Jason Pierce writes:
>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?
...
>It seems that that the rest of HE is being implicitly
>penalized for Maine's actions ...
...
>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.
 
Good points all, however, there are several important things to
recognize here:
 
* Perhaps the rest of HE (I assume you mean the six teams other than PC &
Maine) is being penalized for Maine's actions, but it is still not anyone
other than HE that is doing the penalizing.  Remember: the decision
to give the points to PC was announced as unanimous.  It appears that
perhaps one AD was against the move but in the end agreed to go along
to make it unanimous, but still, this means at least 5 of the other 6
teams affected decided that it would be right to give PC the points.
It is not as if the NC$$ came along and ordered HE to do this.
 
* I believe there wasn't anything in the HE bylaws to handle such a
situation, thus the need to convene (by telephone) and discuss the
matter.  If there was such a rule, there would probably not have been
a problem.  I do wonder whether an change will be made to the league
regulations so that this will be automatic in the future (if the rules
indeed do not currently cover this).  I'll try to find out more from
Bob DeGregorio when I get a chance.
 
* I find it impossible to accept the argument that the ADs did not do
the "right" thing.  Certainly, it might seem initially to be unfair to
the other 6 teams that PC gets to pick up six points it didn't earn on
the ice just because it was lucky enough to schedule Maine when they
were playing an ineligible player.  But as Jack Parker said, the
decision would have been an easy one had Maine played PC, UNH and
Merrimack, for instance.  The way I look at it, if that situation
would have resulted in the three opponents of Maine being awarded the
points, then there is really no justification for not doing the same
with PC just because they were the opponent all three times.  I have
to believe this is how the ADs saw it, too.
 
* Finally, there are precedents.  When BU forfeited a dozen or so
games in 1972-73 for using an ineligible player, many of those
forfeits were to ECAC opponents.  The forfeits changed the standings.
This situation is really no different.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<< Color Voice of the (12-14-2) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>