USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
- Thread starter The Freds
- Start date
- Status
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
You might but its a kind of hard question to answer. One I certainly don't feel free to tell the whole story on a message board and as '73 noted I don't think its hard to give a lesson in this verbally never mind trying to put it into writing.
I'll say this Hockey East requires their men programs to fully fund meaning give out the 18 scholarships (if they didn't I would bet we wouldn't--just like if we would drop to the AHA which limits their members (I not sure if its voluntary) I'm sure that number would fall).
Circumstances and philosophy dicatate how you divy them up. McShane did not like to divide them, which is why he seemed to drive some players out, he wanted his bad investments back, Lamoriello split them (he was a master at scholarship management). Pooley seemed cornered into giving out full boats or over paying. In particular he liked to load up on defense despite them not being good 2 way guys, but that was what he built his team around. You also can tell because as a general rule the Canadians are full boat guys and he was loaded with Sask boys. Army seems to subscribe to the Lamoriello philosophy because that was how Lou did it and Lou is the only one of those coaches who rebuilt a program.
I think the Chief hit part of the problem on the head. I've been led to believe we have a substandard recruiting budget. In fact You look at all the downturns and you can measure them with a cut. The end of the McShane 20 wins seasons, while attributable to other factors also comes timed with a cut necessitated by the downturn in the economy in the early 90's the affect in his last years. Pooley was hit by his first cutback after his first year as Smith settled in as President and athletics took a more back seat. it was further slashed as part of the atheltic cuts for the 99-00 season which saw the disappearance of baseball (Its why I've noted several times the Pooley era is 2 distinct eras, hidden by the fact that he had a great last class before the cuts (JD, Rask, Fregoe and Schaefer). For all the hoopla Army came on board with the economic downturn and I think a realization the hockey thing has totally gotten away from us ended 2 of the things I was told Army was promised at his hiring.....major renovations and a more flexible process to let him mix his athletic scholarships with the same financial package that a school can offer any student (Trouble is he would be competing to get that package vs maybe using that package for bringing diversity to the college or maybe since they seem to want to up their academic standards getting top students). Bottom line he has resorted mainly to splitting scholarships. I believe Cross will be the only full boat guy in this freshman class.
In a way I think Chief is on to something. I think Army got burned by Eppich and Kremyr in particular because we don't see these guys enough and quite possibly we've been unable to build those connections. I think he's partially got our areas wrong. We have something in Minnesota though not the connection Lou built. Pooley mined specific small areas. Army might stretch it a little but its Minnesota, the Monarchs and some prep.
You might but its a kind of hard question to answer. One I certainly don't feel free to tell the whole story on a message board and as '73 noted I don't think its hard to give a lesson in this verbally never mind trying to put it into writing.
I'll say this Hockey East requires their men programs to fully fund meaning give out the 18 scholarships (if they didn't I would bet we wouldn't--just like if we would drop to the AHA which limits their members (I not sure if its voluntary) I'm sure that number would fall).
Circumstances and philosophy dicatate how you divy them up. McShane did not like to divide them, which is why he seemed to drive some players out, he wanted his bad investments back, Lamoriello split them (he was a master at scholarship management). Pooley seemed cornered into giving out full boats or over paying. In particular he liked to load up on defense despite them not being good 2 way guys, but that was what he built his team around. You also can tell because as a general rule the Canadians are full boat guys and he was loaded with Sask boys. Army seems to subscribe to the Lamoriello philosophy because that was how Lou did it and Lou is the only one of those coaches who rebuilt a program.
I think the Chief hit part of the problem on the head. I've been led to believe we have a substandard recruiting budget. In fact You look at all the downturns and you can measure them with a cut. The end of the McShane 20 wins seasons, while attributable to other factors also comes timed with a cut necessitated by the downturn in the economy in the early 90's the affect in his last years. Pooley was hit by his first cutback after his first year as Smith settled in as President and athletics took a more back seat. it was further slashed as part of the atheltic cuts for the 99-00 season which saw the disappearance of baseball (Its why I've noted several times the Pooley era is 2 distinct eras, hidden by the fact that he had a great last class before the cuts (JD, Rask, Fregoe and Schaefer). For all the hoopla Army came on board with the economic downturn and I think a realization the hockey thing has totally gotten away from us ended 2 of the things I was told Army was promised at his hiring.....major renovations and a more flexible process to let him mix his athletic scholarships with the same financial package that a school can offer any student (Trouble is he would be competing to get that package vs maybe using that package for bringing diversity to the college or maybe since they seem to want to up their academic standards getting top students). Bottom line he has resorted mainly to splitting scholarships. I believe Cross will be the only full boat guy in this freshman class.
