I know I am out on a limb sawing that which is attached to the trunk
but...
 
Steve writes
 
"Yes, the captains called the meeting.  But they have no
special hold on the players."
 
My comment: BULLCRAP. They would be Captains if they couldn't
perform leadership duties. Have you ever played on a NC$$ team?
The coaches give Captains vital roles to play in addition to
wearing that neat C and A on their uniforms. The Captains work
for it and deserve it. But it also measns that they do have
control on their team mates.
 
Steve also writes,
 
"You have to draw the line somewhere.  What do you do if three hockey players
and their girlfriends go ice skating in some park.  Insist that no hockey
pucks are present ??? Require that they not speak about last weekends series
unless a coach is present ???
 
Get real.
 
The line was drawn by the NCAA and UW did not cross it."
 
 
My reply (for what it is worth: UW fans won't agree)
 
The real problem is not whether the team practiced but what was the
purpose or intent of the practice. The reason for team practices in
a traditional sense is skill development and coordination. However,
when a team practices solely after a lop-sided losing game, when the
players are frustrated and tired, it is doubtful that the reason for the
practice is skill development. Instead, (and I speak from experience,)
the intent is solely retribution or punishment. It is not recreation,
it is not team coordination, it is "skate until you drop," abuse and
be abused for game transgressions. THIS IS WRONG: it does not help
a team develop, play the next game better or help coordination. It
does destroy the enjoyment of the game (albeit, a win helps the
enjoyment tremendously,) and destorys the team cohesiveness.
 
Get real: its wrong -- NC$$ drew the line with coaches because its
wrong. It doesn't make it right if the coach allows a surrogate.
UW's team crossed the line.
 
Walt Olson
Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, Michigan 49931