Joshua Atkins writes:
>ANDREW WEISE <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't college hockey grown and become more
>>popular because of the NC$$?
>Yes it has.  People outside of what are generally termed 'hockey areas'
>are hardly likely to know anything about the NHL much less college
>hockey.
 
While I agree that college hockey has become better and more popular
over the last 10 years or so, I am having trouble figuring out why the
NC$$ deserves any of the credit.  The NC$$ (and by that, I mean the
organization in Kansas, not the NC$$ Ice Hockey Rules Committee or the
NC$$ Ice Hockey Tournament Selection Committee - both of which consist
of hockey people) ignores hockey except for 3 main situations: 1) rules
violations - which are few and far between; 2) the passing and institution
of rules like the reduction in assistant coaches (at the annual meetings);
and 3) in late March when the third most profitable collegiate sport holds
its national championships.  The NC$$ does not do a darn thing to promote
the game of college hockey other than to sell $25 t-shirts in Milwaukee
or stick a $20 NC$$ Hockey Championship hat on page 97 of its promotional
brochure.
 
However, Wayne made some excellent points in answering the question of
whether hockey should withdraw from the NC$$.  It is not an easy thing
to do, and the PR repercussions could be devastating.  In the past, I
have been one of those who advocated the secession; yet, I think I have
gained a better view of The Big Picture over the last few years and so
I don't necessarily feel that way anymore.  However, I do still believe
something needs to be done to get hockey a bigger and better voice in the
NC$$.  Much of the responsibility for that rests with the hockey people
themselves - there is much in-fighting amongst the conferences and schools
that hinders any attempts at unity.
 
>OU may have been just as outraged as Maine fans, but don't you think the
>reasons are a bit different??  A transcript error probably made by the school
>isn't even close to being in the same category as a drug offense. A player in
>any sport who commits a drug offense SHOULD be punished by at the very
>least sitting out of games.
 
I look at intent.  There was no intent by Ingraham to play while
ineligible, nor by Maine to allow him to do so.  Meanwhile, there was
certainly intent by Bosworth to take steroids (if I recall correctly).
 
I thought Paul raised an important issue - that of whether Cal should
have been more aware of what was going on.  Perhaps this is true, but
the problem is that there are so many rules and regulations covering
things you never would think of, that there are few coaches who know
them all, let alone players.  Also, one of the reasons there are
administrators at colleges is because they are supposed to provide
guidance to students who cannot be expected to be familiar with all the
rules.  I can understand the sentiment that he should have questioned
more, but what should he have questioned?  It sounds as if he was told he
was eligible by someone who should have known these things, and I don't
see why he should have thought otherwise.
 
Finally, the issue Brian raised wrt community colleges.  Actually,
there is such a situation in college hockey - prep schools.  It isn't
unusual for kids out of HS to prep for a year to get their grades up
(and gain some experience and size), and they can enter college the
next year.  This can happen if a kid knows he's going to be ineligible
due to Prop 18 - might as well go off to prep school where you can
still play and get the grades up, then enter college with your
eligibility intact (if under 20 years old).
---
Mike Machnik           [log in to unmask]          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMN* 11/13/93