PDA

View Full Version : D-III Men's Hockey: Change over the past 20 years



Pages : [1] 2

collegehcky2
08-16-2010, 07:16 PM
So, since it's summer and it seems like some people are itching for hockey season to start soon. I figure this might be a bit interesting to talk about.

It's 2010 and over the past 20 years the game itself has changed a lot at the pro ranks and college ranks. What have you noticed that's changed over your time watching D-III hockey (regardless of age)? I'm really intrigued about what former players (bakdraft, 93GL, ballgame, etc.) have to say.

Edit: 20 years is just a nice round number, feel free to talk about anything in your time.

NUProf
08-16-2010, 07:31 PM
So, since it's summer and it seems like some people are itching for hockey season to start soon. I figure this might be a bit interesting to talk about.

It's 2010 and over the past 20 years the game itself has changed a lot at the pro ranks and college ranks. What have you noticed that's changed over your time watching D-III hockey (regardless of age)? I'm really intrigued about what former players (bakdraft, 93GL, ballgame, etc.) have to say.

Edit: 20 years is just a nice round number, feel free to talk about anything in your time.

I'm gonna go way back. When I was a student at Dartmouth years and years ago, there was no distinction between DI and DIII. There was a penalty for Offensive Checking = it was a 2 minute penalty if you applied a body check in your offensive zone. The game was still exciting, and I can remember seeing DC play games against such DIII (now) programs as Bowdoin and Colby and also against the BUs and BCs. I miss those years when there was more parity.

DIIIFan
08-16-2010, 08:09 PM
Although I never played at the college level the biggest difference between the Laker hockey I saw in Romney and now at the College Center is the student interaction. The students poured out for Romney and it was a bitter cold walk or a bus rid there. The students were roudy, voicesterous and brought an engery that was the 7th man on the ice. This was always the case and just not when the rival teams came to play. I know this also was true for the students in PSUC too. Today the students seem subdued which can be inpart to the admistrations but the hockey knowledge just isn't there.
Oswego '89

PSUChamps2001
08-16-2010, 08:48 PM
Although I never played at the college level the biggest difference between the Laker hockey I saw in Romney and now at the College Center is the student interaction. The students poured out for Romney and it was a bitter cold walk or a bus rid there. The students were roudy, voicesterous and brought an engery that was the 7th man on the ice. This was always the case and just not when the rival teams came to play. I know this also was true for the students in PSUC too. Today the students seem subdued which can be inpart to the admistrations but the hockey knowledge just isn't there.
Oswego '89

Agreed 110%.....no offense to Oswego, but even the Laker fans couldn't hold a candle in the wind compared to the old Middlebury crowd of the mid 90's even. That place was simply scary to walk into....period.

As far as the game goes, the one thing Ive noticed is the speed and skill. It was a lot more physical game with less emphasis on speed. Thanks to Middlebury a lot of teams have changed their style to try and keep up. You even see the normally more physical teams of the west change to a more speed and skill type team...

norm1909
08-16-2010, 09:53 PM
I can't quite match NUProf's in going way back, but the distinction between DI and DIII still wasn't that distinct in the 1980's. But agree with him, the relatively young Plattsburgh team often played DI schools, and given their "rookie" status did ok. The NCAA want-to-be administrators have taken legitimate issues from one extreme to another, gone are the days when a team was pretty much free to play just about anyone - DI - Canadian - just about anyone willing to play them.

I also agree with DIIIFan & PSUChamps2001, the student support "just ain't what it used to be". At first, I thought it was just Plattsburgh and the loss of their Air Force Base and the young(er) - compared to today, fans that came from the base. But as I started to travel to the away games, the crowds just weren't what they were when I went as a student. Certainly, some of this as due to the extremism of the NCAA’s policies, and the over-zealous church-like atmosphere promoted by some athletic directors, but nevertheless, current student apathy is still, IMO, the biggest problem.

Also, PSUChamps2001 noted, the sport has evolved to a sport where the emphasis has shifted - for better or worse - away from physical aspects to more finesse with the puck.

93GreatLaker
08-16-2010, 11:51 PM
So, since it's summer and it seems like some people are itching for hockey season to start soon. I figure this might be a bit interesting to talk about.

It's 2010 and over the past 20 years the game itself has changed a lot at the pro ranks and college ranks. What have you noticed that's changed over your time watching D-III hockey (regardless of age)? I'm really intrigued about what former players (bakdraft, 93GL, ballgame, etc.) have to say.

Edit: 20 years is just a nice round number, feel free to talk about anything in your time.

