2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

[jrobes01]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Heading to the 'mack as well. This is what we've been reduced to in order to see quality matchups...

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

We used to have a very active fan based club that was scratched by some 'intelligent' individual who thought they wanted to make things more exclusive. That fan club was extremely active, planned away trips, supported the kids and raised $. Since they killed it and offended a number of very involved fans at the time things have not been the same (this was yrs ago). These folks were the salt of the earth and went to the boards for the program. The people they cultivate now may have more $ but are not ever going to come close to the devotion the rinky dink guys had. The old 'club' planned all sorts of stuff on thier own without any work on the part of the U. There is only so much the school can do with limited budget and staff.

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Just watched the Merrimack/BU game, Merrimack dominated the first two periods, BU dominated the first half of the third but BU became unglued taking two penalities in the final three minutes to seal the game for MC. The scary part, Merrimack was missing Bigos, Sheen, and Madsen.

If I had to put a line for Friday night's game, home team in CAPS

MERRIMACK -4 UMass-Lowell

[UML]

Just watched the Merrimack/BU game, Merrimack dominated the first two periods, BU dominated the first half of the third but BU became unglued taking two penalities in the final three minutes to seal the game for MC. The scary part, Merrimack was missing Bigos, Sheen, and Madsen.

If I had to put a line for Friday night's game, home team inCAPS

MERRIMACK -4 UMass-Lowell

I was at the game tonight and -4 sounds about right. I'm hoping we keep it closer though.

[Patman]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

We used to have a very active fan based club that was scratched by some 'intelligent' individual who thought they wanted to make things more exclusive. That fan club was extremely active, planned away trips, supported the kids and raised $. Since they killed it and offended a number of very involved fans at the time things have not been the same (this was yrs ago). These folks were the salt of the earth and went to the boards for the program. The people they cultivate now may have more $ but are not ever going to come close to the devotion the rinky dink guys had. The old 'club' planned all sorts of stuff on thier own without any work on the part of the U. There is only so much the school can do with limited budget and staff.

The $ is there only as long as Meehan is involved with the school... which again points out the value of an active booster club and an active fanbase. Of course that's talk from me way down here in DC.... nevertheless, schools don't often enough value the core fans because then the success isn't because of them (UConn is terrible when it comes to this)... the core fans always drive the program and they'll in turn drive the money as long as they feel that they're getting something out of it.

Face it, one of these days we won't have Marty Meehan... either he'll go back to DC or run for governor or something else. Its one thing that I've never understood about money people and businessmen... they're happy to take things as they are given and extract their dimes and nickles out of something... but they have no sense of the idea of growth. This has been my general problem with the NHL... but the same thing applies. You succeed by building a small core into a bigger core... while they may not be high $$$ funders they will drive enthusiasm and involvement... chatter and interest, etc. If you get normal people involved they become invested then can then go and work on others in the same way. While success can be had top-down with the right people you have to assume you're going to get the right people... we've lucked out in some way in the recent years.

Its always seemed to me that the more organic a movement is the more likely it is to stick over a longer period of time.

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Very well said and true. WHen they killed that fan club a lot of the rabid, long time fans packed it in. There was absolutely no forsight when they killed the club. Bitterness lasts longer than anything else and these folks were all middle aged and dedicated. They engaged the younger generation to get involved. We have no place for fans to get involved at the grass roots level unless they have cash. The ones with cash are usually not the ones who are uber involved.

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Just watched the Merrimack/BU game, Merrimack dominated the first two periods, BU dominated the first half of the third but BU became unglued taking two penalities in the final three minutes to seal the game for MC. The scary part, Merrimack was missing Bigos, Sheen, and Madsen.

If I had to put a line for Friday night's game, home team in CAPS

MERRIMACK -4 UMass-Lowell

Merrimack is 13-4-4 overall. They're doing what many thought they were capable of this year, and taking advantage of their talent. Something UML didn't do last year.

[Slasher7]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Merrimack is 13-4-4 overall. They're doing what many thought they were capable of this year, and taking advantage of their talent. Something UML didn't do last year.

