Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.
The compliance officer: The current acting compliance officer at UMaine is Tammy Light, who was assigned after former compliance officer Woody Carville was forced out/resigned, whatever you wish to term it. Since taking over Tammy has already dealt with problems concerning the football team (and I believe the field hockey team) and some ineligibility problems there arising from problems last year. The situation was never fully explained because the athletes in question were under 21 and protected by a university Privacy Act. The university has changed its operation concerning compliance, IMO the most important change being the upgrading of the computer system so that checking records is done with far greater accuracy and efficiency. I worked with Tammy when I was at Orono and I am quite sure that while she is in charge it will be an efficient, honest and competent process, and hopefully that will carry over when the permanent compliance officer is named. Mike's eligibility: Judging from past NC$$ decisions, I would guess that the NC$$ will choose the path of least resistance and do whatever will cause the least amount of change in what has already happened (IE: taking away our championship and awarding it to LSSU would be a major change, and I'd say its unlikely.) That would mean allowing Mike's 92-93 and 93-94 seasons to stand, and "allowing" him to have his "senior" season be the second year of eligibility lost. There is already a precedent in the Jeff Tory (and UNLV) case(s). Tory is being allowed to sit his senior season rather than his sophomore year. With the ambiguity built into the rules, the NC$$ can go along with that ruling in this case, and it would be tough to say they were wrong (it will be tough to say they were wrong no matter how they eventually rule). A couple of questions about the NC$$: A) Can anyone say with any certainty WHEN a ruling can be expected, and B) Exactly WHO will make the ruling? Mike's scholarship: Given what I know about how the University gives out scholarships, I can practically guarantee he was not given a "free ride" (guaranteed scholarship for four years). It is more likely that he received a pair of two-year deals (freshman-sophomore, then a junior-senior year agreement). It is also likely that the terms of the agreement say that he has to participate in hockey in order to receive the scholarship. The university has a way to "protect" itself in the event that the athlete can no longer play (and under a contract, that means that they broke their end of the deal). I do not know the specifics of Mike's scholarship agreement, but I am hopeful that even if they have the right to revoke his scholarship, they will let him keep it. In order to reduce the bandwidth I use, I'll put this in this post: I have offered a couple of subscribers to hockey-l a weekly update on former college players now in the AHL. If you would like an update on a certain player (or a couple of players) email me at jforsy41@maine with the player's name and what AHL team he plays for. The information I'll send out (usually on Tuesday) will be box scores and other data from games they play against the Pirates, or anything I hear about the player during Pirates radio broadcasts or in the local papers which you may not get in your paper. So if you don't hear from me, it means your guy hasn't played us, or I haven't heard anything. :-> Thats all for now. John Forsyth