HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
College Hockey discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 20 Mar 91 16:51:00 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (89 lines)
Kevin Yetman writes:
>1.) Does this kind of thing go on a lot and just go unreported?
 
    First, this is my opinion and comes from my personal experience at
    three DivI schools.
 
    If you are referring to waving cash around in the locker room and
    putting up recruits in the coach's house, I say no.  That kind of
    thing is really outrageous and no self-respecting coach would have
    anything to do with it.  Those are the things I think caused the
    NCAA to really go after Lowell.
 
    But the meal expenses, allowing phone calls from the office, etc.
    are things that undoubtedly occur from time to time.  Think of it -
    "Coach, I was supposed to call my mom now but I have to be on the
    ice in 5 minutes.  Can I give her a quick call?"  "Coach, can I
    borrow five bucks for lunch?" (forgetting to pay him back)
    Technically, these are violations although no harm was intended.
    But clearly what was going on at Lowell went far beyond the realm of
    innocent breaches of NCAA regulations.
 
    A guy I know who went to Syracuse and told me that yes, all the
    allegations you've heard about Syracuse basketball are true, also
    suggests that if you dig deep enough at any major sports program in
    the country you will find some violation.  While this may be true,
    I think that what he's referring to are the minor, no-harm-intended,
    non-repetitive type of violations.  I do not think every coach waves
    cash around as an incentive for his players.
 
    At least there were no allegations of Riley being involved in fixing
    grades or anything academic-related.  I know of several unreported
    incidents that did occur at one school - an ECAC school, even, lest ECAC
    fans take this opportunity to claim their league is above reproach. :-)
 
>2.) Does this suspension mean that their is no Hockey East playoffs for Lowell
>next year, or does it just pertain to the NCAA tournament?
 
    Just the NCAAs.  The NCAA has no power over the Hockey East tournament.
    Hockey East itself could censure Lowell, but that is doubtful.
 
    Think of cases in basketball where teams have been placed on probation
    by the NCAA but still competed in their conference tourneys.  Hockey
    follows virtually the same rules.
 
Kap writes:
> Is this the first time a team has been placed on probation for NCAA
> infractions?
 
    No, I know of at least one other time.  Denver's participation in the
    1973 NCAA tourney, where they lost the championship game to Wisconsin,
    was voided by the NCAA in 1976 for recruiting violations and Denver was
    placed on probation (not sure how long).  I hope someone will post
    if they know of any other teams placed on probation.
 
    Recently, Plattsburgh State (DivIII) was put on probation by the NCAA
    and declared ineligible for the NCAA tourney; I don't know all the
    details of this case.  These are the only two teams I was aware of
    before Lowell.
 
> Has any other team ever been banned from NCAA tourney play?
 
    I think Denver was banned, in the late 70s.  They were almost good
    enough to go in 1978, when they finished first in the WCHA.  But
    they lost in the second round to #5 Colorado College, and CC and
    #2 Wisconsin went anyway.  There was no WCHA Championship that year.
 
> IMO, banning the Chiefs from the 1992 NCAA tournament really isn't much of a
> punishment.
 
    Agreed, although there is always the outside chance that they could
    win the Hockey East tourney, in which case the automatic bid would go
    to the runner-up, apparently.  Consensus is that Lowell would have been
    hit very hard if Riley was still coach and if the school had let everything
    slide.  You can read that to mean the "death penalty" if you want, but
    I tend to think several additional years of probation and maybe slashed
    scholarships would have been more likely.  I also am more likely now to
    believe that the school forced Riley out at the end of last year but that
    they wanted to do it gracefully because he has unquestionably done a lot
    for the program.
 
    I will pick up a Lowell Sun on my way home tonight.  I'm sure they are
    covering this story in much more detail than any of the Boston papers,
    and if there's anything interesting I will send it out.
 
 
    - mike
 
    p.s. rough week for Hockey East, isn't it.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2