Through a recent discussion with another list member, the subject of BU's
overall quality of play and consistency of play has come up.
 
Many feel that BU is a very inconsistent team -- that when they are "on
their game," they are probably the best in the country; but they're not
always "on," and oftentimes it seems that BU doesn't even bother to show up
for games. Turns out that this happens roughly one-third of the time (see
below).
 
Others feel that BU is the "best team of the 90's" or the "best team of the
last 10 years" or simply, "the best team of the 1995-1996 season."
 
I'm not trying to judge here whether they were the best or not, or at what
level they fit in. All I know is that as a BU fan, I have been frustrated
too many times, seeing the Terriers fall far short of their abilities.
 
Every single team in every sport at every level has its own idosyncracies.
Nonetheless, there are teams that do manage to somehow reach past whatever
issues exist to have a "[near] perfect season," as the Chicago Bulls did
last season. As BU did in 1978, Harvard in 1989, Maine in 1992, ... etc.
 
This is the only real criticism I can level at the Terriers and/or Jack
Parker. It certainly isn't meant as a negative remark about the team,
mostly an observation stemmed by my perhaps-selfish frustration as a fan
when I don't know what BU team to expect on the ice.
 
Nevertheless, I always sit in the stands (or now, in Colorado, in front of
the tube), and regardless of the score or time remaining, have faith that
BU will collect themselves and return for the win. After all, I've seen it
happen countless times over the last 9 seasons.
 
I was very curious to see what kind of numbers pop up if one were able to
compute this "showing up to play" factor. After all, it's not a big deal to
be down by 1 goal after the first period against most teams. That's part of
what hockey is all about: back-and-forth play.
 
What I am curious about would be how often the "favored" teams (not just
BU) go down by 2 goals or more, and how often these "favored" teams blow
leads (return to tie score, either win or lose after that) of 2 goals or
more.
 
Someone suggested to me that BU only performs this way in 1 out of 4 games
(over the last two seasons), and that that really isn't too bad. Well, all
I know is that I see a large number of games each season where BU tends to
miss the first period entirely or fall asleep during the third period.
 
So, for the first time in my life, I *actually* crunched a few numbers
[meaning: please don't kill me if I slip a decimal]
 
 
Looking at last season, here are the "BU Blunders"
==================================================
 
o Vermont -- down 0-2, wins 5-4
 
o Clarkson -- BU is up 3-1, then goes down 3-4 before tying it at home.
 
o Boston College (two games) -- Yes, Taylor had an ubelieveable evening,
but BU nevertheless started down 0-1, blew a 3-1 led to go down 3-4, and
tied it within the last five minutes. Later in the season, BU goes down
0-3, loses 1-3.
 
o Maine (two games) -- BU goes down 2-0 before having a HUGE 3rd period
(all goals in the 3rd) to win 4-3.. The next night BU falls down by 2 goals
again (I think 3-1), ekes out the tie in the third period. Both games at
home.
 
o Lowell (two games) -- At home, BU gives up 6 goals in the second period.
'Nuff said.  The next night at Lowell, BU goes down 4-1, then 5-2. Lowell
SWEEPS BU for the weekend. Sheesh.
 
o Beanpot v. Northeastern -- BU goes up 3-0, only to let the Huskies tie
the game. All in the first period. Yes, the rest of the game was an
absolute blowout. But come on -- 3 straight goals from the HUSKIES? At the
BEANPOT?
 
o Merrimack -- BU is down 5-1 before "coming back" to lose 4-7.
 
o HE semi v Providence -- BU goes down 1-4. Ends up losing 4-5, against a
team they swept in the regular season.
 
o NCAA regional v. Clarkson -- BU is up 3-0, falls asleep in the third and
gives up 2 goals, escapes to the NCAA semifinal where...
 
o NCAA semi v. Michigan -- Shut out 0-4.
 
 
Of these 13 games, BU wins 4, ties 3, loses 6. (30.8 winning pct.)
8 of these 13 games were against teams considered by most to be Top 10
teams (Clarkson-2, Michigan, Vermont, Lowell-2, and yes, Maine-2). These 8
games give us 3 wins, 2 ties, and 3 losses. (37.5% winning). Looking at
BU's season record against Top 10 teams we get 5 wins, 2 ties, and 3
losses. 10 games against Top 10 teams, a 50% winning percentage. Good, but
not incredible.
 
13 games where BU certainly wasn't playing like one of the best teams in
the country. That's 32.5% -- basically, one-third -- of the total games
that BU, uh, "played." Sure, come-from-behind wins are exciting, but should
this really happen this often to one of the "three best teams in the
country?"
 
BU only lost 7 games all year. This means that one of the first games of
the year, an overtime loss against an inspried New Hampshire squad, was the
only solid, back-and-forth game they lost. This brings up another
intereresting question: How many "close" games (1 goal) did BU win? The
answer is TWO, and both games are listed above (Maine and Clarkson). All 28
other wins were by a 2-plus goal margin.
 
I guess this is why most college hockey coaches when speaking about how
they plan to play against BU will simply say "Well, if we can stay with
them into the third period, I think we've got a good chance."
 
Interesting.
 
Anybody else care to shed a little light on other top teams from 95-96,
such as CC or Michigan?
 
 
(curious) greenie
 
S P O O N ! !
(go BU)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.