Interesting topic. The biggest change I see in the game is the physical conditioning of the players. When I played, the weightroom was important, but it wasn't so much as to the extent it is today. Having billeted midget aged players in the last few years I see first hand how they are training. The workout program they have with their travel team would rival that of the pros. I never played on a team, college and minor leagues included, that put that much emphasis on conditioning. That is not to say I was not in shape, but not to the extent these kids are today.

The drawback of today's game as I see it is so many players lack creativity. A lifetime of "systems" play will do that to you. Don't get me wrong, I know there is a need for discipline, but every once in a while I want to be in awe of individual brilliance or playmaking. I want to see players sometimes think for themselves and not just be a product of their system.

Overall, while I think the players have evolved, I am not so sure the game has. Give me the days of Joe Spinelli, Scot Burfoot, Dave Lair, and Joey Ferras over the hard-nosed, grind it out players of today (that's not to say there are not those types, but they are few and far between).

Just one man's humble opinion.:)

shooter27
08-16-2010, 11:57 PM
The speed and quality of the game has improved by leaps and bounds. I was recently speaking with someone who played at a top DIII program in the early 90's and had gone back to see a game this past season and his comment was, "Even on my best day I couldn't have kept up with the speed and skill of the game today."

Yes, there is a bigger difference between DI and DIII, but thats mostly because DI has improved at an even faster rate than DIII and its drawing from a larger talent pool.

93GreatLaker
08-17-2010, 12:04 AM
Also, PSUChamps2001 noted, the sport has evolved to a sport where the emphasis has shifted - for better or worse - away from physical aspects to more finesse with the puck.

While I agree the sport is starting to move in that direction, I think the game of today is still way more physical then when I played in the late 80's early 90's. I think the New Jersey Devil's success in the mid 90's brought on a wave of physical play at all levels. Their trapping style, hitting everything that moved mentality paved the way for bigger, stronger players. I for one hope the game continues along its current path of opening up a bit. It is more fun to watch, and certainly more fun to play.

hockeyfan77
08-17-2010, 03:02 AM
The drawback of today's game as I see it is so many players lack creativity. A lifetime of "systems" play will do that to you. Don't get me wrong, I know there is a need for discipline, but every once in a while I want to be in awe of individual brilliance or playmaking. I want to see players sometimes think for themselves and not just be a product of their system.




Couldn't agree more...

The Real Georgia Peach
08-17-2010, 06:28 AM
One of the biggest changes I've noticed is the "quality" of the barns they play in. There was something special about being in the crowd at Taylor Arena (Norw), or Nelson Arena (Midd). The bright new sanitized arenas, in my opinion, stiffles fan interaction, making us observers rather than participants. Gotta admit that they are a lot more comfortable, the players like 'em and the schools gain prestige..:)

NUProf
08-17-2010, 08:20 AM
One of the biggest changes I've noticed is the "quality" of the barns they play in. There was something special about being in the crowd at Taylor Arena (Norw), or Nelson Arena (Midd). The bright new sanitized arenas, in my opinion, stiffles fan interaction, making us observers rather than participants. Gotta admit that they are a lot more comfortable, the players like 'em and the schools gain prestige..:)

I remember Taylor Arena well. I always stood behind the goalie at the entrance end of the rink. Probably why my seats are where they are in Krietzberg. I got used to and love that POV. Big advantage of standing there - quick exit to the snack bar - the only place where there was any heat in the building.

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
08-17-2010, 09:03 AM
One of the biggest changes I've noticed is the "quality" of the barns they play in. There was something special about being in the crowd at Taylor Arena (Norw), or Nelson Arena (Midd). The bright new sanitized arenas, in my opinion, stiffles fan interaction, making us observers rather than participants. Gotta admit that they are a lot more comfortable, the players like 'em and the schools gain prestige..:)

Ditto on "Old" Stafford vs. "New" Stafford, and (although I never had the pleasure of attending a game in Romney) Romney vs. Campus Center.

bakdraft21
08-17-2010, 10:31 AM
So, since it's summer and it seems like some people are itching for hockey season to start soon. I figure this might be a bit interesting to talk about.

It's 2010 and over the past 20 years the game itself has changed a lot at the pro ranks and college ranks. What have you noticed that's changed over your time watching D-III hockey (regardless of age)? I'm really intrigued about what former players (bakdraft, 93GL, ballgame, etc.) have to say.

