CHA co-coaches of the year????

[blogster]

Am I the only person who finds Page and Fetter as the CHA co-coach of the year award a bizarre selection? I have nothing against these people but the Wayne State site gives Fetter accolades for finishing out the season 13-14-1 just after mentioning its his FOURTH year there.

I didn't even bother looking at what Niagara had to say about their coach -- no doubt it gave her huge props for being involved with team canada and then glossed over a 10-19-6 record.

By awarding 2 people the coach (note singular) of the year award the cha has essentially lumped sisti (31-1-3) with whoever coaches rmu (11-22-2). Again I am not trying to degrade people but this is supposed to be a competitive league - it's not like every team needs to leave with the same amount of plaques to feel good about themselves----that's what the all academic team is for--no limit on the number of awards just keep yourself slightly above eligible and you're money.

I just took a quick look at the wcha awards and noted that certain teams weren't even represented, but for the all academic team - and that's how it should be at this level.

The only argument for awarding someone other than mercyhurst the coach of the year award would be if they took a team from being straight garbage to pretty respectable in a year, while mercyhurst just kept hovering around that same number 7-9 spot it had been in for previous years.

But that didn't happen.

In fact Niagara and WSU appear to have done roughly the same as they did in previous years--- so so records and played Mercyhurst real tight in a few games but not getting the win. Mercyhurst on the other hand finally made that surge from being a good team that dominated its conference to being a team that went and finally consistently beat great teams out of conference.

And I think most people understand the law of diminishing returns. It's not that hard to go from a D all the way to a B, but **** it's hard to get an A, making Mercyhurst's surge to the top all the more impressive.

Presuming the CHA continues for another ten or twenty years one day a team is going to dominate the CHA and it won't be Mercyhurst, and their coach is going to win the coach of the year award (deservedly) and its going to be totally tainted by gong show selections like this years- I think probably more lame than the year Findlay's coach won.

I suppose what really matters is post season wins - I am sure the lakers and sisti will gladly take a hard fought frozen four berth instead, but really it should be in addition to, a dominant showing at the CHA awards.

No wonder everyone treats the CHA like a red headed step child. Keep acting like an intramural league- maybe at next year's CHA tournament all the players can get participant packages with sticker sets that say "You're special, shoot for the moon and land among the stars!" along with meal tickets - you know four pieces of paper, each with a different picture, say a hotdog, hamburger, bag of chips, and a pop.

Thoughts?

I hope my tone doesn't come across as bitter - I'm not, it's just kind of embarassing for the CHA I think.

[dave1381]

Another bizzarre selection was Laura Hosier not making either all-conference team. I would she's the only goalie in women's hockey history to lead her league in wins, win pct., save pct., and GAA.

No wonder everyone treats the CHA like a red headed step child.
Well, the problem is the league has four teams -- that's also the problem with the awards. When the awards are all selected by the opponents, then one vote has a lot of power, and a lot of crazy things can happen.

[blogster]

Good point Dave regarding Hosier. That omission is even more embarassing than Sisti's. I can understand a coach voting for their own goalie, but I can't understand a coach voting for someone else's goalie over Hosier. I guess they could argue the other goalies don't get the defensive support Hosier does but still....

I do realize the nature of the voting, and that a lot of the CHA's problems stem from being a four team league.

Hopefully that will change in the future as other schools develop programs and the other CHA teams play as hard out of conference as they do in conference and thereby improve their records and the respect they get nation wide.

Until then, gooooo lakers......

[LakersFan]

I believe the COY award is voted on by the coaches themselves, and they can't vote for themselves. You can make an argument that Sisti should have been CHA COY every year. 5 for 5 in terms of regular season and tournament titles and hasn't lost a CHA game in who knows how long. My hypothesis is that the coaches self-regulate themselves and spread the award around a little bit.

As for Hosier not being selected all CHA, I just don't think she was tested that much in the CHA. I would have given first team to the goalie that performed best against Merychurst this year (Rutledge), and the second team award to Hosier. Aside from Rutledge, the first team should have been all Mercyhurst. Another example of self-regulation.

[over rated]

I believe the COY award is voted on by the coaches themselves, and they can't vote for themselves. You can make an argument that Sisti should have been CHA COY every year. 5 for 5 in terms of regular season and tournament titles and hasn't lost a CHA game in who knows how long. My hypothesis is that the coaches self-regulate themselves and spread the award around a little bit.

As for Hosier not being selected all CHA, I just don't think she was tested that much in the CHA. I would have given first team to the goalie that performed best against Merychurst this year (Rutledge), and the second team award to Hosier. Aside from Rutledge, the first team should have been all Mercyhurst. Another example of self-regulation.


