Can someone tell me what's wrong with this question? Someone who shall remain unnamed clearly took it personally and reported it to the admin. So if the shoe fits, I guess you report stuff? Wow, I wasn't directing it anyone other than the general population of creeps that creep on the girls. And given that we parents/ relatives know a thing or two about creepers on the athletes... I stand by the statement. Reported? Seriously. Oh man...
So anyway, back to the DIII thing. I think DIII is still (and probably will remain so for a long time) a critical aspect to women's collegiate hockey and the growth of the sport overall. I have watched DIII players that could easily be DI players. Easily. Hell, I've seen DI players that maybe should be DIII players. As much as the sport has grown, the skill and seed have increased, there's still times when the gap between the two routes aren't that great. And good coaching and development will make that gap tighter. So, Stay DIII. I like having this thread around. I learn lots here. Sometimes more than from some of the jackwagons on the DI threads.