With the men’s hockey team firmly entrenched in 11th place in the ECAC, it seems about time for the public bashings of Dan Fridgen, which have become nearly annual events, to start up again. I, hockey-savvy fan that I am, feel that my decision to hold off my participation in the festivities last year cost the anti-Fridgen forces some respect, as the cause was unfortunately taken up by another “fan” who couldn’t even get the name of Coach Fridgen’s alma mater right, let alone coherently discuss the man’s coaching abilities. So, in order to head off the discussion of this topic by less knowledgeable persons, and to—hopefully—convince the public that we Fridgen-bashers are rational persons with a high hockey IQ, I shall hereby attempt to present our case.

     First off, I shall refrain from excessively commenting on this season’s results, as we all knew this would be a rebuilding year for RPI hockey. Also, let us not forget that the season is not yet over, despite the fact that a losing record will be guaranteed by merely two more losses—excepting postseason play, of course. No, the opinions expressed in this letter are not based solely on this season, or even the last two or three.

     In fact, it would be accurate to say that this letter really isn’t based on Dan Fridgen at all. Rather, the purpose of this letter is to express my consternation regarding the RPI press release of January 16, in which was detailed the extension of Coach Fridgen’s contract by three years. Now, I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see Coach Fridgen’s contract extended. After all, in eight and a half years under Fridgen, RPI has yet to have a bad season. For those interested, “bad” in my opinion is defined as finishing in 9th place or worse in the ECAC and not progressing past the first round of the ECAC playoffs. And to be honest, no coach deserves to be fired during or immediately after a rebuilding year. They must at least be given a chance to show the potential of the players recruited for that rebuilding year before any decisions regarding their future employment are made. Further, with a new athletic director at the helm, I was pretty much resigned to the fact that a search for a new coach would be pretty much infeasible at the present time.

     What I found so incredulous about the press release was that the contract extension was a multiyear deal. At any level of sports, a multiyear contract extension signifies a considerable level of confidence in the coach’s, player’s, or manager’s ability to help the team move in the right direction. Now, I’m not saying that RPI’s hockey program is moving in the wrong direction under Dan Fridgen, but I think most rationally minded fans would agree that the question of whether or not the program is headed in the right direction is, at the very least, in doubt. Certainly, RPI’s descent from being a perennial threat to claim an ECAC title—four consecutive finishes in the top four—to a middle-tier team—sixth place followed by fifth place followed by who knows where this year—casts some doubt as to whether this proud, storied program is being steered on the right course.

     The timing of this extension baffles me further, as it comes on the heels of a season riddled with inconsistency, and in the midst of one which is rapidly metamorphosing from rebuilding to embarrassing. What is even more troubling is Coach Fridgen’s post-game comment after this weekend’s debacle at Vermont, which was, I must add, the proverbial last straw invoking my decision to compose this letter. Following the game, in which Vermont built up a 5-0 lead en route to winning 5-3, Fridgen commented, “Right from the goaltender on up, from the forwards, to the defense—we just did not execute and stood around and watched them play hockey. It’s the first time I’ve seen it this year, and I hope I never see it again ... We were just spectators. I don’t have an answer as to why we do that.” I must respectfully point out that Dan Fridgen is being paid by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to have an answer as to why the team does that. He’s apparently seen this behavior in previous seasons, as he specifically said that Friday night was the first time he’d seen it this year. The 11-0 thrashing at the hands of Clarkson during the ’97-’98 campaign also comes to mind as proof of previous instances of spectatorship in the Fridgen era. Rewinding the year a bit, who can forget Coach Fridgen’s attributing the 8-4 home loss to Lowell to intervention from the hockey gods, stating that Lowell “got about four or five flukey ones?”

     It’s comments like these—which have been quite plentiful over the last eight years—that really make me question the wisdom of committing to a long-term extension at this time. The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes, but Athletic Director Ken Ralph seems to be making his judgments based on some premature taste tests. I, for one, would happily sit through a bad season now and then as long as I got to see RPI play in an NCAA tournament game once every five years or so. I don’t think this is an impossible standard. In fact, I don’t even consider it excessively high, given RPI hockey’s history and the weakness of the conference in which RPI plays, compared to other Division I hockey conferences. I think many Engineers’ fans would agree with me on this point. Unfortunately, RPI’s athletic department appears to be willing to settle for less.

William G. von Achen