Greenie wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Maybe the teams were unable to schedule the games at any other time,
since usually conferences schedule all the conference gams first and
then each team is left find an agreeable date to play non-conference
games.  BU could have played UVM the first weekend in December (when
they play Yale), but maybe Vermont did not have the weekend
available.  The same goes for BU and Minnesota, plus the Hall of Fame
Game is traditionally played at the start of the college season
(although I see no reason why it could not be played in December).
 
> 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.
 
The Terriers have lost a game or three early in the season most
years, usually to "lesser" teams than Minnesota or Vermont (i.e.,
RPI, Colgate, and almost every year, Northeastern).
 
> Before the season starts however, isn't every Top 10 team
> having a "great season?"
 
I still remember Harvard moving up in the polls every
week in October one year (1988-89?) with a 0-0 record as the teams
originally higher then them lost a game or two.
 
> 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.
 
I did say *some* teams, not all teams.  However, since 1985-86 BU has
only played Michigan and Michigan State from the CCHA during the
season in a home-and-home series (2 games away, 1 at home for each
team).  They have been in five tournaments with CCHA teams: Bowling
Green (Syracuse Invitational, 1988), did not met; Miami (Badger
Showdown, 1992), first round; Notre Dame (Great Western..., 1994),
did not met; Western Michigan (Mariucci Classic, 1994), first round;
Notre Dame (Badger Showdown, 1995), championship.  However, I was
making my comments regarding regular home-and-home series, not
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).
 
Since BU and Minensota have play during the regular season two years
ago and will again this year, I assumed that Minnesota wishes to play
BU.  I apologize if I am wrong in my assumption.
 
As for Michigan, maybe they do wish to play BU, but have been unable
to schedule the games.  Or maybe they feel that they wish to play
some other teams, since they played BU in 1989-90 and 1990-91 (and
how wants to see BU play Michigan *every* year?).
 
> 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?
 
As long as the WCHA has a 32 game schedule both Colorado College and
Denver have only 4 non-conference games a year, if the play a
two-game series at Alaska Anchorage.  Both schools play in the Denver
Cup, taking up two of the four games.  That leaves only 2 games, for
each, and CC has been playing Air Force, which leaves them at most
one game per year.
 
Yes, BU could agree to play in the Denver Cup, but as a BU fan it
would still be very unlikely that I would be able to see Denver and
CC play BU at Walter Brown Arena.
 
Minnesota and Wisconsin are even worse, as they currently have 0
games per year that they can schedule (the Hall of Fame Game
excluded).  Both play in two in season tournaments per year, their
own (Mariucci Classic and Badger Showdown), plus the College Hockey
Showcase [of Big Ten Schools].  That is four games, putting them two
over the NCAA limit, allowed only as long as they always play a
two-game series at Alaska Ancorage every year.
 
BU has already played in the Badger Showdown twice, the Mariucci
Classic once, will play in the HoFG this year vs Minnesota. However,
it is even very unlikely that I will be able to see BU host Wisconsin
or Minnesota at Walter Brown Arena as long as the current WCHA
schedule remains at 32 games.
 
As much as I like having BU play Wisconsin and Minnesota, or Denver
and Colorado College, I also want to be able to see them play those
teams at Walter Brown Arena.  If BU must always go out west to play
those teams, then I prefer to see teams willing and wanting to play
BU in a home-and-home scheduling agreement, like BU is finishing this
year with North Dakota.
 
> And hell, those Alaska teams fly everywhere anyway -- and they'll
> play anyone!
 
Yes, I saw the smiley face.  Still,  I had already been thinking
about the Alaskan schools, so...
 
Alaska Fairbanks last year had 4 games they could schedule, two vs
UAA, leaving 2.  However, they were unable to schedule any US teams
and ended up playing Waterloo.  This year they have 7 games they can
schedule with the demise of Illinios-Chicago.  It is possible that BU
might be able to schedule a home-and-home series with UAF, which I
would actually like to see.  I have been able to see the Nanooks
twice in the past, as they used to have an annual trip through New
England, playing several DivI teams playing in the DivII/III
conferences (UConn, Holy Cross), plus a few DivI teams that scheduled
them, including Merrimack and Northeastern.
 
It is a much worse case for Alaska Anchorage, which has only 2 games
per year that they can schedule, and they currently use them to play
Alaska Fairbanks. That leaves them in a huge bind of not being able
to play *any* other DivI teams!
 
