Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/sport...n-connection-with-drinking-incident-1.2257757

The Baby Tiger 4 were originally indefinitely suspended, then after around a week it was announced that there suspension would last just over 2 more weeks. So in total the suspension was close to 4 weeks, not 1.

 

[BUT09]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

The Baby Tiger 4 were originally indefinitely suspended, then after around a week it was announced that there suspension would last just over 2 more weeks. So in total the suspension was close to 4 weeks, not 1.

But wasn't it over winter break? So they wound up missing only a game or two, if I recall correctly.

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

But wasn't it over winter break? So they wound up missing only a game or two, if I recall correctly.

IIRC they missed 2 games, plus the U18 (who cares), plus they would have missed the Dartmouth game, had it not been snowed out.

 

[bostonewe]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/sport...n-connection-with-drinking-incident-1.2257757

Thanks!

What a lack of respect for their teammates, the school, and the fans. I'm sure that the latter two aren't real high priorities (I was a college student not too long ago and wasn't particularly responsible all the time), but it certainly doesn't show much sense of caring about the other guys on the team, who might have actually cared about the the game that they were playing the next night.

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Thanks!

What a lack of respect for their teammates, the school, and the fans. I'm sure that the latter two aren't real high priorities (I was a college student not too long ago and wasn't particularly responsible all the time), but it certainly doesn't show much sense of caring about the other guys on the team, who might have actually cared about the the game that they were playing the next night.

*Two nights later.

But I don't disagree with your sentiment, although 48 hours later a hangover likely wasn't effecting their play, it's irresponsible and immature.

 

[Boston22]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Federal League, do you have any idea of how long the suspensions might be?

 

[bostonewe]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

*Two nights later.

But I don't disagree with your sentiment, although 48 hours later a hangover likely wasn't effecting their play, it's irresponsible and immature.

Sorry - it's not the hangover part that concerned me - I'm sure plenty of hockey players (pro, non-pro, and college) have played through a hangover. It's the lack of respect that behavior demonstrates to the rest of the team. Might mean they're tired or less prepared for practice the next day or whatever.

Rubs me the wrong way.

 

[slurpees]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sorry - it's not the hangover part that concerned me - I'm sure plenty of hockey players (pro, non-pro, and college) have played through a hangover. It's the lack of respect that behavior demonstrates to the rest of the team. Might mean they're tired or less prepared for practice the next day or whatever.

Rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, it's not that they might've been hungover, they weren't, it's another case where their heads were in the wrong place at the most important point of the season.

 

[TommyNoblesIsLife]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

I hope the puckstar thing factors into the length of their suspensions. It is extremely disrespectful to your teammates to break team rules especially during the playoffs, and even though it most likely did not affect how they played against Maine, it basically is just saying "I'm above the rules."

Then, a few weeks later, to make a video about partying like a puckstar? That just shows that these kids do not take their places on the team seriously. They're on full scholarship here. It's disrespectful to teammates, donors, and the coaches to live it up with complete disregard for the team they play for.

That being said, I doubt they are the only kids who have ever done this. Hopefully it will send a message to their teammates as well.

 

[yankeefn01]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

what ****ty players we have...

really nice to know that these guys would rather go out and party than focus on a game, let alone a game that is a must win just to keep your season going,and especially since this game would've gotten you into the hockey east title game, which you had to win just to get into the national tournament.

i don't know if the sentiment that all four be kicked off the team for this half-*** interest/enthusiasm in the team is an extreme, but i certainly hope that any player not kicked off the team gets a nice long hefty suspension...

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Sorry - it's not the hangover part that concerned me - I'm sure plenty of hockey players (pro, non-pro, and college) have played through a hangover. It's the lack of respect that behavior demonstrates to the rest of the team. Might mean they're tired or less prepared for practice the next day or whatever.

Rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, it's not that they might've been hungover, they weren't, it's another case where their heads were in the wrong place at the most important point of the season.

I agree with both of you, just IMO there is a bigger difference between drinking Weds vs Thurs than there is Sun vs Weds and I didn't want ewe's original typo to be taken and run with. It's disrespectful to the rest of the team to do what they did, but should it also possibly impact your physical abilities on game day that just brings it to a whole other level.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

c'mon man... it was ST. PATRICK'S DAY!!! time to drink it up dude!!! sniper!

 

[yankeefn01]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

i missed this

 

[srsterrier]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

c'mon man... it was ST. PATRICK'S DAY!!! time to drink it up dude!!! sniper!

With names like Trivino and Saponari, I'm not so sure that excuse will work.