If the coaches cannot vote for themselves and there was a two-way tie for first in a four team conference, that means that Sisti didn't get single vote, if my math is correct.

[blogster]

ha ha, ya it's correct.


Lakersfan,

You're right in that Hosier may not have been the most tested goalie in the CHA, but even if she were, I have a sneaking suspicion she would still have the best stats.

Like you say she should at least have got 2nd team recognition.

I really hope next weeks game is on a streaming video; while I enjoy these boards I would certainly rather just watch a game.

Hopefully the stars align and there is a live feed of the game and my computer functions to the utmost both on the same day.

[dave1381]

I agree with Lakersfan that I can understand Hosier not getting First Team over Rutledge, was the only goalie who really single-handedly one points her team in CHA play. McLaughlin's selection for Second Team was more of a token selection than anything else though. Let RMU earn its awards as they came, no need to hand them out.

[blogster]

I was curious what Hosier's performance was vs. common opponents with Niagara as compared to Rutledge.

I looked at the first common opponent I came acoss by looking at NU's sched for the year. The first common opponent happened to be UNH. NU lost five nothing with 45 shots against -- a save percentage of 88.9%.
http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0607/boxes/wniaunh1.s29

MC won 2-1 with 31 shots against--- a save percentage of 96.8%.
http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0607/boxes/wmrcunh1.n25

anyway, I am done ranting for the day...

[camman15]

If the coaches cannot vote for themselves and there was a two-way tie for first in a four team conference, that means that Sisti didn't get single vote, if my math is correct.

That's correct, I think,.....and quite frankly it is strange that Mike didn't get any votes from his peers,.....I guess they think it's not that hard coaching a team that has Meghan Agosta on it,.....you know something, there's a little bit of truth to that, but having this player in a lockeroom of hard-working, GOOD hockey players was something of a new challenge to the program: a bonified olympian and game-breaking player,.....granted Marchese was VERY GOOD, but Meghan brought a completely different dimension to that team and the coaching staff recognized they had to make some adjustments in their "game plan", and they did,.....now, are they that much better because they added #87?, yes, BUT only because other players have continued to improve and as I have said so many times, coaching is all about bringing the best out of players and Mike and his staff have done that,.....now PERHAPS one of the 2 co-coaches of the year have done a better job in improving their team during this past year; I don't know,.....what I do know is the Lakers are a top 1, 2 or 3 ranked program at this point and that's pretty good seeing they are a relatively "new kid on the block",.....bottom line: the award went to someone other than Mike Sisti; it's done, right or wrong,.....now (hopefully) it's a new 3-game "journey" for Mercyhurst and if they happen to win this NCAA tournament nobody is going to care who was chosen COY in the CHA this past weekend,.....

[dave1381]

I was curious what Hosier's performance was vs. common opponents with Niagara as compared to Rutledge.

You're completely missing the point that LakersFan and I made -- that the voting of conference awards is typically based on conference play (it may vary from conference to conference whether this is the case -- it's rarely explicitly stated).

If this is true, then the goalies' relative performance in nonconference play is irrelevant. Thus, you could construct an argument for Rutledge on the basis that she had to singlehandedly win games for her team, while Hosier was rarely tested. (i.e. no one could ever vote for her Hosier because her opponents could never get to the net!!!)

I agree that if nonconference play is taken into consideration, surely Hosier should be the First Team choice.

[dave1381]

now, are they that much better because they added #87?, yes, BUT only because other players have continued to improve and as I have said so many times, coaching is all about bringing the best out of players and Mike and his staff have done that
I agree 100%. For years, there have been plenty instances over time of people on this board not giving enough credit to coaches for getting the most out of their players, when some of the players happen to be Olympians. Most recently, you have a few people in the ECACHL thread arguing that Hudak shouldn't get his conference's Coach of the Year, because his teams had four Olympians. Yet his team went 20-1-1 in conference, which definitely exceeded preseason expectations (most would have predicted the ECACHL race to be more even between SLU and Harvard and Dartmouth). Different teams have different challenges depending on their makeup, for sure, and Mike has overcome different challenges this season, in a way that's more respectable than his CHA counterparts, as far as I can tell.

[beaverhockeyfan]

In the CHA, coaches can not vote for themselves or anyone on their team.

And the All CHA Awards are based on CHA play.

[blogster]

"You're completely missing the point that LakersFan and I made " -dave1381

Haha, sorry I guess I could have been more clear. I realize out of conference is irrelevant as the award is based on in conference play. In a previous post I had said that I suspected that if Hosier were tested as much as Rutledge, her stats would be more impressive. That made me want to look at a game where Hosier was tested. Because Hosier doesn't get overly tested in conference I thought I would look at a team out of conference that played both NU and MC so I could compare them in a game where they each faced a lot of shots. I know it's irrelevant, I was just curious.

you could construct an argument for Rutledge on the basis that she had to singlehandedly win games for her team -dave1381

but did she?

