Re: Is it time for change at UMass-Lowell?
There have been a couple of running themes. The first one is the failure of class progression. The second is the new promise. This has been generated mostly as a matter of our lopsided class sizes. After the 01-02 season we saw two class rotations dictated by the numbers glut in the 2006 and 2010 class. The 2006 class seemed to fall apart after Ben Walter left... to me that seems to be a bit of a mistake as teams routinely lose their top player either through NHL or graduation progression... this is why I didn't think 01-02 was going to be bad after Hainsey... of course I came to it with my high schooler football/basketball view... losing Hainsey was no worse than losing a senior... and well, except for the loss of rhythm during the Olympics they were pretty good. Nevertheless, a team that was supposed to progressed went from 5th to 8th... bad luck, puck luck... whatnot... whatever. We then saw the 2010 class... right away we knew they had better talent and they were faster. Granted, all of college hockey has gotten better... I stand by my comment that the 04-05 UConn team would have been smoked by the 08-09 UConn team when I left school and they were 2nd to last in the nation both years... all that aside. We saw a team that took a big run in 08-09... they came together and made solid sound plays. You know when a team is good? Its when your team is making the smart tactical ways in a manner that you know better than the other team and there isn't anything they can do about it... that's what I saw in the 08-09 run... and then to come out flat in 09-10... I figured losing in that manner on that stage would mean that each player would work like crazy in the off-season, ala Rocky. To me, I saw a team that forgot how to play with that sound tactical edge and sound play that neutralized a sharp Vermont team, beat Northeastern, and went to the limit against a deserving national champion in BU. Do players forget such things? I want to believe "no"... but there we were. There was no urgency... the words were all the same "adherence to the system" and "we can beat anybody on any given night"... and you know what... for all that is wrong with that, they believed it, I'm sure of it. After awhile though, when you hear the players verbalize the same thing every time, aside from the differences of their dream date, you seem to get a picture that while they may believe, something is amiss.
So, what do I take from what I've seen so far. Unfortunately, I'll never be a hockey analyst, and on any given night I usually don't give a **** about the other teams and their progression. That being said, its difficult to understand when you return core groups of players and they step backwards. Granted, the players all mention (both 2006 run and 2010 run) how much better they are... except when it comes time to apply it on the ice.
I'm really starting to come to the opinion, as ignorant as it may be, that Blaise's regimen, the way he runs philosophy and other matters aren't working. Worse, I think it runs counter to the traditional UMass-Lowell blue collar culture. Now, granted, this is not a sin if you are winning... but there just seems to be something off about the whole deal. I can't help but wonder if I 2014 that I don't hear Mr. Arnold amongst others talk about how much they've progressed, buy into the system, and yet they're floundering in 6th... of course its a marathon and not a sprint, and we can play with anybody in the country. Maybe I'm old school... when I play sports I want to win and if I can win I want to win by a dozen. When I listen to the players and the coach I don't hear what I hear when I do listen to other teams and programs on occasion (if I'm really board, the late-UAA/UAF games can be interesting). Of course we aren't the only program to flounder in general.
What I do think though, is that fair or not, people form opinions on coaches and programs. We just put a lot of investment into a building and while I'm certainly not in hockey circles I have to wonder if our issues with progression will start to take a toll on recruiting. Monty, please correct me if I'm wrong, but we are routinely last in the game of advance year and current year recruits. While our recruiting budget tends to be lowest in the league, I'm wondering what else this is saying... is that we have lots of excitement around except in the eyes of 17 year old hockey players. I know UMass-Lowell is rarely a target destination, but I remember being a freshman at UML in 2000... we've come a long long way as a school and as a hockey program... unfortunately this has in some way come about due to peril, and lord knows that either instance, 2001 or 2008? affected recruiting. Nevertheless, Blaise has been at Lowell 10 years. Its certainly time enough to get a brand and while I trust him to raise quality humans and I think he's excelled at that, I'm not sure if I trust him to develop hockey players to produce on the ice at a level that gets us into the NCAA tournament once every 5 years.
This is all my opinion... going forward... I want to start hearing a hockey coach and not a cliche using life-mentor. Of course, the real reason the concern is starting to brew is that this long one year may look like another long 4. Another long 4 is not excusable and it should certainly be terminable. I would say this much. Nobody should accept a resignation to failure. We're a blue-collar school... we're not here to resign ourselves to failure and we didn't go to school to do the same.
