Dave Naghski writes:
>It is clear
>that this eleigibility question can be discussed (by us) for hours but
>the compliance officer should have been able to get the question answered by
>the NCAA much quicker.  That is, the possible problem should have been
>recognized and the course of action plotted.
 
However, in defense of the compliance officer mentioned, I do not
believe she held that position at the time.  It appears that having
just taken the job recently, she then made the determination in
question which covered a situation that took place before her hiring.
 
What is not clear is who, if anyone, knew of this situation back when
Latendresse enrolled and what was done then.  It is also, as I said in
another message, not clear that the NC$$ agrees with the compliance
officer's determination.
 
>As to the question of when Latendresse would have had to sit out and if this
>could cause problems:  It seems a couple of years ago the UNLV basketball
>team essentially got to choose when it would be convenient for them to serve
>their penalty.
 
However, this is a very different situation.  UNLV received a penalty
after violations were uncovered and ruled upon.  Here, we are
potentially dealing with a SA who should have been ineligible but
played anyway.  If this is what the NC$$ determines, it would appear
to require sanctions for the years in which the ineligible SA competed,
based on past record.  I don't believe the NC$$ allows you to decide
when you should be ineligible.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<< Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors (station TBA for 94-95) >>>>>