatory, costs are artificially inflated and universities are forced into bizarre alliances which see them traveling halfway across the nation in order to play a volleyball game, just to maintain membership in a conference with peer institutions in a completely different sport (e.g. football). This all serves to keep the Big Tens/P5s permanently ahead and mid-majors permanently behind.

I do not believe this would be the case if all the rest formed single-sport conferences instead of all-sport conferences. I'd argue that the Atlantic-10 is the closest approximation we have of a basketball-only conference, and that's why they're the only non-P5/former Big East conference to consistently get at-large bids to the tournament. You can justify almost any geographic configuration in a revenue sport. Gonzaga and VCU in the same conference? Sure, it's only 1 flight every 2 years for each of them if it's basketball-only. Unfortunately the rules were changed to require them to fly every other sport out there too, in order to keep the Big Ten model on top. Without that advantage, you get college hockey.

If the Big 10 was smarter? They should have invited MIT, Johns Hopkins and other AAU schools to the Big 10 in the early 1900's before rules changes to make divisions of colleges and universities. Imagine where these schools would be today in football and all that? All these rule changes have actually hurt the NCAA and the P5 schools more than they think when you have many P5 schools are in the hole on athletics.

Other than Penn, most of the Ivies and other elites schools made voluntary decisions to de-emphasize athletics around the 1920s - look at their win-loss records. So any additions would have had to be before that.

But at that point, the Big 10 was considered a very geographically spread-out conference. The sprawling SIAA had just split into 3 smaller conferences, and the Big 10 didn't want to repeat that mistake. Michigan actually left from 1907-1917 to play a more local schedule. Adding East Coast schools would have been unthinkable.

Besides, MIT & Hopkins were never serious football programs.

The only AAU football powers that were geographically acceptable were Carnegie Mellon, Case, and Wash U. But Wash U was in the Missouri Valley (along with the forerunners of the Big 8), and their football still became so bad that they were effectively kicked out in 1928. Would Carnegie & Case have become like Northwestern/Notre Dame/BYU/USC? Maybe, but odds are more likely that they still would have ended up like Chicago and Wash U (who they share a conference with today).

What you say about the Ivies isn't true.

Cornell won NC's in the 30's, had #1 rankings in the 40's, and heisman finalists in the 70's.

Princeton won the 1950 NC, won the heisman in '51, and had an undefeated team in the 60's

Dartmouth knocked off a #1 Cornell in the 40's, and (from what I understand - albeit I'm not a Dartmouth fan), had the last hurrah of the Ivies in the 70's.

Yale and Harvard were also very relevant until the 70's.

Occasional top-25 rankings for the #1 team in the conference is a far cry from regularly winning national titles, which is what they were doing before 1930. It's difficult to even compare them because they rarely played any out of conference games of note. Dartmouth was ranked #14 in 1970 because they went 9-0 against the Ivies, UMass, and Holy Cross. Princeton finished 1950 ranked #6 (not a NC) by going 9-0 against the Ivies, Williams, and Rutgers.

The non-Ivy private AAUs fared even worse. They dropped from being occasional top-25 to completely irrelevant. Chicago's last winning record was in 1929, and in 1940 they shut down football until the 60s. Case, Wash U, & Carnegie de-emphasized sports about the same time, as did many smaller elite liberal arts powerhouses like Centre College (the Praying Colonels!), Detroit, and Washington & Jefferson (all of which won national titles in the 20s).

(04-06-2016 06:40 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:33 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 07:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 08:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:09 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Almost all conferences would be better off as single-sport conferences. College hockey, in which almost all conferences are hockey-only and Division II universities can easily compete with Big Ten programs if they feel like making hockey a priority, makes this abundantly clear.

Instead, everyone keeps trying to emulate the Big Ten/Pac-10 model, in which every member tries to support a comprehensive athletic program across all sports. Plus in the '90s, NCAA rules were changed to make single sport conferences extremely disadvantageous to run, particularly in the revenue sports. By making all-sports conferences almost mandatory, costs are artificially inflated and universities are forced into bizarre alliances which see them traveling halfway across the nation in order to play a volleyball game, just to maintain membership in a conference with peer institutions in a completely different sport (e.g. football). This all serves to keep the Big Tens/P5s permanently ahead and mid-majors permanently behind.

