I'm forwarding these responses to the list in the hope that
people seeing them may be inclined to add their own thoughts
on the subject. Please either send to the list or copy me
on your response. Thanks......mike_m
Responses will be relayed to the Hockey East league office.
==========================================================================
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 1990 9:20:01 am (EDT)
From: [log in to unmask] (Doug DeAngelis)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: The 50-minute Farce
Unbelievable. How do the coaches feel about this? Who is really
turning the screws that made this happen?
In answer to your questions...
1) No, I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a warped idea,
totally devoid of any merit whatsoever. Normally I'm fairly good
at playing devil's advocate and seeing both sides, but I just can't
find any good reason to change. Why fix it if it ain't broke?
All coaches (and athletes) have always expressed the importance of
"having been there before" when it comes down to playoff time. There
is no question that having been in a situation before makes you
better prepared the next time you are in it. Yet we are asking the
HE players to play the whole season with one game format and then be
expected to perform well given another? It changes the whole game;
the strategy, the timing, when you do what. If it happened, it would
almost certainly be a popular excuse for why a team didn't play well
in the playoffs, ranking well above "the rink kept us boxed in" and
"their crowd was the difference" etc. To put it simply, when you
play 2 25-minute periods, you are not playing the same sport as everyone
else in the country. (A similar situation is forbidden in my sport,
which is track. We were never allowed to use a time from the 1000M
as a means to get seeded in the 1500M. It was well recognized that it
was not the same event.)
2) I'm not sure that the perception of the teams will change, it just won't
be as clear to everyone. There will be some kind of "fudge factor"
which will need to be taken into account when thinking about HE teams.
Too much emphasis will end up being put on inter-league games as a
measure of where a HE team fits into the big picture (and I remember
from Maine that these games were never taken as seriously). It really
upsets the cycle that was developing of 4 well balanced leagues and
more inter-league competition.
3) One of the things that was starting to occur due to the balancing of
the leagues and the inter-league competition is that the arguments
over teams that "should have made it" were subsiding (although
certainly not disappearing). In the past few years, I can't remember
them leaving out a team that had a good shot at going all the way.
But this rule opens the door to too many interpretations of results.
I don't think the HE teams will or should necessarily get less
consideration, but the fact that the playing field is not even is not
fair to _any_ of the leagues.
On that last note, what do the coaches from the other leagues think about
this rule?
As far as rating the success at the end of the season, what will this be
based on, one wonders? Maybe they will simply count up the dollars and
if it's more than the year before, then it must have been a good idea...
-Doug
|
