This will definitely, positively, without question be my last defense of
my game reports.
VPPrice wrote:
>
> Don't know if I should continue giving Dave free advertising on ME-HOCKEY? (-:
>
Kinda like the advertising Rush Limbaugh does for Bill Clinton... :-)
> I laughed hard when I saw this in Dave's recap of the MAINE/BU game Saturday
> night.....(-:
>
> "Hockey's most exciting play"
>
> A Price trip finally provided the makings for the most exciting play in the
> game!
> Better than the MAINE/ BC "bore them to tears" game, heh! (-:
>
> Although, trying to kill NINE penalties and coming up with such a close score
> exceeded the penalty shot in sheer duration and stamina.
Not that it's a big deal, but, for the record, I wasn't saying that *I*
considered
it to be the play of the game. I was simply using the phrase "Hockey's
most
exciting play" as a substitute for "The penalty shot" since the former
phrase
is almost automatically attached to penalty shots. (I'd wager right now
without
having looked at the tape that the broadcasters used that phrase.) Most
writers
hate to repeat the exact same phrase in two sentences. That's all I was
doing
here.
> If I were some
> neutral observer there that night, I would walk away impressed with a team
> that low in scholarships making it out the door 3 to 2. (-:
>
> By the way, Dave left that important bit of reality, oh, I mean neutrality out
> of his recap! (-:
>
Vicki, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You want that as a litmus
test for
Maine game recaps? First off, it's a pretty sure guess that over 99% of
the
people who read my recap already know that Maine has been severely
handicapped this year by the low scholarships. NOBODY wants to see
information
that they already know repeated time after time. Not neutral fans. Not
BU
fans. Not Maine fans.
I mentioned the scholarship issue in my season preview -- in the very
first
paragraph, no less. I also covered it in last week's preview, not by
parading
the same old information that everyone already knows, but by contrasting
it
to the expectations generated by last year's stretch run.
[start excerpt]
Perhaps last year's dominating second-half play after Walsh's return
created unrealistic expectations that this year's team simply
can't live up to. Last year, the Black Bears won 12 of their last
13, outscoring opponents 77-31, including a three-game 13-3
sweep of Boston University.
That dominance camouflaged the severity of Maine's scholarship
reductions, creating the illusion that the Black Bears could
resume their national powerhouse status without skipping a beat. This
year's results may be proof that expectations must be
reined in a bit.
(Coach Walsh's take on it then followed.)
[end excerpt]
Having addressed the issue in those forums, it simply doesn't make sense
to keep going on about it in a game recap. There's nothing new to say
about it.
> If, I wasted my time, as a neutral observer and perused game scores on the
> BEAR side, and I would have to do this because they were not mentioned in
> Dave's recap; I would see, that the BEARS fared well against three top ten
> ranked HE teams.
> I would be further impressed!
>
If Coach Walsh had made such a comment, it might have made the game
story.
In fact, I have a comparable comment from him for this week's Weekly
Preview,
but for the game story I went with the only quote I had.
> Dave, however, did take into account that this is the fifth straight one goal
> game for the Terriers, Terrier home-ground being the swaying factor in
> reporting — I guess!?
>
First off, I usually give more time to the winning team. There are
usually
more winning players available to interview than those on the losing
team and
the winning coach is often more loquacious than the losing one. Coach
Parker
specifically talked about his team's recent one-goal tendencies. Coach
Walsh
said very little because he was so upset about the penalty situation.
I simply addressed what both coaches chose to emphasize.
Dave Hendrickson
|
