Over-recruiting in women's college hockey

[sheba]

Over-recruiting - this is has been mentioned among many player prospects. There are advantages and disadvantages - would like to hear opinions from coaches and players.. Do you think having extra practice players who do not dress is as important in womens hockey as in mens - for motivation and or to hedge against injuries??? Is there a distraction that outweighs the benefit? Are injuries that significant in womens hockey (without the physical checking) as mens? Is the 25 plus roster with adding 6-8 new recruits every year good/necessary??

[vas]

Over-recruiting - this is has been mentioned among many player prospects. There are advantages and disadvantages - would like to hear opinions from coaches and players.. Do you think having extra practice players who do not dress is as important in womens hockey as in mens - for motivation and or to hedge against injuries??? Is there a distraction that outweighs the benefit? Are injuries that significant in womens hockey (without the physical checking) as mens? Is the 25 plus roster with adding 6-8 new recruits every year good/necessary??

Has to do with the pursuit of gender equity in collegiate sports.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/main.asp

[SAMMEE]

The only problem I see with it is a lot of these young women have always been first line; power-play; PK and last minute players. They are not used to being third or fourth line players or backup goaltender etc. I always tell my players that if you are looking at a school with 15/16 sophomores and juniors and a winning record you will probably not start unless you are an exceptional player. Make sure that the school is offering the programs and lifestyle you want in addition to just going there to play hockey.

I find that the parents can be more unreasonable than the players expecting their first year child to displace juniors and seniors who have performed at the required level. If the team was 0-20 that can be possible but if the team was 15-5 with a returning majority the days of going to coaches and making demands is over.

[brookyone]

Has to do with the pursuit of gender equity in collegiate sports.
Well maybe...unless your current roster is overstocked with "fringe" players. ;)

[sheba]

THinking of gender differences, do you think that Team Chemistry is more adversely affected by the surplus of players that dont dress?

[vas]

THinking of gender differences, do you think that Team Chemistry is more adversely affected by the surplus of players that dont dress?

What do you mean? Gender differences? I was referring to actual gender male and female equity in all of collegiate sports in general.

[pucko]

Sheba, to answer your question-- yes! When players don't get a chance to dress, there is always that rumble of "Well, I'm better than SHE is, why aren't I out there?" A lot of times, that breeds negativity within the team. I always wonder how teams with rosters of 30 maintain a good chemistry because not everyone gets to play and not everyone agrees with the amount of playing time they receive. However, I do know that some programs require you to have a certain number of kids on your roster. Whether it has to do with retention or financial status for the school, I don't know.

[sheba]

There are gender differences in the way the sport is played, obviously with the no checking rule for women...it seems that alone would factor into injuries, etc - there are still injuries for womens but maybe that isnt a consideration for over recruiting

[SAMMEE]

I think we are confusing over recruiting with carrying too many players. A coach has no idea how many of the players he talks with are actually going to send in an application; get past the admissions office and even accept the financial aid package/scholarship if any or even decide to attend the school.
Many schools can barely field a team so unless they are one of the lucky ones they are not going to tell a prospective applicant " you may sit the bench for the first year".

If you are carrying a "taxi" squad and you have been honest with the players about possible or lack of actual game time nobody has the right to complain.

I will be honest and I am not up on all the latest NCAA rules but when my youngest son last played - they had to dress three goalies each game and they played a number of non-league exhibition games for the taxi players to be part of the team. In addition there were usually two or three players with minor injuries who could be replaced each game. I don't think it is that much of a problem with the women's teams but at least two/three on the men's side failed off the team half way through the season or missed a couple of games for academic reasons (school playing requirements were higher than NCAA regulations).

I don't see anything wrong with bringing in six frosh when you are only graduating three seniors but everyone should know their roles. As a youth coach I know that if I tell a player or their parents they are not going to make a D1 team as a frosh; they are going to ignore me and I have nothing to gain by not telling the truth as I see it.

[pgb-ohio]

What do you mean? Gender differences? I was referring to actual gender male and female equity in all of collegiate sports in general.I think what vas is referring to is that number of male and female participants needs to be roughly in balance. This can get dicey, even if the division of scholarships satisfies the relevant standard.

The problem involves walk-on players who are content to participate on a scout team/practice squad basis. These players can be valuable. At the very least, some coaches seem to want them around. But players in this category have little or no hope of playing in a varsity game.

The claim has been advanced that men are more willing to play this role than women. Supposedly men, as a group, find such participation rewarding. Also supposedly, women as a group find it to be a waste of their time. I'm not sure that this is correct; I'd be interested in seeing some actual evidence that supports this claim. But if true, the need for equal numbers becomes a problem.

