2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

[jericho]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Laughable to watch someone who trashes anyone who doesn't have a giant maroon "U" on the front of their jersey talk about the integrity of other posters and then not back it up with anything empirical.

No one's taking anything over with negativity, we're pointing out that certain Union fans are making themselves look like absolute fools to the rest of the USCHO forum.

And stop trying to make the Eddie Haskell reference happen. No one else has caught onto it and it doesn't make any sense.

And maybe use a capital letter once in a while.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

If people want to talk Union hockey, we'll talk Union hockey. I don't think anyone has an issue with that, regardless of loyalties. When another team is brought up, specifically insulted, expectations of the base taking it sitting down is laughable.

 

[johnk]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Reading this thread is like watching a month long train wreck! Let me sum up the last week of nonsense. Union and RPI both have some passionate hockey fans who go overboard with some of their posts. Hokydad and Flagdude remain clueless and we are all dumber after reading their posts. Big home weekend for both teams. Go USA!!!

 

[Dutchman]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Hokydad:

Can you help me out here ... I posted this a while back. What is the story on this RPI Coach, Fridgen, and why did he leave RPI? I am only getting parts of the story. It looked like he was a winner. Also, you have a great deal of insight and experience in hockey and I hope you feel free to post here often. I greaty enjoy reading what you have to say.

Question: Is Union going to be able to hold on to Bennett? If he continues to produce, he will be one of the leading coaches in the country, in terms of winning percentages. Is a Michigan or other Big 10 school in his future? Look at who is at the top of the list. How did Harkness get all those wins? I hope we hold on to Bennet forever but in coaching forever only seems to exist if you are a losing RPI coach.

I have to admit that I could not understand who "Eddie Haskill" reference but finally caught on.

Eddie was known for his neat grooming, hiding his shallow and sneaky character. Typically, Eddie would greet his friends' parents with overdone good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver." However, when no parents were around, Eddie was always up to no good either conniving with his friends or picking on Wally's younger brother, Beaver. Eddie's two-faced style was also typified by his efforts to curry favor by trying to talk to adults at the level he thought they would respect, such as referring to their children as Theodore (Beaver's much-disliked given name) and Wallace, even though the parents called them Beaver and Wally. A weaselly wise guy, Eddie could be relied upon to connive and instigate schemes with his friends



Dutchfan - Can you fill me in a little on the history. Below is a listing of the top all time College Coaches based on their records and based on winning percentage. The active coaches are in CAPS. I have mapped into the list Bennett and Appert. Note that the numbers, for all 100 coaches, except for Bennett and Appert, do not include this year. For Bennett and Appert, they do include this years results.

Here is what I don't understand.

You mentioned Fridgen. He is down here as one of the Top 100. Appert is way off the charts and does not come anywhere near the list. By the way, I have mapped where Bennet would be today. He would be tied for third but only has 68 wins thus far. Impressive start to his head coaching career.

My question then: Why did RPI got rid of A WINNER FOR A LOSER?

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct

All-Time Coaching Records
Records are for Division I only.
(Active coaches in CAPS. Records do not include season in progress.)
Sorting by: by Win Percentage (min. 100 wins).
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct

