Mike Machnik writes, in response to Greg Ambrose:
 
>> Leaving aside the injury factor (and UNH has had their share this year),
>> why not?  If one coach prepares his freshmen to play right out of the gate
>> and another doesn't, it's not the coach'S fault, either in his coaching or
>> recruiting?
>
>Greg, you don't mean to suggest that all freshmen are "created equal",
>do you?  Were Merrimack's freshmen as talented and ready for DivI
>hockey as UNH's, so that if you swapped the coaches then *they* would
>have been the ones to get off to a great start?
>
>You're not going to find too many people who did not think before
>the season that UNH had a pretty darn good freshman class that would
>make an immediate impact.  That's a big reason why they were picked
>second.  You will find even fewer who thought Merrimack or PC had an
>equal or better set of rookies.
 
As I recall, the only rookie mentioned in preseason reviews of UNH was
Matile.  Parker and Grant Standbrook both cited him when commenting on UNH.
As for the rest of the frosh who are playing - Souza, Shipulski, Sadowski,
Enders and Filipowicz - I do not recall them be regarded as impact players.
Certainly not like Poti, Bellefeuille (sp) or Farkas.   In fact, Umile was
unsure of the ability of these guys to step in and play.  The indication I
got when I spoke to him before the season was that he had high hopes but
expected them to take a while to adjust to the college game.  The fact that
they adjusted quickly has to be, in part, a credit to the coaching staff.
>
>Do you also think that Merrimack, for example, had an equal chance to
>get the same players that UNH got?  That it was only a superior job of
>recruiting that enabled UNH to wind up with those players?
 
The ability to recruit, for the most part, is based on the perception the
recruit has of the school (both academically and athletically), the quality
of the program and the perceived ability of the coach.  I think you would
agree that success breeds success and, I guess, failure breeds failure.
Ron Anderson has been Merrimack's coach for 10+ years, this will be the
first time he has achieved home ice in the playoffs.  His lack of success,
on ice, certainly is perceived by potential recruits.  This is not a flame
on Mr. Anderson, I understand he is a solid guy, stresses the right things
with his players and is a credit to the game.  However, he has not been
successful when it comes to wins and losses, hence he does not attract the
top recruits.
>
>> I don't want to talk this issue to death but the bottom line is that
>> Umile's competition for this award - Anderson and Pooley, I guess - have
>> not even led their teams to .500 records this year.
>
>?? Providence is 12-10-1, and Merrimack is 10-10-2.  Both *are* at
>or over .500.  Why do you keep saying they are not?
 
I was speaking of overall records.  Neither team is a TUC although we at
UNH are certainly rooting for Merrimack this weekend.
 
>
>> I have just reviewed last year's HE Media Guide (I don't have this year's
>> for some reason), here is a rundown of the Coach of the Year winners:
>>
>>         1986  Jack Parker w/20-11-3 (25-14-4 overall), 1985 19-11-4 (24-14-4)
>>         1987  Bill Riley  w/20-10-2 (22-12-2    "   ), 1986  5-27-2 (11-29-1)
>>         1988  Shawn Walsh w/20- 4-2 (34-8-2     "   ), 1987 19-12-1 (24-16-2)
>>         1989  Fern Flaman w/13-11-2 (18-16-2)   "   ), 1988 13- 9-4 (20-13-4)
>>         1990  Shawn Walsh w/14- 6-1 (33-11-2)   "   ), 1989 17- 9-0 (31-14-0)
>>         1991  Dick Umile  w/10- 9-2 (22-11-2)   "   ), first year as coach
>>         1992  Jack Parker w/10- 7-4 (22- 9-4)   "   ), 1991 10-15-1 (14-20-1)
>>         1993  Shawn Walsh w/22- 1-1 (42 -1-2)   "   ), 1992 17 -2-2 (31- 4-2)
>>         1994  Bruce Crowder 14- 6-4 (25-10-5)   "   ), 1993 10-13-1 (20-17-2)
>>         1995  Shawn Walsh w/15 -3-6 (32- 6-6)   "   ), 1994 a forfeit year
>>
>> What does this tell you?  First, to win you should have a winning record,
>> both in HE and overall, and only once has a coach won after winning less
>> than 20 games.  Second, you don't necessarily have to go from the bottom to
>> the top to be honored. In only 3 years has the winner had a losing record
>> the previous year. Third, you should be a contender for the title.  In the
>> 10 years shown, the winner finished 1st or 2nd in the league 7 times
>> (Flaman was 3rd, Umile 5th & Parker 4th in '92).  Based on these criteria,
>> there are only two possible candidates - Umile & Parker.  Since Parker's
>> team is doing worse this year than last, it looks as though it should be
>> Umile.
>
>What you are trying to do is to look for characteristics that are
>shared among most of the winners and extrapolate from that to say
>that the coach this year who most closely meets those characteristics
>should (or will) be the winner.  Not a bad idea.
 