I do not believe this would be the case if all the rest formed single-sport conferences instead of all-sport conferences. I'd argue that the Atlantic-10 is the closest approximation we have of a basketball-only conference, and that's why they're the only non-P5/former Big East conference to consistently get at-large bids to the tournament. You can justify almost any geographic configuration in a revenue sport. Gonzaga and VCU in the same conference? Sure, it's only 1 flight every 2 years for each of them if it's basketball-only. Unfortunately the rules were changed to require them to fly every other sport out there too, in order to keep the Big Ten model on top. Without that advantage, you get college hockey.

If the Big 10 was smarter? They should have invited MIT, Johns Hopkins and other AAU schools to the Big 10 in the early 1900's before rules changes to make divisions of colleges and universities. Imagine where these schools would be today in football and all that? All these rule changes have actually hurt the NCAA and the P5 schools more than they think when you have many P5 schools are in the hole on athletics.

Other than Penn, most of the Ivies and other elites schools made voluntary decisions to de-emphasize athletics around the 1920s - look at their win-loss records. So any additions would have had to be before that.

But at that point, the Big 10 was considered a very geographically spread-out conference. The sprawling SIAA had just split into 3 smaller conferences, and the Big 10 didn't want to repeat that mistake. Michigan actually left from 1907-1917 to play a more local schedule. Adding East Coast schools would have been unthinkable.

Besides, MIT & Hopkins were never serious football programs.

The only AAU football powers that were geographically acceptable were Carnegie Mellon, Case, and Wash U. But Wash U was in the Missouri Valley (along with the forerunners of the Big 8), and their football still became so bad that they were effectively kicked out in 1928. Would Carnegie & Case have become like Northwestern/Notre Dame/BYU/USC? Maybe, but odds are more likely that they still would have ended up like Chicago and Wash U (who they share a conference with today).

What you say about the Ivies isn't true.

Cornell won NC's in the 30's, had #1 rankings in the 40's, and heisman finalists in the 70's.

Princeton won the 1950 NC, won the heisman in '51, and had an undefeated team in the 60's

Dartmouth knocked off a #1 Cornell in the 40's, and (from what I understand - albeit I'm not a Dartmouth fan), had the last hurrah of the Ivies in the 70's.

Yale and Harvard were also very relevant until the 70's.

Occasional top-25 rankings for the #1 team in the conference is a far cry from regularly winning national titles, which is what they were doing before 1930. It's difficult to even compare them because they rarely played any out of conference games of note. Dartmouth was ranked #14 in 1970 because they went 9-0 against the Ivies, UMass, and Holy Cross. Princeton finished 1950 ranked #6 (not a NC) by going 9-0 against the Ivies, Williams, and Rutgers.

The non-Ivy private AAUs fared even worse. They dropped from being occasional top-25 to completely irrelevant. Chicago's last winning record was in 1929, and in 1940 they shut down football until the 60s. Case, Wash U, & Carnegie de-emphasized sports about the same time, as did many smaller elite liberal arts powerhouses like Centre College (the Praying Colonels!), Detroit, and Washington & Jefferson (all of which won national titles in the 20s).

1. "Some selectors named Princeton the national champions, most notably the NCAA-recognized Poling System and Boand System." The school claims a NC and there is some legitimacy to the claim. They aren't just making it up. Anyway, whether it's #6 or #1 is irrelevant to the fact that they were nationally relevant. You're confusing selective scheduling with poor performance and/or weak talent. That's not the case. They were snobs, sure, but they were also good at football.

2. A) Cornell had the Heisman runner-up in 1972(?) and Yale, Harvard, and Princeton were all ranked in the at least the 1960's. That's A) 30+ years after you claimed they de-emphasized into irrelevance and B) clearly not a case of the league "occasionally having a top 25 ranking for the number 1 team in the conference." Heck, going back to Cornell, they played the 5th down game against Dartmouth in 1940 as the defending national champions. That's 10+ years after you claimed de-emphasis and implied that W/L records tanked.