In a way I think Chief is on to something. I think Army got burned by Eppich and Kremyr in particular because we don't see these guys enough and quite possibly we've been unable to build those connections. I think he's partially got our areas wrong. We have something in Minnesota though not the connection Lou built. Pooley mined specific small areas. Army might stretch it a little but its Minnesota, the Monarchs and some prep.
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
The rink, the program's lack of support have nothing to do with him. The performance of the team on the ice has everything to do with him.
Depends on what you are talking about...
The rink, the program's lack of support have nothing to do with him. The performance of the team on the ice has everything to do with him.
Depends on what you are talking about...
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
I've said it before Army is a sympton of the affliction that is killing PC hockey.
I've also come to the realization Pooley was not a bad coach, in fact he understood the situation better then Army did. We hated his dump and retreat but with the cards he was dealt it was the best we could do.
I don't anyone could have fixed this mess, but we would have been better off if we went in another direction once Pooley realized he wasn't going to make a go of it.
Someone who understands the college game which changed in Army's 12 years away, someone who understood how to deal with recruits who weren't pro material and spot the diamonds in the rough. In retrospect we were willing to pay Army roughly 250K. I know Merrimack made a pitch for Pearl that same year and he showed no interest but I believe what we are paying Army is a bit more then what Merrimack got Denehy for maybe the difference would have lured him down here. I'd venture 5 more years at Cross he would have less interest especially having sunken to new lows
While lots of blame is there to go around. I would even suggest Lou lacked a bit of foresight (why in gods name during the glory years he was AD with PC in 2 frozen fours plus a bball final four didn't we try to upgrade Schneider to his original vision?). Driscoll was the most to blame. We the fans were lulled into believing we could have the old offensive days, get a name coach, just not do what Pooley did. Reality is Driscoll was as blind as the fans in believing such a magical wave of the arm would fix everything. He had the hard numbers in front of him, he had the game plan, he knew what the cards said, yes he could not have anticipated the economic downturn, but that alone has not crushed us. Didn't they do an exit inteview with Pooley, he actually left on good terms. Did he not probe his mind as to why he did what he did and the feasibilty to go in another direction? If he had been honest with himself the coach he would have been looking for would not have been some guy with offensive visions Driscoll could only support with thin promises. We would have needed a coach sadly more in line with Pooley's thought but with more chirisma/program selling skills.
I understand hindsight is 20/20 but that is Driscoll's job to make those evaluations. In essence he has let the program slip into ignomy and hung one of the programs legends out to dry.
I've said it before Army is a sympton of the affliction that is killing PC hockey.
I've also come to the realization Pooley was not a bad coach, in fact he understood the situation better then Army did. We hated his dump and retreat but with the cards he was dealt it was the best we could do.
I don't anyone could have fixed this mess, but we would have been better off if we went in another direction once Pooley realized he wasn't going to make a go of it.
Someone who understands the college game which changed in Army's 12 years away, someone who understood how to deal with recruits who weren't pro material and spot the diamonds in the rough. In retrospect we were willing to pay Army roughly 250K. I know Merrimack made a pitch for Pearl that same year and he showed no interest but I believe what we are paying Army is a bit more then what Merrimack got Denehy for maybe the difference would have lured him down here. I'd venture 5 more years at Cross he would have less interest especially having sunken to new lows
While lots of blame is there to go around. I would even suggest Lou lacked a bit of foresight (why in gods name during the glory years he was AD with PC in 2 frozen fours plus a bball final four didn't we try to upgrade Schneider to his original vision?). Driscoll was the most to blame. We the fans were lulled into believing we could have the old offensive days, get a name coach, just not do what Pooley did. Reality is Driscoll was as blind as the fans in believing such a magical wave of the arm would fix everything. He had the hard numbers in front of him, he had the game plan, he knew what the cards said, yes he could not have anticipated the economic downturn, but that alone has not crushed us. Didn't they do an exit inteview with Pooley, he actually left on good terms. Did he not probe his mind as to why he did what he did and the feasibilty to go in another direction? If he had been honest with himself the coach he would have been looking for would not have been some guy with offensive visions Driscoll could only support with thin promises. We would have needed a coach sadly more in line with Pooley's thought but with more chirisma/program selling skills.
I understand hindsight is 20/20 but that is Driscoll's job to make those evaluations. In essence he has let the program slip into ignomy and hung one of the programs legends out to dry.
