David Josselyn writes:
 
Some posters have brought up some interesting and valid points and
>questions regarding the Coach of the Year award and about coaching in
>general.
>
>At 11:18 AM -0500 2/23/97, Greg Ambrose wrote:
>> The Coach of the Year Award is to reward season long achievement, is it
>> not?  To compare what Ron Anderson, Paul Pooley (both of whom have sub-500
>> records) and Shawn (I know the rulebook) Walsh have done in half a year to
>> what Umile has done the whole year is ludicrous.  The man is, hands down,
>> Coach of the Year and he deserves it.
>
>That's one way to look at the coaching award. Whether UNH is a team with
>such talented players that someone other than Umile could have coached them
>to a similar record is an interesting question.
>
>That idea is one of the reasons that accomplishments like Anderson's,
>Walsh's, and Pooley's draw consideration for the award. With less talented
>players and poorer first-half performances, I think the assumption is that
>the coaches for those teams made intentional choices to change a team's
>approach that led to vastly improved performance.
 
You ignore my point that Umile had the same cast of characters last year
and finished 12-18-4.  Is his coaching achievement this year tarnished by
the fact that it occurred over a whole season rather than just one half?
 
>While I suppose it's entirely possible for a player or player to be just as
>responsible for those improvements, I think that drastic increases in
>performance (like Maine's and Merrimack's, going from at or below .500
>hockey to winning the majority of the games they play) are assumed to be
>team-wide and are therefore more likely to be the result of the coach
>changing players, changing lineup combinations, changing forechecks and
>playing style, and using motivational tactics.
 
But, isn't this what Umile has done all year?  As one who has watched all
but 4 of UNH's games this year, believe me, there has been a change.  Just
because you have the "talent" doesn't mean you will peform.
>
>If it were so that Umile deserves the award "hands down," then one might
>ask why. Does he deserve it if they finish first? Or second? One might
>argue that Jack Parker's squad, with the exception of Chris Drury and Shawn
>Bates (who had a subpar year) is not nearly as talented as some of his
>squads in recent years, yet they could still finish first. Should the Coach
>of the Year award go automatically to the team that finishes first? If so,
>why bother having a separate award?
 
I think it should go to a coach who has brought his team to a level beyond
expectations.  UNH started the season with uncertain goaltending, a group
of forwards who had, for the most part, underachieved the previous season
(kind of like O'Sullivan and Grier at BU) and a bunch of freshman who had
to step right in and compete.  After a shaky start, they came on to win 14
in a row.  Who, may I ask, prepared the team for these feats, the stick
boy?  I don't necessarily think that the first place coach should win it
every year (and they don't), but UNH has a good chance to from nearly the
outhouse to the penthouse in one year.  For that alone, Umile should win.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.