Penn State Womens Hockey

[claw]

Unless you have additional information, you're reading a whole lot into that story that isn't there.

Huh? She went to student paper and trashed the coach who cut her and others who made minimal contributions to a new d1 program that has to continue recruiting to improve and balance classes.

Everything I said was in the article. What exactly am I reading into that didnt happen?

[wwhyte]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Shoulda known what she was signing up for when she went to a new D1 program.

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

[Hux]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

That, and as time advances the program should be able to recruit better players. The strong replace the weak.

[KTDC]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Penn State cuts seven players: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/sports/...a4bcf6878.html

It looks like they may have some pretty good recruits. The proof will be in the pudding and this may turn out to make sense in results, but it seems like cutting seven players is inviting some negative public reaction.

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

Of course. What are they supposed to do? Wait 4 years for everyone to graduate and then start over?

They have to continue recruiting better, more established players to make the program competitive and they also have to try and balance out their classes.

Everyone coming into a new program gets a fair shot, but some are going to make it and some are not. I never sat in on any recruiting meetings with Penn State, or anywhere, but I'm willing to bet based on common sense that in some form or another the coaching staff said that the players coming in were going to get an opportunity to be part of the program and that based on their contribution they'd make a decision moving forward about where they fit in. Most players (and especially parents) are not going to take that for what it's worth...of course that only applies to "someone else's kid". You didn't tell me you were going to cut ME therefore you were dishonest with me.

Like I said, IMO, it's pretty obvious that when you go to a new program, you have to contribute significantly and continue to improve, or else they are going to recruit above you. It's simple math and it's written all over the walls. New programs can be a tremendous opportunity, but there's also going to be a higher turnover for the first several years.

[ARM]

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

Different programs use different models depending on how many scholarships they have at their disposal in the early years. For example, a program could give 6 scholarships in year one, add 5 more in year two, 4 in year three, and 3 in year four. By the fourth year, that program would be up to the maximum of 18 scholarships. Obviously, it won't be as competitive in the first couple of seasons with that approach, but it may work better in the long term rather than bringing in a huge scholarship class in year one and either seeing it graduate after the fourth season or having to prune a number of players along the way. That may have been the plan all along, but if it wasn't communicated to those impacted in advance, cuts will be just as unpopular as layoffs in the workplace. That's why new programs usually bring in as many impact players as possible with the scholarships that they have available, and then fill out the roster with walk-ons. When it is time to upgrade the talent with new classes, you don't have to pull scholarships from kids already on the roster. The non-scholarship kids generally see the writing on the wall as more scholarship players are added each year and the original walk-ons slip farther down the depth chart. Making wholesale cuts can be a double-edged sword.

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Huh? She went to student paper and trashed the coach who cut her and others who made minimal contributions to a new d1 program that has to continue recruiting to improve and balance classes.

Everything I said was in the article. What exactly am I reading into that didnt happen?

Your entire argument presupposes that her claims have no merit. While that's certainly possible, it's also possible that the players who were deemed to be expendable were treated badly.

And, in my mind, they almost were treated badly, even if the specific allegations of bullying aren't true, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a good deal of bitterness. People are talking about how this should be expected in a new program and at least implying, if not outright stating, that these young women should just take it in stride. I think that that's a perfectly good example of the NCAA, its schools, and a lot of fans wanting to have it both ways on the question of amateurism. You're asking for a mindset that would be perfectly appropriate to expect from professionals, but not from notional amateurs.

They made a commitment to Penn State and its hockey program. That's true in the sense of both a lower case "c" and in the title of the letter they signed to play there. Absent some sort of evidence that they failed to live up to their end of the commitment in ways other than just not being good enough at playing hockey, I disagree that their contributions were obviously minimal.

They made a commitment when PSU couldn't get better hockey players, but the school's commitment lasted only until that changed. And these players are reacting in the way that human beings generally do when someone breaks a commitment to them.

