I am first obliged to correct an apparent misinterpretation from Geoff
Howell on my impressions of the Union team.
 
On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Geoff Howell wrote:
 
> The Union team that I saw beat Harvard 4-2 did it by outhustling and
> outskating the Crimson, two things that the Engineers failed to do the
> following night. Union played aggresive positionally, was in Harvard's
> face all night, but didn't look like a "clutch-and-grab" club, as Brian
> also alleges. In addition, Ken Schott, who covers Union for the local paper,
> told me that he thought that one of Stan Moore's biggest contributions was
> to give the players more room to be creative -- something that seemed
> to be the case against Harvard (and which Richard Hungerford complimented
> in his post regarding that game).
 
First I did not allege that Union was a clutch and grab style.  I stated
that Union plays a physical defensive style/clutch and grab style (take
your pick).  Actually I believe the former.  Union plays a very physical
aggressive style.  Last night the Union D's literally mowed down the RPI
forwards.  Union walled off Shtrom for most of the game, the exception
being the last period when Aldous and St. Hilaire crashed the net.  I also
don't know what to make of the observation that Stan Moore has given them
room to be more creative.  I have seen Union play twice this year, and I
can't remember one highlight film type of goal.  All their goals have been
grinding, right-place-at-the right-time kind of scores.  Which is to say
Union scores from a hard working, grind it out kind of style.  This is
certainly not a discredit to Stan Moore or the Union team.
 
In fact I think if you read my post carefully, you will see the tone was
quite complimentary to the Dutchman.  I think they should be proud of what
they have accomplished. I am certainly not looking forward to a rematch
with them next Saturday night.  Stan Moore has done a great job with the
team and I think, along with Don Cahoon, should be a candidate for coach
of the year in the ECAC.  Union lost several skilled forwards to the pros,
age and burnout last year.  Moore has been able to take a team that, while
experienced, IMO doesn't have outstanding individual talent.  None of the
people from Union I have talked with disputes that.  In fact they have
been the source for some of my impressions.  Last night a Union fan in
front of me bemoaned that Union doesn't have the stickhandlers that RPI
does, never has.  This was in response to my moaning that RPI can never
win a face-off anymore.  I would also note that none of the Union skaters
will win a speed skating contest either.
 
The beauty of the year's squad is that Moore has convinced them that they
don't have to.  If you wear the other team down, if you clean out the
area in front of your goaltender, if you frustrate your opponent's puck
carriers to the point where they make the inevitable mistake, you can win
games, a lot of games in fact.  I think Union is playing as good a game of
hockey as they can, given the constraints in which they operate.  Which
leads me to my next point of discussion.
 
I don't know whether Union will ever be able to put its hockey program in
the upper echelon.  This is not a fault of the Union hockey program but a
result of the degree of support the Union administration provides to the
hockey program.  Running a D-I program under D-III rules is not the way to
win a championship.  No scholarships, fewer games, a postage stamp rink
are not the way to put together an attractive package for a potential
recruit.  Recently the Schnectady Gazette reported that a developer had
put together a proposal to build a multi-rink facility in the Nott Street
area providing needed ice for Schenetady's youth hockey program and a
4,000-5,000 seat arena for Union.  This would be a major enhancement to
the Union program and a plus for Capital District hockey in general.  I
was frankly amazed that Union students/fans posted opinions blasting the
proposal.  An on-campus arena to replace Achilles is extremely doubtful
given the Administration's support for the hockey program.  An outside
developer financed facility may be the only hope for the Union hockey
program obtaining a new building.  And for those unfamiliar with
Schenectady geography, the proposed Nott Street site is only just down the
road a mile or so from the Union campus.
 
I may not relish Union sharing the spotlight with RPI in the Capital
District, but I recognize an improving Union program offers the best hope
for college hockey in this area.  A strong rival for RPI, with a strong
fan base equates to more fans in general, more opportunities for special
hockey events, more growth for hockey, youth, college and pro, in the
Capital District.  Union is now putting a product on-ice that can play
with the big boys, albeit in a style that may not be artistic and
creative, but one which best utilizes the tools it has been given.  If
Union is ever to elevate its program it must first win games to get people
interested.  Union is doing just that this year.  It remains to be seen
whether the program will be able to reap the benefits in the future years.
*****************************************************************************
Brian Morris                        RPI Engineers--Big and Nasty
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.