2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

My question to all of you is, if UML played up to expectations last year and back in 2005-2006..would that be enough for you guys?

J.D,

With the cards that were dealt, if they got to the NCAA tournament in 2006 and 2010, yes, it would have been enough. In my mind that would have been the expected result of the UML team given the adminstrative support during the first seven years of his tenure. There would be no cause to fire him in my mind either this year or even next year.

With the two successive failures of the '06 and '10 classes, now one has to wait another two or three years before we have another crack at home ice. With the University owing the arena, I don't think it's a business choice they can't afford to make. I've mentioned during the summer of 2009 that if things go bad for the next two years, people would be calling for his head and unfortunately, it's come to fruition. In fact, it may be the unexpected success of 2009 that may cost him the job in 2011.

Blaise is a very good coach with a high regard for running a clean program. I don't get any jollies writing or discuss this issue. Sometimes one has to say it just doesn't work. After ten years, I think that's enough time to give someone a chance without seeing some improvement or reward.

One more point about the Lowell Sun. I haven't bought a copy of that paper in I don't know how long. At least we have the fortitude on this forum to tackle this issue directly.

 

[bottomdweller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Don't know how its currently 30-10 in favor of keeping Blaise.

 

[boblav1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

My question to all of you is, if UML played up to expectations last year and back in 2005-2006..would that be enough for you guys?

Granted it maybe unrealistic, but an NCAA tourney bid is my goal every year. So, yes, if the team met expectations and made the NCAAs those years I would be happy. That's not to say I would be satisfied as I would want more and I would not want to wait 15 years for it.

Lowell has been close over the past 10 years, but for some reason they could never make it over the hump. Never score that big goal or win that big game. That's the frustrating part. You can look at multiple seasons where a game or two made the difference in a tournament bid. Why is the margin for error always so small with this team?

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Well, we did have the disallowed goal against BU that would have sent us to the next level

 

[boblav1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

JUst read the Sun where the headline questions whether it is time for Blaise to be done and Skinner does not say no when asked if they are considering double - To be fair he says they wait until the end until they evaluate all the coaches but he certainly didn't say no right away which I am surprised at.

I wonder if Chaz will be on the radio show Tuesday night. That was his article and I wonder if the subject will come up on the show.

From the Sun:

MacDonald’s job might be on line

UML flat again in 3- 0 loss to Maine

By Chaz Scoggins

chaz@lowellsun.com

LOWELL — Everyone knew this would be a rebuilding year for the River Hawks. But who knew the program would be hit by a hockey version of Hurricane Katrina that would turn UMass Lowell into a mini-New Orleans?

The season has become a disaster, and the gossip is intensifying that long-time coach Blaise MacDonald’s job could be in jeopardy.

“I can’t answer that right now,” said UML athletic director Dana Skinner when asked about the sta*tus of MacDonald, who has one year remaining on his contract. “We’ll evaluate all our coaches at the end of the season, just like we always do.”

With two weekends left in the season, the River Hawks have only four wins, matching the fewest in school history by a 1968-69 team that played only 13 games (4-9-0). The 24 losses match the third-most in his*tory (1988-89). Only the 1985-86 (29) and 1984-85 (25) teams lost more.

Maine’s freshman goalie Dan Sullivan, who took a miserable .876 save per*centage into the weekend, shut out the River Hawks for the second straight night, turning aside all 28 shots he saw as the 19th*ranked Black Bears trimmed UML 3-0 in front of a placid crowd of 4,326 at the Tsongas Center.

It was the first time the River Hawks (4-24-2, 3-20-0 in Hockey East) have been blanked in back-to-back games since Oct. 21-22, 2005, when they were whitewashed 3-0 and 4-0 by Providence.

Officially eliminated

They were eliminated from the Hockey East Tour*nament race last night.

Although the River Hawks played a far more spirited first period than they did 24 hours earlier in a 4-0 loss to the Black Bears, statisti*cally they found themselves worse off.

After being outshot 14-5 in the first period on Friday night but surviving it score*less, UML was outshot 16-4 in the first period last night and fell behind 2-0. The River Hawks managed only one shot in the first 13 minutes.

All-American and 2010 Hobey Baker finalist Gus*tav Nyquist put the Black Bears (14-10-6, 11-8-4) in front at 8:38 after they won a faceoff just outside the UML blue line. Brian Flynn — celebrating the first anniversary of a five-goal, seven-point game against the River Hawks — tapped the puck to Nyquist, who had slipped behind the UML defense. Nyquist went right to the net and wristed the puck past Doug Carr for his 14th goal.

