On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
> I believe that tv plays a part here.  Some people probably do decide to
> stay home and watch the Bruins on tv from their cozy, warm living room
> rather than freeze in the Volpe.
 
TV, sure. By the same token they're competing against Seinfeld reruns.
The quality of play just made the comparison seem ludicrous.
 
> >Ron a great coach? Based on what? Based on his record leading a Division
> >2 team that kids fought each other to play for?
>
> But before he came along, they never had the kind of dominance in DivII
> that they had in the late 80s, nor were they able to give a consistently
> good showing against DivI teams.  If his teams had the same kind of record
> that Bruce Parker and Thom Lawler's teams had, it wouldn't have been enough
> for them to seriously have a shot at being invited to join HE.  And Parker
> and Lawler had good teams.
 
Good, yes. Again, my contention was that the team's dominance circa
1986-1989 was due largely to Hrivnak, Pion, and Vesey-- all three unusual
recruiting situations to start with, and players with clearly so much
more talent than any that had played for Merrimack before or since that
Anderson's contribution to that team's success is questionable.
 
Parker, on the other hand, takes players like the utterly run-of-the mill
Doug Friedman and turns them into worldbeaters. Those kids would do
ANYTHING for Parker. That's what he creates in his locker room and in his
practices.
 
The players do *NOT* feel that way about Anderson. They respect his
integrity. That's about it.
 
>
> >Volpe an obstacle? No argument there. Would Ron fare much better with a
> >new building? I doubt it.
>
> This seems contradictory to me.  Volpe is an obstacle for him, yet even
> with a DivI rink, he wouldn't fare much better?
>
 
Better, yes. Much better, no. Not enough to push MC past sixth in the
standings.
 
> The rink has a definite effect on potential recruits - local players who
> grow up playing high school and Hockey Night in Boston there and know what
> the rink is like, and Canadians who go on a recruiting trip to Merrimack
> one week and Northeastern, UNH, or one of the ECAC schools the next.  I
> don't know any program that hasn't fared better when they've suddenly been
> able to start getting better players.
>
But I can think of one that has not been saved by a new rink-- one that
also has institutional resources far beyond MC's. Look at Boston College.
They've been uncompetetive (relatively speaking) for nearly three
seasons. All since Ceglarski left.
 
Notice how EMPTY Conte looks when only a couple of thousand show up? And
how well are they doing attendance wise when you factor in a much larger
student body?
 
 
> Volpe is also only one piece of the puzzle as you know.  Merrimack has
> trouble attracting even regular students because of the lack of other
> on-campus facilities.  The campus is dead on the weekends because the kids
> leave - there's nothing to do.  Potential recruits look at this and then
> they see what UNH has, or the Boston schools, or any of the ECAC schools.
>
 
Now that excuse I don't buy. Complaining about there being nothing to do
is something that goes on at a lot of schools. They complained about it
at Holy Cross, at Merrimack, and at Syracuse. They complain about it at
UVM-- which is a joke when USNews and World Report calls them the top
party school in the Northeast.
 
The kids leave because MC draws still primarily from New England. Kids
who can go home on the weekends do. (Especially when the school is not in
an urban environment like Boston or in an area where there aren't a wide
enough selection of bars that don't card minors.
 
> I'm glad the school will be building not only a new rink but also a new
> student center.  It will give the students a reason to stay on campus, and
> the added facilities will make the school more attractive to recruits.
>
 
The student center is a sound financial decision-- unlike the science
building. It's an expenditure that serves the greatest portion of MC's
community, rather than catering to a special interest-- science majors--
that are largely nonexistent at MC anyway. However, the rink is seen by
many current students and alumni as catering to another special
interest-- the hockey team and its fans.
 
However, unless Prez. Santagati is planning on serving free beer to
minors, a new center isn't going to stop the pathetic complaining about
there being nothing to do.
 
> >> But the bottom line is if you give Ron Anderson a new facility, I guarentee
> >> he'd be as successful as the rest of the eastern coaches, if not better.
> >
> >Well, if the rink gets built, we'll see. Maybe he'll be coaching MC then,
> >maybe not. I've seen too many highly-touted, talented players come in and
> >play like crap for Anderson and go on to improve.
>
> Who were these players?  Every year there are highly touted players - often
> highly touted by people who haven't seen them yet and are hoping they'll be
> the ones to suddenly become stars.  It's not as if they are able to get
> many players who other programs really wanted and then those players
> disappoint.
 
Highly touted by the media guide. Cooper Naylor, "projected as a scorer
who will develop skills well." Became a defensive specialist a la Brendan
Locke and now, Chris Davis. Once, after a game in Coop's junior year in
which he missed on a breakaway, Anderson retorted (much to my surprise,
and in front of press) that he couldn't take out the opposing goalie for
Coop.
 