Thanks, I try.
>
>But you haven't listed all of the shared characteristics.  I would
>also say you have not listed the one that I believe has tended to be
>the most important, the one that is also intangible.
 
And also arbitrary.
>
>That is that historically, the award tends to go to the coach who his
>peers believe has exceeded expectations more than any other.  Not
>every year, but more often than not.  This is not reflected in the
>statistics you display, but it most certainly has been the case.
 
>For example, as you say, from 1986 to 1995, the winner finished 1st
>or 2nd 7 of 10 times.  But *more* than 7 of 10 times, the winner also
>exceeded expectations rather significantly.  In fact, from 1987 to
>1996, *every year*, I would say it was the overriding factor that
>determined the winner of the award.  I believe the same was true in
>1986 with BU, but I cannot recall that far back.
 
I don't thin you can back this up but, even if it's true, hasn't Umile
exceeded expectations this year.  Did anybody think that UNH was a final
four candidate?  I can't imagine that Jack Parker or Shawn Walsh exceeded
expectations in the years they won (perhaps Parker in '92).  The records
are too similar from year to year to assume that.  But I do notice that in
years where a team has made a comeback, the coach has been rewarded.
That's why Umile should win.
>
>So given past history, it is quite likely that the coaches will once
>again vote for their peer who they think has most exceeded their
>expectations.  And this may or may not be Umile.
>
>> However, my gut tells me that it will be close because Umile is underrated
>> by HE (and most UNH) fans as a coach.  The man has won 20 games five of the
>> seven years he has coached and, this year, will lead his team to the NCAA's
>> for the fourth time.  If Parker or Walsh had compiled records such as UNH
>> did last year, and then turned it around as much as Umile has done this
>> year, would there be any question as to who would be the coach of the year?
>> I think not.
>
>Again, Merrimack and UNH have had similar improvements this season.
>
>           1995-96           1996-97 (current)    Increase
>UNH        6th 8-12-4 20     1st 17-5-0  34       +14 pts, +70%
>Merrimack  9th 4-18-2 10     5th 10-10-2 22       +12 pts, +120%
>
>Also, try replacing UNH/Umile with Merrimack/Anderson in your above
>comment:
>
>"If Parker or Walsh had compiled records such as Merrimack did last
>year, and then turned it around as much as Anderson has done this
>year, would there be any question as to who would be the coach of the
>year? I think not."
>
>Interesting, isn't it, to see it from another point of view... :-)
>
>Given how close the race may be, it is quite possible that this year,
>Anderson will be the sort of sentimental favorite among the coaches.
>I know that from talking to other coaches around the league, they
>were happy to see him do well and they realized the situation he was
>in.  This is a very intangible award - not like a scoring trophy which
>automatically goes to the guy with the most goals and assists - and so
>these other things can enter into play and could do so here.
>
>Finally: Greg, understand that people are not saying that Umile is
>not a strong candidate for the award.  But you have not convinced me
>that he should be the *only* candidate or the overwhelming candidate
>for the award.  Especially when I listen to what other people around
>HE say as I go from school to school and find that the prevailing
>opinion is that Coach of the Year is a tough award to call this season.
>You're the only person out of dozens that I have talked to or heard
>from, who thinks that Umile is the only guy up for it.
>
>It will be close, because it IS close.  You can believe it is because
>people do not like or respect Umile, if you want to.  Not sure what
>you'll say if he does wind up winning it, however. :-)  I know I'll
>say congratulations and that the award went to a guy who deserved it.
>But what will you say if someone other than Umile wins it?  Maybe
>that's the difference here.  You think it's not close, I do.  Other
>folks can make up their own minds.
 
I do think it is close and I do think Anderson is the sentimental favorite
since his contract was almost not renewed and, I understand, is now only
being renewed for one year.  I don't know whether this is fair or not but,
because he is such a good guy and is respected by the other coaches in the
league, of course they feel for him.  But I want the award recognize the
coach who has done the most for his team throughout the whole year,
especially compared to last year.  That guy is Umile.
 
The bottom line in this whole debate is that Mike is a Merrimack guy, I'm a
UNH guy.  He knows his coach, I know my coach.  He wants his guy to get
some recognition, I want my guy to get some recognition.  They're both good
people, maybe they should be co-winners.  We'll see.
 
Greg Ambrose
GO UNH BLUE111
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.