Maine made it 2-0 at 15:01 while the teams were skating four aside. A perfect pass from Tanner House put the puck in front of the net for Joey Diamond, and he reached out and neatly redi*rected the pass behind Carr for his 11th goal. Maine had a chance to take a three-goal lead late in the period, but Chad Ruhwedel was able to catch Matt Mangene from behind on a breakaway and break up the play.

MacDonald handed down an edict between periods for the River Hawks to shoot more, and they responded with 24 shots over the next two periods.

“We give these guys the best sticks money can buy,” MacDonald groused. “Use them.”

But the punchless River Hawks still couldn’t score despite having six power plays and have now played seven straight periods with*out a goal. UML continued to skate well in the second period and outshot Maine 15-9, but nothing clicked for the River Hawks and they fell farther behind.

With the River Hawks on a power play midway through the period, House won a faceoff in his own end and pulled the puck to Nyquist, who rocketed out of the zone and left the UML players far behind in his wake. Nyquist made one move on Carr and then tucked the puck inside the far post for his second goal of the night and 15th of the season. It was the ninth shorthanded goal allowed by UML this season. The River Hawks have just one power*play goal in 28 chances over the last five games. UML’s best scoring opportunity of the period came early when Michael Budd took the puck away from two Maine defenders in the corner while the River Hawks were in a line change. Budd skated the puck in front of the net but was denied by Sullivan.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I wonder if Chaz will be on the radio show Tuesday night. That was his article and I wonder if the subject will come up on the show.

LOL, we know how Chaz is Mr. Sunshine in this town when it comes to the hockey team

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I wonder if Chaz will be on the radio show Tuesday night. That was his article and I wonder if the subject will come up on the show.

I would really tend to doubt they'll bring the topic up to be honest. First, they know that he's going to say the same thing every coach would say (I'm still the coach, I'm going to keep coaching till they tell me otherwise, etc). Secondly, it could just cause for a contentious show, and a few more weeks are still coming. I CAN see them having this discussion on the season's final one though, if this continues.

 

[bigeasy29]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

What is wrong with what Chaz wrote? He was honest about the issue at hand!

 

[bottomdweller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

anyone know if this was brought up tonight?

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Came in at 6:45. Nothing after that.

 

[jrobes01]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

They talked for an hour like nothing happened.. I don't think I would've expected Chaz to sit there and blame this season on Blaise right off the bat and have them hammer away at it the whole time. Just interesting that absolutely nothing of his article was brought up at all. Like UMLFan said though, maybe it'll be brought up a bit on the last show.

Nick Schaus made a guest (phone) appearance and they talked to him about life in the AHL vs. college. It was actually pretty cool to hear from him again. His offensive production sounded pretty solid and I can't believe how few penalty minutes he has!

They didn't seem to talk all that much about the past weekend.. Mostly talk about the Hockey East standings/playoff situation, the future of college hockey with the addition of Penn State and the possibility of a BTHC, and of course, word association.

OT, UML Basketball plays the regular season finale against Franklin Pierce at 7:30. Should be interesting to see who they match up against for playoffs.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Something to think about ... well, at least for me. If they do keep Coach MacDonald, it puts a ton of pressure on him and the future of the program next year. While it won't be as bad next year as this year (at least I really hope not), if it's another year of no playoffs, this team's recruiting will fall off the face of the earth, and the next coach is going to have a year or two of cleaning up to do. So keeping or not keeping Coach could have some serious repercussions in the short term.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Something to think about ... well, at least for me. If they do keep Coach MacDonald, it puts a ton of pressure on him and the future of the program next year. While it won't be as bad next year as this year (at least I really hope not), if it's another year of no playoffs, this team's recruiting will fall off the face of the earth, and the next coach is going to have a year or two of cleaning up to do. So keeping or not keeping Coach could have some serious repercussions in the short term.

Or we could have a team with really good chemistry next yr. The chemistry this yr is just not there. Absent. Nada. The thing most people want to see at a game is intensity. Not much of that this season. A few yrs ago we couldn't win but they tried like holy hell to do so. Even losing they were fun to watch, there was always hope. This team- first goal against and you can leave.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Something to think about ... well, at least for me. If they do keep Coach MacDonald, it puts a ton of pressure on him and the future of the program next year. While it won't be as bad next year as this year (at least I really hope not), if it's another year of no playoffs, this team's recruiting will fall off the face of the earth, and the next coach is going to have a year or two of cleaning up to do. So keeping or not keeping Coach could have some serious repercussions in the short term.

