dtrain34 wrote:There are two things, first if you want to give them the paper championship, go ahead, cause no ones cares about what could or should have been; and two, you coach, practice, and play a long time for that one year, when you have a chance. Cause that is all that you can ask for, a chance to compete and try for the 'ship. To throw all that away cause of not following protocol and monitoring academic standings (these kids are STUDENT-athletes by the way) is one of the most irresponsible, selfish, and ignorant things I have ever heard of.
Everyone makes mistakes and things happen. But this is not the first time in the last 10 years that Chapman has been disciplined for playing with ineligible players. How many times is it going to take, how many opportunities are the majority of the kids on the team going to have to unfairly miss out on, before they follow the rules?
They wasted the eligiblity of the best offensive player in the league, the talent around him, and as I said, a chance at a championship for what? Pathetic...
Your comments are incredibly crude, uniformed and petty. You have no detailed knowledge of the situation with Chapman, which was more of an institutional failing on the part of the university then on the part of the team. You make it sound like they not only broke the rules on purpose, but that they have a history of doing so. This bullish slander gets nowhere. Club teams are not varsity programs, and to assume that all academics can be monitored at all times is absurd. I am sure any coach can tell you that working with Universities from the "outside looking in" can be a long and tedious process. The WCLL checks at the start of the season and at the end. I have collected a great deal of info from parties involved in this dispute. In Chapman's case, the status of the play in question was found on that last check after their last game. Without getting into detail, there were many unfortunate errors, many made on the part of the university. The player attended all of the classes but was not officially enrolled. In fact, the University admited this in February, and corrected his transcript. They even charged him money for being in the classes.
Long story short, the league and the team were not able to work things out, which was unfortunate for all involved. I don't think Chapman really got the fair side of the coin when it came down to it. Chapman was a good team this year, with potential to be a great team in the future. They could not "clear the ball against Arizona" and lost by 1 goal. They beat UCSB by 8. They beat Utah, who also beat UCSB. I would look for Chapman to have a chip on their shoulder next year going into the season. I am sure UCSB will also have one the next time they face Chapman on the field. It is nice to see that rivalry become more 2 sided (double overtime SB win in 06 was a great game to watch).
Making unfounded attacks like yours is what is truly "pathetic."
