{"id":30784,"date":"2009-11-12T12:55:29","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T18:55:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uscho.com\/2009\/11\/12\/this-week-in-the-ccha-nov-12-2009\/"},"modified":"2010-08-17T19:57:32","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T00:57:32","slug":"this-week-in-the-ccha-nov-12-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wwwproxy.uscho.com\/2009\/11\/12\/this-week-in-the-ccha-nov-12-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"This Week in the CCHA: Nov. 12, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Last week, I registered my discontent with the issues surrounding the Oct. 30 shootout in Omaha, when Bowling Green was awarded the extra shootout point despite an ineligible player scoring the deciding shootout goal. To refresh the memories of those unfamiliar with the case, BGSU freshman Jordan Samuels-Thomas was the only one to score in the shootout, and Samuels-Thomas should have been ineligible because he was in the penalty box at the end of overtime.<\/p>\n
In my attempt to illustrate what I see as a greater problem — the shootout being a distinctly different beast from the game itself — I unintentionally created the impression that the CCHA could have acted in a way different from how it did to resolve the situation.<\/p>\n
I never said in last week’s column that the league should have allowed a shootout the following day, as UNO coach Dean Blais suggested in his statements post-game, statements that I quoted, nor was it my intention to imply that such action should be taken. <\/p>\n
One of my contentions was then and remains theoretical. I was questioning when a game ends. I did not mean it in the literal sense — that a game ends when a buzzer sounds, or when all parties have made their collective ways into their respective locker rooms. <\/p>\n
Instead, I was using the situation in Omaha to illustrate the difference between what occurs on the clock and what occurs off, to reiterate my position that the shootout is extracurricular, not part of the actual game. <\/p>\n
What I wrote did, however, create confusion that I did not intend.<\/p>\n
To wrap up this particular subject, I’ve received quite a bit of e-mail informing me that the officiating crew involved in that game was let go by the CCHA. That is simply not true. The league has disciplined those officials, but has not released the nature of the discipline. <\/p>\n
And that’s the end of that.<\/p>\n
Maybe I was born skeptical. Maybe I’m just not a nice person. <\/p>\n
After reading my esteemed colleague Danny Martin’s interview with former Alaska head coach Doc DelCastillo in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner<\/I> this week, I remain unconvinced that DelCastillo was the victim of a vast player-led conspiracy to get him fired from his position as Nanooks coach.<\/p>\n
This is an article that I know Danny Martin and the News-Miner<\/I> worked hard to produce. The News-Miner<\/I> filed a public records request in April of last year to obtain documents related to this case, and for Martin’s article, University of Alaska-Fairbanks officials seem tight-lipped.<\/p>\n
In the article, DelCastillo claims he was released by the University of Alaska-Fairbanks based on unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment and that the University “deliberately” put him “in a situation to make it look like something happened that didn’t happen.”<\/p>\n
In the article, DelCastillo also admitted to having contacted by cell phone the two women who brought the accusations of sexual harassment, one of whom was a student.<\/p>\n
I have several problems with DelCastillo’s whole story. I do not understand what these women would stand to gain personally by accusing DelCastillo of sexual harassment. Many victims of sexual harassment — men and women alike — do not report what they’ve experienced for fear of backlash, of not being taken seriously, or because of the shame associated with reporting. Given the potential negative effects on the lives of his accusers, I don’t see them fabricating their reports.<\/p>\n
Another problem I have is the way DelCastillo describes his cell phone contact with the women who accused him. In fact, I have a problem with DelCastillo calling these women at all — not because it’s de facto proof that he sexually harassed either of them, but because it reveals an incredible level of either poor judgment or arrogance. In other words, DelCastillo didn’t realize the potential repercussions for a married man in a public position to carry on private cell phone conversations with these women, or he thought himself to be untouchable if there were repercussions. Yes, it’s a he-said, she-said. It just raises a flag for me.<\/p>\n
The third issue I have is with DelCastillo’s notion that the entire team was conspiring to get him fired. This is a red flag for me for many reasons. I have a hard time believing that the University of Alaska-Fairbanks was duped by its own men’s ice hockey team into firing an upstanding local citizen. I also have a hard time believing that a team could or would plot such an operation. I have met several of the Nanooks players who were allegedly involved in this plot — players recruited by current coach Dallas Ferguson — and I simply do not believe them capable of such wholesale, capricious malice. <\/p>\n
Well, I don’t believe them capable of such wholesale, capricious malice without evidence, and that’s the biggest problem I have with DelCastillo’s entire story.<\/p>\n
That having been said, I am not accusing DelCastillo of sexual harassment; I’m just reacting to what he’s elected to tell the media.<\/p>\n
OK. Back to the hockey at hand. Sort of.<\/p>\n