View Single Post
Old
08-15-2012, 07:44 PM
  #79
TheFinalWord
Registered User
 
TheFinalWord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingpin794 View Post
You have to make a punishment that gets the point across. That's what those types of NCAA sanctions are made for. Yes you would be punishing players that had nothing to do with a violation of the rules, but it would be a future deterant for management. One year of a team being banned from the post season will hurt attendane, as well as scare away top end talent long enough to stop a team from breaking the rules twice. Putting a rule like this in place would also create the accountability I was talking about. Do you want to be the guy that ruins a chance at a playoff run for your teamates or will you think twice about taking the improper benifits?

Of course you could just be selfish (which alot of players would be) and break the rules. Nothing like burning bridges to endear you to your fanbase.
This isn't boosters giving things to players without the team's knowledge. This is the team paying players when they shouldn't be. Unless a fan base is really daft, they're going to understand that the team is to blame for this situation.

And the punishment handed down should cause other teams to at least think twice before offering the same sorts of benefits. All it takes is one relationship to sour and you can have a player providing all the evidence the league needs to drop the hammer on a team.

I really do hope London and Kitchener are next. Everyone knows that those two teams, along with Windsor, are the three worst offenders. There may be some other teams also involved in these activities, but they either haven't had the success or don't have the money to compete.

TheFinalWord is offline   Reply With Quote