Re: Jerry York is the best NCAA hockey coach of the last 30 years, maybe of all-time
Onion's argument is mostly fact-free, so I don't need to spend much time with it. I'm amazed to see an argument as weak as "he lost to Air Force and Cornell in the tourney." Minnesota lost to Holy Cross. Denver lost to RIT. BC has lost to Cornell. Denver and BC have lost to other four seeds as one seeds. Every team occasionally loses when it shouldn't; to fault Michigan for doing this with unremarkable frequency is absurd.
Here's the thing with Berenson. He's old. He's a Michigan legend. He's a very good coach. But being a legendary old coach doesn't make him an elite coach. Honestly, I think he's flattered to be in the same sentence as York.
He's not at the same level as York, and nobody has argued that he is. Question: Is he at the same level as Jack Parker?
Michigan's NCAA streak is a wonderful thing. I'm envious. Believe me.
But is there another college hockey coach, anywhere in the country, who is better placed to produce those results than Red? Is any other program/coach even close?
Don Lucia
Over the past 20 years, the CCHA has inarguably been weaker than either the WCHA... or Hockey East
If we're talking about the last 20 years Red's argument is strengthened. To say that he has been weaker than expected over the last 14 years since his last title, but that part of the reason is that other conferences have been stronger over the "last 20" (a time period that conveniently emphasizes the strength of Maine and BU, which have been shadows of their former selves over the 14-year period in discussion except for "flashes") is poor logic. The fact is that if the disputed issue is Red's performance over the last 14 years, HEA has basically been a BC league with "flashes" from Maine, UNH, and BU, never at the same time. There has been slightly better NCAA performance, but the CCHA has certainly placed enough teams in the title game to suggest that the league is not a pushover. But then, Red's performance in league is not in dispute; Michigan wins with some frequency, and has made the conference finals at the Joe a staggering <b>24 years in a row</b>.
Michigan's performance in the NCAAs over the past 15 years has been mediocre at best - and the reason it's even mediocre is that Michigan has profited from home cooking. In Michigan's last 13 regionals held at any arena in the country not named Yost, they've advanced to one FF. One. Twice they played at Yost; twice they advanced to the FF.
So Red's 3 for 15 (uscho.com archive era) Take away home cooking and he's 1 for 13. It's not unreasonable at all to extrapolate that, if Michigan played elsewhere in 2002 and 2003, they may have missed the FF, and then you're looking at a 1 for 15(!) conversion rate in advancing out of regionals.
So here's where we switch back to the years after Red has won the title, when it looks worse for him. And we're taking away Michigan's "home cooking" (if he gets dinged for Michigan's home-ice advantage, he must get credit for creating it in the first place, as Yost was a tomb before he arrived on campus) we need to take away regional advancements for BC and/or BU at Worcester, Minnesota's advancements from Minneapolis, and North Dakota's advancement from the Ralph, among others. We might as well completely re-write the tournament, which I guess would work for you since Maine would probably win in St. Paul in '02--but then that would delete one of Lucia's titles.
And that's despite all the things that Onion mentioned. I'm not getting into a MI/MN/MA contest, but there's no question Michigan is one of best "hockey" states. UM athletics is about as prestigious as it gets in collegiate sports -- and UM itself is only a shade below the Ivies. The location is favorable (to say the least) with respect to the national development program. It's also favorable for attracting Canadian talent. Sure, other schools are also near Canada. But while other schools are near Canadian trees and farmland, A2 is near Canadian people. Including young people who play hockey.
Michigan is a great place for hockey. Michigan also competes with Michigan State heads-up (which had Ron Mason for part of this) for top-level Michigan talent, and other schools get digs here and there. There is no advantage for local talent conferred on Michigan that is not shared by Minnesota in Minnesota or by BC in Massachussetts. But you're completely eliminating one important factor that Red has to battle more than any other coach in the country: The OHL.