1 Harkness, Ned 339 123 9 .729
2 Harrison, Bill 127 47 6 .722
? RICK BENNETT 68 27 17 .716
3 Kelley, Jack 208 80 8 .716
4 Mason, Ron 924 380 83 .696
5 Armstrong, Larry 123 53 10 .688
6 Heyliger, Vic 352 157 19 .685
7 O'Flaherty, Bill 134 59 12 .683
8 Armstrong, Murray 463 215 31 .675
9 JACKSON, JEFF 367 162 58 .675
10 Kelley, John "Snooks" 501 245 15 .668
11 Thompson, Cheddy 150 73 6 .668
12 Woog, Doug 390 188 40 .663
13 BERENSON, RED 770 371 80 .663
14 Ceglarski, Len 672 339 37 .659
15 Morris, Mark 306 156 42 .649
16 HAKSTOL, DAVE 235 119 37 .648
17 MacInnes, John 555 295 39 .646
18 Parker, Jack 897 472 115 .643
19 Weiland, Ralph 316 172 17 .643
20 Walsh, Shawn 399 215 44 .640
21 UMILE, DICK 519 276 94 .637
22 BLAIS, DEAN 336 183 49 .635
23 Johnson, Bob 394 224 27 .632
24 LUCIA, DON 595 343 84 .623
25 SCHAFER, MIKE 347 198 66 .622
26 Brooks, Herb 167 98 18 .622
27 Roos, Jack 128 77 7 .620
28 Kollevoll, Olav 151 92 4 .619
29 Cleary, Bill 325 200 22 .614
30 YORK, JERRY 935 569 98 .614
31 Bertrand, Dick 286 177 18 .613
32 ALLAIN, KEITH 138 84 19 .612
33 Gasparini, John "Gino" 392 248 25 .608
34 BLASI, ENRICO 311 196 53 .603
35 Addesa, Mike 236 155 9 .601
36 OWENS, SCOTT 317 204 48 .599
37 Riley, Jack 311 208 12 .597
38 Holt, Charlie 347 232 18 .596
39 PECKNOLD, RAND 292 190 56 .595
40 Menard, George 204 137 14 .594
41 Cleverly, Harry 211 144 10 .592
42 Gwozdecky, George 526 361 83 .585
43 Mariucci, John 197 138 18 .584
44 Lamoriello, Lou 248 179 13 .578
45 Slater, Terry 263 190 23 .577
46 Selman, Bill 268 198 19 .572
47 WILSON, WAYNE 152 111 32 .569
48 EAVES, MIKE 231 169 51 .569
49 MOTZKO, BOB 162 125 35 .557
50 Comley, Rick 783 615 110 .556
51 Buetow, Brad 296 235 20 .555
52 Jeremiah, Edward 308 247 12 .554
53 Christiansen, Brush 303 241 33 .554
54 Kane, Bill 125 102 2 .550
55 Sauer, Jeff 655 532 57 .549
56 Whitehead, Tim 326 264 65 .547
57 Tomassoni, Ronn 140 115 26 .544
58 BURKHOLDER, DAVE 214 175 50 .544
59 GOTKIN, RICK 243 203 46 .541
60 Marsh, Joe 468 399 72 .537
61 Murdoch, Murray 271 234 20 .535
62 Van Buskirk, Peter 167 146 8 .533
63 McShane, Mike 244 218 31 .526
64 KYLE, WALT 208 186 49 .525
65 Ross, Doug 219 199 31 .522
66 Salfi, Jim 103 94 7 .522
67 Dahl, Craig 338 309 52 .521
68 Turner, William 128 118 4 .520
69 Anzalone, Frank 223 205 41 .519
70 Fridgen, Dan 210 194 38 .518
71 Powers, Buddy 229 212 39 .518
72 SERRATORE, TOM 201 186 49 .517
73 Mazzoleni, Mark 167 155 33 .517
74 Anderson, Ron 242 230 24 .512
75 Fullerton, James 176 168 9 .511
76 Farrell, Dan 135 129 6 .511
77 Backstrom, Ralph 182 174 14 .511
78 Markell, John 280 267 56 .511
79 LEAMAN, NATE 169 161 46 .511
80 PEARL, PAUL 282 272 66 .508
81 McCutcheon, Brian 108 105 21 .506
82 MacDonald, Blaise 241 236 59 .505
83 SANDELIN, SCOTT 231 229 63 .502
84 Renfrew, Al 288 286 13 .502
85 VAUGHAN, DON 328 331 75 .498
86 Pooley, Paul 185 187 40 .498
87 Cady, Steve 122 126 11 .492
88 Gilligan, Mike 291 302 47 .491
89 Bjorkman, Rube 224 234 11 .489
90 Kemp, Mike 171 181 54 .488
91 Sertich, Mike 375 397 53 .487
92 Hannah, Shaun 191 204 38 .485
93 Wilkinson, Bill 437 469 81 .484
94 DANIELS, BOB 350 378 84 .483
95 Cronin, Greg 108 117 31 .482
96 Roll, George 130 142 33 .480
97 Lowrey, Ed 124 136 21 .479
98 DONATO, TED 126 139 35 .478
99 SERRATORE, FRANK 321 355 67 .477
100 Smith, Lefty
.
.
? SETH APPERT 112 148 36 .431
Last edited by Dutchman; Yesterday at 08:12 PM.

