Re: Norwich university cadets 2014-2015
In the past 14 seasons, Minnesota has averaged only 21 players, with a range between 20 (3 times) and 24 (1 time). Coincidently, that is the number that can dress. Given the number of Frozen Four appearances they've had, there should be no reason it shouldn't work for other teams.
Their is an apparent belief among many on this board that huge rosters are necessary to both buffer against impact of potential injuries and presumably to incite "hunger" among players to work harder and compete for ice time.
In my experience, the opposite tends to happen. When players don't play, especially when they work really hard, they get frustrated. Human nature being what it is, it is quite often not the most talented and/or hardest working players who are awarded ice time. It is also likely for divisiveness to occur between the "haves" and "have nots", leading to chemistry problems.
I've seen many great teams on paper increasingly crumble deep in the season due to bad chemistry....and much lesser talented teams win it all due to exceptional chemistry. Roster size--and a recognition that all players play important though not always equivalent roles--are big factors in maintaining good chemistry. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the majority of ranked teams last season had relatively short rosters.
Originally posted by HockeyEast33
View Post
Their is an apparent belief among many on this board that huge rosters are necessary to both buffer against impact of potential injuries and presumably to incite "hunger" among players to work harder and compete for ice time.
In my experience, the opposite tends to happen. When players don't play, especially when they work really hard, they get frustrated. Human nature being what it is, it is quite often not the most talented and/or hardest working players who are awarded ice time. It is also likely for divisiveness to occur between the "haves" and "have nots", leading to chemistry problems.
I've seen many great teams on paper increasingly crumble deep in the season due to bad chemistry....and much lesser talented teams win it all due to exceptional chemistry. Roster size--and a recognition that all players play important though not always equivalent roles--are big factors in maintaining good chemistry. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the majority of ranked teams last season had relatively short rosters.
Comment