At 04:46 AM 2/15/97 -0500, Cathy Hart wrote:
 
>You penalize the institution by money, yes.  You say, okay, if this team is
>good enough to go to the playoffs, the institution does not receive money
>from the NCAA to pay for this honor.  You tell that institution that although
>the team may be seen on television, the institution may not profit from these
>contracts.  How long these restrictions hold true could be related to the
>severity of the violations.
 
Explain to me how this is a deterant?  All it does is reinforce the idea
that if you have the money you can do whatever you want.
 
Now a monatary penalty would hurt Maine, no question, but even here if
Maine's program was not penalized they would still be able to go to the
tournaments, still be able to receive gate receipts for playoff games at
home, still get notority, still get top recruits, etc.  Nothing changes
accept the university is poorer, and that isn't going to hurt hockey.. it's
going to hurt other parts of the university.
 
A better example is Florida State football.  This is big time sports, they
could literally AFFORD to make violations as a business transaction.  Making
a few violations that gives the school a #1 ranking can bring more recruits
and more money in the future.  These Division I-A football schools are
loaded with money.
 
So remember when you deal with the NCAA, you have to look at it from a
general perspective.  On one end you have schools like Maine, but there is
another end as well that needs to be considered.
 
Now I've said before I don't agree with penalizing players who had no part
in the violations.  Let's say Tim Lovell committed some violations, for
instance.  Now he's gone and wiped his hands clean of the situation.  It
isn't fair that another player must bear the brunt.
 
But simply fining the universities is not enough.  It would only further
increase circumventing the rules.
 
One of the penalties that I believe in strongly is scholarship penalties.
 
In Maine's case next year they lose five scholarships.  This means that
Maine will have to recruit carefully, and not be able to offer as many
scholarships.  What does it do?  It makes it that much more difficult to
compete.  Now Maine's done real well this year with limited scholarships,
but if they still do well it is a credit to the coaching staff for getting
the right people on board.
 
Scholarship penalties force difficulties on a program, and does not penalize
the current players.  It does draw out things though.  Again, Maine's NCAA
ordeal is over but they will serve penalties for two more seasons and three
more years of probation.
 
But scholarships only go so far.  There are severe cases that demand more,
and what that is, I'm not sure.
 
>Yes I do not feel Maine was penalized in proportion to their sins.  One of
>the reasons there were so many of these little piddly penalties was directly
>related to updating the compliance department.
 
To paraphrase President Hutchinson.. during the self-report press conference
Hutchinson said that as he was reading the violations he kept thinking,
"this isn't very serious" and probably thought they were "piddly" as you
refer to them.
 
Then he remarked that he looked at the clock and realized he had been
reading violations for three hours and he wasn't done yet.
 
I think that speaks volumes.  Yes, Maine did not commit unforgivable moral
sins.  Maine didn't fix grades, or anything like that, but these small
violations add up over a 10-year period of time.  Yeah, they are small, but
it doesn't make them right or excusable either.
 
If they would have found these in 1990, things might have been different.
 
>That process alone uncovered
>many of the things we were penalized for.  Whose fault is it that the
>compliance system was inadequte to catch these problems before?  Was it Kevin
>White?  Was it Mike Ploszek?  I say it is ultimately the taxpayers of Maine
>who consistently underfund our land grant University, making it difficult if
>not impossible to keep up with the times.  Just look at the equipment some of
>the academic departments are forced to use, although it is hopelessly
>outdated.
 
Then Maine shouldn't be operating a Division I program.  We all know Maine
has funding problems, but if you are going to compete at a DI level and have
a top-ranked hockey program, you've got to have a good compliance system.
Maine tried to have their cake and eat it too -- run a DI program with DIII
resources.
 
It is completely unfair to blame the taxpayers for Maine's compliance
problems.  First of all, Augusta sets the taxrates, but with all the money
hockey has brought this university over the last 10 years, I do not believe
that the compliance system could not be repaired long before now.
 
Again, all you have to do is look at the compliance system now to see how
far behind Maine was.  Had they changed with the times, this never would
have been the case.
---
Deron Treadwell ([log in to unmask])