 

[Dutchman]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

If people want to talk Union hockey, we'll talk Union hockey. I don't think anyone has an issue with that, regardless of loyalties. When another team is brought up, specifically insulted, expectations of the base taking it sitting down is laughable.

So you are going to come over and trash our thread any time you feel like it ... fair enough, thanks for the warning.

 

[uniontrack]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Reading this thread is like watching a month long train wreck! Let me sum up the last week of nonsense. Union and RPI both have some paasionate hockey fans who go overboard with some of their posts. Hokydad and Flagdude remain clueless and we are all dumber after reading their posts. Big home weekend for both teams. Go USA!!!

And the basket counts!!!

Thanks for reality check

Keith.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

So you are going to come over and trash our thread any time you feel like it ... fair enough, thanks for the warning.

Now that you bring up the prospect...

 

[Dutchman]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Actually there is a resemblance to Eddie Haskell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Haskell

 

[Hokydad]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

I think Union should simply move on and take the IBM approach. Focus on their winning model and forget about losers.

get the paper eddie

 

[aweise]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Excellent Point !!!! Its real ..... don't know what to do about it. Your head coach was on the Committee last year, I think. We will have to see who is still standing and where they are standing after the ECAC tournament. We are both facing some tough competition these last 4 games so it may be a mute point. Unfortunately, I think money talks louder then the desire of ECAC fans to see how far their league can go. I can't speak for my other Union folks here but if Union is fortunate enough to make the tournament, I too would rather Union take a trip out west, avoiding any ECAC opponents. They are **** tough.

The goal of the tournament committee is to maintain bracket integrity while boosting attendance at the same time. Last year, it just so happened that Union's standing in the PWR put them in Q's bracket in Providence. I don't think the committee would have moved Union elsewhere if it really hurt the integrity.

Looking ahead to this year, there's a potential for at least 4 ECAC teams to get in the tournament...possibly 5 if things shake out in a certain way. If that happens, there's no avoiding two ECAC teams in the same regional. This is something the committee has faced almost every year when the WCHA, CCHA, or Hockey East were sending 4-5 teams to the tournament. It's not very easy to separate the teams so that there's only 1 per regional. As QUAlum said, they just want to avoid the intra-conference matchups in the first round. If these matchups happen in round 2, then so be it.

 

[QUAlum2004]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

The goal of the tournament committee is to maintain bracket integrity while boosting attendance at the same time. Last year, it just so happened that Union's standing in the PWR put them in Q's bracket in Providence. I don't think the committee would have moved Union elsewhere if it really hurt the integrity.

Looking ahead to this year, there's a potential for at least 4 ECAC teams to get in the tournament...possibly 5 if things shake out in a certain way. If that happens, there's no avoiding two ECAC teams in the same regional. This is something the committee has faced almost every year when the WCHA, CCHA, or Hockey East were sending 4-5 teams to the tournament. It's not very easy to separate the teams so that there's only 1 per regional. As QUAlum said, they just want to avoid the intra-conference matchups in the first round. If these matchups happen in round 2, then so be it.

Especially if Yale gets into the tournament. They would have to go to Bridgeport being the host team and that could force Union out of Bridgeport if they were a #1 seed possibly to Cincinnati because I do not see them ever moving Boston College from Worcester. My guess is that if Yale gets in it will be as a #4 seed and in Bridgeport. Quinnipiac probably will be a #2 there unless they run the table in the regular season and win the ECAC tournament title. This will probably bring a midwestern/western team east.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Looking ahead to this year, there's a potential for at least 4 ECAC teams to get in the tournament...possibly 5 if things shake out in a certain way. If that happens, there's no avoiding two ECAC teams in the same regional. This is something the committee has faced almost every year when the WCHA, CCHA, or Hockey East were sending 4-5 teams to the tournament. It's not very easy to separate the teams so that there's only 1 per regional. As QUAlum said, they just want to avoid the intra-conference matchups in the first round. If these matchups happen in round 2, then so be it.

