Kevin Yetman writes:
>1.) Does this kind of thing go on a lot and just go unreported?
First, this is my opinion and comes from my personal experience at
three DivI schools.
If you are referring to waving cash around in the locker room and
putting up recruits in the coach's house, I say no. That kind of
thing is really outrageous and no self-respecting coach would have
anything to do with it. Those are the things I think caused the
NCAA to really go after Lowell.
But the meal expenses, allowing phone calls from the office, etc.
are things that undoubtedly occur from time to time. Think of it -
"Coach, I was supposed to call my mom now but I have to be on the
ice in 5 minutes. Can I give her a quick call?" "Coach, can I
borrow five bucks for lunch?" (forgetting to pay him back)
Technically, these are violations although no harm was intended.
But clearly what was going on at Lowell went far beyond the realm of
innocent breaches of NCAA regulations.
A guy I know who went to Syracuse and told me that yes, all the
allegations you've heard about Syracuse basketball are true, also
suggests that if you dig deep enough at any major sports program in
the country you will find some violation. While this may be true,
I think that what he's referring to are the minor, no-harm-intended,
non-repetitive type of violations. I do not think every coach waves
cash around as an incentive for his players.
At least there were no allegations of Riley being involved in fixing
grades or anything academic-related. I know of several unreported
incidents that did occur at one school - an ECAC school, even, lest ECAC
fans take this opportunity to claim their league is above reproach. :-)
>2.) Does this suspension mean that their is no Hockey East playoffs for Lowell
>next year, or does it just pertain to the NCAA tournament?
Just the NCAAs. The NCAA has no power over the Hockey East tournament.
Hockey East itself could censure Lowell, but that is doubtful.
Think of cases in basketball where teams have been placed on probation
by the NCAA but still competed in their conference tourneys. Hockey
follows virtually the same rules.
Kap writes:
> Is this the first time a team has been placed on probation for NCAA
> infractions?
No, I know of at least one other time. Denver's participation in the
1973 NCAA tourney, where they lost the championship game to Wisconsin,
was voided by the NCAA in 1976 for recruiting violations and Denver was
placed on probation (not sure how long). I hope someone will post
if they know of any other teams placed on probation.
Recently, Plattsburgh State (DivIII) was put on probation by the NCAA
and declared ineligible for the NCAA tourney; I don't know all the
details of this case. These are the only two teams I was aware of
before Lowell.
> Has any other team ever been banned from NCAA tourney play?
I think Denver was banned, in the late 70s. They were almost good
enough to go in 1978, when they finished first in the WCHA. But
they lost in the second round to #5 Colorado College, and CC and
#2 Wisconsin went anyway. There was no WCHA Championship that year.
> IMO, banning the Chiefs from the 1992 NCAA tournament really isn't much of a
> punishment.
Agreed, although there is always the outside chance that they could
win the Hockey East tourney, in which case the automatic bid would go
to the runner-up, apparently. Consensus is that Lowell would have been
hit very hard if Riley was still coach and if the school had let everything
slide. You can read that to mean the "death penalty" if you want, but
I tend to think several additional years of probation and maybe slashed
scholarships would have been more likely. I also am more likely now to
believe that the school forced Riley out at the end of last year but that
they wanted to do it gracefully because he has unquestionably done a lot
for the program.
I will pick up a Lowell Sun on my way home tonight. I'm sure they are
covering this story in much more detail than any of the Boston papers,
and if there's anything interesting I will send it out.
- mike
p.s. rough week for Hockey East, isn't it.
|