I’m sure I don’t need to tell all of you sharp-witted people out there that this past weekend was our homecoming. I mean, you all could tell, what with the hokey parade and the cheerleaders (what do they do during the rest of the year?).

However, I might need to convince you that we don’t actually attend the University of Vermont. You see, Friday night, when the hockey game ended, one could have assumed that the home team was the one wearing green, not red, and that it was celebrating a hard-fought draw with a tough opponent, not lamenting a disappointing tie with a less-talented foe.

Or maybe not. That’s a bit of an exaggerated view of things. Truth is, Friday’s game was a mix of positive and negative.

It’s interesting that you ask what those positive and negative things are because I was just about to tell you.

Positive: Play along the boards. This year’s Terriers are quickly establishing themselves as a group of good offensive zone puck-control players. The forwards did well Friday at following dump-ins and plays into the corners, with two ‘Dogs fighting for the puck each time. They’re proving themselves to be quick and fierce — always pluses when dealing with big defensemen deep in the zone.

During most of the game, any Terrier with the puck down low had at least one option for a pass. Of course, completing those passes and converting them into quality chances is a different story and provides a perfect segue to the next paragraph.

Negative: Finishing. It seems the Icedogs may be hanging around with the women’s soccer team a bit too much — they’ve come down with an inability to score. Friday night, the Terriers had plenty of shots — 86, to be exact. However, only 43 of them were on net and only a handful were really good shots.

Vermont goalie Shawn Conschafter played a great game, somehow saving every great chance BU had. Still, the Terriers should have put one more in. How is that, you ask? Well, if they had turned two or three of the weak flips they threw at Conschafter into good, hard shots, we’d have no reason to be worried.

Instead, the Terriers failed to capitalize on shooting opportunities and raised the question: “Who’s going to score all of our goals?” Your guess is as good as mine.

I’d like to point out that with the possession ability I mentioned above, one good goalscorer could prevent this offense from going anemic and point it in the opposite direction. That means the second coming of Gretzky will have to show up at Walter Brown wearing the scarlet and white or someone’s going to have to step up his play. Let’s go with option number two. The names Skladany, Collins and McConnell come to mind.

Positive: Brad Zancanaro. He really impressed me Friday night. Every shift he took, he got himself involved in the play and tried to make something happen. Yes, it was just one game, but he looked incredibly fast and aware on offense Friday night and was one of those guys who did well along the boards. If he keeps it up, he’ll be a fan favorite by January.

Negative: Soft defense. According to Coach Jack Parker, the defense didn’t respect the Catamounts offense. They won’t make that mistake again. Apparently, the desire to crush a weaker (but not that much weaker) opponent got in the way of the desire to play defense. The blueliners pinched into the offensive zone and, as a result, could not respond to Vermont’s counterattack. Also, the defense allowed too many passes through the middle of their own zone. Sean Fields is a good goalie, but any keeper repeatedly going side to side will have trouble sooner or later. The ‘Dogs are lucky Vermont’s forwards don’t have tremendous shooting ability.

Of course, just one week from Saturday, the Terriers have a date in Durham with the top-ranked University of New Hampshire. If the defense plays like it did against Vermont, it will be a long night for them and a wonderful night for Colin Hemingway and Co.

Positive: It wasn’t a loss. I’m stretching a bit here because I wasn’t impressed with that much more in the game, except for the way captain Freddy Meyer saved a goal in the second period. He chased down the breakaway player and made a perfect play to dispossess him. But that’s not what this paragraph is about. This passage is about the fact that it’s easier to get up from a disappointing tie than a disappointing loss. The Terriers don’t have to get down so much because Vermont played well Friday night and deserved that tie. Despite the draw, the Icedogs were still unbeaten, still talented and still ready and willing to play hard. Of course a little help from the home crowd might help. That leads me to my final point.

Negative: Every BU hockey fan is apparently mute. For long stretches of Friday’s game, I could hear the individual voices of players, coaches and people in the crowd. After a Terrier made a good play, the crowd cheered for about 30 seconds and then went silent again. Even Sasquatch couldn’t get them going. I’ve seen it throughout my experience at BU — nobody cheers non-stop. Not at soccer games. Not at hockey games. Certainly not at basketball games.

Maybe it’s time the athletic department came up with some kind of noisemaker giveaway promotion. We don’t need something on the scale of Thunderstix, but it would help the atmosphere of the games if there were constant noise. Of course, the people in the stands could just use their tongues in conjunction with their teeth and the roofs of their mouths; or, they could put their hands together with enough force to make a sound. The scientific community refers to these actions as “speaking” and “clapping.”