PDA

View Full Version : Potsdam in the playoffs????



Pages : [1] 2

SUNYHockey
02-13-2012, 06:32 PM
Can anyone tell me if/why Potsdam is elligible for the playoffs this year? According to this article the were sanctioned by the NCAA to a 2 year probation and one year post season ban on April 24, 2011. This came down way after the season had ended (NCAA Championship game was on March 26, 2011). Any insight would be much appreciated.

http://www.uscho.com/2011/04/24/potsdam-state-penalized-for-rules-violations/

norm1909
02-13-2012, 07:08 PM
Can anyone tell me if/why Potsdam is elligible for the playoffs this year? According to this article the were sanctioned by the NCAA to a 2 year probation and one year post season ban on April 24, 2011. This came down way after the season had ended (NCAA Championship game was on March 26, 2011). Any insight would be much appreciated.

http://www.uscho.com/2011/04/24/potsdam-state-penalized-for-rules-violations/

They are NOT eligible for the NCAA Ice Hockey tournament this year.

See NCAA news release here. (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/PressArchive/2011/20110421+d3+coi+ny+postdam+rls.htm)

Birdwatcher
02-13-2012, 07:38 PM
They are NOT eligible for the NCAA Ice Hockey tournament this year.

See NCAA news release here. (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/PressArchive/2011/20110421+d3+coi+ny+postdam+rls.htm)

Then why in the world would the SUNYAC even think about letting them participate in the conference tourney?

norm1909
02-13-2012, 07:45 PM
Then why in the world would the SUNYAC even think about letting them participate in the conference tourney?

It does note "whose rosters include one or more student-athletes receiving International Initiative Grants.", so if the players that received the grants are no longer on the roster this season, then it possible the would be eligible. Perhaps Saints17 knows if the sat out those players.

EDIT: Upon further study, it would be the roster at the time of the ruling, so I don't see any way they are eligible this season, they received the post season ban on April 21, 2011, so the post-season in effect at that time would be the 2011-12 season.

norm1909
02-13-2012, 07:58 PM
The initial USCHO thread is here. (http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?96185-Potsdam-Penalized-by-NCAA-for-Violating-Financial-Aid-Rules)

Saints17
02-13-2012, 08:50 PM
The Bears are eligible for both.

norm1909
02-13-2012, 09:00 PM
The Bears are eligible for both.

Where there any players who opted to keep the aid but not play?

SUNYHockey
02-13-2012, 09:12 PM
The Bears are eligible for both.

Do you have anything to back that up? I'm curious as to why they would be eligible.

PrezdeJohnson09
02-13-2012, 09:15 PM
Do you have anything to back that up? I'm curious as to why they would be eligible.

I don't know about the men.

But the women are eligible.

NUProf
02-14-2012, 06:31 AM
I'm sure that they are eligible for the same reason that Neumann is eligible. The post season ban was the same kind of ban that Neumann got which was to be enforced if there were players on the squad with the offending package. I'm sure Potsdam fixed that.

norm1909
02-14-2012, 07:39 AM
I'm sure that they are eligible for the same reason that Neumann is eligible. The post season ban was the same kind of ban that Neumann got which was to be enforced if there were players on the squad with the offending package. I'm sure Potsdam fixed that.


That is exactly what happened, the terms were:

Postseason ban, effective immediately, for any teams whose rosters include one or more student-athletes receiving International Initiative Grants.

This gave them four potential choices: Allow the players to:
1) Keep the awards and keep playing - since this option WOULD have resulted in a Postseason ban, the school did NOT offer it.
2) Keep the award and quit the team - this would prevent a postseason ban as there would be no players receiving International Initiative Grants.
3) Decline the award and stay on the team - this would prevent a postseason ban as there would be no players receiving International Initiative Grants.
4) Say to "heck" with this and leave the school - this would prevent a postseason ban as there would be no players receiving International Initiative Grants.


I am not sure if any players opted for choice 2 or 4 - Saints17 could possibily shed light on this.

Saints17
02-14-2012, 12:02 PM
I do not know any specifics of who may have kept what or what they may or may not have decided.

SUNYHockey
02-14-2012, 12:15 PM
I guess I just don't understand how the sanctioning process works. To me it seems that sanctions are brought down when a program has already broke the rules and are being punished for it, not to get a program back in compliance. I feel that the options the players have been given are just to get back where they need to be, the punishement is because they already broke the rules intentional or not. Seems to me they still need to serve the time for the crime.

