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:
"David M. Josselyn" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
David M. Josselyn
Date:
Tue, 15 Mar 1994 01:58:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
On Sun, 13 Mar 1994 [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
> "sending a message"  Isn't it a little odd that of the three conferences
> in which Maine had ineligible athletes competeing only one decided to
> "send a message" to Maine?  The North Atlantic and Yankee Conferences
> have taken no action against UM's teams which had ineligible athletes.
> Either the Hockey East ADs just know better than everyone else, or
> everyone south of Kittery (thats 7 of the 8 HE teams) got sick of seeing
> the Bears in the Final every year?
 
I must admit to being ignorant of Maine's relationship to the other two
conferences.  Was the grad-student 6 credit incident the first violation
for those other two teams discovered this year?  Or the third, as it was
for HE?  (And yes, I know the Ingraham situation existed prior to this
year, but my point is it came to light this year.)
 
As for the conspiracy theories about teams south of Kittery, I assume
there was a missing smiley there. :-)
 
> One additional comment.  All of those people who have posted remarks
> against UMaine in this mess, save your posts and remember what
> you wrote.  It may be just a matter of time before its YOUR program under
> fire, and we'll see how you feel then.I for one, want to see college
> athletics cleaned up, and if that means embarrassing a few people in the
> process, so be it.  UMaine is not the first school to come under scrutiny,
> and it won't be the last.  I'm glad that the posts made will be in the
> archives, so that in two, three, four years when X Univ. comes under fire,
> we can all go back and see what the folks at UX had to say about UM.
 
I agree wholeheartedly.  Although it does seem more than a little cynical
to assume that it is "only a matter of time" before our own schools are
investigated. To some extent, I believe hockey is still not quite at the
stage where such investigations are the rule and not the exception.
 
OTOH, I would want similar violations at my own school, Merrimack, looked
at just as closely. Why, here at $yracuse a year without an NC$$
investigation is a year without sunshine! ;-)
 
> John Forsyth
> to paraphrase Mark Twain: Anyone attempting to find seriousness in this
> post will be shot.  Anyone who sends flames will be hanged.
> Since Maine is out:  Go UML
 
Second the cheer for Lowell.  Like Mike, I think I'll adopt them. If
nothing else, it would allow Merrimack to claim they had lost first
rounders to the eventual league champion four times out of five years.
(Which means, er, they finish last most of the time.  Oh well.)
 
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
 
GO MERRIMACK!  GO ARGUS!  /\
                         /  \
                        /(*) \
                       /      \
                      /________\

ATOM RSS1 RSS2