This is a truism. If it does go down that way I hope at least the regional with the 2 ECAC teams will be the East or Northeast.

 

[Dutchman]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

[/B]

Especially if Yale gets into the tournament. They would have to go to Bridgeport being the host team and that could force Union out of Bridgeport if they were a #1 seed possibly to Cincinnati because I do not see them ever moving Boston College from Worcester. My guess is that if Yale gets in it will be as a #4 seed and in Bridgeport. Quinnipiac probably will be a #2 there unless they run the table in the regular season and win the ECAC tournament title. This will probably bring a midwestern/western team east.

I forgot about Yale being the host team !!! ..... I am pulling for Yale !!!! (and four others)

 

[UnionHockeyManiac]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

[/B]

Especially if Yale gets into the tournament. They would have to go to Bridgeport being the host team and that could force Union out of Bridgeport if they were a #1 seed possibly to Cincinnati because I do not see them ever moving Boston College from Worcester. My guess is that if Yale gets in it will be as a #4 seed and in Bridgeport. Quinnipiac probably will be a #2 there unless they run the table in the regular season and win the ECAC tournament title. This will probably bring a midwestern/western team east.

I'm hoping Yale doesn't get in for this exact reason. I can take a 75 minute train ride to Bridgeport from Grand Central. That would be significantly easier than flying to Cincy or St. Paul.

I really just want Union to stay east. Does that make me a selfish? It'd be nice to have as many ECAC teams in the Frozen Four, but I don't want Union playing in front of 50 fans in St. Paul or Cincy. If it comes down to being out west as the lone ECAC team vs. being in Bridgeport/Worcester with another ECAC team, I'd take the East option.

 

[UnionFan4Life]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

Does anybody have an updated injury report for tomorrow's game? Any chance Gonye gets a start instead of Krug on offense if everybody is still out?

 

[Wholin1]

Does anybody have an updated injury report for tomorrow's game? Any chance Gonye gets a start instead of Krug on offense if everybody is still out?

No word on injuries but I think Gonyea would have played against Colgate last week but likely did not make the trip due to league travel restrictions.
Assuming some of the walking wounded are not yet 100%, it will be a tough call for the staff whether to decide to rest them for the last weekend and playoffs or to roll the dice and let them play hoping to clinch the CC this weekend at home.

And yes, our REALLY great coach would be an attractive quantity to many programs but my intuitive feeling is that he isn't going anywhere, especially after the outpouring of support he received during his recent difficulties. That's my hope anyway.

 

[Stay@homeDad]

And yes, our REALLY great coach would be an attractive quantity to many programs but my intuitive feeling is that he isn't going anywhere, especially after the outpouring of support he received during his recent difficulties. That's my hope anyway.

I don't think you have to worry about him leaving. I do not think any other school would want him and he is lucky Union turned their head and allowed him keep his job after punching a student athlete. All those who support him should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Stay@homeDad]

Hokydad:

Can you help me out here ... I posted this a while back. What is the story on this RPI Coach, Fridgen, and why did he leave RPI? I am only getting parts of the story. It looked like he was a winner. Also, you have a great deal of insight and experience in hockey and I hope you feel free to post here often. I greaty enjoy reading what you have to say.

Question: Is Union going to be able to hold on to Bennett? If he continues to produce, he will be one of the leading coaches in the country, in terms of winning percentages. Is a Michigan or other Big 10 school in his future? Look at who is at the top of the list. How did Harkness get all those wins? I hope we hold on to Bennet forever but in coaching forever only seems to exist if you are a losing RPI coach.