Edit: 20 years is just a nice round number, feel free to talk about anything in your time.
Gotta say the 1 big thing I noticed after seeing oz and potts /platts play was the speed, man these guys fly or I was just slow when I played......Dont think there was much of a size difference, between now and 87', we had a few big boys on the team, as did other schools....I think the players now-a-days specialize in 1 sport as they grow up so they may be a little more advanced when they come into the league as freshmen, also it seems the freshmen are older now than back in the days, 80's....1 HUGE change in Oz hockey is the rink for sure,LOL........the CC is awesome!!!!!!!!!

bakdraft21
08-17-2010, 10:39 AM
Although I never played at the college level the biggest difference between the Laker hockey I saw in Romney and now at the College Center is the student interaction. The students poured out for Romney and it was a bitter cold walk or a bus rid there. The students were roudy, voicesterous and brought an engery that was the 7th man on the ice. This was always the case and just not when the rival teams came to play. I know this also was true for the students in PSUC too. Today the students seem subdued which can be inpart to the admistrations but the hockey knowledge just isn't there.
Oswego '89 Must say the fans at Romney were crazy and loud, THE ZOO was very intimidating for other players, if they got a penalty boy were they in for it as Marty Midori would spell out there name and the A-hole chant came soon after, I believe Marty got a few sticks to the hands as he leaned over the glass and gave the sin bin occupant a few choice words....the taste great lass filling chants were classic as well..........must also say the CC fans at the potts/pltss weekend series last yr were great, but many have said that they show up to b seen....ugh.....ps i almost got booted for to much cheering lets say, never would have happened at Romney

norm1909
08-17-2010, 10:50 AM
...ps i almost got booted for to much cheering lets say, never would have happened at Romney

Nor would it have at the old Stafford - did the old Stafford reach extremes? Perhaps, but addressing one extreme with another does not truely better the situation.

DH003325
08-17-2010, 10:51 AM
One of the biggest differences I've seen is that, back in the day, the bottom-feeders of the league you knew the good teams were gonna humiliate. At Elmira, there were games that we knew we could sleepwalk through and they would still be automatic wins. Now, everyone is competitive, and if you don't come to play, you can get stung.
Also, the expansion of D-1 has taken away a lot of the talent that used to seep down to D-3.
Also, Elmira's recruiting used to come from New England, to a large degree. When the NESCAC teams became NCAA Tournament-eligible in 1994, a lot of those recruits stayed home, so there is a lot more recruiting from Canada than there was then.

MountieBoyOz
08-17-2010, 11:40 AM
One thing I noticed is that the higher end programs are going to nice rinks. While I do love the CC, I miss Romney. You were right on top of the action. Sure, you had to layer up, but the atmosphere was electric. It just seems to be missing from there.

At least it ain't Stafford though. LOL. :D We actually have rowdy students.

PrezdeJohnson09
08-17-2010, 12:18 PM
The drawback of today's game as I see it is so many players lack creativity. A lifetime of "systems" play will do that to you. Don't get me wrong, I know there is a need for discipline, but every once in a while I want to be in awe of individual brilliance or playmaking. I want to see players sometimes think for themselves and not just be a product of their system.



This is why in my opinion, the world juniors are the best hockey to watch bar none. Incredible speed, skill, passion and finesse without the bogged down systems etc.

PrezdeJohnson09
08-17-2010, 12:23 PM
One of the biggest differences I've seen is that, back in the day, the bottom-feeders of the league you knew the good teams were gonna humiliate. At Elmira, there were games that we knew we could sleepwalk through and they would still be automatic wins. Now, everyone is competitive, and if you don't come to play, you can get stung.
Also, the expansion of D-1 has taken away a lot of the talent that used to seep down to D-3.
Also, Elmira's recruiting used to come from New England, to a large degree. When the NESCAC teams became NCAA Tournament-eligible in 1994, a lot of those recruits stayed home, so there is a lot more recruiting from Canada than there was then.

I had this dicussion with jim32 and a few others as well a couple times over the past few years about Elmira's recruiting and their regression to a bottom of the top tier or second tier team during the early part of this decade.

We talked about the rise of Norwich and Middlebury being D-III eligible as well as all the programs that went from D-II or D-III status up to D-I...especially the Atlantic Hockey League.

Players that Elmira used to get, are now getting scholarships or the chance to play D-I at schools like Canisius, Mercyhurst, Niagara, RIT etc.

CROSBYNU63
08-17-2010, 01:48 PM
Prez,sent you an email earlier, give me a call as soon as you can




I had this dicussion with jim32 and a few others as well a couple times over the past few years about Elmira's recruiting and their regression to a bottom of the top tier or second tier team during the early part of this decade.

We talked about the rise of Norwich and Middlebury being D-III eligible as well as all the programs that went from D-II or D-III status up to D-I...especially the Atlantic Hockey League.

Players that Elmira used to get, are now getting scholarships or the chance to play D-I at schools like Canisius, Mercyhurst, Niagara, RIT etc.