I just ran the numbers and rutledge's in conference save percentage actually decreased from last year to this year. (93.3% to 91.1%). I didn't run Hosier's numbers --- maybe she had the same thing happen?

I didn't think of it yesterday but Niagara's improved in conference record is probably due in large part to the return of Riggs. Last year they lost and tied RMU one weekend where Rutledge gave up one goal the whole weekend. This year RMU scored more goals on Rutledge, but Niagara was still getting the wins.

I think using the justification that Hosier is not tested enough to warrant recognition is craziness; if the perception is that she is the best goalie then shouldn't she get the award? What does it matter if someone else had to work harder to come up with less?

In fact the more I think about it, it's crazier. It's like saying her shutouts are worth less than someone else's loss...I just don't buy into it.

Anyway.....goooo lakers.....

[dave1381]

you're right that Hosier even had better stats in conference. I pointed that out first post this thread.

I think what really made the difference for Rutledge is that she only surrendered two goals in each of the last two games of Mercyhurst, and earned that one tie. No goalie had limited Mercyhurst to such low output all season, prior to that series. The fact that these games happened just days before the vote helped her out a lot, I bet. Not that any of these reasons are good reasons.

[RMUColonials]

I agree with Lakersfan that I can understand Hosier not getting First Team over Rutledge, was the only goalie who really single-handedly one points her team in CHA play. McLaughlin's selection for Second Team was more of a token selection than anything else though. Let RMU earn its awards as they came, no need to hand them out.

Have you ever seen McLaughlin play? Her selection certainly wasn't "token". If you put her on any of the other teams in the conference, there would be little question who is the best goalie in the conference.

Nothing against Hosier, but I don't think she's better than Rutledge or McLaughlin. She's a solid goalie, but it's not exactly hard to look good with the team she has in front of her.

[MICZamboni]

Have you ever seen McLaughlin play? Her selection certainly wasn't "token". If you put her on any of the other teams in the conference, there would be little question who is the best goalie in the conference.

Nothing against Hosier, but I don't think she's better than Rutledge or McLaughlin. She's a solid goalie, but it's not exactly hard to look good with the team she has in front of her.

WHAT??????? So Team Canada must need to revamp there whole selection process!!!:confused:

[EZ Winner]

Have you ever seen McLaughlin play? Her selection certainly wasn't "token". If you put her on any of the other teams in the conference, there would be little question who is the best goalie in the conference.

Nothing against Hosier, but I don't think she's better than Rutledge or McLaughlin. She's a solid goalie, but it's not exactly hard to look good with the team she has in front of her.

And I thought my glasses had a rosy tint to them... ;)

[RMUColonials]

And I thought my glasses had a rosy tint to them... ;)

Laura Hosier isn't facing 45-60 shots a game with a team that is only playing 4 defenseman a game, on most nights.

And just because Laura is on the Team Canada roster doesn't mean that there are other goalies that didn't outplay her ths season.

Like it or not, Mercyhurst's team hurts her in the awards process. She doesn't face many shots a game and faces even less tough shots than the other 3 goalies in the league. All 3 of the other starters in the league have far more opportunity to impress the coaches in this league because they don't play in front of a great team like Mercyhurst.

And yes, McLaughlin had a great season this year and it's appropriate that she was recognized for that play.

[MICZamboni]

Laura Hosier isn't facing 45-60 shots a game with a team that is only playing 4 defenseman a game, on most nights.

And just because Laura is on the Team Canada roster doesn't mean that there are other goalies that didn't outplay her ths season.

Like it or not, Mercyhurst's team hurts her in the awards process. She doesn't face many shots a game and faces even less tough shots than the other 3 goalies in the league. All 3 of the other starters in the league have far more opportunity to impress the coaches in this league because they don't play in front of a great team like Mercyhurst.

And yes, McLaughlin had a great season this year and it's appropriate that she was recognized for that play.

And just because the 3 other CHA teams aren't any good still doesn't mean there goalies are better than Hosier. This was a travisity as well as the Coach of the Year selection. Sisti and Hosier the third best at their jobs in the CHA? Get real!!! Teams outside the CHA think this league is a joke and the voting by the coaches have pretty much solidified their thoughts.

[quixote]

And just because the 3 other CHA teams aren't any good still doesn't mean there goalies are better than Hosier. This was a travisity as well as the Coach of the Year selection. Sisti and Hosier the third best at their jobs in the CHA? Get real!!! Teams outside the CHA think this league is a joke and the voting by the coaches have pretty much solidified their thoughts.

Especially when you consider the national awards....!!!!! Hosier and Sisti more recognized out of league....