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
Yet Pooley, at various times, had some quality forwards and some good talent that ended up playing with hands tied behind their backs because of his style. When they had the goods, he didn't adjust his style to suit them. He had teams that could've been terrific and they bombed out more often than not -- often times that had less to do with the roster than his coaching and strict adherance to the dump-and-retreat as you call it. And not only that, but how many times did we see players come in and look great as freshmen -- and then tail off the longer and longer they played under his system? Pooley (or his staff) was certainly better at recruiting than Army but in terms of developing talent he was pretty much a disaster. Pooley's main plus, in retrospect, is that his years look positively glowing compared to what Army has put together.
The big picture reality, to me, is that in spite of the "issues" PC has, that neither Pooley nor Army were head college coaches before they came to PC, and neither of them deserved the extended amount of time they received to try and right the ship. The school's contractual dealings with both of them, based on mediocre performance at best, shows the AD and everyone else to be as clueless as they are running the rest of the program, though at least with Pooley they extended his contract AFTER HE ACTUALLY WON SOMETHING!!
Yet Pooley, at various times, had some quality forwards and some good talent that ended up playing with hands tied behind their backs because of his style. When they had the goods, he didn't adjust his style to suit them. He had teams that could've been terrific and they bombed out more often than not -- often times that had less to do with the roster than his coaching and strict adherance to the dump-and-retreat as you call it. And not only that, but how many times did we see players come in and look great as freshmen -- and then tail off the longer and longer they played under his system? Pooley (or his staff) was certainly better at recruiting than Army but in terms of developing talent he was pretty much a disaster. Pooley's main plus, in retrospect, is that his years look positively glowing compared to what Army has put together.
The big picture reality, to me, is that in spite of the "issues" PC has, that neither Pooley nor Army were head college coaches before they came to PC, and neither of them deserved the extended amount of time they received to try and right the ship. The school's contractual dealings with both of them, based on mediocre performance at best, shows the AD and everyone else to be as clueless as they are running the rest of the program, though at least with Pooley they extended his contract AFTER HE ACTUALLY WON SOMETHING!!
Last edited:
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
I think one of the UML'ers or PC fans for UML need to go to the women's page and the Hockey East Tourney thread and explain to them the PC security philosophy on tailgating. I think a little first hand knowledge would serve them best.
They seem 
about PC's rules for fun.
I think one of the UML'ers or PC fans for UML need to go to the women's page and the Hockey East Tourney thread and explain to them the PC security philosophy on tailgating. I think a little first hand knowledge would serve them best.
They seem about PC's rules for fun.HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
Certainly wouldn't hold your breath on that.
Funding isn't the only problem. Clearly they don't have the proper people steering this program regardless. Having a team get pounded by Merrimack on senior night is the coach's responsibility, at least come out of the gate and show some life. The roster on the ice may not be the most talented, but they also shouldn't be as DOA as they've been -- that kind of performance last night ought to send a loud message that something is wrong with what's there. You don't need "funding" to have a team go out there, scrap and put a solid effort forth.
But again, that's Tim Army for you. Year in and year out, his teams fold up shop come February and March.
Certainly wouldn't hold your breath on that.
Funding isn't the only problem. Clearly they don't have the proper people steering this program regardless. Having a team get pounded by Merrimack on senior night is the coach's responsibility, at least come out of the gate and show some life. The roster on the ice may not be the most talented, but they also shouldn't be as DOA as they've been -- that kind of performance last night ought to send a loud message that something is wrong with what's there. You don't need "funding" to have a team go out there, scrap and put a solid effort forth.
But again, that's Tim Army for you. Year in and year out, his teams fold up shop come February and March.
Last edited:
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
It's not just the 5-0 score...it's that all the goals were scored in the opening 20 minutes.
5-0 at the end of the 1st period is just totally, completely inexcusable
It's not just the 5-0 score...it's that all the goals were scored in the opening 20 minutes.
5-0 at the end of the 1st period is just totally, completely inexcusable
czeckthebody
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
I agree with HockeyMan it's not a matter of funding
It really shouldn't be hard to out-recruit Merrimack , Lowell, Amherst and Northeastern. There are many high school and junior coaches in my area (Massachusetts) alone who could do it
But putting all the negativity aside----
To the seniors playing their last game tonight:
Best of luck and congratulations on completing with excellent effort and dignity what must have been a difficult journey.
Best of luck to each of you and you should be proud to have played at a very high level of hockey
I agree with HockeyMan it's not a matter of funding
It really shouldn't be hard to out-recruit Merrimack , Lowell, Amherst and Northeastern. There are many high school and junior coaches in my area (Massachusetts) alone who could do it
But putting all the negativity aside----
To the seniors playing their last game tonight:
Best of luck and congratulations on completing with excellent effort and dignity what must have been a difficult journey.
