Any way you slice it, it was a close pair of games, and on paper, especially at home, either one would have expected BC to fare much better, or Merrimack is playing a good bit better than they used to. If one accepts that BC is a "better team" by virtue of consistency, historical performance and championships and whatnot, then certainly in order to have split the weekend and lost by only a goal, Merrimack must have outplayed BC. If both teams had played as well as they could, and BC is indeed better than Merrimack, then certainly BC would have won both games, no-- and perhaps more convincingly-- as they have done many times in the past? So even if we admit that BC is much better than Merrimack, Merrimack came closer to playing as well as they are capable of playing than BC did.
If that's not the definition of "outplaying", what would be?
