Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Part V: At least 6 more games, maybe 13... who's with
They often come out flat and get smoked. The BC tournament loss in '06, losing to freakin St Lawrence in 2000, hung over team gettting rocked by Maine a few years back in the HE tournamant, lazy game vs UNH in 09 that almost cost them a chance to play for the title, shut out blow out loss to UNH in HE tourney when Bourque as here, etc etc etc. I won't even mention the '94 championship debacle. Look at how many times a BU season ending loss is a shut out or a 1 goal scored affair.
I hear you and I'm not trying to start an argument...a couple of those I agree with...but..sometimes you have to give the other team credit, too.
The '09 game in Manchester was a difficult situation. It was essentially a home game for UNH...the place was going wild and UNH played a great game (and, yeah, I know if it doesn't go in off the defenseman THEORETICALLY we have a guy there to tap it in...but). Millan was fantastic...can you really call that "lazy?"
The BC loss at the Centrum was another case of a hyped-up team that had lost to us (I think) four or FIVE times IN A ROW. It's not like we were far and away the better team, especially when you consider the last ten years of where the programs were relative to each other. That first ridiculous giveaway goal deflated them and the game was basically over at that point.
The St. Lawrence game in Albany was just a battle of attrition. DiPietro made I think 77 saves...at that point it really comes down to luck. The game was so long we actually left before the 2nd game (I think it was Michigan / Colgate or something like that).
We could go on and on. What about McEachern hitting the crossbar against Northern Michigan in '91 after we had come back from 7-4 down to tie?
My point is that, yeah, we obviously look at these things from OUR perspective, but the other team has something to say about it as well. The bottom line is that we are always disappointed when we don't go all the way because the bar is set high for the program, but there are only, what, three teams that have more national championships that we do? That's pretty good no matter how you slice it. I'm not excusing some of the "failures," especially when they have more to do with "off the ice" factors, but, you know, it's hockey. There's probably no other game where there is as high a percentage of "chance." Look at football and basketball, where the favored (or better) team USUALLY wins. It's not like that in hockey at all. Were the Bruins the BEST team in the league last year? I don't think so. There's just too many intangibles in hockey and just to GET to the Frozen Four means you navigated through a mine field and avoided setting any of them off.
Speaking of '09....c'mon, did they really even DESERVE to win the NC? They were AWFUL against Miami and no matter how you look at it, they were pretty lucky. Is that because they didn't play well, were lazy, not prepared, not "up" for the game, or was Miami just better? And they barely beat Vermont in the semis.
All I'm saying is, at some point you have to say maybe they're not "better" by as much as we think. And sometimes we win when we should have lost. It goes both ways and over the long term I think it tends to even out. We look through scarlet-colored glasses, but there are other viewpoints as well. There's a lot of parity in this sport, and the days where reputation was worth a goal or two are gone. All of this stuff is, of course, debatable.