At 12:01 PM -0400 6/21/96, Dave Hendrickson wrote:
>I found especially disturbing the remarks from Lowell AD Dana Skinner, quoted
>in the Lowell Sun (posted by Mike -- thanks).  Skinner said:
>
>> "One of the realities of being in Lowell is that we've lost some real good
>> (coaches) to Division One programs.  We're still a Division Two program
>> with one Division One sport.  That's who we are and there's nothing we can
>> do about that.
>>
>> "In the end, we just try to bring in the best people we can and hope they
>> do the best job they can for as long as they're with us.  If they move on
>> to broad-based Division One programs, we wish them well and thank them for
>> their contributions."
>
>A "Division Two program with one Division One sport?"  What is that supposed
>to mean?  Yes, I know that UML is of Division 2 size, but a *Division 2
>program*?  I highly doubt that Bruce Crowder viewed Lowell as a Division 2
>program.  When RPI, a Division 2 school playing Division 1 hockey, won the
>national championship ten or so years ago, did they view themselves as a
>Division 2 program?  Is that how other D2-sized schools playing D1 hockey
>view themselves.
 
I believe he was referring to the fact that Lowell has a DivII *athletic*
program.  I didn't see a problem with his comments, because I thought he
was just explaining that DivII (and III) schools often do not have the kind
of pull, attraction, or ability to fund their DivI hockey programs the way
that DivI schools do.
 
You could also read into his comments the idea that Lowell lost Crowder
because the school took a DivII approach to the negotiations (in their
final stage) and either could not or would not pay Crowder commensurate
with his status as one of DivI's top coaches.
 
I also think you'll find differing levels of commitment and support among
those non-DivI schools playing DivI hockey.  LSSU and RPI are two schools
that seem to have made the same kind of commitment to their hockey programs
that DivI schools have made.  But even at the schools like Lowell and
Merrimack that are also non-DivI, although they do not have the same kind
of institutional commitment that most DivI schools have, you'll find that
their hockey programs are still given a higher level of commitment and
funding than the school's other sports, sometimes more than all of the
school's other sports put together.
 
The question is, once a DivII-III school attains DivI status in hockey, do
they support that program like other DivI schools do, or do they "settle"
for treating it better than their DivII-III programs but not at the same
level as those schools that are DivI in everything?  I think that is
dictated by the people in charge at the upper levels and by the amount of
money that the school has available from various sources.
 
Also, note that there are a number of cases of DivI schools that support
their hockey programs at a less than DivI level and a lower level than
their other DivI sports, like Villanova and UConn.  As a hockey fan, I'd
prefer the situation at Lowell to that at Villanova.
 
>Now it's almost like there is a resigned acceptance of being a second-tier
>program.
>
>Perhaps I'm reading too much into Skinner's comments.  But it's also possible
>that Skinner is right, given what happened when Crowder's contract extension
>hit the skids.  It may be that those higher than Skinner have decided that
>enough is enough, we've overextended ourselves, now it's time to get back into
>the comfort zone of a D2 mentality.
 
You're right about it being too dangerous to read too much into the
comments, but I think a point can be drawn that the school effectively
decided that it could not approach the program in the way that it needed to
in order to be able to compete with a DivI school for its coach.  I believe
Skinner's comments were his way of saying that he wanted to do whatever it
would have taken to keep Crowder, but that his hands were tied by the
situation Lowell was in of being a DivII school that didn't have the kind
of resources to offer Crowder.
 
If a finger should be pointed, I don't believe it should be pointed at
Skinner, but maybe it is necessary to understand the situation Lowell was
in.  I don't know whether or not Lowell actually had the finances to pay
Crowder what he wanted and what he got from NU.  If they really did not,
then it was a responsible move by the school to put the brakes on when they
did and resign themselves to letting him go.
 
It doesn't make accepting it any easier, but as I think Skinner was saying,
it is a fact of life in collegiate athletics.  Even in sports like football
and hoop, we see coaches leave smaller DivI schools for the big names all
the time, because those smaller schools could not match the offer.
 
Merrimack had a similar situation a few years ago when they lost asst
Scotty McPherson to UMass.  Scotty was a great guy and we would have loved
to keep him, but the fact was that the school simply could not match what
he got from UMass.  All you can do is accept it and move on.  It is one of
the pitfalls of being from a small school that is trying to establish
itself in a sport often dominated by schools with a lot more cash and
clout.  A similar thing happened to Merrimack in basketball when they lost
asst and former Warrior Bill Herrion to DivI Drexel, whom he coached to an
upset in the NCAA DivI tourney over Memphis this season.
 
>Sadly, I must now offer another wager.  Anyone want to wager that starting
>three years from now Northeastern is gonna regularly finish higher than
>Lowell?
>Northeastern is sounding motivated to be a national force.  Lowell is sounding
>motivated to be second-tier.
 
I agree that this is a real setback for Lowell hockey, but now it is left
to Skinner to do again what Lowell did six years ago.   That was to find
and bring in a guy who might not yet be able to command the kind of money
that the big name coaches do but who nonetheless has the ability to build a
strong DivI program.  Perhaps it will be a rising young assistant or
DivII-III coach.  Is it better to do this than to have a guy who you know
will be there for years but may not be as good of a coach?  I bet most
people would take the several years of success with the knowledge that they
would probably see the guy walk out the door once that success is achieved.
Is Lowell better off for having had Crowder, albeit for a short time?
Undoubtedly, yes.
 
>Given the overachievements of the Lowell squad this year, their rise to
>national prominence, and their sweep of BU that magical weekend in front of a
>sardine-packed crowd, any retrenchment can only be a very bitter pill indeed
>for Lowell fans.
 
Trying to put myself in the shoes of Lowell fans, it is quite a depressing
thought that the success of 1994 and 1996 under Crowder could turn out to
be the program's peak and that there might be nothing better to look
forward to.  But it's way too early to be thinking that way.  Crowder
leaves behind a legacy of many people who were mobilized into working hard
to build Lowell hockey the way they did.  The challenge for Skinner and
Crowder's successor is to keep the faith and find a way to carry the
momentum forward.  It may be that Lowell will never be able to have a
program like the BUs and Michigans of DivI hockey with all that comes with
it.  But if I were a Lowell fan, I'd be more than happy to have a team that
was able to consistently do well and sometimes compete at the level that
the 94 and 96 teams did.  That can still happen.
 
DivI hockey really is a sport different from almost every other, as I think
many of us have come to understand.  I would bet that the percentage of
non-DivI schools playing DivI hockey (better than 1/3) is higher than that
in any other DivI sport.  With such a wide variety of schools competing, it
makes for all sorts of crazy dynamics such as those we have witnessed
recently.  The same situation that resulted in a DivII Lowell losing
Crowder to DivI NU, also provided us with the excitement of a great
championship final between a tiny DivIII school with 2,000 students and a
DivI monster with nearly 40,000 (CC-Michigan).  That's something you will
rarely find in any other sport.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.