I've been really busy lately, so I'm getting to some of this late but here
goes.
 
A couple points about the BC article that Tony posted.
 
1.  Milbury comes off much worse than previously.  I had assumed that Gladchuk
    was primarily at fault, and I've heard rumors from decent sources that
    there are definite problems with the BC situation and that Milbury had
    just cause to be upset, but Milbury becomes his own worst enemy if he was
    trying to bully players into loss of scholarships.
 
    The other article in the Globe that Tony did not type in mentioned a
    freshman who was asked to give up his scholarship because his family was
    affluent.  The family declined.  (Big surprise!  I'd have to be very well
    off indeed to just flush $75K tax-free down the toilet just because the
    head coach wanted to give my kid's 3 year scholarship to someone else.)  I
    suppose it's not unethical if a request is made like that that is framed
    in the context of "this would be comparable to a huge donation to the
    alumni fund" or somesuch thing like that and if they don't bite then just
    drop it, but if there's any arm-twisting going on then that's wrong.
 
2.  It's clear that Milbury wanted to use scholarships that had been verbally
    promised to recruits for his own recruits.  This is a little less black-and-
    white.  Milbury is definitely a jerk if he was trying to change any
    scholarships where letters of intent had already been signed (whether for
    recruits or players already at the school).  Those are binding commitments.
    But when verbal commitments are made prior to letter of intent day by one
    coach who is then dumped, are those verbal commitments binding on the new
    coach?  This falls much more into the gray area.  If the student-athlete,
    as seems to frequently happen in these cases, is free to look around and
    discard the verbal commitment, shouldn't it be a two-way street?
 
    Personally, I'd like to think that a verbal commitment is as good as a
    signed one as a matter of general principle.  However, the coach at a given
    institution can be one of the primary attractions.  If that coach leaves,
    I can see why a SA might feel that his number one choice had slipped from
    that pedestal.  I'm a *very* coach-oriented person so my inclination would
    be that that SA would be making an understandable choice to go elsewhere.
 
    So should it be a two-way street?  Tough call, but I'd go with the
    following:
 
      Student-athletes should stick to their verbal commitments except in
      cases where there is a coaching change.  Their coach will have such an
      impact on their next four (or five) years that this once-in-a-lifetime
      choice should be binding on them only if the coaching circumstances
      remain the same.
 
      Verbal commitments are binding in all cases for schools.  While this
      does pose more of a burden on schools than the athletes, the athletes
      are dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime decision.  The schools are not.
      This extra burden may mean that a rebuilding effort takes an extra year.
      If so, thems the breaks.  Even though an athlete may have a chance to get
      a scholarship somewhere else, the bulk of the scholarships will have
      already been committed so the kid will be at a severe disadvantage.
      Stick with your commitments to the kids and get a clean slate next
      recruiting class.  (BTW, this does mean that if some coach makes
      verbal commitments to alumni or kids about *future* recruiting classes --
      something that may well happen but is probably against some NC$$ rule --
      those go out the window when the coach goes.  Cause any of those kids
      involved will have an entire senior season to line up interested
      schools.)
 
   So in general, although I was very excited about Milbury going to BC and
   felt that he'd be great for college hockey, I *am* disappointed in his
   actions.  It now seems that he and college hockey were not a good mix.  I'm
   still suspicious that Gladchuk may be a cancer, but Milbury can't go riding
   into the sunset as an innocent victim.
 
   Regarding McDonough's vague predictions of doom for Maine hockey, I can
   only hope that he was as uninformed as he's been in the past with college
   hockey.  Maine plays the most exciting brand of hockey around, they are
   good for college hockey, and what the heck I'm a native Maine-iac, so let's
   hope the only skeletons in closets up there are in the biology department.
 
*****************************************************        ,-******-,
* Dave Hendrickson "Robo" [log in to unmask] *     *'     ##     '*
*        A Hockey Polygamist and Get-A-Lifer        *   *##   ___##___   ##*
* GO BROONS!!!      Go Red Wings!!     Go LA Kings! *  *   ##|   ___  \##   *
* GO UMASS-LOWELL!!!    Go Maine!!           Go BU! * *      |  |___)  |     *
* --------------------------------------------------* *######|   ___  <######*
* Although I can't remember ever having an original * *      |  |___)  |     *
* thought, and am certainly parroting someone who   *  *   ##|________/##   *
* actually has a brain, these opinions are mine,    *   *##      ##      ##*
* not Hewlett-Packard's.                            *     *,     ##     ,*
*****************************************************        '-*******-'