I won't clog up the bandwidth with extensive quoting because I'm sure
everyone is already sick of sifting through ever-lengthening posts on
this subject.
1. Any discussion of "guilt" on the part of Maine's players or coaching
staff in regards to the final moments of the BU game are purely
speculative. Coach Walsh has said his piece. At that point, inferences
of guilt from such actions as when he left the ice, or anything else, are
completely irrelevant.
2. However, the discussion of what constitutes fair play and good
coaching is more interesting. "Tactics" like taking intentional
penalties hoping to prevent scoring in the hope that the officials will
not make a call or that the team can kill the resulting penalties result
from a winning-is-everything attitude. In such a view, no matter how
blatant or dangerous a player's behavior is, all negative consequences
are the fault of the officials, because it is their job to "police" the game.
It is this same philosophy that leads to shoot-out suggestions. Most
sports fans seem dissatisfied with ties. Coach Walsh said as much in his
letter. What strikes me is something I heard in a documentary about
Japanese baseball a few years back: they play for ties. For them, honor
lies in playing well. In a tie, everyone played well, so everyone wins.
It seems that in our system, a tie is almost worse than losing, because
it means you *could* have won, but didn't. I wish I had seen the
Maine-BU scoreless tie. I'm not sure that deciding the game with a
shoot-out would have been an improvement.
3. Merrimack could be headed for another last place finish, barring a
Miracle in Maine this weekend. Last I heard, the Warriors were losing
8-2 with 9 minutes left in the third period. Everyone at Merrimack knew
that acclimating to a consistently high level of league play would take
time, but any qualititative improvements in the Warriors' level of play
and recruiting classes haven't translated to league progress.
A larger school more committed to the sport might have been
considering a coaching change by this point. (Perhaps not.) Perhaps
MC's difficulties cannot be corrected by coaching or recruiting and are
inherently related to some of the school's disadvantages: small size,
poor facility, etc.
However, another disturbing trend is the decreased production of
sophomores and juniors at Merrimack. There have been freshmen who played
well this year and in the past, as well as seniors. The first year,
players are eager to make an impression, to step their games up. Their
final years, they realize many of them may be playing for the last time
at that level. (Except for pro prospects, which have been few and far
between at Merrimack.) It seems that some other factor needs to come
into play to motivate the players in their second and third years. The
loss of assistant coach Scott MacPherson, who was well liked by players,
parents, and fans alike, certainly didn't help. MacPherson, a personable
and talkative ULowell grad, is now an assistant at UMass-Amherst.
Meanwhile, people near Merrimack's athletic program have indicated
that Head Coach Ron Anderson's contract was recently renewed, despite the
fact that Merrimack may be headed for its third last place finish in five
years.
Merrimack needs commitment to make that program work at the DivI
level. That's not to say they will be a top team every year or invade
the elite echelon. But right now it hardly seems fair to the athletes
involved. Perhaps if there are any MC players online they could respond
to that? Would they prefer to stay in DivI? What do they think is
necessary to help the program win?
Searching for parity,
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
GO MERRIMACK! GO ARGUS! /\
/ \
/(*) \
/ \
/________\
|