Your argument that they should just assume that those commitments should last just so long as Penn State can't get better players presupposes a level of professionalism that is not supposed to be present at the NCAA level. That may be the way things actually do work but I have a hard time blaming the players for believing the words that coaches, administrators, and the NCAA coat the world with implying otherwise. And if you do, ask yourself whether you really think it would be better if athletes just routinely stop believing what their coaches tell them. If those in charge just want to admit that college athletics are being run on a basis of professionalism, great, but they need to live with all of the consequences of that and not just hide behind it when they want to get better players.

All that's said assuming that the specific allegations aren't true. If they aren't, that's the woman who made them but I find her bitterness understandable. But they might also be true, and you don't really have any way to know that they aren't.

[Cali]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The optics of the player speaking up only after she was cut may not be the greatest, but is she wrong in her allegations of bullying? Isn't fear of repercussion one of the trademarks of a victim of bullying? This fear of repercussion may, in fact, be the reason why she is only speaking up now.

Bully coaches are in way too many places in elite sports. Here is an article written about bullying. Look at the list of characteristic traits and apply it your team's coach. I bet we would be surprised at how many coaches really are bullies, based on this list of criteria.

https://www.competitivedge.com/%E2%8...ports%E2%80%9D

[claw]

The optics of the player speaking up only after she was cut may not be the greatest, but is she wrong in her allegations of bullying? Isn't fear of repercussion one of the trademarks of a victim of bullying? This fear of repercussion may, in fact, be the reason why she is only speaking up now.

Bully coaches are in way too many places in elite sports. Here is an article written about bullying. Look at the list of characteristic traits and apply it your team's coach. I bet we would be surprised at how many coaches really are bullies, based on this list of criteria.

https://www.competitivedge.com/%E2%8...ports%E2%80%9D

How many things on that list are subjective? A player who feels their competitive value is more than the coach feels it is will very easily feel many of these things even if they may not be true. For instance its easy when coach never plays you to say coach doesnt like me, or coach doesnt talk to me or coach is a bad communicator. Those things are two way streets. Im not naive and certainly there are probably way too many coaches that take things too far, but IMO saying a coach that does two of those things is abusive is ridiculous, especially given the subjectivity of many criteria.

[Call It]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The lesson here is that, "There are no guarantees in life!"

Women's College Hockey is not a right or entitlement.

[Cali]

How many things on that list are subjective? A player who feels their competitive value is more than the coach feels it is will very easily feel many of these things even if they may not be true. For instance its easy when coach never plays you to say coach doesnt like me, or coach doesnt talk to me or coach is a bad communicator. Those things are two way streets. Im not naive and certainly there are probably way too many coaches that take things too far, but IMO saying a coach that does two of those things is abusive is ridiculous, especially given the subjectivity of many criteria.

You're correct, but what's the number? If not 2 is it 5? Is it 10? How about 20? When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

[claw]

You're correct, but what's the number? If not 2 is it 5? Is it 10? How about 20? When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

Its nothing as far as that list goes. Some of the things on the list are legit, many of them are bogus. That article is very flawed and is a disservice to people who are dealing with real bullying by suggesting that anyone who feels their coach doesnt pay them enough attention or perceive enough care from their coach or feels their coach yells too much is abusing them.

[claw]

When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

Ill also add that when our society depends on parents who raise their children to think its always someone elses fault, everyone deserves a participation certificate, and that theyre entitled to x y and z because they can do ANYTHING if they just try hard then we become really freakin soft as a society.

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Its nothing as far as that list goes. Some of the things on the list are legit, many of them are bogus. That article is very flawed and is a disservice to people who are dealing with real bullying by suggesting that anyone who feels their coach doesnt pay them enough attention or perceive enough care from their coach or feels their coach yells too much is abusing them.

Again, either you have additional specific information about this situation or you're making things up.

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The lesson here is that, "There are no guarantees in life!"

Women's College Hockey is not a right or entitlement.

It may not be an entitlement, but that doesn't mean that a commitment shouldn't go both ways. If a coach wants loyalty, he also needs to show it.