A smorgasboard of comments on recent posts:
 
oenig, Union et. al.
 
IMHO, the ECAC IS weaker this year.  The overall quality of the ECAC has been in
a downward spiral since the strong Harvard teams of the late 80's.  My guess
regarding the cause is 1)Better competition from Hockey East for the ECAC's
traditional Canadian connections.  Hockey East initially went after the
Massachusetts hotbed.  Having secured the home turf they set their sights
Northward.  Hard to believe that BC sports an Canadian netminder!  2) The
academic index.  Although Laine Kennedy repeatedly devalued the effect of the
academic index on recruiting (remember his successful courtship of the Engineers
during their mating dance with Hockey East) I think it does inhibit ECAC
recruiting, especially programs like RPI, Colgate and Union.  The Ivies pretty
much recruit the way they always have, Harvard has that name to use in pulling
in prized recruits, Cornell used to be the same way (what ever happened to that
program).  But the old ECAC teams along with Union have found their recruiting
grounds restricted by looking for hockey players who have similar academic
credentials as the school at large.  And these are not the easiest schools to
gain admission to...
 
What is different this year is that the range of quality top to bottom is much
narrower this year.  I would label only two schools as also-rans.  Traditional
cellar dwellars like Princeton have risen up this year to bite the perrenial
powers, (as well as some of the national powers.)  Yet overall there isn't one
team in the whole ECAC I would consider "scary".  Even Clarkson IMHO is very
beatable--look at the success roller coaster RPI has had with them this year.
Quality-wise the Vermont Catamounts had the potential to emerge as a "scary"
team, but for one reason or another (injuries, coaching?, tradition?) they have
been reduced to the category of disappointing.  Of course I have an opinion on
RPI...
 
Inconsistency
 
As I have posted repeatedly, the RPI Engineers have to get an award for the most
difficult team to handicap in college hockey.  They can dominate a Clarkson,
be destroyed at home to Army.   Ditto Brown, St. Lawrence.  Merrimack, Lowell.
One goal games--who needs 'em.  Let's win by 5 goals, lose by 6!
 
But the answer to me seems obvious.  To play close games, you need a defense
that can keep you close, and keep your one goal advantage through the third.
RPI doesn't have that luxury.  Although there is still hope for the freshman,
the fact is that RPI's defense down low has been non-existent.  Even when the
defensemen seem to have coverage on an attacking forward, there reluctance to
physically move the player out too often results in a close-in shot.  And the
goalie's view is more often than not blocked from an opposing player's screen  [,
or worse, an opposing player's rebound attempt.  Brian Tapper has make some
attempt to clean out the slot, but he's a rookie, and he's had his share of
rookie mistakes.  (And I'm not holding it against him what Grier did to him
earlier in the season.)
 
Only one forward has emerged this season as a model of consistency: Patrick
Rochon.  Suddenly he has become an offensive defenseman, who makes the big
initial shot allowing guys like Eric Healy to bury a rebound.  Or Patrick Rochon
making the entry pass to a Brian Richardson who I think remains one of the more
underrated players in the ECAC.  It's the speed and talent of the forwards like
Richardson and Kelly Askew that give the Engineers those scoring bursts.  But
when the defense can't bring the puck up the ice, deteriorating into a game of
hit the home run pass, it doesn't make a difference what kind of talent they
have up front.
 
One other complaint: theRPI defensemen, as well as the forwards can't read the
blue line.  Too often the puck carry tries to force the play through a wall of
defensemen instead of simply dumping it in and letting the forwards use a little
of their speed.  I don't know if this is a fault of the coaching, or poor
judgement by the players, but by now any scoring report should have the keys to
shutting down the RPI offense.
 
RPI Fieldhouse=Sleeping Fans
 
Yes it has grown quieter in Houston Fieldhouse.  Go back to 1985 and you'd have
found a LOUD group with a lot of original cheers.  Now it's basically the "we
want more" and Red/White cheers, and a few others which were stolen from other
teams.  It's not that the alumni have grown quieter--it's the student body.  In
my section there is a smattering of younger alumni who remember some of the old
cheers.  Sometimes those guys are the ones who start the noise, not the young
bucks (or does I guess to be PC) on the other side of the ice.  In fact the
whole student side doesn't seem to be as packed as previous years.  Perhaps
hockey is quite as glamourous among the student body as in years past.
 
While the physical attributes of the Fieldhouse detract from its noise potential
(why don't they ever remodel the north end and move the corners in, you could g
fit another 200 seats at least) it is still very easy to get the place rocking.
The Freak-out also is an interesting experiment in mis-directed noise-making,
but the timing of the outpour, as well as the creativity, are what detract from
the overall potential.  The students don't seem to be able to incite the crowd
as in year's past.  They don't have the tools to injectn emotional edge into
a game which needs a lift.  Maybe it's just a cyclical phenomenon.  Maybe it's
just the characteristics of a fan base who only want a winner.
 
This weekend the Engineers get a chance to play in a place that can generate the
decibels, against a team that ate up RPI's defensive liabilities.  I think it's
pretty safe to say that this is about the last chance for RPI to fina
find some consistency, and make a run for the playoffs.
************************************************
Brian Morris                     Go RPI!
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]