PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin Hockey Recruiting Vol. XXXIV: Go pick me out a winner, Strand



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

IndianaBadger1995
04-02-2016, 06:28 PM
What do our defense pairings look like for next year? If there's one area that has fallen off drastically it's there.

DPlaya
04-02-2016, 11:01 PM
Thanks for the praise. It's a fun project.



I've heard from people that he is marked down for 2017. Might change now, but that's what I have at this point.

I'd guess 2016. He de-committed from Minnesota because he didn't want to wait until 2017. As Wisko pointed out, it all may be up in the air with the new staff anyway.

Almington
04-03-2016, 12:35 AM
I'd guess 2016. He de-committed from Minnesota because he didn't want to wait until 2017. As Wisko pointed out, it all may be up in the air with the new staff anyway.

At this point, one has to assume none of the RS players will get a 5th year.

With any coaching change you have some roster attrition, with 23-24 forwards lined up for next year where most TEAMS normally only carry 26-28 players, I'd suspect that 4-6 current forwards will be looking for other playing opportunities for next fall.

The only way to balance out the classes is to have some short term pain (either over-recruiting or under-recruiting). Given the level of departures, almost all classes will need to be 5 forwards deep to keep <15 forwards on the roster at all times.

DoorCtyBadger
04-03-2016, 12:19 PM
Thanks for the praise. It's a fun project.



I've heard from people that he is marked down for 2017. Might change now, but that's what I have at this point.

Recruiting charts are awesome....thank you

Wisko McBadgerton
04-03-2016, 01:04 PM
In reality I don't suppose it matters much what happens with borderline guys. There's no real limit on how many walk-ons you can carry as far as I know. Can keep them all on easily enough as UW can handle the costs without any problem. The real issue is how the staff goes about managing scholarships. You have Eddie and Kevin's ... and after that it gets pretty hard to say what they have to play with. If adding another high end player or two is even possible, (and which you really would like to have in this class) the $$ has to come from somewhere. And that is going to be the difficult part to work out.

DPlaya
04-03-2016, 02:13 PM
In reality I don't suppose it matters much what happens with borderline guys. There's no real limit on how many walk-ons you can carry as far as I know. Can keep them all on easily enough as UW can handle the costs without any problem. The real issue is how the staff goes about managing scholarships. You have Eddie and Kevin's ... and after that it gets pretty hard to say what they have to play with. If adding another high end player or two is even possible, (and which you really would like to have in this class) the $$ has to come from somewhere. And that is going to be the difficult part to work out.

That's why I wondered about LOI's. The easiest way to find scholarship money is going to be to not bring someone in.

Wisko McBadgerton
04-03-2016, 05:17 PM
That's why I wondered about LOI's. The easiest way to find scholarship money is going to be to not bring someone in.

Yes... but it is it even there to reclaim? I don't even know. I'd guess Frederic and Zimmer would be 90%, so there's Eddie and Kevin's spots. Baker and maybe Vance might rate a pretty good chunk normally. Labosky? Not sure. Not sure on Berkovitz or Astren either but it would probably be small, so axing them doesn't give you much help. If you choose to maybe bring in Parsells to bolster the D he probably rates something decent, too. In any case, 4 D have to come in. So bringing in a Greenway or a Ross Colton... well, there's a question as to how you could go about it. I haven't sat down and tried to sort out who might be getting what as it stands. Anybody wants to take a stab at that, I'm all for hearing any thoughts.

solovsfett
04-03-2016, 07:22 PM
Yes... but it is it even there to reclaim? I don't even know. I'd guess Frederic and Zimmer would be 90%, so there's Eddie and Kevin's spots. Baker and maybe Vance might rate a pretty good chunk normally. Labosky? Not sure. Not sure on Berkovitz or Astren either but it would probably be small, so axing them doesn't give you much help. If you choose to maybe bring in Parsells to bolster the D he probably rates something decent, too. In any case, 4 D have to come in. So bringing in a Greenway or a Ross Colton... well, there's a question as to how you could go about it. I haven't sat down and tried to sort out who might be getting what as it stands. Anybody wants to take a stab at that, I'm all for hearing any thoughts.

here's where we really need Chuck/Andy. I couldn't begin to guess what the scholly breakdown is right now.

The set of forwards on the roster look pretty **** good IF Frederic and Baker come in with Zimmer.

On defense, I have no doubt OZ can make some of the current guys much better than they have been in terms of positioning but they really do need to find 2 studs (possibly more) to come in and assist immediately. Who those kids could be I have no idea

Wisko McBadgerton
04-03-2016, 10:03 PM
here's where we really need Chuck/Andy. I couldn't begin to guess what the scholly breakdown is right now.

The set of forwards on the roster look pretty **** good IF Frederic and Baker come in with Zimmer.