I have to admit that I could not understand who "Eddie Haskill" reference but finally caught on.

Eddie was known for his neat grooming, hiding his shallow and sneaky character. Typically, Eddie would greet his friends' parents with overdone good manners and often a compliment such as, "That's a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver." However, when no parents were around, Eddie was always up to no good either conniving with his friends or picking on Wally's younger brother, Beaver. Eddie's two-faced style was also typified by his efforts to curry favor by trying to talk to adults at the level he thought they would respect, such as referring to their children as Theodore (Beaver's much-disliked given name) and Wallace, even though the parents called them Beaver and Wally. A weaselly wise guy, Eddie could be relied upon to connive and instigate schemes with his friends



Dutchfan - Can you fill me in a little on the history. Below is a listing of the top all time College Coaches based on their records and based on winning percentage. The active coaches are in CAPS. I have mapped into the list Bennett and Appert. Note that the numbers, for all 100 coaches, except for Bennett and Appert, do not include this year. For Bennett and Appert, they do include this years results.

Here is what I don't understand.

You mentioned Fridgen. He is down here as one of the Top 100. Appert is way off the charts and does not come anywhere near the list. By the way, I have mapped where Bennet would be today. He would be tied for third but only has 68 wins thus far. Impressive start to his head coaching career.

My question then: Why did RPI got rid of A WINNER FOR A LOSER?

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct

All-Time Coaching Records
Records are for Division I only.
(Active coaches in CAPS. Records do not include season in progress.)
Sorting by: by Win Percentage (min. 100 wins).
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct

