At 6:44 PM -0400 8/12/96, Deron Treadwell wrote [on INFO-HOCKEY-L &
MAINE-HOCKEY]:
> For full story see the College Hockey Homepage's version at:
> http://maine.maine.edu/~dtread41/93title.html
>
> The NCAA's Executive Committee met and ruled today that the
> University of Maine will retain their 1993 National Title.
 
Haven't seen any thoughts on this yet, but I'll weigh in here.  I admit
that beforehand, I could have seen it going either way, primarily because
the past has shown that the NCAA has usually been tough and unyielding on
teams that use ineligible players.
 
But I'm starting to think that maybe lately we're seeing the NCAA hand down
more and more decisions that are simply common sense.  The fact that the
NCAA agreed with the argument that the Dunhams had acted in "good faith" is
quite interesting, because it doesn't seem like they have taken things like
this into account before or until recently.
 
When you get right down to it, by the letter of the law, Dunham would seem
to have become ineligible when he (or his mom) accepted the check.  There
wasn't any intent to break the rules, however, on the part of anyone
associated with the University or the Dunhams.
 
I think there's a certain amount of truth to the idea that ignorance of the
rules isn't a solid defense, and I'm sure some people will feel this way
and say that Maine should have lost the title anyway as a result of this.
But on the other hand, many people who say this don't comprehend what
they're suggesting.  The bureaucracy of the NCAA has resulted in a wide
array of rules that take up 600 pages just to list in the 96-97 NCAA
Manual, and many more in the way of interpretations of those rules handed
down by the NCAA staff.  It is truly a mind-boggling effort to try to
assure complete and total compliance.
 
Maybe the NCAA is recognizing the difficulty of that effort and heading
more in the direction of expecting institutions to make a reasonable and
solid attempt to comply with the rules.  And that if this is done and it
can be shown that there was no intent to violate the rules, they will be
understanding.  The phrase "kindler and gentler" NCAA comes to mind.  It
will be interesting to see if future cases reflect this apparent change in
philosophy.
 
Still, this case should not pass without some effort towards insuring that
it doesn't happen again.  The real answer is that in any case where there
might be some doubt, parents and SAs need to get a definite answer from the
compliance officer at their school or even the NCAA itself.  You honestly
cannot rely on the opinion of anyone other than those whose job it is to
know these things.  Parents and SAs need to know who their compliance
officer is and how to contact him/her or the NCAA in situations like this.
Every parent of a college athlete and athletes themselves really should pay
attention to this.  I think it is one of the most important things you will
see in this forum.
 
Sometimes I get questions from people asking me about various situations
that may or may not affect their eligibility or that of their son (or
daughter).  And I am sure other people have had this experience too.  The
only way to handle this is to direct them to the appropriate person at
their school or the NCAA.  It isn't my job to know these things.  Neither
was it USA Hockey's job.
 
But even though USA Hockey did provide incorrect information, and even
though the Dunhams perhaps should have known to seek out answers from a
"professional", there isn't any evidence to suggest that they deliberately
avoided getting those answers or acted with knowledge of the rules.
Therefore, the decision to leave the title in Maine's hands was a good one.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****