BC doesn't have to compete with the OHL because it is in QMJHL territory, and the Q is a mess of treading-water teams. Minnesota and North Dakota do not have to compete with the WHL because it is much further away and the Minnesota hockey culture is uniquely college-oriented. Michigan, in contrast, competes straight-up against teams like London, which puts 10,000 fans in the stands 35-40 times a year at home, has lots of money, a huge fan base, and is not restricted to NCAA rules. And Kitchener. And Windsor. These are teams that hit below the belt. From a league that is thriving, that offers many things college does not, that is able to pressure its targets relentlessly and put them on the ice before they're even eligible for college. Michigan has lost star goaltenders, star forwards, and star defensemen to Major Junior in numbers not approached by other teams because they are not geographically subject to it. The surprise isn't that Michigan has underperformed; it is that they have remained consistent with so many defections. How many other coaches have had to put a career walk-on-backup on the ice as their top goaltender prospects get stolen before ever suiting up in <b>consecutive years</b>? None that I know of. Red took that walk-on to the NCAA title game, out of a regional that included Jerry York, Scott Owens, and Dean Blais. Mediocre indeed.
Michigan's geography is at least as much of a hindrance as it is a help.
Meanwhile, Minnesota remains a Gopher-first state. I live here, and it's amazing; no other college team in the country gets headline media treatment the way the Gophers do. And why not? They have a great arena, a huge fan base, and a long and rich tradition. They get their pick of players from the state and always have. The whole state hockey culture is set up in a way that benefits them, with high school-to-college transition highly emphasized in a way that is nonexistent in Michigan, where club and travel teams are the norm. The team is regularly pumped on local sports radio, including the flagship KFAN shows that syndicate throughout the state (I regularly get to hear Lou Nanne ruminate on the Gophers here in Duluth). Every home game is broadcast in HD on the local RSN. No other team has such advantages. Why is Michigan held to a higher standard?
Making the NCAAs is really the least one should expect from Michigan. Really, you'd like to see Michigan take advantage of its near-autoberth once the NCAA tournament starts.
Poor argument. If Michigan's conference is so weak then they need to perform better just to secure a berth every year; mid-pack WCHA teams have gotten into the tournament free by riding on the coattails of good PWR numbers, while Michigan has had to perform much better through the season to get in. You can't have it both ways.
And it's pretty nasty to hold Red accountable for making the tournament and not always getting very far, but ignoring other coaches missing out entirely.
York is clearly tops in the modern era. Then there's a group of coaches with 2 titles. I'm not sure I'd put Red at the top of that group.
Don Lucia? Really? He has a better arena, a better recruiting pipeline, fewer threats to lose players. He has had flameouts at least as embarrassing as Michigan's, and additionally he has flat missed the tournament on multiple occasions while fielding truly mediocre teams. He has not won since 2003.
George Gwozdecky? You can certainly argue that he's at least Red's equal, yet there have also been embarrassments, flameouts, and missed tournaments. Jack Parker? He's higher on the wins list, his overall record is outstanding, but again, the argument seems to be about the last 15 years, and while he has 1 title in that time BU has otherwise been a disappointing team.
What era are we talking about, here? If you include York's BG title (seems logical) as a part of the era then we are not just talking about the last 15 years. And if so we are including guys like Shaun Walsh and Ron Mason and Jeff Jackson in the discussion. And if so, Red has built a program from ashes to be a giant in the sport.
Nobody has argued that he is as accomplished as York, or that he should be put in a category <b>above</b> the Parkers, Lucias, Gwozdeckys, and Masons of the world. I think that York is the best of the era (I have said so in plain, easy-to-understand language that left no ambiguity) and that after him there is a group of guys with a couple of titles and other long-standing success and that Red is squarely in that group, along with others. In my view it is hard for any of those coaches to be separated by "rank," as time periods and circumstances vary.
The argument ABB makes seems to be a case of deliberately moving the chronological pylons to damage Red's standing compared to... whom? Red has not been as good as Lucia in the last 15 years, but he has been as good in the last 16, and he has been better in the last 9. But then we're moving the pylons.
Are you concerned about Shaun Walsh's reputation? I haven't assailed it, nor has anyone else. This thread is about York.
