At 05:01 PM 11/7/96 -0500, Adam Wodon-Around the Rinks wrote:
>Jim makes a good point about Harrick in relation to Woog/Walsh, but I'll say
>this. ...
>
>There are many around UCLA who will not consider this a big loss, despite the
>'95 title.
>
>I'm not saying that UCLA thought about it this way, or am I making a judgment
>on Walsh/Woog, etc... only throwing that out there as a POSSIBILITY for the
>difference in the cases.
>
>Had it been a coach that everyone like and thought was real good ... would UCLA
>have done the same thing?  Just something to consider before putting the UCLA
>president above those at Minnesota and Maine.
 
I'll go step further and say that many are also suggesting that UCLA wanted
Harrick gone, and just needed an excuse.  Does Minnesota and Maine want
their respective coaches gone?  I think we know the answer.
 
ESPN did a pretty good piece on that situation last night, and judging from
the experts (at least what they said last night) no one is convinced that
this is the only reason why Harrick was fired.  What that means, I don't
know.  I do think it's safe to say that the jury is still out on the exact
circumstances surrounding the UCLA situation.
---
Deron Treadwell ([log in to unmask])
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.