Really, though ... I can believe that underage college students would drink. I just can't believe that these two would drink two days before a "win or the season's over" game and then do that video - without considering that they might get caught doing one or both. The sheer stupidity makes you wonder if either one of these guys has a brain at all. Or maybe they just don't care.

 

[buoldtimer]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

With names like Trivino and Saponari, I'm not so sure that excuse will work.

Really, though ... I can believe that underage college students would drink. I just can't believe that these two would drink two days before a "win or the season's over" game and then do that video - without considering that they might get caught doing one or both. The sheer stupidity makes you wonder if either one of these guys has a brain at all. Or maybe they just don't care.

It's been said many times that NHL draftees believe that college hockey is just a stepping stone to a professional career. Apparently, these two guys have adopted that point of view.

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Part of me wants to play devil's advocate (it's fun, I swear), part of me wants to delay studying for my finals, and part of me is just a tiny bit miffed at all the criticism these players are facing here. Yes, they broke a major team rule but what is the reason this act is just so deplorable and disrespectful to their teammates?
Is it because it was so close to a game, even though the consensus is it would not effect them at all by game day?
Is it because it was on the day before a practice, even though the practice the day before games is generally lighter than usual, and they do have some Sunday practices even though they are allowed to drink Saturday nights?
Is it because they are underage, because I doubt more than 10 underage HE players have not had alcohol yet?
Is it because it is the playoffs, because the drinking rules are the same for the playoffs, so if Jack considers it the same so shouldn't we?

Now what would you say if I told you there was drinking during the playoffs last year other than a Saturday night? Would last years team be an exception to the rule, a team that had success despite less than 100% devotion to the team's rules? Or would it just be that every team has a slip up here or there and one team has to win the NC every year?

Did the only two times a player a player drank other than a Saturday night starting 04-05 just happen to be after two of the worst stretches of lackadaisical play, or were those the only two times the coaches felt the need to do something? (Has anyone ever been to the dugout after a win on the second Monday in February?)

Does winning cure all?

 

[BU Fan 84]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Part of me wants to play devil's advocate (it's fun, I swear), part of me wants to delay studying for my finals, and part of me is just a tiny bit miffed at all the criticism these players are facing here. Yes, they broke a major team rule but what is the reason this act is just so deplorable and disrespectful to their teammates?
Is it because it was so close to a game, even though the consensus is it would not effect them at all by game day?
Is it because it was on the day before a practice, even though the practice the day before games is generally lighter than usual, and they do have some Sunday practices even though they are allowed to drink Saturday nights?
Is it because they are underage, because I doubt more than 10 underage HE players have not had alcohol yet?
Is it because it is the playoffs, because the drinking rules are the same for the playoffs, so if Jack considers it the same so shouldn't we?

Now what would you say if I told you there was drinking during the playoffs last year other than a Saturday night? Would last years team be an exception to the rule, a team that had success despite less than 100% devotion to the team's rules? Or would it just be that every team has a slip up here or there and one team has to win the NC every year?

Did the only two times a player a player drank other than a Saturday night starting 04-05 just happen to be after two of the worst stretches of lackadaisical play, or were those the only two times the coaches felt the need to do something? (Has anyone ever been to the dugout after a win on the second Monday in February?)

Does winning cure all?



Rule of thumb: Don't believe anything in the Freep

It's because this entire season was a waste because the players as a whole didn't give a ****. They drastically underachieved and looked like crap doing it. Uncovering evidence that they literally didn't give a **** what happened to the team or the season makes it that much worse. If Parker ever wants control of a team again, he needs to set an example. Kicking a 5th liner off the team is setting the wrong kind of example.

And this is a lot different from the incident two years ago because those four guys stopped in for a beer after a funeral; I highly doubt these four guys this time are in trouble for having a beer with dinner when you consider the fact that it was St. Patrick's Day and you consider who the four guys were that were involved.

 

[Agganis]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

It's because this entire season was a waste because the players as a whole didn't give a ****. They drastically underachieved and looked like crap doing it. Uncovering evidence that they literally didn't give a **** what happened to the team or the season makes it that much worse. If Parker ever wants control of a team again, he needs to set an example. Kicking a 5th liner off the team is setting the wrong kind of example.

And this is a lot different from the incident two years ago because those four guys stopped in for a beer after a funeral; I highly doubt these four guys this time are in trouble for having a beer with dinner when you consider the fact that it was St. Patrick's Day and you consider who the four guys were that were involved.

Yes, however if you dig deep into 08-09 you can find similar actions, does that mean last years team also did not care? Also I'd argue they only "drastically underachieved" during the first semester, where no alcohol violations have been reported.

