As an ardent Maine fan, I've been avidly watching the point-forfeiture imbroglio for some time, and I must admit to mixed feelings. They are not, however, what one might expect from a Mainiac. First let me say that I whole-heartedly agree with HE's decision to take points away from Maine; breaking the rules requires that the offender(s) to be punished. However, I have to wonder at the idea of awarding the points to PC. Should they be rewarded for Maine's actions? I understand what Steve said: >The rules state that the games are recorded as 1-0 victories for >Providence, with Providence receiving 2 points for each victory. Perhaps that is the rule, but did PC actually EARN those points? How much of an effect did Jeff Tory actually have in those games, anyway? What is the likelihood that PC would have won if he hadn't played? Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Maine shouldn't lose the points, but rather that PC shouldn't gain them. It seems that that the rest of HE is being implicitly penalized for Maine's actions: PC reaps an unearned reward and, at the end of the season, may end up with home ice in the HE Tourney against a team that had nothing whatsoever to do with the entire situation. The current rule may be just as Steve quoted (although I recall a fairly recent round of postings regarding the problematic nature of forfeiture rules), but does that make it right? If the rule was set in stone then why did the HE AD's have their meeting, anyway? Maine didn't deny their actions; were the rule set in stone the points should have been awarded to PC regardless of the opinions of eight men sitting around a table. That group of eight ought to have done the right thing, not the "rule" thing. ___ ___ | \ / | | \ / | Jason A. Pierce |M A I N E| University of Maine, '93 [log in to unmask] |B L A C K| University of St Andrews, '94 [log in to unmask] |B E A R S| (hopefully!) | \ / | | |\ /| | M - A - I - N - E Go... BLUE!!! | | v | | |___| |___|