Birdwatcher
02-14-2012, 12:18 PM
I guess I just don't understand how the sanctioning process works. To me it seems that sanctions are brought down when a program has already broke the rules and are being punished for it, not to get a program back in compliance. I feel that the options the players have been given are just to get back where they need to be, the punishement is because they already broke the rules intentional or not. Seems to me they still need to serve the time for the crime.

+1 This goes for Neuman and Morrisville as well

nysportsfan29
02-14-2012, 12:25 PM
I guess I just don't understand how the sanctioning process works. To me it seems that sanctions are brought down when a program has already broke the rules and are being punished for it, not to get a program back in compliance. I feel that the options the players have been given are just to get back where they need to be, the punishement is because they already broke the rules intentional or not. Seems to me they still need to serve the time for the crime.

It's always tough enforcing these penalties because it seems to harm more kids after the fact than those who were involved in the rule-breaking.

Perhaps the NCAA just wanted the rule-breaking to stop and not punish any future athletes? Or it was more of a severe slap on the wrist?

spwood
02-14-2012, 12:44 PM
It's always tough enforcing these penalties because it seems to harm more kids after the fact than those who were involved in the rule-breaking.

When did the NCAA start caring about the kids after the fact? Inquiring minds playing football at Ohio State and USC (those are the two examples that came off the top of my head) are dying to know!!!

norm1909
02-14-2012, 12:52 PM
I do not know any specifics of who may have kept what or what they may or may not have decided.

Their 2010-11 roster is here (http://collegehockeystats.net/1011/rosters/potm) and their 2011-12 here. (http://collegehockeystats.net/1112/rosters/potm)Less Seniors, the missing Canadian players are:

Mike Purcell - Pickering, Ontario (Freshman in 2010-11)
Matt Rhymer - Kingston, Ontario (Junior in 2010-11) - Still a student
Todd Hosmer - Scarbrough, Ontario (Junior in 2010-11)
David Carr - Edmonton, Alberta (Freshman in 2010-11)
Brandon Couto - Bowmanville, Ontario (Freshman in 2010-11)
Matt Miller - Pickering, Ontario (Sophmore in 2010-11)
Trevor O'Neill - Keswick, Ontario (Junior in 2010-11) - Still a student


Jesse Ostring - Ylojarvi, Finland (Freshman in 2010-11)


Returning Canadian players are:
Bill Tsekos - Montreal, Quebec (wore #7, now #18)
Nick Avgerinos - Bolton, Ontario (wore #9, now #7)
Mike Foy - Markham, Ontario (wore #15, now #4)
Matt Viola - Toronto, Ontario (wore #17, now #10)
Sy Nutkevitch - Montreal, Quebec
Brett Waters - Uxbridge, Ontario
Hunter Syrydiuk - Toronto, Ontario
Mike Arnold - Didsbury, Alberta (wore #26, now #17)
Adam Place - Scarborough, Ontario (wore #28, now #11)
Andy Groulx - Rockland, Ontario

nysportsfan29
02-14-2012, 02:49 PM
When did the NCAA start caring about the kids after the fact? Inquiring minds playing football at Ohio State and USC (those are the two examples that came off the top of my head) are dying to know!!!

Very true.

Perhaps D-III hockey has inspired them to turn over a new leaf... Doubtful, but it would be a welcome change - the NCAA's actions have made it pretty clear that they care more about making (and not spending) money than they do about student athletes.

NUProf
02-14-2012, 05:39 PM
Very true.

Perhaps D-III hockey has inspired them to turn over a new leaf... Doubtful, but it would be a welcome change - the NCAA's actions have made it pretty clear that they care more about making (and not spending) money than they do about student athletes.

To be biblical (of course a Nazareth reference last summer zinged over everybody's head). In this regard the NCAA is saying "go forth and sin nomore"

Russell Jaslow
02-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Why is this even being brought up?

As long as the roster is "clean" at the start of the season, they are eligible. And they are. The same reason the Potsdam men's lacrosse team last year, which was also cited, was eligible. They "cleaned" their roster before the season started. The same reason Neumann is eligible this year. The same reason Geneseo and Buffalo State were eligible the year after they got caught.

Clean means having no players on the roster currently (the past does not matter) receiving the financial aid that got them into trouble.

There is no need to continue with this thread.