At 5:10 PM 12/26/95, MR ADAM C WODON wrote:
>>      If Ingraham was ineligible in any way in 92/93,  why
>> didn't the NCAA step in and forfeit all of Maine's
>> victories in that year (including the championship) when
>> it was discovered in the fall of 93 that he had had a
>> problem in 91/92 (and they forfeited 14 games for THAT
>> year).
>
>Because he wasn't ineligible in any way in 92-93.
 
This is something I have wondered about ever since this came to light.
Certainly Ingraham was ineligible for the 14 games he should have missed
but played in, but why was he not ineligible for all of the succeeding
games in which he played, until he remedied his ineligibility by sitting
out the 14 games?
 
I ask because I truly don't know.  It seems to me that otherwise, any
player in such a situation could simply play as long as he wanted to and
then at the end of his career, sit out the X games he should have missed.
This probably isn't likely because no school would want to have to forfeit
any games even at a later date.
 
Again, it just seems to me that an ineligible player would be ineligible
until you make him eligible.  But the question about why the NCAA didn't
force Maine to forfeit any games other than the original 14 is a good one.
It suggests that the NCAA did determine at the time that the correct action
was only to forfeit those 14 games.  As such, I would think it is unlikely
that they would come back later and demand that more games be forfeited
because of this case.  And as I admit not being familiar enough with the
rules, I accept that the case probably was handled correctly when the NCAA
first gave its decision.
 
Now, assuming he was therefore eligible to play every game after the
original 14...
 
>>   Why is the Ingraham discussion even part of this, except
>> to perhaps show a pattern?
>
>That's why.
 
Agreed, but what kind of pattern is important.  It is part of the pattern
that demonstrates problems Maine had in maintaining its own compliance with
NCAA rules.  I don't think it is part of a pattern of intended violation of
those rules.  I have not seen anything that tells me that it was known that
Ingraham was ineligible at the time that he played.
 
>>      How many of us feel that if you took a microscope to
>> any D-1 hockey program in the country that you could
>> probably find as many violations as they found at Maine?
>> (I can almost hear the self-righteous harrumphing from
>> here:-)
>
>It may sound like self-rightous harrumphing, but what you say sounds
>like sour grapes. The notion you could find any violations at most
>schools is, to me, unlikely, and as many as at Maine?  My god, I
>shudder to think if that were true.
 
I have heard it said that if you examined any program with a fine toothed
comb, you would turn up violations.  This doesn't sound implausible given
the sheer number and scope of rules that schools have to deal with.  The
question is, what kind of violations?  And would they point to a pattern of
either intending to violate the rules or a serious lack of institutional
control over rule compliance?  I think both are not likely, although the
latter is more possible than the former since I am not sure every program
in the NCAA is doing all it can to maintain compliance.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       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.