1 Harkness, Ned 339 123 9 .729
2 Harrison, Bill 127 47 6 .722
? RICK BENNETT 68 27 17 .716
3 Kelley, Jack 208 80 8 .716
4 Mason, Ron 924 380 83 .696
5 Armstrong, Larry 123 53 10 .688
6 Heyliger, Vic 352 157 19 .685
7 O'Flaherty, Bill 134 59 12 .683
8 Armstrong, Murray 463 215 31 .675
9 JACKSON, JEFF 367 162 58 .675
10 Kelley, John "Snooks" 501 245 15 .668
11 Thompson, Cheddy 150 73 6 .668
12 Woog, Doug 390 188 40 .663
13 BERENSON, RED 770 371 80 .663
14 Ceglarski, Len 672 339 37 .659
15 Morris, Mark 306 156 42 .649
16 HAKSTOL, DAVE 235 119 37 .648
17 MacInnes, John 555 295 39 .646
18 Parker, Jack 897 472 115 .643
19 Weiland, Ralph 316 172 17 .643
20 Walsh, Shawn 399 215 44 .640
21 UMILE, DICK 519 276 94 .637
22 BLAIS, DEAN 336 183 49 .635
23 Johnson, Bob 394 224 27 .632
24 LUCIA, DON 595 343 84 .623
25 SCHAFER, MIKE 347 198 66 .622
26 Brooks, Herb 167 98 18 .622
27 Roos, Jack 128 77 7 .620
28 Kollevoll, Olav 151 92 4 .619
29 Cleary, Bill 325 200 22 .614
30 YORK, JERRY 935 569 98 .614
31 Bertrand, Dick 286 177 18 .613
32 ALLAIN, KEITH 138 84 19 .612
33 Gasparini, John "Gino" 392 248 25 .608
34 BLASI, ENRICO 311 196 53 .603
35 Addesa, Mike 236 155 9 .601
36 OWENS, SCOTT 317 204 48 .599
37 Riley, Jack 311 208 12 .597
38 Holt, Charlie 347 232 18 .596
39 PECKNOLD, RAND 292 190 56 .595
40 Menard, George 204 137 14 .594
41 Cleverly, Harry 211 144 10 .592
42 Gwozdecky, George 526 361 83 .585
43 Mariucci, John 197 138 18 .584
44 Lamoriello, Lou 248 179 13 .578
45 Slater, Terry 263 190 23 .577
46 Selman, Bill 268 198 19 .572
47 WILSON, WAYNE 152 111 32 .569
48 EAVES, MIKE 231 169 51 .569
49 MOTZKO, BOB 162 125 35 .557
50 Comley, Rick 783 615 110 .556
51 Buetow, Brad 296 235 20 .555
52 Jeremiah, Edward 308 247 12 .554
53 Christiansen, Brush 303 241 33 .554
54 Kane, Bill 125 102 2 .550
55 Sauer, Jeff 655 532 57 .549
56 Whitehead, Tim 326 264 65 .547
57 Tomassoni, Ronn 140 115 26 .544
58 BURKHOLDER, DAVE 214 175 50 .544
59 GOTKIN, RICK 243 203 46 .541
60 Marsh, Joe 468 399 72 .537
61 Murdoch, Murray 271 234 20 .535
62 Van Buskirk, Peter 167 146 8 .533
63 McShane, Mike 244 218 31 .526
64 KYLE, WALT 208 186 49 .525
65 Ross, Doug 219 199 31 .522
66 Salfi, Jim 103 94 7 .522
67 Dahl, Craig 338 309 52 .521
68 Turner, William 128 118 4 .520
69 Anzalone, Frank 223 205 41 .519
70 Fridgen, Dan 210 194 38 .518
71 Powers, Buddy 229 212 39 .518
72 SERRATORE, TOM 201 186 49 .517
73 Mazzoleni, Mark 167 155 33 .517
74 Anderson, Ron 242 230 24 .512
75 Fullerton, James 176 168 9 .511
76 Farrell, Dan 135 129 6 .511
77 Backstrom, Ralph 182 174 14 .511
78 Markell, John 280 267 56 .511
79 LEAMAN, NATE 169 161 46 .511
80 PEARL, PAUL 282 272 66 .508
81 McCutcheon, Brian 108 105 21 .506
82 MacDonald, Blaise 241 236 59 .505
83 SANDELIN, SCOTT 231 229 63 .502
84 Renfrew, Al 288 286 13 .502
85 VAUGHAN, DON 328 331 75 .498
86 Pooley, Paul 185 187 40 .498
87 Cady, Steve 122 126 11 .492
88 Gilligan, Mike 291 302 47 .491
89 Bjorkman, Rube 224 234 11 .489
90 Kemp, Mike 171 181 54 .488
91 Sertich, Mike 375 397 53 .487
92 Hannah, Shaun 191 204 38 .485
93 Wilkinson, Bill 437 469 81 .484
94 DANIELS, BOB 350 378 84 .483
95 Cronin, Greg 108 117 31 .482
96 Roll, George 130 142 33 .480
97 Lowrey, Ed 124 136 21 .479
98 DONATO, TED 126 139 35 .478
99 SERRATORE, FRANK 321 355 67 .477
100 Smith, Lefty
.
.
? SETH APPERT 112 148 36 .431
Last edited by Dutchman; Yesterday at 08:12 PM.

Will be interesting to see where Union is when Bennett doesn't have anymore of Leaman's recruits.

 

[Wholin1]

I don't think you have to worry about him leaving. I do not think any other school would want him and he is lucky Union turned their head and allowed him keep his job after punching a student athlete. All those who support him should be ashamed of themselves.

I am not at all ashamed of supporting a human being who publicly and egregiously erred, acknowledged his misdeeds and accepted his punishment. If your venomous heart and holier than thou beliefs do not allow you to move past this then so be it.

 

[UnionFan4Life]

Re: 2013-2014 Union Dutchmen - Can U Three Peat? (Part II)

I don't think you have to worry about him leaving. I do not think any other school would want him and he is lucky Union turned their head and allowed him keep his job after punching a student athlete. All those who support him should be ashamed of themselves.

Bennett's actions were wrong and also out of his character. He apologized, served his suspension, and learned a valuable lesson that will make him a better coach, in my opinion. People are going to make mistakes, that’s life. I 100% support my coach, team, and school. If that makes me a bad person in your viewpoint, then so be it. I can’t wait to see Bennett behind the bench tomorrow. Let’s Go Union!