Penn State Womens Hockey

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

a coach has a right and an obligation to improve his team. players can leave the team at any time, why shouldn't a coach have a right to improve his or her team if they see fit?

since you're so hung up on "inside info" you have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes. maybe these players attitudes alone warranted this action by the coach? perhaps it's entirely related to their contribution athletically. either way, the coach has the right at the end of a season to move forward, ESPECIALLY in a situation where it's a new program and you're dealing with players from the inaugural roster who may not really be suited to play at that level.

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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

WTH are you talking about additional info or I'm making it up? I'm referencing a specific article that was posted in a general sense and not tying it to any specific incident. Get over yourself.

However since you're hung up on me having additional info, why do I need it? Here are the facts from this article:

1) Accusation was made by a player who had an axe to grind and who clearly didn't have a problem talking to the media about her feelings
2) Despite that, nothing was said in support of the accusation except that "he talked to us like we were kids", "he didn't talk to me", "he's a hypocrite", "i dont respect him", and "he's not a good coach". All very, very subjective and certainly not indicative of bullying, IMO.
3) Another player was interviewed and said she was shocked or hurt, but that the cuts were to allow other players on to the roster. She gives no indication of anything to do with bullying.
4) According to the scorned player, 13 players, including her, went to meet with the AD because they didn't like the Coach and they are frustrated with the direction of the program. Doesn't say they went there because they were concerned about abuses that were taking place and concerned for their safety.

Sorry, but I need a little more than that to assume that something wrong is really going on. Doesn't mean I'm "making stuff up" if I don't have more info, it means that I'm making an informed decision based on the info at hand which is coming directly from an obviously involved and upset player. I could make the same case to you that if you're buying what she's selling based on this swiss cheese article then you must have some super duper top secret insider information or else you're just making up that this actually happened.

[96IllinoisDad]

WTH are you talking about additional info or I'm making it up? I'm referencing a specific article that was posted in a general sense and not tying it to any specific incident. Get over yourself.

However since you're hung up on me having additional info, why do I need it? Here are the facts from this article:

1) Accusation was made by a player who had an axe to grind and who clearly didn't have a problem talking to the media about her feelings
2) Despite that, nothing was said in support of the accusation except that "he talked to us like we were kids", "he didn't talk to me", "he's a hypocrite", "i dont respect him", and "he's not a good coach". All very, very subjective and certainly not indicative of bullying, IMO.
3) Another player was interviewed and said she was shocked or hurt, but that the cuts were to allow other players on to the roster. She gives no indication of anything to do with bullying.
4) According to the scorned player, 13 players, including her, went to meet with the AD because they didn't like the Coach and they are frustrated with the direction of the program. Doesn't say they went there because they were concerned about abuses that were taking place and concerned for their safety.

Sorry, but I need a little more than that to assume that something wrong is really going on. Doesn't mean I'm "making stuff up" if I don't have more info, it means that I'm making an informed decision based on the info at hand which is coming directly from an obviously involved and upset player. I could make the same case to you that if you're buying what she's selling based on this swiss cheese article then you must have some super duper top secret insider information or else you're just making up that this actually happened.

First, you are reading into article that this kid went to press instead of the other way around. Maybe true but not in article.

Second, a coach is free to run his program how he sees fit within the rules. He can cut walkons and he can pull scholarships. On the other hand, kids can run to media and tell their friends. New recruits certainly can use this information to determine their future. In other words, does a new recruit want to go to a place where a coach cuts walkons and pulls scholarships?

To think that this move wouldn't have any impact on future recruiting is naive. Any coach knows this, and I'm sure the coach in this case weighed the harm (whatever impact) that it would cause. In addition to 3 kids who were on scholarship, many were rising seniors. So I'm sure there is more to the story. Quite simply, the coach is going to need to address it with recruits who ask. I'm sure he'll have a reason other than making way for better players.

Also in reference to one of your earlier posts, during my d's recruiting process, no coach ever suggested that there was a possibility or practice of cutting players from the roster (playng time was different). In fact, many coaches went out of their way to say that they do not pull scholarships.

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Two former players react to the recent cuts: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/sports/...a4bcf6878.html

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Also in reference to one of your earlier posts, during my d's recruiting process, no coach ever suggested that there was a possibility or practice of cutting players from the roster (playng time was different). In fact, many coaches went out of their way to say that they do not pull scholarships.

That post was in specific regard to new programs which are managed (out of necessity) differently from established programs over the first couple of seasons

[hockeylife]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

With the newest article .....Yikes! This will definately make things harder for recruiting.

[Cali]

With the newest article .....Yikes! This will definately make things harder for recruiting.

Yeah there is no doubt in my eyes that the coach a huge part of the problem. The decisions are tough ones to make but there are much better ways to handle them. Communication is a start. There are too many D1 coaches that treat their players like assets and not like people.

[Rightnut]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

I agree. It's a two way street and both sides have an "opportunity cost" as the players, especially the scholarship players, likely passed on other schools and the school probably passed on other players. To cut so many players makes it look simply like he is clearing the roster to get new "better" players. While that may be the way the world works it certainly will raise a red flag to potential recruits.

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

It took 17 freshmen to put up a roster and start this D-1 program, but if all 17 really expected to go the full four years on the team, they were dreaming. Any coach would be looking to trim that group as soon and as much as possible, or he'd be in a world of hurt when they graduate.

[Trillium]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

this!

[wwhyte]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

Thanks, great explanation.

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

It took 17 freshmen to put up a roster and start this D-1 program, but if all 17 really expected to go the full four years on the team, they were dreaming. Any coach would be looking to trim that group as soon and as much as possible, or he'd be in a world of hurt when they graduate.

And it looks like Brandwene has gone about trimming that group in a way that maximizes the bitterness and hurt feelings.

[ARM]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I know zip about Penn State's coach or his handling of the team, so I won't comment on PSU specifically.

In terms of managing the roster, I'd be interested in how Brian Durocher went about it when BU moved from club to varsity. The first D-I season, BU had 20 freshmen. That class dropped to 14 as sophomores, 11 as juniors, and 10 as seniors. Still, I can't see him making wholesale cuts, because it seems to go against how he views his team. For example, in the NCAA quarterfinal in Minnesota, Durocher started a fourth-line senior who plays little to let her be recognized by hometown fans. A lot of coaches would do that in a regular-season game, but few would in a national tournament. BU has been as successful as any new program in the last decade as far as reaching the top echelon and staying there. To a large extent, you reap what you sow.

Any time there is turmoil on a roster, it reflects poorly on a staff. Even if the coach is blameless in any dispute, the question becomes, "Why did he recruit multiple players with supposed 'bad attitudes?'"

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The first D-I season, BU had 20 freshmen. That class dropped to 14 as sophomores, 11 as juniors, and 10 as seniors. Still, I can't see him making wholesale cuts, because it seems to go against how he views his team.

I know exactly zero about BU, so I'll go with your saying Durocher cut six of the initial freshmen after the first season and three more of them after the second season. Maybe Brandwene is trying to follow Durocher's plan - they both axed nine by the end of two seasons.

[Cali]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I know exactly zero about BU, so I'll go with your saying Durocher cut six of the initial freshmen after the first season and three more of them after the second season. Maybe Brandwene is trying to follow Durocher's plan - they both axed nine by the end of two seasons.

If he was trying to follow Durocher's plan then he left out one important part…that being how he views his team.