Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 8 Mar 1994 19:14:47 EST |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Text item: Text_1
I'm baffled by the NCAA's treatment of forfeits but I have an
explanation that makes sense....I think.
Maine (or any other school with a lot of forfeits) should NOT be
selected for the tournament. I don't believe there's a snowball's
chance in hell that they will be picked in 12 days. However, why
penalize the teams that played them? If a TEAM A beats TEAM B and
TEAM B subsequently forfeits all its' games, should TEAM A's strength
of schedule suffer? I think not....other teams should not suffer, but
the offending team should.
Note that I'm only talking about the NCAA tournament here.....not the
Hockey East tournament which ordinarily takes all teams.
As for the "why should the players on the offending team suffer"
theory - I don't buy it. What penalty would be OK? Fines? No, that
would adversely affect students not even associated with the program.
Reduced scholarships? No, that penalizes players in future years.
Bottom line: when you are a member of an organization that breaks the
rules, you participate in the sacrifice. If my company is thrown out
of a critical government bid because of violations that I had nothing
to do with, I will suffer. Not fair, perhaps, but it is reality. It
also might make me think about finding another company (assuming that
choice isn't made for me).
Q? Did the Maine team benefit from having an ineligible player. Are
the players members of the team? Did they benefit?
Jon
P.S. HE certainly doesn't smell like a rose in all of this. While I
believe that it is OK to bar a team which has committed a sequence of
violations, that rule should be written and enforceable from this day
forward. "Winging it" is not a good way to run any organization. It
sure appears to be motivated by the spectre of the Ferraros and Kariya
returning to blue uniforms..........
P.S.S. I also don't subscribe to the NC$$ nomenclature. I don't like
the organization but if pursuit of the dollar and self-preservation
are the criteria, how about $T&T, $FL/CIO, xxx$xx$ church (won't
insult anyone's beliefs by naming a specific one), H$rv$rd (couldn't
resist), US Sen$te, xx$xx$xx (fill in name of many "charities"), etc.?
It could get tired quickly......
|
|
|