The reason 17 is kicked off is for other compounding factors, the reason the puckstars were automatically suspended was for other, less severe, compounding factors, and the reason 32 was not instantly suspended is because he had none of those. To assume a player was kicked off for just this is wrong.

I agree, it is a lot different than 07-08, the only major negative that had on this was that the players were somewhat flaunting the rules by going to such a popular spot during a time everyone close to the team knows they are not allowed to be there; however, it's not vastly different from what has happened other years and gone unpunished. I don't think it is a coincidence that these are the only two years someone was punished for it.

 

[srsterrier]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Yes, however if you dig deep into 08-09 you can find similar actions, does that mean last years team also did not care? Also I'd argue they only "drastically underachieved" during the first semester, where no alcohol violations have been reported.

The reason 17 is kicked off is for other compounding factors, the reason the puckstars were automatically suspended was for other, less severe, compounding factors, and the reason 32 was not instantly suspended is because he had none of those. To assume a player was kicked off for just this is wrong.

I agree, it is a lot different than 07-08, the only major negative that had on this was that the players were somewhat flaunting the rules by going to such a popular spot during a time everyone close to the team knows they are not allowed to be there; however, it's not vastly different from what has happened other years and gone unpunished. I don't think it is a coincidence that these are the only two years someone was punished for it.

IIRC, part of the reason the ""Tiger 4" were suspended was because it happened right after getting swept by BC. So, yes, whether it happens during a successful season does make a difference. And it should.

If the players are working hard - on and off the ice - and get caught doing something like this, maybe the punishment is less severe or they get a warning. They have earned getting an extra chance. If John McCarthy got caught breaking a team rule in 08-09', he deserved the extra chance to make amends. On the other hand, if the players look completely uninterested on the ice as they often did last season and also have some other violations [as appears to be the case with Victor Saponari, at least] then they should get suspended or kicked off the team.

 

[TommyNoblesIsLife]

Re: Boston University 2010 Offseason I - The Year after the Year after effect

Yes, they broke a major team rule but what is the reason this act is just so deplorable and disrespectful to their teammates?

Is it because it was so close to a game, even though the consensus is it would not effect them at all by game day?

Is it because it was on the day before a practice, even though the practice the day before games is generally lighter than usual, and they do have some Sunday practices even though they are allowed to drink Saturday nights?

Is it because they are underage, because I doubt more than 10 underage HE players have not had alcohol yet?

Is it because it is the playoffs, because the drinking rules are the same for the playoffs, so if Jack considers it the same so shouldn't we?

1. Yes, although it didn't affect their play during the Maine game, it was entirely inappropriate to be drinking two games before it because this season's team proved time and again that they could not mentally prepare themselves for a game. If it were last year's team, I would have still had a problem with it, just not as big of a problem because when it came down to game-time, the players meant business. This year, not so much. They are here on other people's dimes to play hockey, not to be goofing around. If they can't fulfill their duty on the ice, they should not be off partying. Period.

2. I don't care if they had a practice or not the next day. They should have been preparing themselves the best they could for the Maine game. I am sure many other players on the team drank during the season on night's other than Saturday, and I would tell every single member of the team that did that the same thing: that's not fair to your teammates who aren't breaking the rules. There is nothing that puts you above the rules, and if you aren't going to take your job on the ice as seriously as your teammates, then go somewhere else where you aren't on a scholarship.

3. The fact that they're underage doesn't really matter to me. I think Victor and Kraus were just as wrong as Vinny and Trivino here.

4. Sure, the drinking rules are the same during the playoffs, but I would bet money that Parker would be more upset about players drinking before a do-or-die play-off game than an exhibition game against St. Francis.

5. What about the fact that they went ahead and made the puckstars movie AFTER the drinking thing. They were already in trouble for partying, so what did they choose to do? Make a terrible rap video ABOUT partying. What that says to me is they don't take their jobs here seriously, they don't care about consequences, and they feel like they're above the rules.

For me, the bottom line is that they are here on scholarships. Other people are paying for them to go to college and play hockey well. They failed to do that this year, and so they have a responsibility to do whatever they can to improve on the ice. Drinking two days before a do-or-die playoff game does not say to me that they really care that much about hockey. Then, you add the puckstar video? They obviously don't care, and I don't want players who don't care on this team. There are a ton of kids who would die to be on this team, but who aren't good enough. To have the opportunity to play here and not take it seriously is a poor show of character.

If you can't do your job, you can't party all the time. Partying is a privilege, not a right. Last year, the guys took care of their jobs on the ice. They earned the privilege. This year they didn't.