This apparently never got out the first time I sent it today.
 
John Edwards writes:
>That was the Ottawa Citizen that called them an NCAA 'power'.
 
Thanks for the correction, I'd posted from memory late last night.
Although I am not sure why I called it the Sentinel, at least I got
the quote right. :-)
 
>Bear in mind
>that University hockey here gets very little coverage. There were three
>articles this weekend on the tournament, that was all the ink Ottawa U. will
>get until the playoffs, assuming they make it that far.
 
That was the impression I got.  I did see that the Sun published a
photo or two, also, along with a story Sunday.
 
>>The first game really had no flow to it as the Canadian refs, known to
>>let more go than their American counterparts, allowed a total of 23 power
>>plays - 14 for Merrimack - and each team scored 3 PPGs.
>
>Don't forget that there is only one ref in Canada, so he can't see everything.
>That is probably one reason why less is called. It also means that the game
>depends more on the individual style of the referee concerned. Some refs will
>call everything, while others will let them play. With two refs, I think there
>is less differential between games.
 
Good point.  The idiosyncracies of individual referees tend to cancel
out with the two-man system, or at least be tempered.  I was trying to
determine if the same referee who worked the first game also did any
of the others, but I'm not sure.  I thought he may have done the final,
too, but they were two completely different games so who knows.
 
>As I said in my earlier post, I was quite impressed with Legault as well. Is
>he the starter or the primary backup?
 
Merrimack entered this season with virtually no experience in net at
all, and as a result, two freshmen have earned the 1-2 jobs.  (A senior
with six minutes of DivI experience also dressed for the championship
game.)  Legault was considered the best coming in and early on, he
earned the starting job by beating RPI on the road and allowing only
two goals in each of his first three games.  He's struggled a little
since then and his GAA has gone up to 3.92 (pre-Ottawa), and in the
Vermont game (4-2 UVM win), the first one I saw since Nov 6th, he did
not appear to be as confident as he was the last time I saw him.  He was
sitting back in the net more, not challenging the shooters or playing
the puck as much.  That may be partly due to the fact that the defense
as a whole hasn't played too well lately in front of him, with the
team going 0-5-1 in its last 6 before the tourney, but things seemed
to get a little better this weekend (only one even strength goal
allowed over 120 minutes).
 
Legault has seen about 80% of the action in net, with Eric Thibeault
getting the rest of the minutes along with some guy named Empty Net. :-)
Legault is 4-5-1 and Thibeault is 2-0-0.
 
>I liked Jakopin's play, but I wouldn't
>have named him the MVP, mind you I only saw the final. I agree that Legault
>was by far the MVP in the final, but I don't think Rivard was for Ottawa.
 
Agreed...Rivard did not see much pressure at all after the first period.
I thought Dave Whittom, who apparently led Ottawa in scoring before
this game, was a good candidate for Ottawa's MVP.  He was always in
the thick of things, causing havoc and generating some good chances.
Alain Tardif, who scored the Gee-Gees' goal, also played well.  I
didn't see Jason Corrigan's natural trick against Colgate, but he
appeared to have an off night.
 
I'm curious as to why Rivard played the final instead of Phil Comtois.
Someone told me that Comtois was supposed to be the better of the two. I
don't think it would have made a difference, although Rivard looked
like he should have stopped the first goal, scored by Gibson in the first
(deflected off his glove, I think).
 
[checking from behind = minor + ejection, no major]
>This is the rule in all of Canadian amateur hockey. I suppose the theory is that
>you penalize the player by tossing him, but you don't overly penalize the team
>by making them play short for 5 minutes.
 
Could be...it just seems that something worthy of an ejection should
also draw the offender 5 minutes instead of two.  Is this the first
year it's been called in Canada?
 
>I think the rule is stupid, myself. I
>think we are going to see a lot more "cross-checking" called, because refs
>will be reluctant to throw people out for checking from behind, so will instead
>call it X-checking or interference.
 
A couple of years ago, this was a point of emphasis in the US as well.
But I saw it called three times in one exhibition and then never
again.  I wonder how the rule reads in Canada.  In the US, I believe
the referee is allowed more judgment than they seem to have in Canada
(just from the way I saw it called this weekend).  That may be the way
to go, but then it may also lead to things reverting to the way they
were before with it happening but not being called.
 
>One question I have, how are the trees doing? Jakopin was the Tourney MVP, but
>how is McKenna playing. They could be forces when they adjust to the US game.
 
I thought McKenna was playing better over the first 5 games I saw.
One problem both are having is that they get turned rather easily when
a speedy forward comes down on them.  That's an adjustment they'll
have to make.  A defensive change that Coach Anderson has made since I
was away is putting the two together on the same shift, so they can
now truly be called the Twin Towers.  Previously it made sense to pair
them with more experienced Ds, but I suppose that's changed.  And they've
played well together the last couple of games, so it will probably
stay that way for a little while.
 
Again, I thought Jakopin played reasonably well, but we were very
surprised about his winning the tourney MVP.  When I was talking with
Anderson about whether we wanted to contact the Ottawa cable outlet to
get a tape of the game, someone said, "I think we should get it so we
can see what Jakopin did this weekend." :-)
 
Perhaps the disappointment of late has been that while the two
freshmen have been steady (not impressive but not lousy), the four
upperclassmen haven't done as well as they did early in the season.
Particularly in the third period, where Merrimack has been outscored
20-10.
 
>Good luck to the "NCAA power" Warriors, :)
 
Thanks, and it was nice to see a post from someone else who was there!
The same to Ottawa, they seemed to be a much better team than the one
that lost 9-1 to Merrimack early last season.  I was surprised that
Ottawa was ranked 8th in the CIAU to Western Ontario's 3rd (Acadia is
#1, I believe).  And I was also impressed by the special teams of the
two Canadian teams.  Power play and shorthand performed well for both
clubs, especially the shorthand where the forwards constantly
pressured and wouldn't allow a breakout.  In fact, Merrimack SID Jim
Seavey had one of the best lines of the weekend - "Well, our power
play stinks in two countries." :-)
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<<< Color Voice of the (6-5-1) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>>