Here's my two cents about the Ferraro Olympic situation AND about
the recent frustrations with Shane Johnson of BU and Dave McIsaac
of Maine.
 
First, about the Ferraros, the Olympics, and academics in general.
There's a good deal of frustration around hockey-l concerning the
fact that the Ferraros seem to be "getting away" with something
by coming back from the Olympics and playing for UMaine without
"paying their dues" in the classroom.  My impression from Wayne
Smith's posting was that it might actually be "NCAA legal" to
play at Maine in the spring without registering for spring classes.
My impression also (from other postings) is that what is "legal"
is not necessarily "moral", especially where the NCAA and UMaine
(two morally "suspect" institutions as of this writing) are
concerned.  So much for the facts.
 
Has anyone considered the fact that these "kids" are playing in
THE OLYMPICS, and that such an experience is worth 1000 times as
much "academically" as classroom time.  I should think that
Institutions should not only encourage such experiences, but
find a way to give academic credit for participation in such
activities.  Simply playing in the games is the least of it.
While others are learning within the oftimes sterile classroom
environment, these kids are experiencing foreign countries and
cultures, and learning about world problems directly from the
mouths of Olympic hopefuls from these countries.
 
A growing number of quality academic institutions recognize
such "life experience" qualifications already, both through
admissions AND college credit.  Top schools, the Ivies
especially, consider such "life experience" heavily. I
recently talked to a family that has spent the past 10 years
sailing about the world on a small schooner.  When considering
a daughter's college application, a number of top schools
gave her the impression that such experience would not only
guarantee her admission but also a scholarship.  Such
preferential treatment is also given to chess prodigies,
public figures, AND athletes, among others.
 
I'm a faculty member at UMaine, and my primary concern
for our students is that they get as well rounded an
education as possible.  In the Computer Science Dept. we
run a field experience course for just this reason.  We
realize that a students don't truly learn unless they learn
"in context".  Going to the Olympics, even if they don't play
(consider the Mike Dunham situtation 2 years ago), is, as
far as I'm concerned, a wonderful academic experience for
student athletes.  Any argument about the "immorality" of
coming back and playing for their school after such
an experience just doesn't cut it.
 
So much for the Olympic nonsense.  Now, consider recent
postings concerning the poor play of both Dave McIsaac of
UMaine and Shane Johnson of BU.  Both of these "kids" (or
"young men" if you find "kids" a bit too strong) are
extremely talented, and have both shown flashes of brilliance
on the ice.  I speak especially of McIsaac, since I've seen
him a good deal.  I can't speak of Johnson because I haven't
concentrated on his play in recent Maine/BU matches, but I
can also tell you that I've seen McIsaac "stink out the joint".
 
So what's the point.  Both of these young men were recruited by
the best in the business, Shawn Walsh and Jack Parker, both
are extremely talented, both are mistake-prone, both are
"kids", and NEITHER ARE PROS.  You can say what you want about
the fact that the system being the way it is treats them as
pros, but they're not.  Look closely at their faces when their
helmuts are off - they're kids, and have the potential to
make every mistake that kids make.
 
So, if you want to be a college hockey fan, accept the mistakes,
hope that your coach is wise enough to accept them also, and
always be surprised when the kids do something brilliant.  That
element of surprise is what makes college athletics so much
more "surprising" that the pros.
 
Just some thoughts.
Larry Latour
UMaine