Kris Porter, this year, was highly touted by the coaching staff in
conversations with alumni.
 
Anderson must think enough of Rob Beck that he made him a captain (
because MC, unlike schools like BU, do not have teammates elect captains)
and as yet he's been a disappointment, to say the least. With the
exception of Mark Cornforth, none of Anderson's captains since 1988 have
emerged as leaders. In fact, the closest thing today's team has to a
mature leader is a player who "wasn't good enough to play" two years ago
and was benched in a game at UNH after scoring a goal.
 
>
> I've also seen many players come in as freshmen and look like they didn't
> belong in DivI.  By the time they were juniors and seniors, they had become
> integral parts of a team that was at least competitive in DivI.
>
I'd argue that MC has been at least competetive on the whole. In
particular games against particular teams, yes. But not on a regular
basis. The efforts they put out playing BU would have been enough to beat
UMass-Amherst and UMass-Lowell. But it wasn't there those games.
 
 
> The one truly highly touted player I remember was Emmanuel Fernandez, whose
> story has been told here many times before (goalie from Quebec, signed with
> Merrimack in 1992(?), drafted first by Laval of the QMJHL and given a car
> to stay up north, took Laval to the Memorial Cup final and Team Canada Jr
> to the gold, now starring in the IHL).  There's nothing that could have
> been done about that.
 
Gee, you're right. I wonder why other DivI coaches weren't gambling on
him. Maybe they knew or expected something Ron didn't?
 
The last part of that story, from the friend of a player who had been on
teams with Fernandez, was that nobody up north expected him to go to MC.
He used MC's offer to get the deal he wanted from Laval.
>
> >Look at Mark Cornforth,
> >playing now for the Boston Bruins. He's played better since leaving MC
> >then he ever did there, save perhaps the first half of his freshman season.
>
> I don't agree.  Cornforth didn't finish fourth in team scoring last year
> (as a D who missed 7 games) and sixth in scoring as a sophomore by
> underachieving.  He developed into one of the better two-way Ds in the
> league - his defensive play really improved over his career.  Heck, he was
> almost frightening defensively as a rookie.  He became so important that he
> was the one guy you wanted out there in the final minutes of a close game
> whether they were ahead or behind.
 
He had to be out there because there was nobody behind him. On a team
that by your own admission "couldn't put the puck in the ocean,"
Cornforth's offensive skills were consistently stunted and discouraged by
Anderson-- a coach who despite his vocal support of solid defense, still
can't teach a retreating defenseman to take his man at the blueline
instead of fifteen feet into his own zone.
 
>
> It was his defense that got him a shot with the Bruins.  If he hadn't
> improved in that area, he probably wouldn't even be in the AHL.
>
 
His competitive attitude got him a spot. He took a cheap shot at Eric
Lindros the first chance he got. He takes the body and plays a physical
game. He can play that way because of the situation he is in. There's no
pressure on him. He doesn't have to worry about making mistakes or being
the goat-- like he did at Merrimack, where his bench coaches were
constantly reminding the team of what NOT to do-- without ever telling
what *to* do to win.
 
> >> As
> >> much as it hurts me to say this, he took an average indepedent team into
> >> Matthews Arena a few years ago in an NCAA tournament and beat Northeastern
> >> before losing to eventual champion Lake Superior State. Did you think that
> >> was luck? I sure as hell don't!
> >
> >Luck? In a manner of speaking, yes.
>
> Just out of curiosity: did you feel this way back in 1988?  This is the
> first time I have heard anyone say this about that season.  I would say
> that I did think it was luck after MC beat NU...I didn't a week later when
> they beat LSSU in the first game of the next series.  In fact, I distinctly
> remember feeling "vindicated" that "first Merrimack had done it to us, now
> they did it to Lake Superior."
>
 
Some was luck-- not only in Racine's lapses but the way they acquired the
players necessary to pull it off. I don't think, even after that, LSSU
took them seriously. If I had scouted them by watching a tape of the
MC-NU series, I'd say MC was the luckiest bunch of players in the world
to walk out with a win.
 
 
> >1988 Warriors key player #1:  Jim Hrivnak. He expected to go pro and was
> >told very late in the recruiting season he should play another year where
> >he was. He decided to go college instead, and MC was one of the few
> >schools left with scholarships to offer.
>
> Although not the only DivI school, and there was at least one conference
> school that wanted him.
>
 
I wonder why he chose Merrimack. Hmm. Care to shed any light, Mike?
 
> Hrivnak certainly was a key, because he gave them DivI quality goaltending.
> Yet, he also allowed 8 goals in five periods against Northeastern...and he
> didn't score any of the seven goals Merrimack racked up in 26 minutes to
> come back and win.
>
Without Hrivnak they don't even get a bid to play Northeastern. He was
the only player that critics of the team had to admit was a legitimate
DivI goalie for anybody.
 