B) Keep in mind that part A is building off of your Dartmouth statement, and doesn't otherwise mention any successes that Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, and Brown had in the 60's (or any other time after the 1920's). Also keep in mind that the Ivy League consists of 8 schools. If 2 are good, that's roughly equal to having 4 good ACC/B1G/SEC schools.

3. The non-Ivy private AAUs may have fared even worse, but they are also 100% irrelevant to my comment. That said, it's also partially misleading. Schools like Colgate fielded competitive programs much later than the 1920's. For example, they were a top 10 team for at least one point in the 1950 season. Granted, they fell apart shortly thereafter, but that's still 20+ years after the 1920's.

At best, your comment is incredibly misleading. At worst, it's incredibly wrong.

Joe Pa or was it Lou Holtz said back in the early 1990s to mid-1990s that one of the Ivy League teams should be rank inside the top 25 and be in the running for the national championship at 1A level. I think the lack of the IVY league teams in the FBS has hurt college football in the northeast. Only one in the far northeast of the USA is in a P5 conference and that is Boston College.

http://www.21alive.com/sports/college/Tr...38681.html

Could Trine be a D1 affiliate for women's hockey? The school is adding both men and women's hockey to begin play next year.

Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Division III women's hockey is actually fairly well populated in the Midwest, although most of the teams are in Wisconsin and Minnesota.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-07-2016 06:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  http://www.21alive.com/sports/college/Tr...38681.html

Could Trine be a D1 affiliate for women's hockey? The school is adding both men and women's hockey to begin play next year.

Trine, formerly Tri-State University, will join the Northern Collegiate Hockey Association, a DIII hockey confernce of mostly Wisconsin plus a few Michigan and Chicago-land DIII schools. A 1000 seat arena is not one to build up to DI and the design does not include expansion options and Trine does not appear it has the resources for any more than DIII.

With this facility, they could up sponsoring club hockey teams too, which is a way to further enhance enrollment, as Chicago, Indiana, and Michigan don't have many DIII hockey options, especially for women.

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Is that a new-ish rule? RIT was allowed to move hockey to D-I in 2005 while keeping their other sports in D-III. They're not allowed to give any hockey scholarships, but they seem to find ways to give international academic scholarships to Canadians who happen to be really good at hockey.

(04-08-2016 10:00 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Is that a new-ish rule? RIT was allowed to move hockey to D-I in 2005 while keeping their other sports in D-III. They're not allowed to give any hockey scholarships, but they seem to find ways to give international academic scholarships to Canadians who happen to be really good at hockey.

Union is another school that plays DI without scholarships. The rest are grandfathered.

DIII doesn't want it's schools moving up so I believe there is now a rule forbidding DIII schools from moving up, even without scholarships. DIII does not want to further taint themselves by having more schools play up in a sport as athletic scholarships and those that offer them are evil in its view.

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Division III women's hockey is actually fairly well populated in the Midwest, although most of the teams are in Wisconsin and Minnesota.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are DIII schools do have affiliate in hockey at Di like MIT. Johns Hopkins is DIII, and they are affiliates of the Big 10 in both LAX. There is not much women's Hockey at DI it is why I have said their womens Hockey could be an affiliate at DI for Hockey.

(04-08-2016 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Division III women's hockey is actually fairly well populated in the Midwest, although most of the teams are in Wisconsin and Minnesota.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are DIII schools do have affiliate in hockey at Di like MIT. Johns Hopkins is DIII, and they are affiliates of the Big 10 in both LAX. There is not much women's Hockey at DI it is why I have said their womens Hockey could be an affiliate at DI for Hockey.

MIT is not DI at anything. They do compete against DI schools in sports with no classification, like squash, rifle, crew, sailing, fencing etc.

(04-08-2016 10:00 AM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Is that a new-ish rule? RIT was allowed to move hockey to D-I in 2005 while keeping their other sports in D-III.

It's new since then. At that time, other than the six grandfathered programs (Clarkson, Colorado College, St. Lawrence and RPI in hockey, Johns Hopkins in Lacrosse and Hartwick in soccer [note Colorado College does women's soccer and Hartwick women's water polo as their TitleIX offsets]), a Division III program could move one men and one women's program up as a non-scholarship program.

There was a moratorium on Division moves a little after that, and after the moratorium ended, the NCAA started discouraging cross-division moves. RIT women's hockey was allowed to move up on a waiver, since RIT argued it would make a better TitleIX offset for its existing men's Division I hockey.

