Maybe everybody can get down to hockey and decide things on the ice
where they should be settled.  The legal
decision is consistant with other decisions in cases where the
courts have seen fit to get involved with how legal entities
conduct their affairs.  Sanctions imposed must be the result of
offences and proportional to the offence.  You can't impose a
penalty just to get a point across, a reason often given on this
list and attributed to the ADs.  Keeping a team from the post-season
tournament is rather serious and just doesn't square with enrolling
a graduate student for 6 instead of 8 hours.  The case for Hockey
East would have been strengthened if:
    a) they had some written policies
 or b) Maine had already been warned or was on "probation" or the like.
 
Personally I was even more turned off by the (purported) quote from
one AD to the effect that it would be a disgrace to have Maine
representing Hockey East in the NCAA tournament.  Now the only way
Maine (which even without forfits has had a struggle to remain above
.500) will be in the national tournament is if Maine wins the HE
tournament.  What this AD is saying is that he doesn't think his
team can beat Maine on the ice.  And you don't think he has an
inducement to throw Maine out this weekend?
 
It is a tribute to the Maine program that the Bear that Lives in the
North Woods can so traumatize everyone that in spite of ample on ice
evidence to the contrary we are considered to have a chance to defend
the national title.  In reality Maine will have a hard time getting
through the first round.  (Well, if the seedings are reworked so
Maine can face #4 our chances improve remarkably.)  A lot has been
said about our returning Olympians, but all the Ferraros and Kariyas
in the world are not going to help our weakest area which is defence.
The Blairs are good, but they can't be expected to negate all
defensive mistakes as Allyson did against BC.