 
> >Key player #2: Jim Vesey.
>
> 95 points in one year was impressive, even if much of it was against
> DivII-III teams.  But if I recall, he was quiet against Northeastern.  It
> was the other players who did most of the scoring in that series.
 
Yup, like Jocko Magadini. The winner was his first goal. NU keyed on
Vesey and freed up the rest of the team. But again, without Vesey they
aren't even in the NCAA playoff picture.
 
>
> >Key player #3: Rich Pion.
> >
> >Other players on that team were in similar situations: Mike Boyce, Chris
> >Kiene, etc.
>
> I certainly agree on these key players.  But there were not just one or
> two, and including Ziliotto below, you've mentioned six.  Luck might have
> been involved if there was one key player who was dominating against NU and
> everyone else was along for the ride.
>
> And, however he landed all of those players, the fact remains that he still
> got them.  Sometimes you get lucky and nab one or even two overlooked
> players who turn out to be very good.  Never more than a handful.
 
Just my point. He got his handful on that team. By luck. That's all. It's
been really quiet since.
 
>
> >A triumph of coaching? MC had already beaten NU in OT earlier in 1988.
> >All ANderson's cards were on the table.
>
> I can attest that NU didn't take that game (3-2 win by MC at Christmas)
> seriously at all.  They had a habit of doing that against teams they
> perceived as not being very good (nothing new as teams do that all the
> time).  I really believed at the time that MC's win was a fluke.
>
> >I was at those games. MC was in a hole after five periods in the
> >total-goals series.
>
> However, by the end of the series, MC had outplayed NU in three of the six
> periods - including the first two of the first game when they led (3-1?)
> going into the third before losing.  Being on the NU side, I thought the
> first game was lost after the first two periods.  It was pretty impressive
> for Merrimack to win the first two periods just four days after NU had
> beaten Maine on Monday to win HE.
>
> >All-America goaltender Bruce Racine had a series of
> >SERIOUS mental lapses. He gave up two long slap shot goals-- one from
> >beyond the blueline by Mark Ziliotto (another Canadian player overlooked
> >by Div 1 coaches-- this time, anecdotal evidence has it, because it was
> >assumed he was already playing major junior) and MC crawled back over the
> >final thirty minutes to win 10-8.
>
> Well, they didn't quite get a fluke goal here and there and wind up with
> seven in 26 minutes and a series win.  I agree that Racine didn't play
> well, but Merrimack also dominated 26 minutes in a way that I have seen few
> teams dominate such a stretch in NCAA play.
>
You're right, they did. But that was the spirit of those players
individually in a playoff situation and they don't validate Anderson's
job as a coach. The performance of a team in meaningless,
middle-of-the-season, non-conference games, they show a coach's real
stripes.
 
Well, I don't know if I'd call them "fluke." They weren't deflected off
of sliding bodies or thrown in the net. But Racine failed to stop at
least 4 of the seven that never should have happened-- Ziliotto's pair
included.
 
> >Is that great coaching? A nailbiting comeback playoff victory that
> >happened seven years ago? Did he engineer that win? Or did his players,
> >along with NU's falling asleep when they thought it was, to paraphrase
> >Dan Roche on WCCM, "all over"?
>
> I have heard secondhand (but a good source) that once NU was up 8-3 in the
> series, a key to turning it around from the standpoint of Merrimack was
> that they started to get angry.  Angry that NU, as they would do back then,
> was running the goalie and cheap shotting Merrimack.  Anderson was supposed
> to have told his team, "Whatever happens, we're not going to let them run
> our goaltender."  That's only one thing I have heard, but it is an example
> of the type of leadership that a coach in that situation needs to show.  He
> was also supposed to have shadowed NU's better players like Kevin
> Heffernan, who was shut down most of the series.
>
> I have to believe that Anderson was successful at conveying to his team
> that they had to "fight back" and refuse to back down from the abuse NU was
> giving them.  That's because that is the way MC played and it's why they
> won - not because of Hrivnak or Vesey or Pion.  I know the way NU played
> during that season...almost an NHL style where they abused opponents and
> antagonized them.  I never saw anyone stand up to them the way Merrimack
> did.  And Merrimack had to change its style to do that.  It is said by some
> MC people that a key was a heavy, heavy hit that was laid on Heffernan and
> resulted in him struggling back to the bench.  They say that you could see
> NU back down from that point.
>
> Of course, I didn't remember these things at the time because I was in a
> state of shock from what was happening.
 
MC didn't win that game fueled by tired cliches. Bobby Jay always did
like those standup, midice hits-- it was his speciality. :) Anderson
didn't teach him that.
 
