At 12:01 PM -0400 6/21/96, Dave Hendrickson wrote: >I found especially disturbing the remarks from Lowell AD Dana Skinner, quoted >in the Lowell Sun (posted by Mike -- thanks). Skinner said: > >> "One of the realities of being in Lowell is that we've lost some real good >> (coaches) to Division One programs. We're still a Division Two program >> with one Division One sport. That's who we are and there's nothing we can >> do about that. >> >> "In the end, we just try to bring in the best people we can and hope they >> do the best job they can for as long as they're with us. If they move on >> to broad-based Division One programs, we wish them well and thank them for >> their contributions." > >A "Division Two program with one Division One sport?" What is that supposed >to mean? Yes, I know that UML is of Division 2 size, but a *Division 2 >program*? I highly doubt that Bruce Crowder viewed Lowell as a Division 2 >program. When RPI, a Division 2 school playing Division 1 hockey, won the >national championship ten or so years ago, did they view themselves as a >Division 2 program? Is that how other D2-sized schools playing D1 hockey >view themselves. I believe he was referring to the fact that Lowell has a DivII *athletic* program. I didn't see a problem with his comments, because I thought he was just explaining that DivII (and III) schools often do not have the kind of pull, attraction, or ability to fund their DivI hockey programs the way that DivI schools do. You could also read into his comments the idea that Lowell lost Crowder because the school took a DivII approach to the negotiations (in their final stage) and either could not or would not pay Crowder commensurate with his status as one of DivI's top coaches. I also think you'll find differing levels of commitment and support among those non-DivI schools playing DivI hockey. LSSU and RPI are two schools that seem to have made the same kind of commitment to their hockey programs that DivI schools have made. But even at the schools like Lowell and Merrimack that are also non-DivI, although they do not have the same kind of institutional commitment that most DivI schools have, you'll find that their hockey programs are still given a higher level of commitment and funding than the school's other sports, sometimes more than all of the school's other sports put together. The question is, once a DivII-III school attains DivI status in hockey, do they support that program like other DivI schools do, or do they "settle" for treating it better than their DivII-III programs but not at the same level as those schools that are DivI in everything? I think that is dictated by the people in charge at the upper levels and by the amount of money that the school has available from various sources. Also, note that there are a number of cases of DivI schools that support their hockey programs at a less than DivI level and a lower level than their other DivI sports, like Villanova and UConn. As a hockey fan, I'd prefer the situation at Lowell to that at Villanova. >Now it's almost like there is a resigned acceptance of being a second-tier >program. > >Perhaps I'm reading too much into Skinner's comments. But it's also possible >that Skinner is right, given what happened when Crowder's contract extension >hit the skids. It may be that those higher than Skinner have decided that >enough is enough, we've overextended ourselves, now it's time to get back into >the comfort zone of a D2 mentality. You're right about it being too dangerous to read too much into the comments, but I think a point can be drawn that the school effectively decided that it could not approach the program in the way that it needed to in order to be able to compete with a DivI school for its coach. I believe Skinner's comments were his way of saying that he wanted to do whatever it would have taken to keep Crowder, but that his hands were tied by the situation Lowell was in of being a DivII school that didn't have the kind of resources to offer Crowder. If a finger should be pointed, I don't believe it should be pointed at Skinner, but maybe it is necessary to understand the situation Lowell was in. I don't know whether or not Lowell actually had the finances to pay Crowder what he wanted and what he got from NU. If they really did not, then it was a responsible move by the school to put the brakes on when they did and resign themselves to letting him go. It doesn't make accepting it any easier, but as I think Skinner was saying, it is a fact of life in collegiate athletics. Even in sports like football and hoop, we see coaches leave smaller DivI schools for the big names all the time, because those smaller schools could not match the offer. Merrimack had a similar situation a few years ago when they lost asst Scotty McPherson to UMass. Scotty was a great guy and we would have loved to keep him, but the fact was that the school simply could not match what he got from UMass. All you can do is accept it and move on. It is one of the pitfalls of being from a small school that is trying to establish itself in a sport often dominated by schools with a lot more cash and clout. A similar thing happened to Merrimack in basketball when they lost asst and former Warrior Bill Herrion to DivI Drexel, whom he coached to an upset in the NCAA DivI tourney over Memphis this season. >Sadly, I must now offer another wager. Anyone want to wager that starting >three years from now Northeastern is gonna regularly finish higher than >Lowell? >Northeastern is sounding motivated to be a national force. Lowell is sounding >motivated to be second-tier. I agree that this is a real setback for Lowell hockey, but now it is left to Skinner to do again what Lowell did six years ago. That was to find and bring in a guy who might not yet be able to command the kind of money that the big name coaches do but who nonetheless has the ability to build a strong DivI program. Perhaps it will be a rising young assistant or DivII-III coach. Is it better to do this than to have a guy who you know will be there for years but may not be as good of a coach? I bet most people would take the several years of success with the knowledge that they would probably see the guy walk out the door once that success is achieved. Is Lowell better off for having had Crowder, albeit for a short time? Undoubtedly, yes. >Given the overachievements of the Lowell squad this year, their rise to >national prominence, and their sweep of BU that magical weekend in front of a >sardine-packed crowd, any retrenchment can only be a very bitter pill indeed >for Lowell fans. Trying to put myself in the shoes of Lowell fans, it is quite a depressing thought that the success of 1994 and 1996 under Crowder could turn out to be the program's peak and that there might be nothing better to look forward to. But it's way too early to be thinking that way. Crowder leaves behind a legacy of many people who were mobilized into working hard to build Lowell hockey the way they did. The challenge for Skinner and Crowder's successor is to keep the faith and find a way to carry the momentum forward. It may be that Lowell will never be able to have a program like the BUs and Michigans of DivI hockey with all that comes with it. But if I were a Lowell fan, I'd be more than happy to have a team that was able to consistently do well and sometimes compete at the level that the 94 and 96 teams did. That can still happen. DivI hockey really is a sport different from almost every other, as I think many of us have come to understand. I would bet that the percentage of non-DivI schools playing DivI hockey (better than 1/3) is higher than that in any other DivI sport. With such a wide variety of schools competing, it makes for all sorts of crazy dynamics such as those we have witnessed recently. The same situation that resulted in a DivII Lowell losing Crowder to DivI NU, also provided us with the excitement of a great championship final between a tiny DivIII school with 2,000 students and a DivI monster with nearly 40,000 (CC-Michigan). That's something you will rarely find in any other sport. --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] *HMM* 11/13/93 ***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: ***** ***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html ***** HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.