In article <23OCT93.17805787.0060.MUSIC@NMUMUS>, S Christopher
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>
>As far as the Ingraham (spelling?) case goes, I have to wonder along
>with Charlie Shub--"rightness" of the rule itself aside--why Maine isn't
>forfeiting the games in which Cal, an ineligible player, played last
>year.  In any event, it seems to me the punishment is truly aimed at
>Maine, not the player.  True, Cal now doesn't get to play in 14 games
>this year.  But if the rule had been followed (again, arguments about
>the rule are a different matter), Cal would have missed the 14 games
>LAST season, so what's the difference, as far as he's concerned?
 
Maine doesn't have to forefeit games from last season because last
season isn't what's at issue with Ingraham's transfer. At issue are
the 14 games he played in during the 1991-92 season, his first season
playing for Maine. Cal should have sat out 1991-92, but he didn't.
It's too late now to fix things because the entire playoff structure
would be different.
 
Ingraham is being punished more than Maine. The infraction happened
two years ago. It's a little too late to punish a player who had no
idea he was violating any rules. It's the responsibility of the school
to comply with NCAA regulations when it comes to handling transfers.
Cal was told he was eligible to play and there was no reason why he
should have doubted that decision.
 
BTW: Is there a statute of limitations for NCAA rules infractions?
If not, there should be.
 
(P.S. Maybe Maine had a choice - forfeit first 14 games of last season
and lose the National Championship, or sit Cal out 14 games this year.
I think it'd be wise to take the penalty now! I doubt Maine had a choice
anyway, just making a point :-)
 
 
Ryan Robbins
Stodder Hall
University of Maine
 
[log in to unmask]