Agreed, I briefly touch upon in this response to Patronick's post after the NU game. The decision to keep or part ways with coach after March 7th is going to have a lasting impact on the team both next year and the following four. It's an all-in bet no matter which way you play it.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Or we could have a team with really good chemistry next yr. The chemistry this yr is just not there. Absent. Nada. The thing most people want to see at a game is intensity. Not much of that this season. A few yrs ago we couldn't win but they tried like holy hell to do so. Even losing they were fun to watch, there was always hope. This team- first goal against and you can leave.

Chemistry would be good, but it's not going to help get you the recruits like Wallin and Wilson and Conderman, the ones that committed to the program when we were actually doing good.

 

[boblav1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Or we could have a team with really good chemistry next yr. The chemistry this yr is just not there. Absent. Nada. The thing most people want to see at a game is intensity. Not much of that this season. A few yrs ago we couldn't win but they tried like holy hell to do so. Even losing they were fun to watch, there was always hope. This team- first goal against and you can leave.

I agree, a few years ago the team really struggled but they got better as the season went along and finished strong. That led to some excitement heading into the next season because you could see that things would get better. I'm not getting the same feeling with this team. Unless they really put it together over the next four games I'm really not sure what to expect next season.

Is there enough talent? Is the goaltending good enough? Are the incoming recruits going to be able to make a difference? Lots of questions for next season and as Monty mentioned, the pressure will be on.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I agree, a few years ago the team really struggled but they got better as the season went along and finished strong. That led to some excitement heading into the next season because you could see that things would get better. I'm not getting the same feeling with this team. Unless they really put it together over the next four games I'm really not sure what to expect next season.

Is there enough talent? Is the goaltending good enough? Are the incoming recruits going to be able to make a difference? Lots of questions for next season and as Monty mentioned, the pressure will be on.

When you look back I don't remember ever having Freshmen expected to contribute to the extent they would have this yr to be successful. We have always had some upperclassmen who were the kigpin of the team and then the others filled in the gap. We have had no Sr leading with a stellar performance this yr. THe exact opposite has occured. They have made more errors than the underclassmen. Maybe I am wrong in my take but I don't think they are poor players, just the cast they should be supporting did nothing to help them shine. You can have one or two Frosh kids that might shine but even the best teams don't have all freshmen (or Fr/so) on the PP or PK which we have seen on occassion.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

When you look back I don't remember ever having Freshmen expected to contribute to the extent they would have this yr to be successful.

It wasn't that long ago ... the last time we went through the cycle. We had 15 freshmen when Hutton et al joined up and 7 seniors (we have less of each this year). Biggest difference is that we've had more injuries this year to the upperclassmen, but the frosh went into that year being expected to contribute. Not surprisingly, we finished out of the playoffs that year as well, with a 7-16-4 HE record and 8-21-7 overall. Again, why many of us want the classes to be evened out.

We have had no Sr leading with a stellar performance this yr. THe exact opposite has occured. They have made more errors than the underclassmen.

Sadly true. And they've also had injuries which hasn't helped.

Maybe I am wrong in my take but I don't think they are poor players, just the cast they should be supporting did nothing to help them shine. You can have one or two Frosh kids that might shine but even the best teams don't have all freshmen (or Fr/so) on the PP or PK which we have seen on occassion.

No one's arguing this, I don't think. I really like some of the freshmen, and I think a couple that didn't do much this year will do so next.

 

[Gainzo]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

We'll see what Skinner & Meehan decide to do with Blaise in a month or so IMO. Other than that I'm just hoping we actually score a goal on Saturday night. This season has been a train-wreck with all the injuries and awful performances.

 

[snipeshow10]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Tying the recruiting into the fails of 2006 and 2010, if those teams achieved NCAA tourney bids and did what was expected, the program would be in a completely different state right now. I understand that this years team is young and did sustain injuries, but waiting every 4 years to land some blue chip prospects would not have been the case if the team could have cashed in on there "big" years. Those disappointments effect the program not only that year, but for the next 4 because the Lowell can't use "NCAA Tournament Bid" or "Hockey East Champ" as a recruiting ploy.