Best of luck to each of you and you should be proud to have played at a very high level of hockey
HockeyMan2000
New member
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
I posted these stats in the Fire Army thread. Since I went to the trouble of calculating them, thought I'd share them here as well, lol
The bottom line to me is this program deserves better than him -- funding and other issues or not. These numbers are utterly appalling.
-First coach in PC history to post 4 consecutive losing seasons
-9 league wins in the last 54 Hockey East games (9-36-9)
-68 goals scored this year = tied for fewest in the nation (Alabama Hunstville)
-Back-to-back last place Hockey East finishes
-Back-to-back 20 loss campaigns (3 in 5 seasons)
-2nd Half Futility:
09-10: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-3)
08-09: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-4)
-58-98-20 record at PC
-Outscored 26-3 in six total Hockey East Quarterfinal games (0-6)
I posted these stats in the Fire Army thread. Since I went to the trouble of calculating them, thought I'd share them here as well, lol
The bottom line to me is this program deserves better than him -- funding and other issues or not. These numbers are utterly appalling.
-First coach in PC history to post 4 consecutive losing seasons
-9 league wins in the last 54 Hockey East games (9-36-9)
-68 goals scored this year = tied for fewest in the nation (Alabama Hunstville)
-Back-to-back last place Hockey East finishes
-Back-to-back 20 loss campaigns (3 in 5 seasons)
-2nd Half Futility:
09-10: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-3)
08-09: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-4)
-58-98-20 record at PC
-Outscored 26-3 in six total Hockey East Quarterfinal games (0-6)
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
But We tied Northeastern!
I posted these stats in the Fire Army thread. Since I went to the trouble of calculating them, thought I'd share them here as well, lol
The bottom line to me is this program deserves better than him -- funding and other issues or not. These numbers are utterly appalling.
-First coach in PC history to post 4 consecutive losing seasons
-9 league wins in the last 54 Hockey East games (9-36-9)
-68 goals scored this year = tied for fewest in the nation (Alabama Hunstville)
-Back-to-back last place Hockey East finishes
-Back-to-back 20 loss campaigns (3 in 5 seasons)
-2nd Half Futility:
09-10: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-3)
08-09: 1 win after January 16th (1-10-4)
-58-98-20 record at PC
-Outscored 26-3 in six total Hockey East Quarterfinal games (0-6)
But We tied Northeastern!
The Freds
Goin' Up?
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
All things considered I thought it curious that Simpson did not get to start or at least get to play Friday night. A lot of the few people in attendance were saying the same thing.
It was a sad sight Friday night at PC to see so, so many empty seats and a team that had clearly given up.
Well, I have given up too.
All things considered I thought it curious that Simpson did not get to start or at least get to play Friday night. A lot of the few people in attendance were saying the same thing.
It was a sad sight Friday night at PC to see so, so many empty seats and a team that had clearly given up.
Well, I have given up too.
Jon
Say, this is nice.
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
That just about says it all.
Well, I have given up too.
That just about says it all.
#1 Friars Fan
***********.com/albums/1hky/1.jpg
Re: Providence - 2009-10 What is in the glass?
Tim Army gave up on this team in March of his first year. The years to follow, it was clear that he never gained the respect from his players and they always played that way too. Something has to be wrong when you watch a player exit the program early (one who only ever wanted to go to PC). I would agree that the problems at Providence extend well beyond the coach. However with that said, you still need to do the best with what you have. Did Holy Cross have the ideal team the year they beat Minnesota? No, they were a collection of guys who believed in a system and were willing to play for their coach. With the exception of the hot start that first year, we’ve yet to see any of his teams really want to for him. For me this is the telling point that he isn’t the right guy for the job. As we continue to say… the record speaks for itself.]
So Tim Army, if you contiue to suck next year... what will be your excuse then? I mean after all you keep saying "next year is going to be the year"!
Tim Army gave up on this team in March of his first year. The years to follow, it was clear that he never gained the respect from his players and they always played that way too. Something has to be wrong when you watch a player exit the program early (one who only ever wanted to go to PC). I would agree that the problems at Providence extend well beyond the coach. However with that said, you still need to do the best with what you have. Did Holy Cross have the ideal team the year they beat Minnesota? No, they were a collection of guys who believed in a system and were willing to play for their coach. With the exception of the hot start that first year, we’ve yet to see any of his teams really want to for him. For me this is the telling point that he isn’t the right guy for the job. As we continue to say… the record speaks for itself.]
So Tim Army, if you contiue to suck next year... what will be your excuse then? I mean after all you keep saying "next year is going to be the year"!
- Status