John Forsyth writes:
>Article from Portland Press Herald, March 8, 1994, by Roberta Scruggs
>and Joshua Weinstein.  Comments follow.
...
>During an emergenmcy hearing late Monday afternoon, Chaiken and Brett
>Baber, both of the law firm Rudman and Winchell, argued that Hockey East
>has no authority to bar Maine since the NCAA recognizes Maine's standing
>to play.  The decision "was not objective but was rather done in a biased
>and arbitrary manner,"  Baber said.
 
Unlike this legal action, I suppose? :-)
 
>-----End quoted material------
>
>The reasons named in the affadavit presented to the court by Walsh:
 
I have to admit, after reading this, I almost wish I were arguing the
case on behalf of HE.  It seems too easy.  I do not think Maine should
have been suspended from the tourney, but I also think they do not
have much of a case.  I wondered whether they might have a case at
first, but the more I think about it, I just cannot see it.
 
>   1) DeGregario has a conflict of interest because he is "actively
>seeking to become the permanent commisioner"
 
DeGregorio is not one of the three candidates from whom the league has
said they would make their choice.  Perhaps he *wants* to become the
commissioner (hearsay?), but even if this were true it is still up
to the league.
 
Regardless, I cannot find any conflict of interest.  DeGregorio did
not unilaterally hand down any decisions involving Maine.  The 8
athletic directors, of which he is one, handed down the decisions.  I
am sure that he did not order the others to vote a certain way because
he wanted them to. :-)
 
>   2) Three of the schools that voted to bar Maine (UNH, BC and NU)
>stood to gain "considerable advantage" because they have "increased the
>likelihood" they will receive an NCAA invite.
 
The only way this would be true would be if Maine were the favorite
to win the HE title and walk off with the automatic bid.  If you presume
that any/all of UNH, BC and NU would not get in the tourney unless
they won HE, then whether Maine or BU wins does not matter.  Those
teams would still have to qualify on their own merits.  Since Maine
would not even be the favorite to win the HE tourney, we'd throw them
in with everybody else.  If Maine is correct and the original results
of its forfeits are what the selection committee would use, then
whether Maine played in the HE tourney or not would have little effect
on the 3 named teams having a chance to earn a bid above Maine.
 
>3) Boston University received a bye in the first round.  "Thus their
>path was rendered much easier by their vote."
 
I don't believe many people think Maine's path to the 1992 national
title was made easier by having two weeks off before getting a bye in
the first round and facing Michigan State.
 
The above three points seem designed to cast aspersions on the five
yes votes that were cast.  It would be simple to find "reasons" why any
of the other 7 teams shouldn't be able to vote on the matter.  Does
that mean Maine should be able to go on and do as it pleases?
 
>4) Hockey East allowed UMass-Lowell to compete even though they were
>on NCAA probation in 1992 for recruiting violations, and were barred from
>playing in the NCAA Tournament.
 
I addressed this yesterday - I believe that at the time of the 1992
tournament, anyone who recalls the Lowell situation would agree that
Lowell had adequately addressed all concerns dealing with their
violations and had everything in order.  Maine cannot say the same.
That was probably a strong enough difference to cause the ADs to not
draw a valid comparison between the two cases.
 
>5) Players at several league schools have been charged with assault
>or "suspended due to major fighting incidents," but no action has been
>taken against those schools.
 
I don't think there is a legitimate comparison between these situations
and the ineligibility problems at Maine.  HE could very easily argue
that it considers ineligibility matters to be quite serious and very
different from fighting, which it handles by suspending the players
involved.  In addition, since I assume that the reference to assault
deals with the UNH players, it would seem easy to argue that the local
police and the university have jurisdiction over assault cases while
the league (and NC$$) have jurisdiction over player ineligibility
matters along with repeated cases of violations (committed by a member
school).  And as I said yesterday, HE has already established a
precedent in the past of handing down rulings that are stricter than
those of the NC$$.
 
John's comments:
>Comments:  First off, I am upset that it is going to court, but its the
>only step left for Maine, and they think they are right.  I think Maine
>should be in the playoffs, but I don't think it is worth going to court
>over.
 
Yes, and I do not think they have a legal precedent to base their case
upon.  Their case is an emotional one, not so much a legal one.  But
sometimes emotional cases win, and they do have the advantage of the
judge being a local one.  So while I don't think there is much here
that would suggest a restraining order would be forthcoming, I also
won't count anything out at this point.  I'm just trying to look at
what happens in an objective light.
 
>I am also a little upset that here we are 4 days after the decision was
>handed down and Hockey East won't say a word about why it decided to bar
>Maine, they won't say now because there is court action pending, but they
>could have, and should have, made a statement when they barred Maine saying
>why they did it.
 
They probably expected that legal action was a strong possibility.  I
was surprised at first at how the league kept mum on the reasons for
the decision, but it wasn't more than a few hours after it was
announced that we heard that Maine was considering going to court.
 
>I believe its because they know thats not a valid excuse
>because they allowed Lowell to play in '92, and they were in much deeper
>trouble with the NC$$, and had committed much worse offenses.
 
I wondered about this at first, too, but after thinking about it I
don't think the league will have much trouble defending both actions
as being non-contradictory.
 
Once again, because I know there are people out there who will take
what I say here the wrong way despite my posts of the last few
days...I do not think HE should have suspended Maine from the tourney.
It was not fair to the team itself, IMO, and it was bound to cause
friction amongst the schools in the HE.  The situation could possibly
have been handled better.
 
But I don't think Maine has much evidence on its side in trying to
persuade a judge to grant a restraining order.  The league has been
given the power by its members to make decisions such as this; that is
one of the reasons why it exists.  Maine, as far as I know, agreed to
giving the league this power when the school entered the conference 10
years ago.  By granting them this power, the possibility exists that
some of these decisions may be the incorrect ones - such as this one.
But the league still has the power to make those decisions.
 
Although I don't want to see it happen, Maine certainly has the right
to withdraw from the conference if it believes that membership in the
conference does not serve its own best interests.
 
I'm still hoping this will be resolved to the satisfaction of both
parties (Maine and HE).  I don't think the chances of that happening
are very good, though.
 
Finally, I do not have anything against any of the people or schools
involved in this matter.  My comments are just an attempt to look at
everything objectively and assess the evidence.  That may explain why
in some posts I seem to be pro-Maine and in others, pro-HE.  In reality I
am neither.  If anything, I am pro-ending-this-ridiculous-mess.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<< Color Voice of the (16-17-2) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>