I haven't been able to respond to the bashing I've been taking for
my USCHO game report of the BC-Maine game because I've been too
busy writing this week's preview.  And maybe it's pointless to
respond and I'll skip it next time, but...
 
Was it a boring game?  If it weren't for the scoreless tie on the first
game on the new television package, I might have opened with another
angle.  But the league and SportsChannel have gone to great pains to
try to put the best games on and it seemed like high irony that a
game between two potential top 10 teams fell short of that promise.
 
Among non-partisans, this was certainly the overwhelming opinion after
two periods (which is when I wrote the lead).  I still felt it fit
overall, but added the caveat about the third period and OT.
 
Ardent Maine and BC fans WERE entertained.  But think about whether
you would have been so entertained if that had been, say, UMass-Lowell
and Providence playing that style.  For the first two
periods, I think many of you would have considered turning the game
off had it not involved your team.  You were entertained because your
team was involved.  I don't think the casual fan would have felt the
same way.
 
And when your own coach agrees with so many neutral observers that the
game was NOT as exciting as the typical Maine-BC game would have been
expected to be, then maybe bashing isn't called for.
 
And you should also note that I wrote, "The third period and overtime
contained considerable drama as BC pressed for the win while
Maine relied on the occasional counterpunch."
 
I didn't say the entire game was devoid of excitement.
 
On to some of Vicky's complaints:
> Kevin's re-cap gives us something more than we can assume from the stats. That
> it was a team effort back there even though they were only playing four
> defensemen. "As far as the BC game, I thought the Maine D led by the superb
> efforts of Alfie, was outstanding." He gives us the entire puzzle while the
> USCHO commentary gives us pieces to put together ourselves, "the Black Bear
> goalie rose to the occasion."
>
 
As for the D, I used Alfie's own quote about the D clearing the
rebound.  So
the D WAS complimented in that regard.  I'd argue that given all the
excellent
chances that BC got, perhaps "outstanding" is an overstatement.
 
As for complimenting Michaud, I wrote:
 
Alfie Michaud rose to the challenge....  Michaud forced Gionta
wide.... Michaud stopped two dangerous rebound shots...  robbed by
Michaud. The Black Bear goaltender again came up big ...
 
C'mon, folks, what more do you want?
 
Actually, I think I know what is wanted and that is to tell the story
more from a Maine viewpoint.  Not necessarily biased, but through Maine
eyes.  If I was writing for a Maine newspaper or a Maine website, that
would be appropriate.  When the Boston Globe covers a Patriots game,
they
cover it from the Pats viewpoint, though not biased.
 
For USCHO, however, that's not appropriate.  The game report has to go
from a neutral objective.
 
> Hendrickson said, we "employed shell strategy," while Alfie said, "the guys
> did a nice job of clearing out the rebounds." My point is that Hendrickson's
> view is we were already down due to "attrition" and we had to play a "trap" to
> survive, not exactly positive.
 
Whether it was positive or not is irrelevant!  It's the truth!  Can
anyone
refute that?
 
BTW, did anyone notice that I took pains NOT to bring the Masotta
incident
into the story.  I specifically chose "attrition" because that way I
didn't
have to get into suspensions, etc.  Because I don't like to emphasize
those
things.  If I didn't say "attrition" I would have had to say "injuries
and
suspensions..."  and get into that stuff.  Which I avoided.
 
(And since I'm on that point, note that in last week's preview I went to
great
pains to defend Walsh's handling of the Masotta mess and even refer to
knee-jerk
Maine-bashers.  This was not necessarily the prevalent view around the
league.)
 
> What was positive, is that we pulled out a
> point and wound up  tied with BC in a four team, first place, spot.
 
And I included Walsh's quote, "This was a big point for us."   That,
combined with "Both teams now are in a four-way tie with Northeastern
and Boston University for first place in Hockey East" says the same
thing.
 
> assuming, BC had all of their guns in (the out shooting us part was clear
> enough) position Saturday night!? Hendrickson doesn't mince adjectives in
> describing our disadvantages, but did he give us equal print for pulling off a
> point!?
>
 
I can only shake my head at this one.  If I say "attrition" it seems
like your
saying I'm not mincing adjectives describing the disadvantages.  But if
you
say "down to four D...." how is that any different?
 
> He said, "Maine relied on the occasional counterpunch while BC pressed." This
> was the tell all statement. Games are not always won on offense, surely
> Hendrickson knows that!?
>
 
Isn't "the occasional counterpunch" EXACTLY what happened?  That's what
teams
in a (sorry to used the word) defensive mode do.  They look to
capitalize on
the occasional turnover.  When you get outshot 42-17 in a scoreless tie,
you're
counterpunching.  It's how you best position yourself to win this type
of
game.  It isn't a negative.  It's just reality.  I think it is the
perfect
word to describe how they played.  And it was successful.
 
Folks, you're making it seem like I'm anti-Maine.  As an USCHO reporter,
I don't play favorites.  But I'm a native Maine-iac, born in Augusta,
lived
in Readfield until I was two, then Sanford until I was 12.  Some of my
best
summers were spent at Long Lake.
 
So I can't slant from a Maine point of view, but I certainly am not
biased
against the Black Bears.
 
Dave Hendrickson