However, thinking about the Alaska schools and the Alaskan exemtion,
I have a question.  Can Alaska Anchorage and Alaska Fairbanks exempt
the games they play at the other school under the exemption?  UAA,
which could use it the most, could play two games one year at UAF and
exempt them, allowing them to then play two additional games against
a team from Hockey East, the ECAC, or the CCHA.  UAF could then play
two games at UAA the following year and exempt them, allowing them to
play 4, 7 or however many games they may have to schedule been the
number of league games and the NCAA limit.
 
Does the rule clearly exclude UAA and UAF from the exemption?  As
mentioned, the exemption no longer is being used for the reason it
was created, which was to encourage teams to play in Anchorage and
Fairbanks.  It is now being used by the CCHA and WCHA as a benefit to
the other teams in those leagues, so why not allow it to benefit UAA
and UAF as well?
 
> 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."
 
No, BU has only played North Dakota *twice* over the last three
years, once in 1993-94 and once last year.  The two games in Grand
Forks will make it only 4 games in four years.  The scheduling was
more complicated on UND's part then just scheduling a
home-and-home(-and-home) series.  North Dakota also scheduled a
Home-andhome-(and-home) series with Northeastern at the same time.
In 1993-94 and last year UND played one game against BU and NU in
Boston, while in 194-95 NU played two games in Grand Forks and this
year BU plays two games in Grand Forks.
 
While such scheduling can be worked out (as it was between BU, UND
and NU), it does require planning by all three teams.  More
importantly it requires the western team to commit to playing 2 games
per year for 4 years against two eastern teams.  I am unaware of any
other such scheduling between a western team and eastern teams.
 
In the past BU has played straight 2 game, home-and-home series
against Denver (1989-90 and 1990-91) and Minnesota Duluth (1991-92
and 1992-93).  They also played an unusual 3 game, 1 home-2 away,
series against both Michigan State (1988-89 and 1989-90) and Michigan
(1989-90 and 1990-91).
 
> 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?
 
While it is not very difficult for North Dakota (or any team) to play
BU/BC, BU/NU, BC/NU in Boston one weekend, having BU (or NU or BC) go
out to play one game at UND and one game at Minnesota (or Wisconsin or
Minnesota-Duluth) would be much more difficult.  Furthermore, I
believe the western teams prefer to play a two game series against
the same team when at home.
 
> 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
 
According to the North Dakota schedule I have seen, UND had only
three weekends free: 13-14 Dec, 20-21 Dec; and 27-28 Dec.  In the
past eleven years BU has always finished the first half of the season
by playing a single game around 10-13 Dec (11 Dec vs BC this year),
and then breaking to allow the players to complete their classes then
study for and take final exams before the holiday break.  That left
only the 27-28 Dec available for the two teams to play.
 
> 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.
 
I disagree, and think that the scheduling of the UND series forced BU
do decline any invitations that may have been extended.  However, it
might also be possible that BU requested that Princeton also be
invitated, and scheduled to play BU in the first round, but the
request was not accepted.  This assumption is based on BU playing
Princeton in the Great Western and Badger Showdowns, plus BU and
Princeton being announced as playing in NU's tournamnet next year.
 
> For that matter, why doesn't BU host a tournament? Is the Beanpot
> "too much?"
 
The Beanpot is not hosted like any other tournament, although the GLI
now comes close, as it is not much of an Invitational any more, now
that it has three host teams and one invited team.
 
The Beanpot aside, here are a few reason BU does not host a in-season
tournament:
 
1) Walter Brown is too small for such a torunament and it would be
too expensive to rent the FleetCenter.
 
2) Northeastern will being hosting a tournament in Boston next year
(1997) between Christmas and New Year's.
 
3) Wisconsin, Minnesota, Denver, Colorado College, Michigan,
Michigan State, Michigan Tech, Vermont, Maine, Colgate and Dartmouth
all host a Christmas/New Year's holiday tournament.  Those
tournaments already need 30 teams, and they all want the best teams
that they can get.  Add NU's next year and the total goes up to 34
teams.  Hosting a quality tournament suddenly looks much harder to do
(and I wish NU's the best and hope it succeeds).
 
4) BU is one of a handful of current top teams that does not host a holiday
tournamnent, which makes them in even more demand by the current
tournaments.
 
5) BU *does* currenly host tournaments: The NCAA East Regionals in
1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999, plus the NCAA Championship in 1998.
 
Sean Pickett            E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Go Terriers             1996 Beanpot Champions
BU Hockey:  http://www.tiac.net/users/spickett/hockey.html
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.