At 11:45 AM -0600 8/13/96, Michael Smar wrote:
> The first controlled fission reaction was performed at the University of
> Chicago. What you're saying is that it's easier to control nuclear fission
> than to interpret and follow the rules of the NCAA. I don't think so.
 
The same people responsible for nuclear fission at UC are not the same
people responsible for NCAA compliance.  Also, research is often funded by
grants from the government or business.  These entities don't fund
universities to ensure NCAA compliance.  Maybe if they did, and more money
was thrown at the problem, we would see a greater degree of compliance.
But that's not going to happen, just as much of the research you refer to
wouldn't have happened without someone paying for it.
 
This is really comparing apples to oranges.  There isn't much relevance
between the two situations.  It's also a simplistic approach, IMO.  There
are a lot of other things that universities cannot do successfully for many
different reasons.
 
The truth is that even at the schools where the NCAA considers compliance
to be in line with its standards, violations such as this one can and do
occur.  Many schools do undertake compliance to the best of their ability
given their resources and requirements.  But the magnitude of the task is
such that it is quite difficult, if not impossible, for a given school to
be able to absolutely guarantee 100% compliance from every single person
involved in any way with its athletic program.
 
> > But even though USA Hockey did provide incorrect information, and even
> > though the Dunhams perhaps should have known to seek out answers from a
> > "professional", there isn't any evidence to suggest that they deliberately
> > avoided getting those answers or acted with knowledge of the rules.
>
> They're probably no different than any of the rest of us. Once they found the
> answer they we're looking for they stopped looking.
 
I think your apparent premise - that the Dunhams knew that accepting the
money was a violation before getting word from USA Hockey - is incorrect,
or at least without basis.  There isn't any evidence to suggest that.  All
of the evidence points to the fact that they believed that what they were
told by USA Hockey was the truth.
 
> > Therefore, the decision to leave the title in Maine's hands was a good one.
>
> I think it sends the wrong message. We tell our kids, "winners never
>cheat and
> cheaters never win".
 
The definition of cheating as I know it involves deception and dishonesty,
an intentional circumvention of the rules.  How was Maine guilty of
cheating in this case, or how were the Dunhams guilty of it?  In what way
did they knowingly gain an advantage by breaking the rules?
 
> When this first came to pass Maine should have said we used ineligible
>players
> (knowingly or not) during the season, this violated NCAA rules and as a
> consequence we cannot accept the National Championship.
 
Why?  Maine went through the proper channels, investigated the incident and
reported its findings to the NCAA, and then the NCAA conducted its own
investigation.  Then, the NCAA determined that Dunham was not ineligible as
a result of this incident.  Since Maine did *not* use an ineligible player
according to the NCAA, why should they have voluntarily given up the title
anyway?
 
People are certainly welcome to have their opinion as to whether or not the
NCAA decision was the correct one, but there's no need to base that opinion
on things that aren't true or on charges that even the NCAA did not find
evidence of.  Let's try to stick to the facts of the case as we know them.
 
We also need to draw a distinction between a violation and the NCAA's
decision on how to deal with that violation.  A perusal of any recent copy
of the NCAA Register will show that violations occur all the time and are
dealt with in different ways according to the facts of the case.  Some
violations result in sanctions being handed down by the NCAA.  Some do not.
Under the heading of "Institutional Secondary Infractions" in the Register
dated August 5, 1996 (also online at http://www.ncaa.org), I count 30 cases
in which the result is either "NCAA action: No further action." or "NCAA
action: No further action.  No eligibility consequences."  This happens
every day and isn't that unusual.  Just because a violation is found to
have occurred does not mean that NCAA sanctions are warranted.  Should the
alternative be that every technical violation should result in sanctions
regardless of the circumstances?  Is that really what we want?
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.