Quote: They're not allowed to give any hockey scholarships, but they seem to find ways to give international academic scholarships to Canadians who happen to be really good at hockey.

Yes, in the period when they moved up, except for the six existing Division I programs of some standing, all new Division I programs by Division III schools had to be non-scholarship.

(04-08-2016 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-07-2016 07:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Trine is Division III. They will have to move to Division II before they can think about Division I in hockey.

Division III women's hockey is actually fairly well populated in the Midwest, although most of the teams are in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

There are DIII schools do have affiliate in hockey at Di like MIT.

MIT is not one of the DIII schools in hockey. And there's only five, so the easiest way to check is to look in the Wikipedia article on Division III and the section on DIII schools playing in other divisions, and look for the five DIII schools playing hockey.

You much be thinking of RPI. It is a school commonly referred to with a three letter acronym with an "I" in it, so that's fairly close to accuracy by your standards.

Quote:Johns Hopkins is DIII, and they are affiliates of the Big 10 in both LAX.

They were long time DI independents in Lax, basically from the beginning of the three division structure, so they were allowed to keep offering scholarship lacrosse under a grandfather rule. But that rule lists the six who can, and if they ever stop offering scholarships, they can't go back.

Quote: There is not much women's Hockey at DI it is why I have said their womens Hockey could be an affiliate at DI for Hockey.

There are actually rules that apply to division moves, so making a sensible suggestion would require finding out what the rules are.

But that would involve something like ten to thirty minutes of googling and reading to sort out before writing, so you skipped that part and just posted nonsense instead.

M.I.T.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/college...ty_sports/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...ckey_teams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis...ce_hockey)

M.I.T. was D1 Independent in Men's Hockey until they dropped the sport in 2009. Carnegie Tech as well before they dropped it as well.

(04-09-2016 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  M.I.T.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/college...ty_sports/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...ckey_teams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis...ce_hockey)

M.I.T. was D1 Independent in Men's Hockey until they dropped the sport in 2009. Carnegie Tech as well before they dropped it as well.

The wiki chart said MIT dropped out of DI hockey in 1975, and another link said later they dropped DIII hockey entirely

Carnegie dropped hockey in 1920.

You said:

(04-08-2016 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There are DIII schools do have affiliate in hockey at Di like MIT.

And now you trot out supporting evidence, and then say:

(04-09-2016 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  M.I.T. was D1 Independent in Men's Hockey until they dropped the sport in 2009.

So your support for your statement that MIT is a DI affiliate in hockey is that they dropped the sport last decade, and when they played DI hockey, they were not an affiliate, they were independent.

And as NoDak notes, the evidence that you present for them BEING a Division I independent when they dropped hockey in 2009 actually says that they stopped being a Division I independent in ice hockey in 1975.

Well, I admit I was wrong. It appears that it's not that you are unable/unwilling to search for information, it's that you are unwilling to read or unable to comprehend the information that you find.

Affiliate membership is fine and for the most part benefits both the individual team as well as its conference. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

(04-09-2016 09:53 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Affiliate membership is fine and for the most part benefits both the individual team as well as its conference. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

And in general has no conference realignment implications, whether its Notre Dame in Big Ten ice hockey or WV or Mizzou in the MAC.

(04-09-2016 09:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  You said:

(04-08-2016 04:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There are DIII schools do have affiliate in hockey at Di like MIT.

And now you trot out supporting evidence, and then say:

(04-09-2016 12:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  M.I.T. was D1 Independent in Men's Hockey until they dropped the sport in 2009.

So your support for your statement that MIT is a DI affiliate in hockey is that they dropped the sport last decade, and when they played DI hockey, they were not an affiliate, they were independent.

And as NoDak notes, the evidence that you present for them BEING a Division I independent when they dropped hockey in 2009 actually says that they stopped being a Division I independent in ice hockey in 1975.

Well, I admit I was wrong. It appears that it's not that you are unable/unwilling to search for information, it's that you are unwilling to read or unable to comprehend the information that you find.

But, you guys also said that MIT was never D1 in Hockey when they used to be. You guys were wrong in that fact as well.