Greg R. Berge wrote:
>
> The NCAA had the choice of banning Walsh from coaching.  If they had felt
> his violations of NCAA rules, and his blatant flouting of the spirit of
> those rules, warranted explusion, then they had it in their power to ban
> him.  The left it up to Maine.
 
This really isn't the case.  I doubt that the NCAA will ever again try
to outright ban a coach.  The spent a decade in litigation when they
tried to ban Tarkanian and, for all intents and purposes, they lost.
The NCAA will restrict the activities of coaches (say, by not letting
them recruit off campus), but they aren't going to ban anyone.  If Shawn
Walsh was going to be let go, Maine was going to have to do this for
themselves.
 
> In effect, Maine took the NCAA at their word, and said: you imposed these
> penalties on both Walsh and Maine for past actions.  Assumedly, you imposed
> these penalties because you measured them as the appropriate response to
> his conduct.  That means that it wipes the slate clean, and gives us the
> choice of reupping Walsh.  So we do.
 
The NCAA may not have wanted to get rid of Walsh; I don't know any of
the inside events.  But if they did, they really could only do so by
indicating to Maine that things would go easier if Walsh were gone.  In
this scenario, Maine stuck its finger in the NCAA's eye and said they'd
rather take tougher penalties and keep Walsh.
 
As much as it pains me to say it, I actually agree (in part) with Larry
Winer.  I think the whole system of college athletics as it stands is
ridiculous.  Shawn Walsh may have the worst ethics in the world, but the
contradictions built into the system at best make it easy to rationalize
this kind of behavior.
 
Nevertheless, the decision to retain Walsh rests entirely with the
University of Maine.  Make of it what you will, but this isn't a buck
than can be passed anywhere else.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.