Re: Boston University 2010-11 part II - The Hunt For Red November
Dude, I think you entirely missed his point about BU over the last 10+ years, not just since 2009.
That makes even less sense.
If you were to look at the ten year period from 1999 to 2009, would you then say that Parker should be fired because although he won a national championship, the previous nine years were not so good?
If you cannot say that, what has been so terrible about the two intervening years that somehow overpowers that year?
From 2001-2011, BU has: participated in the NCAAs six times. That's more than half the time. There are more appearances since 2005-2011 (4) than from 2001-2004 (2).
From 2001-2011 BU has: won the regular season championship twice. Both in the latter half of that period.
From 2001-2010 BU has: won the playoff league championship twice. Both in the latter half of that period.
Even if you throw out BU's pretty good decade in the '90s, and its utter dominance of Hockey East from 93-97, the BU hockey program is doing better now than it was ten years ago. Ten years ago the team's winning percentage was .419. So far this year it is .583. That .419 mark isn't even the worst in school history or even Parker's history in Hockey East-- that's the .403 mark back in 1989.
There's also a pretty big gap between BU's good years in the 90s and their last dominant period before that-- their tenure in the ECAC between '71 and '78. Also under Parker.
This year's team has 14 wins today. Even if they were to not win another game this season-- which I consider pretty unlikely-- it would not be much more than a blip on the program's radar.
The team had 14-win (or fewer) campaigns in: 2004, 2001, 1999, 1989, 1988, 1982, 1981, 1980. In other words, they finished with 14 wins or fewer four times in the 1980s, once in the 1990s, and twice in the 00s.
That is not a clear downward trend "over the last 10+ years". There isn't such a trend. You can't find one. The only thing you can find is that the team has enjoyed two extended periods of NCAA participation in two separate, alternating decades-- both under the same coach. (Note that these decade alternations fit a nice pattern against the performance of BC, first under Ceglarski in the late 80s, early 90s and then York, since the late 90s.
York himself had an off year in 2008-9. The Eagles didn't make the NCAAs after being in six straight times. Maybe they should have fired him? If two below average seasons can be enough, why not one? York's .554 mark that year was worse than what the Terriers have right now.
I honestly don't believe I'm defending Parker. I can think of lots of reasons why it might be time for BU to make a change, but the idea that there's a justifiable lack of success at BU over the past decade is ridiculous. No program dominates decade after decade without break.
Thank your lucky stars you're a fan of a team that can call for a coach's head two seasons after a national championship, and not one that waits 20+ years between chances to play for one. The thing is, without a lot of programs like the latter, the former can't fill a season schedule.
