My job is a faculty member at a branch campus of a state university.
One of my duties in that capacity is that i'm the campus' NCAA Faculty
Athletic Representative.  That institution (University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs) competes in Basketball (m + f) tennis (m + f)
volleyball (f) softball (f) golf (m) soccer (m) in division 2.  My
assignment as FAR gets me access to several NCAA publications.  My job
gets me internet access.
 
I have been a devotee of ice hockey since the late 1940s, and am
fortunate to live in a town where there are 2 division 1 collegiate
hockey programs.  I guess that make C-springs second only to boston in
collegiate hockey (-: and am within 60 miles of every Division I
hockey program in my entire time zone.
 
When I'm wearing the former hat, i always refer to the NCAA, and when
wearing the latter hat, use the hockey-l preferred acronym.  When
quoting things from the NCAA publications, I feel an obligation to
represent my position with some grace and integrity.  However, when
i'm posting as a lover of the game, i hold no special respect for any
person, institution, or whatever that hasn't earned my respect.
 
Now, wearing my fanatic hat (the one with the USAFA pins and the
Hockey-l buttons) and comment on the NC$$ rulings that appeared on
this list recently...
 
The kid who didn't make the olympic team (yes, we all know which of
the Bobsies has the toni) seems to have had justice done for him by
the ruling, although it seems unfortunate that the rule was written to
require "participation".  I fully expect in the future to hear of the
SA who made the team, but gathered splinters the entire series (or got
injured in warmups for the first contest) being denied waivers for non
participation.
 
One has to marvel at the checks and balances.  The senators (NCAA
convention) makes the laws,  The cops (interpretations committee) only
enforce the rules, and its up to the courts (review panel) to grant
exceptions.  Maybe that is good.
 
The rescue 911 case seems to me to be such a no brainer.  The family
shouldn't have to even ask.  Note that the wording is out of date as
the episode has already aired (and most of us missed it)
 
The graduate student (whigless???) ruling seemed ok.  What I found
interesting was that there will probably be a full scale investigation
of that school and we'll see something that may get as big as the
tarkanian case.
 
charlie shub
[log in to unmask]  -or-  cdash@colospgs (BITNET)
(719) 593 3492               (fax) 593-3369