What is the financial aid program like at these schools as compared to HC? My bet is they are not need blind and they don't meet every students need in full. They most likely "gap" students who are not their top applicants.
Of course, it has already been pointed out that these schools are D-III in everything else. Sure, there are expenses, but not the D-I expenses HC incurs.
A better comparision is, unfortunately, Colgate. We've got a similar sized endowment with similar a athletic situation. That's what makes the head scratching even worse and the reason to not include HC must have been blatant and unavoidable. That's the only thing I can imagine. Looking at the USCHO story, there was support for HC among ECAC ADs but the women's issue was just too much. This is truly unfortunate.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ] [ Edit | View ] [> [> [>
Re: If is wasn't for Father Brooks' costly mistake -- cf rivals, 13:14:17 07/16/04 Fri
As long as the words "athletic upgrade" come across to HC administrators as "academic destruction" you will see these events time and time again. Why is HC soo afraid to have successful D1 programs that play in high profile conferences?
How can you go into an opportuninty like the ECAC and not have done your homework and put the best effort forward? Why even play the game?
The ECAC didn't want to reject HC, HC just didn't want to meet the basic criteria. I believe HC was the 1st choice, but thier usual arrogance and refusal to add scholarships and upgrade facilities was not a good fit. Didn't Regan say in an earlier interview that HC would be adding scholarships to a 2nd sport?? Why not hockey!!
We have seen this in BB for years, a golden opportunity missed and like BB, you quickly fade into obscurity.