Why? There are basically two ways to bring the numbers back into balance. One is to tell the male walk-ons that they're no longer welcome to be part of the team. It's hard to see how anyone benefits from that. The other is to increase the number of female walk-ons. That sounds a lot better. But if the coaches of the women's teams find it to be more trouble than it's worth to recruit significant taxi squads, that's problematic too. The coaches should have the flexibility to devote their energy and resources as they see fit. Why should they be under outside pressure to have a certain size taxi squad, just so the numbers work? Also, why should a female athlete be pressured to accept a role she doesn't find worthwhile? (if that is, in fact, happening)

To be honest, I'm not sure that this is a huge problem for college hockey. But if so, my thought is that it would be better to focus on equal scholarships and playing opportunities, as opposed to equal roster sizes.

vas, I hope I'm reading your comment correctly. If not, please clarify. Thanks.

[notfromaroundhere]

The problem involves walk-on players who are content to participate on a scout team/practice squad basis. These players can be valuable. At the very least, some coaches seem to want them around. But players in this category have little or no hope of playing in a varsity game.

The claim has been advanced that men are more willing to play this role than women. Supposedly men, as a group, find such participation rewarding. Also supposedly, women as a group find it to be a waste of their time. I'm not sure that this is correct; I'd be interested in seeing some actual evidence that supports this claim. But if true, the need for equal numbers becomes a problem.

Why? There are basically two ways to bring the numbers back into balance. One is to tell the male walk-ons that they're no longer welcome to be part of the team. It's hard to see how anyone benefits from that. The other is to increase the number of female walk-ons. That sounds a lot better. But if the coaches of the women's teams find it to be more trouble than it's worth to recruit significant taxi squads, that's problematic too. The coaches should have the flexibility to devote their energy and resources as they see fit. Why should they be under outside pressure to have a certain size taxi squad, just so the numbers work? Also, why should a female athlete be pressured to accept a role she doesn't find worthwhile? (if that is, in fact, happening)

To be honest, I'm not sure that this is a huge problem for college hockey. But if so, my thought is that it would be better to focus on equal scholarships and playing opportunities, as opposed to equal roster sizes.



I know in basketball Pat Summit is getting in Title IX complaints because she uses male practice players to toughen up her girls during scrimmage. The thinking is that posting up and shooting against smaller women in game will seem easier after practicing against bigger stronger men. Somebody thinks that is taking away athletic opportunities from women. Do "practice dummies" count as athletic opportunities?

[pgb-ohio]

I know in basketball Pat Summit is getting in Title IX complaints because she uses male practice players to toughen up her girls during scrimmage. The thinking is that posting up and shooting against smaller women in game will seem easier after practicing against bigger stronger men. Somebody thinks that is taking away athletic opportunities from women. Do "practice dummies" count as athletic opportunities?It's good to have a specific example to discuss, and this is a great question.

Presumably the male "practice dummies" aren't on scholarship. They obviously won't be getting any playing time in Women's D-1 competition. But this could have an effect on roster size. With a male taxi squad available, Summit might carry a somewhat smaller roster than would otherwise be the case. Or, at the very least, the role of the reserves on the roster might be somewhat diminished by the presence of the male auxiliary.

Note that this is a tougher case than the hypothetical situation I described. I was talking about outside pressure to form a taxi squad that no one really wanted. In the Pat Summit scenario, it's at least possible that female athletes who wanted the taxi squad role are being passed over.

I'm not sure if this is, or should be, a basis for a Title IX lawsuit. But it is an interesting question. Other comments?

[notfromaroundhere]

It's good to have a specific example to discuss, and this is a great question.

Presumably the male "practice dummies" aren't on scholarship. They obviously won't be getting any playing time in Women's D-1 competition. But this could have an effect on roster size. With a male taxi squad available, Summit might carry a somewhat smaller roster than would otherwise be the case. Or, at the very least, the role of the reserves on the roster might be somewhat diminished by the presence of the male auxiliary.

Note that this is a tougher case than the hypothetical situation I described. I was talking about outside pressure to form a taxi squad that no one really wanted. In the Pat Summit scenario, it's at least possible that female athletes who wanted the taxi squad role are being passed over.

I'm not sure if this is, or should be, a basis for a Title IX lawsuit. But it is an interesting question. Other comments?

I believe all the "practice dummies" are volunteers (pun intended), and thinking back I believe about a year ago 1 was female (a recruited player who was working as team manager/trainer as I think injury had cut short her career).

But with Pat, it is all about quality, not quantity. She has never carried 12 players (max you can dress IIRC) in her time at Tennessee. Usually she carries 10 or 11. She is allowed more scholarships, but only brings in players whom she thinks she can give court time to. Nobody comes on her squad to sit on the bench. I believe 2 year ago she actually carried only 9 players and was down to 8 with Candace Parker out early with a knee problem. I think she is the other extreme of the "practice squad" mentality.

[futurestar]

The following is the last paragraph from the Quinnipiac press release announcing the NLI signing of Anny Kallum.

"Fifteen letterwinners, over 70 percent of the scoring production and five of the six regular defenders are scheduled to return next season."

Now, granted we're talking about Quinnipiac, a program where there is room for improvement... but you just have to wonder how those 4 new recruits (3 skaters, 1 goalie) feel after reading that. Do you think they'll see much ice?

