At 12:59 PM 11/8/96 -0500, Howard Quimby wrote:
 
>That's not right!  Punishments should not in any way be tied to an
>individual's past or potential accomplishments. That's what part of the
>problem at Maine was -- Walsh *knew* he was too valuable to be punished and
>acted accordingly.  If President Fred had any backbone, Walsh would have been
>summarily dismissed.  And if Walsh knew he would be dismissed, he likely would
>have acted differently.
 
When I read Wayne's post, I knew Walsh's best friend, namely Howard, would
have something to say!  :-)
 
The NC$$ could have banned Walsh but they didn't.  That doesn't mean he's
off the hook, but it does mean that while Maine's not dismissing him, and
instead suspending him for a year might have been a poor decision in the
mind of some people, the NCAA didn't exactly take exception to that.
 
The NCAA report on Walsh is quite interesting, because mainly the NCAA
concludes that Walsh *thought* he knew more than he actually did.  Walsh
prided himself on his *knowledge* of the rules and the NCAA essentially let
the air out of that real fast.  This is most likely why the NCAA let him
stay.  If they would have concluded that he knowingly, and purposely
violated all these rules he would have been banned for life, but they didn't
conclude that, and it is factually incorrect to say that Walsh did violate
*all* these rules purposely, because the NCAA did not find him guilty of that.
 
We might all think OJ Simpson killed his wife, but it's factually incorrect
to say he is a murderer.
 
>That's why we're applauding UCLA.
 
I've got some added information and did some digging and if the truth ever
comes out about what happened at UCLA, I am positive that you won't think so
highly of the administration then.
 
It's not as simple as one expense account.
---
Deron Treadwell ([log in to unmask])
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.