Sean Pickett wrote:
 
>Well, BU has played Minnesota three times in the last three years, so
>I would prefer to see BU play Michigan or Colorado College.
 
Agreed! However, when I said that I was "glad to see BU playing Minnesota,"
I meant that I am glad to see that they are starting the season off by
playing a team of Minnesota's caliber. I'd kill to see BU starting off
against Michigan, CC, or Lake State... but Minnesota seems to be the choice
(especially with this new Maine--Michigan thing going on). It still beats
seeing BU open the season against RPI (no offense, Engineer fans).
 
 
>The game is also in October, "when most teams still don't have their act
>together," which makes the game much less important than the NCAA
>semifinals, or the championship of the Mariucci Classic, which were
>the last three times the two teams met.
 
Also agreed, but my point about scheduling tough games in October was meant
simply as an observation. Minnesota and Vermont are undoubtedly different
teams come springtime, as is BU. But *every* team plays very differently in
the NCAA's than they do in the regular season; usually, it means the teams
play with much more emotion, effort, and pressure.
 
Likewise, the time during the season that two teams meet will also be a
major determinant on how the teams play. Assuming that the main reasons a
team will schedule tough opponents is to (a) add to the strength of
schedule rating; (b) gain some experience & knowledge against likely
tournmanent foes; and (c) keep your squad "on its toes," then it makes more
sense (to me, anyway) to spread out these games, as they do with other
college sports.
 
If you've only got a few non-conference slots open for foes such as
Minnesota and Vermont, why put them both within 2 weeks? The only reason I
can think of is to snap a team into shape -- to get them to truly realize
that the season is underway. But should this be necessary? These guys are
*dedicated* athletes. They shouldn't need their first month stocked with
games against probable top 10 opponents to get themselves going.
 
Also, consider this: The BU players have all summer to think about playing
Minnesota and Vermont to start off the season. This means that regardless
of what Jack Parker says to the press or his players, the Terriers and
their fans will *greatly* anticipate these games. In other words, these
games are already HUGE.
 
But is this a good thing? What happens if BU drops both games? The press
will undoubtedly be all over the Terriers, questioning how good the team
really is. And how will the players feel, coming off a horrible loss to
Michigan in the Frozen Four, and then losing one or two "huge" games?
Needless to say, the fans would be put into quite a tizzy as well.
 
Think of it this way: if a team plays a big game to start the season, there
won't be a lot of heat thrown on the losing team (unless it's a blowout).
Most people would chalk up the loss as playing a great game against a great
team, and hey, these things happen. Do this twice in the opening month of
the season however, and people begin to freak. Whether the press overreacts
or the fans act fairweathered is irrelevant. The fact is that the players
themselves get affected. Opening the season as a Top 5 team can be great,
until 3 weeks later you're "also receiving votes."
 
Players and coaches will say they don't care about the polls. Whatever.
 
Simply put, if "big games" are scheduled farther apart, it places less
emphasis on that individual game -- until the week of the game itself.
Granted, a BU-Michigan game scheduled for late January would receive a huge
buildup and a huge amount of hype, but this is assuming that both teams are
doing well at this point of the year. If one team isn't having the best
season, then it's just another game. Before the season starts however,
isn't every Top 10 team having a "great season?"
 
Either way, the strength-of-schedule rating holds constant.
 
> > When the heck are we going to see more Western teams going to the
>> east to play? And I mean the "big" teams -- CC, Michigan, Minnesota,
>> Lake State, et al.
 
>Blame the WCHA and CCHA for scheduling so many league games.  Also,
>some of those schools may *not* wish to play BU during the season,
>unlike Minnesota.
 
That's a pretty East-centric view, Sean. Why not blame the ECAC for having
a shorter schedule? It may hold true for some teams, but definitely not for
all. Many teams from the WCHA or CCHA, both strong and weak, would jump at
the opportunity to play BU, Maine, or Vermont during the regular season.
That's one of the biggest reasons for tournaments.
 
As far as Minnesota goes... aside from the Gophers agreeing to schedule a
game with BU, why would Minnesota "wish" to play BU, while other teams
wouldn't? Over the last few years, the Terriers have routinely beaten the
Gophers. Michigan just crushed BU -- why would they not want to play them
again? The Wolverines seem to have no problem taking on Maine. What about
Lake State? The Lakers have had more success than failure against BU, IMHO
(crushing them in a title game versus losing in a 2nd round game after a
looong overtime game the night before).
 
And what about Colorado College? CC's program has changed immensely since
the last time the two teams met. Denver and BU used to have a strong
history of games together; what happened?
 
And hell, those Alaska teams fly everywhere anyway -- and they'll play anyone!
 
:-)
 
>As for North Dakota, BU did not play them in 1994-95.  They hosted
>UND in 1993-94 and again last year, 1995-96.  This year's two games
>in Grand Forks are UND's games to host.  Before the 1993-94 season,
>BU and UND last played in the regular season in 1988-89, the last
>year of the WCHA-HEA interlocking schedule.  The two teams last met
>in 1990 in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.
[snip]
 
In other words, over the last 4 seasons, BU has played North Dakota 6
times. However you look at it, that's a LOT of games against a team coming
from a league that "schedules so many league games." When St. Lawrence and
Clarkson come to Boston for games, they don't play a pair against the same
team. They'll split, usually playing the same opponents. Why couldn't BU
(or North Dakota) do the same? BU could fly in to the first team's site on
thursday, play a game friday, leave after the game friday night or saturday
morning, arrive at another western site, and play an afternoon game on
sunday, and return to Boston after the game. It might be a little weary
travel, but aren't road trips supposed to be hell?
 
 
>> Is it just me, or is BU not playing in *any* tournaments besides the
>> Beanpot next year?
>
>BU is not playing in any in season tournaments other than the Beanpot
>for the first time since the 1990-91 season.  Part of that may be do
>to scheduling conflicts for the BU-UND series.  It may also be that
>BU was not invited to any in-season tournaments, or declined any
>invitations.
 
I doubt that BU was not invited to any other tournaments, which leaves your
other two options. If there was a conflict with the BU-UND series, then why
not reschedule the series? Also, tournaments scheduled for other holiday
weekends
 
Which makes me think that Parker simply declined invitations. Why would he
(I'm sure he has a good reason, I'm just real curious as to what it is) not
attend a holiday tournament? Usually it means at least one game against a
solid, strong opponent, and incresed exposure for the team.
 
For that matter, why doesn't BU host a tournament? Is the Beanpot "too much?"
 
 
Basically, I'd just like to see more diversity when it comes to scheduling
college hockey. Is that so wrong?
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.