The University of Maine’s hockey team is going about its business as usual as the new season unfolds during this weekend’s Great Western Freeze Out in California.

A cloud hangs over the program in the form of a National Collegiate Athletic Association investigation for the second straight season, but the Maine players know there’s no sense fretting over the eventual resolution.

“We don’t even think about it anymore. We don’t have any control over it,” said senior goalie Blair Allison.

The investigatory portion has been completed by the Kansas City law firm of Bond, Schoeneck and King, said John Diamond, the university’s director of public affairs, this week. The firm was hired by the university to supervise its self-investigation.

The tab, so far, has totaled nearly $450,000.

The investigation has cost the university $236,373 to date, Diamond said. The money has come from gift accounts, discretionary funds and funds that have been raised for the investigation. Diamond stressed the funds have not come from the university’s state subsidies and tuition revenues.

Bond, Schoeneck and King also established a compliance system for the university that cost $144,936. And the university has paid the firm $66,948 for its work on eligibility appeals.

The next step, according to Diamond, will involve the law firm sending its report to UMaine President Frederick Hutchinson. He will review it, decide what action to take and send it to the NCAA’s enforcement staff. That staff will analyze the report and any actions taken by Hutchinson.

Hutchinson has declined to comment on the investigation until he receives the report from Bond, Schoeneck and King.

A complex process

It can still be a long and complex process before the hockey matter is finished.

The NCAA can accept Maine’s self-imposed sanctions. It can impose its own sanctions on the university. Or it can agree to a combination of the two.

The NCAA’s enforcement staff can accept the Maine report and take no further action or pursue it by sending a letter of inquiry to the university, according to Diamond.

The university would have to respond to that letter, citing the violations the investigation discovered and reported.

The NCAA enforcement staff, along with the university and parties involved in the investigation, would have to agree to the facts, the remedies, disciplinary actions or penalties to obtain a summary disposition.

A summary disposition would allow the NCAA and the university to resolve the situation without a hearing.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions could then approve the summary disposition or reject it and schedule a hearing. That committee meets five times a year.

The school’s hockey program began being scrutinized by the NCAA for a variety of alleged eligibility violations during the 1993-94 academic year. Budget reductions, mistakes made by an understaffed and underquipped compliance department, and a costly recruiting error committed by Maine coach Shawn Walsh resulted in 28 forfeited hockey games, including 14 during the 1993-94 season.

Three players were ruled ineligible for parts of the season, and Hutchinson suspended Walsh for five games for recruiting defenseman Jeff Tory and allowing him to play after Walsh had been alerted by other schools that Tory would be academically ineligible for a year.

Woody Carville, the acting compliance director, lost his job and Maine Athletic Director Mike Ploszek resigned in the aftermath.

These events triggered the NCAA investigation and the university’s self-report.

The process involving the University of Maine has lasted a year and a half, and new Athletic Director Suzanne Tyler doesn’t expect a resolution until sometime in 1996.

According to Mark Jones, one of the NCAA’s enforcement directors, a lengthy investigation like Maine’s this is not out of the ordinary.

“It’s not unusual for some cases to take two-and-a-half to three years,” said Jones. “We don’t like them to go that long. We like them to go faster. But, sometimes, for a variety of reasons, it takes longer.

“Whenever you do an investigation, you have to schedule interviews when it is convenient for somebody to meet with you,” explained Jones. “You also have to work with school calendar constraints.

“As it goes on, new information can pop up that you have to investigate, and that takes time,” added Jones. “You also have to nurture some sources who are reluctant to go on the record with you. It can be a very painstaking process.”

One of the law firm’s investigators, Scott Tompsett, said each investigation is unique and it is difficult to apply a timetable.

“They range from a few months to a couple of years,” said Tompsett, who has been involved with the Maine investigation. “There’s a wide range depending upon what is involved.”

UMaine compliance director Tammy Light said the investigation “feels like it’s dragging on,” but she understands that is the nature of the beast.

“I’m not real sure what the average length is but, in looking at other cases in the NCAA News [publication], all of them last two to three years,” said Light.

No rocks unturned

Though university officials would like to have the hockey matter resolved soon, they also want the process to be thorough.

“Maine has gone about this exactly the way that makes the most sense, which is making sure that when it’s there, it’s perfect,” said Tyler, who endured NCAA investigations as an associate athletic director at the University of Maryland.

“There are two ways to handle the NCAA,” continued Tyler. “One is to go fast and furious. Throw it in there, look at it, make the decision, deal with it and then it’s over.

“The other strategy is to make sure that every rock is overturned, every `i’ is dotted, every `t’ is crossed. If underneath one rock you find something, you investigate that and go very methodically, very thoroughly,” said Tyler in describing the process Maine has followed.

“Your ultimate goal is always to handle it yourself, to institutionally be able to say `We’ve found the problem, we thoroughly investigated the problem and these are the ways we are rectifying the problem,” said Tyler.

“We have put things in place, we have put people in place so that it won’t happen again,” she added.

“We’re better off being complete and thorough,” agreed Walsh.

Tyler said the speedy option is usually used when player eligibility is at stake.

“You want the player to become eligible for their upcoming season,” explained Tyler. “For that reason, what will happen is an eligibility case like that one will bump another case off that month’s [infractions committee] docket, a case that doesn’t involve eligibility.”

One eligibility case at Maryland took only seven months to resolve, Tyler recalled. Another case dealing with improprieties in the Maryland men’s basketball program took close to two years, she said.

“The quick option is not available in our case,” said Tyler.

Investigations vary

Tyler said one of the main reasons it may seem like the case has dragged on is because the University of Maine has never been through such a thorough investigation.

“It’s like the court system. It takes the same type of time,” said Tyler.

Dozens of people involved with the program have been interviewed and many documents have been examined.

Colorado College Athletic Director Max Taylor said his school hired Bond, Schoeneck and King to investigate their hockey program in 1993 and the entire process took 17 months.

“We discovered infractions in January 1993. We self-reported them to the NCAA on Feb. 22, 1993, and we received final word [on a one-year probation] from the NCAA on June 7, 1994,” said Taylor.

He also pointed out that his school’s hearing was held three months later than expected.

Dana Skinner, acting athletic director at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, recalled a similar NCAA investigation involving Coach Bill Riley and the UMass-Lowell hockey program.

“It lasted longer than we anticipated,” said Skinner. “It took about a year.”