Re: LSSU Hockey 2011-2012
Perhaps it was my choice of words (lease vs leash), but if I understand you correctly, I think we're both saying a hockey oriented AD might be inclined to cut Roque loose more quickly based upon team performance than a non-hockey oriented AD like Dunbar. Or maybe we're not saying the same thing. I'm a bit confused by your post. In one sentence you say you think a non-hockey AD would have him on a shorter leash, and the next sentence you say you think a hockey AD would have a quicker trigger. Isn't Roque on only a one year contract extension? He may be unhappy about that, which may have contributed to his applying for the Clarkson job last Summer. Assuming it is a one year contract, I wonder if there are any performance goals in it that the team needs to meet (e.g. Get to the Joe and/or the NCAA tournament) in order for Roque to keep his job?
Bill, I think we are saying the same thing. Maybe. Dunbar is looking at the bottom line, so Roque keeps getting contract extensions -- but short extensions because, lets be honest, although the team is improving we still haven't graced the ice at the Joe in many years, and haven't sniffed an NCAA birth. So the team is improving, winning a few more games, and the team is well behaved and well respected. He gets a small contract instead of a 6-7 year deal. (Also, not to be overlooked: Let's assume Dunbar is very, very pleased with the Coach and wants him to stay long-term. Dunbar (and everyone) knows that LSSU is not a wealthy school, and therefore it is unlikely that anyone in a results-orientated position is going to get a long contract, because the school would not be in a position to buy out that contract).
A hockey person, conversely, might well have fired Roque two years ago. There were times in Roques first half of his tenure when the team's talent level was quite low, and the team's on ice-performances were horrible -- actually worse than horrible -- they were games and game-plans that were boring and meaningless. Lots and lots of boring and meaningless games where the players seem to just chop up and down the ice with little plan (or little hope of executing the plan). And before last season, I thought it was a good chance Roque would not be brought back. If a hockey-based AD was watching the same team on the ice as myself -- I fully expected a change.
I was watching bad hockey being played by overmatched players. Roque recruited many of those guys, and coached them, and put together the game plan. Anyone with a decent level of hockey knowledge was unimpressed. I think a hockey-based-AD would've pulled the plug and brought in a new coach before the start of last season. Dunbar, however, believed the team was improving, and stuck with her Coach.
The results of Dunbar's support: In the past two years Roque has rewarded the University, so far, with a significant uptick in talent, and solid game-plans executed in front of good goaltending. So now my opinion is that both the non-hockey-based AD and the hockey-based personnel should all be relatively pleased with the direction of the program.
But let me say this -- it can all fall apart in nine days if the Lakers fall flat against Western and Northern. They can easily end up in 9th place, despite the thrills of this season.
Then we have a funny turn around: My hockey mind tells me you keep the coach because the on-ice product is good. The non-hockey mind says: Another 9th place finish, another no-show-at-theJoe. And then what happens?