[brookyone]

Now, granted we're talking about Quinnipiac, a program where there is room for improvement... but you just have to wonder how those 4 new recruits (3 skaters, 1 goalie) feel after reading that. Do you think they'll see much ice?
Well, the players should have some influence based on their performance shouldn't they?

[biffgnar]

The following is the last paragraph from the Quinnipiac press release announcing the NLI signing of Anny Kallum.

"Fifteen letterwinners, over 70 percent of the scoring production and five of the six regular defenders are scheduled to return next season."

Now, granted we're talking about Quinnipiac, a program where there is room for improvement... but you just have to wonder how those 4 new recruits (3 skaters, 1 goalie) feel after reading that. Do you think they'll see much ice?

I'm puzzled by your question. Isn't this thread, and recent comments on other threads, about teams where the roster is big enough that new recruits have to worry about whether they will even dress? This sounds to me like the new recruits are likely to dress. As far as what ice time they are going to get, again haven't there been plenty of discussions on this board about how, with some high profile player exceptions, new recruits should be assuming their ice time is going to be limited and they are really going to have to prove they deserve more. Is there something different about this situation?

[sheba]

I think we are confusing over recruiting with carrying too many players. A coach has no idea how many of the players he talks with are actually going to send in an application; get past the admissions office and even accept the financial aid package/scholarship if any or even decide to attend the school.
Many schools can barely field a team so unless they are one of the lucky ones they are not going to tell a prospective applicant " you may sit the bench for the first year".

If you are carrying a "taxi" squad and you have been honest with the players about possible or lack of actual game time nobody has the right to complain.

I will be honest and I am not up on all the latest NCAA rules but when my youngest son last played - they had to dress three goalies each game and they played a number of non-league exhibition games for the taxi players to be part of the team. In addition there were usually two or three players with minor injuries who could be replaced each game. I don't think it is that much of a problem with the women's teams but at least two/three on the men's side failed off the team half way through the season or missed a couple of games for academic reasons (school playing requirements were higher than NCAA regulations).

I don't see anything wrong with bringing in six frosh when you are only graduating three seniors but everyone should know their roles. As a youth coach I know that if I tell a player or their parents they are not going to make a D1 team as a frosh; they are going to ignore me and I have nothing to gain by not telling the truth as I see it.

I think there is confusion about the difference between "over recruiting" and "carrying extra players" and partof my question was whether these are related or not.

I agree that bringing in more players than you have graduating might help improve a program when the freshmen class of recruits might be stronger that those graduating, but believe it is really important that the program is upfront and honest to make everyone aware of their roles - and thats where I think problems are created. I think it can be very frustrating for a highly recruited player to go into a program and then not play; just as it is for an upperclassman who has put in the time that a Div I program requires and not dress.

For example, look at both Harvard and Brown. Harvard has a current roster of 26. They are graduating 5, but have 7 incoming freshmen.
Brown carried 23 players last year are graduating 4 and have 7 coming in.

Is this over recruiting - or just more players electing to choose hockey as a way to boost their possibility of admission into an Ivy school??

It may be difficult for coaches to predict how many of their recruits will actually attend after admitted,, especially when a recruit may have many similar choices of programs...And some of the discontent or disappointment arises from misunderstandings.

So question for all of you - is it proper for a prospective recruit to ask a coach what their expected role might be - ie playing time v. taxi squad - or is this better to wait and see??

[vas]

For example, look at both Harvard and Brown. Harvard has a current roster of 26. They are graduating 5, but have 7 incoming freshmen.
Brown carried 23 players last year are graduating 4 and have 7 coming in.

Is this over recruiting - or just more players electing to choose hockey as a way to boost their possibility of admission into an Ivy school??



They recruit as many players as they have spots for, or else the program does not get the funding. Like I said before, it has to do with gender equity is sports in general and the total amount allocated per sport per gender.

For example if the Ice Hockey program is allowed to have 25 girls on the team and $6000 is allocated per player, the program gets $150,000, If she is allowed 25 but only has 18 the coach only gets 108,000 not the total budget of $150,000.

The colllege administrators do not allow this because there would be too much of a difference between what is budgeted to men vs women. And, the college must show female NUMBERS being almost as equal as men which translates into more opportunity for women. This is the reason the basketball team referred to earlier got sh@#! for practicing with men, they were percieved as reducing opportunites for women.

So this is why there is what you refer to as "over-recruiting". If they did not do this, the program would have less funding; has nothing to do with anything else.

[sheba]

Had no idea about the financial rationale - good point!! But is the number 25 applicable to all programs - or does it vary like the number of scholarships??

[vas]

Had no idea about the financial rationale - good point!! But is the number 25 applicable to all programs - or does it vary like the number of scholarships??


I was just using 25 as an example. If you look at that government website, you will see that the roster range is about 18-25.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/main.asp

Also, even though you are correct about the number of girls graduating next year being lower than the number coming in, you must also consider that there may have been girls quiting during the season or immediately after. For example, at Brown 3 non-senior girls left the hockey program during this last season which adds to the the 4 graduates, and therefore 7 new players will replace 7 no longer on the roster for 2007-2008.