I had meant to also comment on Dick's scenario:
>      This brings up a point about the ethics of situations like this.   It
> would seem to the casual observer that BC is obligated to fulfill their
> scholarship obligations despite the fact that there may not be places on
> the team for that many scholarship athletes.   Is there an NCAA rule which
> would prohibit them from telling those on scholarship that they are competing
> for fewer places on the team than the number of those holding scholarships?
> Those that don't make it have to redshirt that year (or give up the ride)?
> I think I know the answer to this,  but it is an interesting question in the
> abstract.   Under such a setup,  a S/A could attend four years for free
> if he/she had no aspirations beyond college hockey.   Probably the potential
> for abuse by the institution is too great.
>
 
Since the NC$$ rule is a max of 18 scholarships and there are more than 18
players on a team, the scenario of a SA getting a scholarship and not playing
is quite remote.  Now if Dick is saying that an institution could go past the
18 scholarship limit because more were promised through incompetence/lying,
then *that* would be so ripe for abuse as to be beyond belief.  Suddenly no
one would be able to count to 18.   It'd be like Steve Martin's (the comedian
not the Roadrunner for Harvard) line about dealing with taxes: "Just don't
pay them and then if the IRS tracks you down, just say,  '*I forgot!*'"
 
DaveH