The University of Wisconsin at River Falls won the NCAA Division III men's hockey championship in 1987-88.

However, the Northern Collegiate Hockey Association decided, over the course of the next season, to investigate the Falcons and coach Rick Kozuback.

Anyone who knows of Kozuback knows why: Even with the automatic ejections and one-game suspensions for fighting in collegiate hockey, Kozuback had no problems dropping the gloves and doing what we all chanted in the stands as "Old Time Hockey".

As a result, by the end of the 1988-89 season, Wisconsin-River Falls was given two choices: Fire Kozuback, or be expelled from the Northern Collegiate Hockey Association, effectively disbanding the team.

Kozuback was fired.

Mike

Interesting note I found:

A game in February 1987, the previous season to Kozuback's national championship, needed the police when Herb Brooks' St. Cloud State team and Kozuback's Falcons started brawling Charlestown-style, 30 minutes before the game.

Mike

And then what? Football life goes on as usual at Michigan.
The problem is, there's no real way to punish the school without punishing the "innocent athletes" involved. The one exception I can think of off the top of my head is, if you allow players to transfer from a school with a bowl ban and both (a) not have it count as their one free transfer, and (b) let each school give one player from that team a scholarship without it counting against their limit of 85 (otherwise it becomes a case of pretty much every school saying, "Sorry, but we can't take any of these players"), then a bowl ban might work - it worked wonders at USC.
Even if they do fire Harbaugh, the question probably ends up becoming, which NFL team's sideline will be be on in 2024? I hear the Raiders are in the market...

And did they have automatic one-game suspensions yet in college ice hockey in 1988? My rulebooks only go back to 2007, but it wasn't marked as a rule change so I assume it was a rule in 2005 and 2006 as well (except for football and basketball, NCAA rules are only usually updated every two years).

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 7:33:40 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> And then what? Football life goes on as usual at Michigan.

No, you basically shitcan the program and this stops.

But the fact is that it starts with that you give absolutely no choice but that Harbaugh is gone, today. Or you throw them out of the Big Ten Conference.

> The problem is, there's no real way to punish the school without punishing the "innocent athletes" involved. The one exception I can

In this particular case, there are no innocent athletes. And at some point, you have to start making these players responsible for the choices they DO make.

> think of off the top of my head is, if you allow players to transfer from a school with a bowl ban and both (a) not have it count as their one free transfer, and (b) let each school give one player from that team a scholarship without it counting against their limit of 85 (otherwise it becomes a case of pretty much every school saying, "Sorry, but we can't take any of these players"), then a bowl ban might work - it worked wonders at USC.

Good. Make the kids responsible for the choices they make. If they want to go to a program that's endangered, especially one known endangered, they've made what amounts to a business decision today.

> Even if they do fire Harbaugh, the question probably ends up becoming, which NFL team's sideline will be be on in 2024? I hear the Raiders are in the market...

Pretty much, as well as the Broncos, I'd wager the Packers might need a new HC or at least OC.
> And did they have automatic one-game suspensions yet in college ice hockey in 1988? My rulebooks only go back to 2007, but it wasn't marked as a rule change so I assume it was a rule in 2005 and 2006 as well (except for football and basketball, NCAA rules are only usually updated every two years).

Yes they did, at least in D3.

Mike

Michael Falkner <darkstar7646@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a7ee252e-677b-4fb9-b8ad-12e32702bb4dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 7:33:40 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy
> wrote:
>> And then what? Football life goes on as usual at Michigan.
>
> No, you basically shitcan the program and this stops.

Democrats cheated in 2020. They should all lose their right to vote for
life. Doesn't matter if they knew the party leaders were cheating or not,
everybody pays for the bad decisions they make.

> > And then what? Football life goes on as usual at Michigan.
> No, you basically shitcan the program and this stops.

By firing Harbaugh? Or is your definition of "football life goes on as usual" include more scouting of opponents, which is the only thing that stops.

> > The problem is, there's no real way to punish the school without punishing the "innocent athletes" involved. The one exception I can
> In this particular case, there are no innocent athletes. And at some point, you have to start making these players responsible for the choices they DO make.

They're not the ones that stole the signals. The ones that did are now gone.. Any postseason ban absolutely punishes somebody who went to the school with no knowledge of what was going on. This is one of the reasons the NCAA is starting to issue heavy fines in place of bowl bans. It's similar to when it could issue TV bans; the teams' opponents complained that they were receiving one-game TV bans as well.

> > think of off the top of my head is, if you allow players to transfer from a school with a bowl ban and both (a) not have it count as their one free transfer, and (b) let each school give one player from that team a scholarship without it counting against their limit of 85 (otherwise it becomes a case of pretty much every school saying, "Sorry, but we can't take any of these players"), then a bowl ban might work - it worked wonders at USC.
> Good. Make the kids responsible for the choices they make. If they want to go to a program that's endangered, especially one known endangered, they've made what amounts to a business decision today.

Actually, there already is a Bylaw that pretty much lets someone leave a school serving a postseason ban without it counting as their free transfer, if the ban covers the entire length of their remaining eligibility, but this still leaves the problem of other schools having room to take them in. (It is a holdover from when there was no free transfer in football (or basketball, baseball, or men's ice hockey).)

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 12:39:43 PM UTC-8, cbs sports wrote:

> Democrats cheated in 2020. They should all lose their right to vote for
> life. Doesn't matter if they knew the party leaders were cheating or not,
> everybody pays for the bad decisions they make.

Your side wins in 2024, then that's exactly what's going to happen.

But this is why some of us tell you you're going to have to shoot us. There's no reason, under your (false bullshit) premise, that any further election can ever be held in a way you consider "fair" as long as we are allowed to live.

Mike

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 12:40:36 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > And then what? Football life goes on as usual at Michigan.
> > No, you basically shitcan the program and this stops.
> By firing Harbaugh? Or is your definition of "football life goes on as usual" include more scouting of opponents, which is the only thing that stops..

Shitcan the program. No more Michigan games this year, all games forfeited, 0-12.

Removing Harbaugh is not sufficient.

> > > The problem is, there's no real way to punish the school without punishing the "innocent athletes" involved. The one exception I can
> > In this particular case, there are no innocent athletes. And at some point, you have to start making these players responsible for the choices they DO make.
> They're not the ones that stole the signals. The ones that did are now gone. Any postseason ban absolutely punishes somebody who went to the school with no knowledge of what was going on. This is one of the reasons the NCAA is starting to issue heavy fines in place of bowl bans. It's similar to when it could issue TV bans; the teams' opponents complained that they were receiving one-game TV bans as well.

This is involving a benefit that the current athletes are not entitled to. They also had to know the NCAA was already coming in on Harbaugh once already before this year.

With the lack of sportsmanship, Michigan was not entitled to be 9-0 entering today.

Mike