UM delegation makes its case before NCAA

The eight people who will decide whether the University of Maine keeps its 1993 national hockey title, and whether its self-imposed sanctions for NCAA rules violations are sufficient punishment, spent more than eight hours Monday interviewing key figures in the case.

Ten UMaine representatives, led by president Fred Hutchinson, appeared before the NCAA Committee on Infractions in a small hotel conference room in Kansas City, Mo., to answer questions about numerous NCAA rules violations, defend its actions, explain its revamped compliance system, and try to preserve its 1993 NCAA national hockey title.

The Committee on Infractions, appointed by the NCAA Council, is made up of six staff members at NCAA schools or conference representatives, and two members of the general public.

The committee must determine whether UMaine should be further penalized for its admitted lack of institutional control in failing to prevent repeated violations of NCAA compliance and eligibility rules, the most severe of which occurred in the ice hockey program and first came to light late in 1993.

The hearing, which also included 10 members of the NCAA staff, lasted all day. UMaine spokesman John Diamond, who handled all media inquiries Monday from Kansas City, said the hearing began at 8:15 a.m. CDT and ended at 6 p.m., with a few breaks in between.

Diamond said UMaine officials, who will return to Orono today, were optimistic after the hearing.

“We think the case that was made was a good one, so we’re just hoping to be treated fairly,” Diamond said. “We were presenting 2 1/2 years worth of work, trying to show that the university has learned from its mistakes and that it has taken corrective action based on those mistakes.”

Julie Quickel of the NCAA’s public information staff said the committee likely has decided Maine’s fate, but won’t release its report for four to eight weeks.

Diamond said the hearing was methodical and wasn’t rushed.

“We went through through them one by one and the members of the committee asked for clarification, or elaboration, on certain points,” said Diamond, who explained it was impossible to get a read on how the university’s explanations were being received.

“They’re very careful not to give any indications either through their words or through their body language what they’re thinking,” he said. “They’re very professional about the way they maintain themselves.”

Diamond said most of the UMaine contingent sat directly across from the committee members, while the others were located on either end of a rectangular table arrangement, opposite three NCAA staff members. He said the hearing was non-confrontational.

“I was impressed with the respect and the thoughtfulness of the questions the committee asked,” Diamond said. “There were no heated words. There were calm and rational explanations by both the university and the NCAA [enforcement] staff.”

While Hutchinson conceeded the university had failed to exhibit institutional control, particularly over the hockey program run by head coach Shawn Walsh, it disputed some key allegations made by the NCAA enforcement staff.

The NCAA said Walsh, who is serving a university-imposed one-year suspension, violated its ethical conduct bylaws by intentionally attempting to mislead investigators. It charged he violated the NCAA’s cooperation principle by contacting individuals involved with the investigation despite instructions not to do so.

The university agrees Walsh had impermissible contact, but said Walsh did not try to mislead anyone, nor did he attempt to dissuade anyone from cooperating.

“We’ve been very upfront about the fact there were rules that were violated, but those rules weren’t violated intentionally,” Diamond said.

The other critical issue involves the possible stripping of UMaine’s national hockey championship because of the use of ineligible players Cal Ingraham and Mike Dunham. The university contends it already was punished for erroneously certifying Ingraham eligible for competition in 1991 when it forfeited games and held him out of action in 1993.

UMaine said it should not be held accountable for Dunham’s mother, who accepted a $2,000 honorarium on Mike Dunham’s behalf for his participation on the 1992 U.S. Olympic hockey team. She deposited the check in their joint checking account, but only after being told by an official at USA Hockey that it was not a violation of NCAA rules to take the money.