HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Steve G." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Steve G.
Date:
Fri, 11 Mar 1994 14:16:20 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Maine certainly is an emotional topic for those close to the situation.
Now there's an empty statement; who wouldn't be if it were their team or the
chief rival or league powerhouse that affects their team?
Where should Maine have been seeded, if indeed they should've played?  A
simple way is to ask each team (coach, AD, players, whatever works) to list
whom they want to play in the first round, in order of preference.  The
results will probably show (or be a great indicator) exactly where the league
places Maine (my guess would be anywhere from #1 to #3).
That would be (would have been) so much easier that trying to decide 1) if
forfeits should count; 2) did Maine gain an advantage by using the player in
question; 3) which wins shouldn't've been.
A lot of bandwidth has been spent on deciding on whether to punish Maine, and
whom to punish, and if "collateral damage" should be considered (i.e. punishing
the innocent).  Well, Hockey-L'ers probably know that the incident of referee
intimidation cost Wisconsin the 2nd place prize money ($50,000 I think) from
the 1992 tournament, and later revelations that a player was illegally housed
at reduced expense in a booster's apartment further cost them the right to
claim the 2nd place finish and the trophy.  That seemed to punish the program
a little (the money) while not punishing the innocents (since all players
specifically identified were seniors anyway).  Some say it wasn't enough,
since the program didn't face suspensions.  Well, the same thing will be
going on about Maine for years to come.  Even hindsight isn't 20-20, especially
if you're wearing booster-tinted lenses.
One last thing and I'll quit and give you folks a chance to flame away:
If the players in question are either out or "made legal", shouldn't that team
be the one that is "rated"?  The other teams in the league should be able to
seed Maine as they see fit, knowing better than us what caliber of team the
"new, legal" Maine presents.  Similarly, the NCAA should do the same in con-
sidering whether to offer Maine a bid and (if so) where to seed them.
 
Steve G.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2