What I guess I'm trying to do is very difficult-- separate out how much
credit and blame are due the players and the coaches for a team's success
(or lack thereof). Some patterns that his teams repeat that seem to be
ill-advised continue today. His defensemen back away and play the puck.
His forwards try to dominate play on the boards, leaving noone in front.
His teams sit on slim leads with a 1-2-2- forecheck and his forwards
wonder what the heck he's doing.
 
>
> >Great coaching is what Parker's teams do. They win regularly,
> >methodically, mechanically. They don't let teams back into games, They
> >don't let up. (Recent games vs. MC notwithstanding).
>
> Interesting point.  BU doesn't let teams into the game or back into the
> game...except for Merrimack.  January 13, 1995; February 24-25, 1995; March
> 12, 1995; December 8-9, 1995.  All close games, one MC win, two others in
> which BU seemed to have it in hand and MC fought back.
>
Given MC's performance in DivI, perhaps they don't take MC seriously...
like NU did. Again, not exactly a credit to Anderson... what's he doing,
lulling the opposition into a false sense of security?
 
> 1988 or 1995, little has changed...Anderson's teams don't pack it in, even
> when playing a HE champion like NU or BU and the odds are against them.
> Opposing coaches say this, too.
>
> Of course, they don't do this all of the time.  Sometimes they come up with
> a lackluster effort against a weaker team.  It happens to everyone.  But
> one thing I can say after seven years of watching Merrimack for 35 games a
> year is that I have rarely been disappointed in their effort.
>
> Meanwhile, Parker's teams that win "regularly, methodically, mechanically,"
> have also been among the most talented teams in the nation the last 4-5
> years.  It's a lot easier to play like that when you have the players they
> have had.  They sure weren't playing that way before Blaise MacDonald came
> along five years ago.
 
Well, there's another thing. BU can keep talented assistant coaches. We
can't. We needed Scotty McPherson.
 
>
> It's also the way Anderson's teams played when they had a similar mismatch
> of talent in their favor in the 80s.
>
> >Ronnie has it tough recruiting. He scours Canada looking for those
> >overlooked players to build another dream team. It's not going to happen.
> >And even if it did-- is it a credit to him? Or just happenstance?
>
> It's tougher to get those overlooked players when you have fewer
> scholarships to offer and when there are more scholarships being offered
> out there in DivI hockey.  More teams are out there on the roads now than
> in the 1980s.  And people are more aware of who Merrimack is looking at now
> than before.  I agree that it's tougher and probably impossible now to
> create a "dream team" entirely out of overlooked players.  That's why it's
> so important to be able to compete on an even level with other top DivI
> schools for players.  They have never been able to do that.
>
> >I'm struck by the impression that Anderson will be the Moses of Merrimack
> >hockey. He may have helped take the program to the Promised Land (after
> >seven years wandering in the desert-- and counting) but he may not be
> >allowed to cross over into it.
>
> Nice analogy. :-)  You may be right.  I hope not, however, because I
> continue to believe that not only can he do the job, but he deserves to
> have a chance to do it (with a commitment and new facilities) because of
> his dedication to the program and the fact that he took them where no one
> else was able to, after years of being told that Merrimack could never go
> DivI.  Anything less than a fair chance would be almost criminal.
>
> If he is given that chance and things still don't change, then I will be
> disappointed, but I will admit my mistake.  But I don't think that would
> happen.
>
That depend on how soon the rink is built. If it's a wait until 1999, I
doubt he'll get his chance.
 
 
> >P.S. Even so, I have a tape of that game vs. NU and the highlight tape
> >that year.
>
> I'll have to talk to John Savastano.  At the risk of breaking my heart
> again, I'd still like to see it.  I'm still trying to find the box scores
> (I have them buried somewhere) to put up on the web site.  It's probably
> among the more-discussed games here on HOCKEY-L.
>
 
Due to the pair of us, no doubt. :)
 
 
> >A mediocre team? I think not. That's my favorite hockey team
> >ever. Give them a good rink, decent crowd support, a real coach, and a
> >regular D1 schedule-- they would've been Hockey East champs at least once
> >and had Lake Superior visiting Massachusetts to play THEM.
>
 
> Except for the coaching question, I tend to agree with you.  They were
> good, but you cannot separate that from the person who built and coached
> them.
 
I guess I'm taking an average of all his teams to judge him. If he was so
good he could put together that team with the same rink, why not now? And
if that team really was a fluke, then how can you use its performance to
prove he's a good coach?
 
Either way, it's a truism that you should change a losing game. I think
maybe it is a little past the time when Ron and Merrimack College hockey
should part ways amicably.
 
If MC's teams fare no better from now until the new rink is built, I
doubt the parting will be that amicable.
 
-Dave Josselyn
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.