At 10:55 PM 12/14/95, David M. Josselyn wrote:
>I've said it before. I'll say it again.
>
>Institutional commitment to program, new facility, new coach.
>
>Then, maybe, there'll be improvement. They're not getting the players
>they need, and they're not getting the most of the players they have.
 
Some of you know Dave and I disagree on part 3 (new coach), which is okay.
The opposite argument, which is the one I make, is that he hasn't had the
tools almost every other program has had, so he deserves a chance to show
what he can do if/when he is finally given those tools (i.e., parts 1 and 2
of what Dave says above).  Plus, except for the rough start this year, I
think he has tended to get more than expected out of the players he has had
and been able to attract.
 
>They should step up and make the tough moves ($$ for real rink, $$ for a
>proven Div 1 coach) or go back to D2.
 
I do agree with the idea of all or nothing.  It hasn't been this way in the
past.  Fortunately I think there will be an improvement in this area in the
near future.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       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.