Lowell didn't have the talent this year's MC team has. Fortunately they are MC, so they wont sustain it over the long haul and will likely return to the bottom in the next few years, but this year's MC team probably has as much talent as anyone in HE not named BC or BU

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Lowell didn't have the talent this year's MC team has. Fortunately they are MC, so they wont sustain it over the long haul and will likely return to the bottom in the next few years, but this year's MC team probably has as much talent as anyone in HE not named BC or BU

I disagree overall. I think Lowell had as much talent as MC from top to bottom. I'd take UML's defensive corp last year (talent wise) over MCs. I'd definitely take the goalies. The forwards you can argue about, but obviously MC's top end is higher than Lowell's was. The problem was that Lowell's talent (outside goal) didn't perform.

[Slasher7]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I disagree overall. I think Lowell had as much talent as MC from top to bottom. I'd take UML's defensive corp last year (talent wise) over MCs. I'd definitely take the goalies. The forwards you can argue about, but obviously MC's top end is higher than Lowell's was. The problem was that Lowell's talent (outside goal) didn't perform.

Lowell didnt' have a talent like DaCosta on their roster. MC fans are hoping he's their "Reasoner", a guy who can bring top recruits later to sustain the program, but I doubt it happens. I think you may be overrating Lowell's talent last year. Good servicable players, but how many of that team would be the types of guys BC or BU would covet? Not many if any.

[Salvo1017]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Defensive pairings?? Ross, Stolls, Allan, Bigos?? Not sure I'd take Lowell's D-men over them, also not sure I'd take anyone over Cannata.

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Defensive pairings?? Ross, Stolls, Allan, Bigos?? Not sure I'd take Lowell's D-men over them, also not sure I'd take anyone over Cannata.

Yep, I'd take Dehner, Schaus etc over those guys. That's just me. And yes, I'd take Hutton over Cannata.

Lowell didnt' have a talent like DaCosta on their roster. MC fans are hoping he's their "Reasoner", a guy who can bring top recruits later to sustain the program, but I doubt it happens. I think you may be overrating Lowell's talent last year. Good servicable players, but how many of that team would be the types of guys BC or BU would covet? Not many if any.

As I said, the argument could be made about the forwards, especially the top level as no one on Lowell was at the level of DaCosta.

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Yep, I'd take Dehner, Schaus etc over those guys. That's just me. And yes, I'd take Hutton over Cannata. As I said, the argument could be made about the forwards, especially the top level as no one on Lowell was at the level of DaCosta.

I would take Hutton over Cannata; look at last night's first goal by BU. I've seen Cannata give up a lot of "greasy" goals on saves he should make.

No Lowell fan would ever compare the forwards, I'll make the argument Lowell hasn't had an offensive talent like DaCosta since Bullock (may have a case for Koehler/McGrane)

Defensive pairings?? Ross, Stolls, Allan, Bigos?? Not sure I'd take Lowell's D-men over them, also not sure I'd take anyone over Cannata.

Against Dehner, Schaus, Edwards, Blair, Goers, I'll take my chance with my home team but I think that's a pretty **** good matchup. One thing I will be happy to concede, Stollery has always been to me as one of the most underrated HE defenseman in the league since his freshmen year at Merrimack.

Lowell didnt' have a talent like DaCosta on their roster. MC fans are hoping he's their "Reasoner", a guy who can bring top recruits later to sustain the program, but I doubt it happens. I think you may be overrating Lowell's talent last year. Good servicable players, but how many of that team would be the types of guys BC or BU would covet? Not many if any.

Merrimack hasn't had a player like DaCosta since Aquino, and before that, Porter and Stringer. Let's not get into the BC/BU vs. the rest discussion because deep down we all know the answer and that's not going to change. That's apples to oranges.

I think if anything was overrated at Lowell last year was the offensive talent. Hutton last year was 13-12-2, only allowed 55 goals in 1614 minutes, four shutouts, with a 2.04 GAA and a .928 save pct. He was an outstanding goalie but you need defensive help to achieve those stats. Hell, if Lowell potted an extra half goal a game last year, they easily would have won at least half of his losses and would have been in the NCAA's.

[boblav1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I think if anything was overrated at Lowell last year was the offensive talent.

Inconsistant offense has been a problem for years.

[Gainzo]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Driving home from Tsongas on Friday night I heard these two stats on WUML.

Number of losses in a row: 12 (Team record).
Number of home losses in a row: 7 (Team record).

If I'm not mistaken these are all-time records not just D1.

As I stated a few pages back I never thought the season was going to be this bad.