Bri Farenell writes:
>Whether or not the forfeits are fair is another question, but
>what is the purpose of assessing them forfeits if they don't
>affect the ultimate goal of the regular season: making the NC$$
>tournament?
 
That's a good question.  I have been trying to think of possible
precedents in this case, and I'm quickly finding there really aren't
any.  I think both HE and probably the NC$$ selection committee are
treading on unfamiliar ground here.
 
Three cases that might be worth citing:
 
1) Maine's earlier forfeits this year due to Jeff Tory's
ineligibility.  HE did not deem it necessary at that time to suspend
Maine from the playoffs, and that seems to be a case where the hockey
program itself had the most responsibility.  The latest seems to be
the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.  But where do you
draw the line?
 
2) Lowell's sanctions of a few years back, when the Chiefs were placed
on NC$$ probation and banned from the tournament for a season.  At the
time, it was rumored that HE would not allow the Chiefs to participate
in the HE tourney because if they won, HE would lose its automatic
bid.  The league decided to allow Lowell in.  There are two key
differences I see, one in Maine's favor and one not.  In their favor
is the fact that Lowell had been put on NC$$ probation; Maine has not.
Also, most would consider Lowell's violations to have been more serious
than Maine's.
 
On the other hand, by the time the HE tourney rolled around the season
after Lowell's sanctions were handed down (which occurred in the
summer), Lowell had cleared up the problems that existed and everyone
seemed satisfied that things were where they should be.  But there
still seems to be turmoil at Maine that may take a while to overcome.
 
A side question: what if Maine did not "get its house in order" to
HE's satisfaction by next season?  Would they see fit to hand down the
same punishment?
 
I do believe HE has opened a whole new can of worms by taking the
action they did.  However, I don't think the argument that all HE
teams qualify for the tourney is a good one.  My guess is that there
is nothing in the HE by-laws to deal with this sort of situation;
thus, the various and lengthy conference calls among the ADs.  But
that does not mean that HE has not reserved the right to decide what
should be done in cases that aren't specifically covered in its
regulations.  This is exactly what happened in the Lowell-NU and NU-MC
brawls, when then-commissioner Stu Haskell handed down extra
suspensions to the players involved.
 
Another thought: I wouldn't be surprised if HE decides after all this
to shy away from any possible playoff format involving 9 or more
teams.  When UMass comes in to give the league 9 teams, they may just
decide to stick with 8 playoff teams to try to avoid this mess in the
future.
 
3) In 1972-73, BU went 11-4-0 in its first 15 games and then was
discovered to have been using an ineligible player for all 15.  Their
record was changed to 0-15-0.  BU went 11-1-1 in its last 13 regular
season games and with the forfeits, finished 8th in the ECAC with an
overall record of 11-16-1.  However, the ECAC seeded BU 4th for the
ECAC tourney.  BU lost its opening game to Penn and finished 11-17-1,
22-6-1 without the forfeits.  The two teams selected from the East
that year for the NC$$ tourney were Cornell (22-6-1) and BC (22-7-1),
who met for the ECAC Championship which was won by Cornell.  Cornell
had received a forfeit win over BU, but BC, which had beaten BU
legitimately, had not.
 
I always wondered what would have happened if BU had won the ECAC - or
even made it to the championship game.  Practice at that time seemed
to be to take the teams that met for the ECAC title.  Tourney
selection has changed drastically since then, and there has never been
a case truly like Maine's.
 
I will be curious (as we all will, especially those of you in Maine)
to see how the NC$$ handles this.  For the teams other than Maine, it
makes sense to calculate the ratings with the original results of the
games because otherwise, the schedule strength of the others is hurt
by Maine's wins/ties being changed to losses.  But it also doesn't
seem fair to allow Maine to keep its rating when it was earned
illegally.
 
Something else that came to mind...at first, when it seemed clear that
the forfeits would be handed down, Maine still believed it had a
chance to defend its HE and NC$$ titles because they were still going
to get into the HE tourney no matter what happened.  Then when Maine
was suspended from the tourney (or perhaps when it first seemed
possible that this might happen), Maine turned to the RPI rating and
the claim (possibly based in fact, according to Rick Comley) that they
could still get in since the rating was not supposed to count the
forfeits as such.
 
The odd thing is that to me, I think things should go the opposite way -
Maine should be allowed to play in the HE tourney, but the forfeits
should hurt them in the rating.  I don't see it as being much
different from a team that actually goes 6-27-1 and then rallies to
pull an upset and win its conference tourney, therebye earning the
automatic bid - although this hasn't happened before.  But then again,
a lot of things have not appeared to make sense lately.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<< Color Voice of the (16-17-2) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>