On defense, I have no doubt OZ can make some of the current guys much better than they have been in terms of positioning but they really do need to find 2 studs (possibly more) to come in and assist immediately. Who those kids could be I have no idea

I think I remember trying to sort it out a couple years ago and even with Andy's input we had a pretty difficult time with it. The only thing that's clear is two Seniors left that were on basically full rides. When I glance down the roster I think they must have some more $$ in hand, but just how much is a bit of a mystery.

Unfortunately, just like in the NHL, stud D are at a premium and it's especially hard to find many with 6 months to go.

Bonin21
04-03-2016, 10:16 PM
You guys want a junior 6'5" second round draft pick defenseman? We'll even petition the NCAA to let him play next year instead of sitting a year.

Almington
04-03-2016, 11:41 PM
here's where we really need Chuck/Andy. I couldn't begin to guess what the scholly breakdown is right now.

The set of forwards on the roster look pretty **** good IF Frederic and Baker come in with Zimmer.

On defense, I have no doubt OZ can make some of the current guys much better than they have been in terms of positioning but they really do need to find 2 studs (possibly more) to come in and assist immediately. Who those kids could be I have no idea

My understanding is that everyone on the team gets at least 10% (some NCAA level for being considered a scholarship athlete)

Any of the non-WI (and non-MN) start at about 50%. This covers the difference in cost between out-of-state and in-state cost of attendance.

The rest is given out based mostly on how highly touted a player was when recruited, but players can get an increase based on play (mostly the result of any early departures because scholarships are use it or lose it each year).

You can just about slot the rest based on where a player is drafted (or expected to be drafted) by the NHL.

First round picks get generally no more 90%, undrafted players will be near the 10% baseline for everyone.

If you want to understand part of why UW has struggled with WI born players, a 50% scholarship to UW will require about the same out of pocket cost from the family as 75% scholarship elsewhere. But a 75% offer makes it seem like the other school wants you more. From a financial perspective, a 20% at UW is better than a 65% elsewhere, but it feels that UW just doesn't value you as much. This is why Eaves got a reputation for "low balling" WI born recruits.

solovsfett
04-04-2016, 07:13 AM
My understanding is that everyone on the team gets at least 10% (some NCAA level for being considered a scholarship athlete)

Any of the non-WI (and non-MN) start at about 50%. This covers the difference in cost between out-of-state and in-state cost of attendance.

The rest is given out based mostly on how highly touted a player was when recruited, but players can get an increase based on play (mostly the result of any early departures because scholarships are use it or lose it each year).

You can just about slot the rest based on where a player is drafted (or expected to be drafted) by the NHL.

First round picks get generally no more 90%, undrafted players will be near the 10% baseline for everyone.

If you want to understand part of why UW has struggled with WI born players, a 50% scholarship to UW will require about the same out of pocket cost from the family as 75% scholarship elsewhere. But a 75% offer makes it seem like the other school wants you more. From a financial perspective, a 20% at UW is better than a 65% elsewhere, but it feels that UW just doesn't value you as much. This is why Eaves got a reputation for "low balling" WI born recruits.

thanks. that's very interesting re: "low balling Wisconsin-born recruits", hopefully the new staff can make amends quickly, especially with Wisconsin HS Coaches. It's not exactly fair (or maybe that's not the precise word to use here) for a HC to be in a position where he/she feels they must offer over 20% (where you say it's the equivalent of 65% elsewhere) based on the kid and parents perceptions, but then again that's the name of the game in recruiting: perception is reality. Eaves must not have understood that and he had plenty of years to grasp that lesson

Wisko McBadgerton
04-04-2016, 08:24 AM
To be fair, this is where I would probably have a melt down as a recruiter. I mean with someone who would pay $5k to go to Ohio St. or $5k to go to Wisconsin and tell me it's not the same offer.

One of my great pet peeves in the world is when someone doesn't understand that how much the seller has paid for something has absolutely no bearing on it's value or what the buyer should pay.

And I know somebody will read that and think "Yeah... But...

NO! NO! NO! IT"S IRRELEVANT!!! ARRGH! JUST GO TO ****ING OSU THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUCH A DUMB ***!


So, it's probably good I'm not recruiting.

KaMiGo
04-04-2016, 09:31 AM
To be fair, this is where I would probably have a melt down as a recruiter. I mean with someone who would pay $5k to go to Ohio St. or $5k to go to Wisconsin and tell me it's not the same offer.
One of my great pet peeves in the world is when someone doesn't understand that how much the seller has paid for something has absolutely no bearing on it's value or what the buyer should pay.
And I know somebody will read that and think "Yeah... But...
NO! NO! NO! IT"S IRRELEVANT!!! ARRGH! JUST GO TO ****ING OSU THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUCH A DUMB ***!
So, it's probably good I'm not recruiting.


Makes you wonder if a potential student athlete who doesn't have the math comprehension to understand this concept would have even gotten into UW.

BuB
04-04-2016, 09:36 AM
To be fair, this is where I would probably have a melt down as a recruiter. I mean with someone who would pay $5k to go to Ohio St. or $5k to go to Wisconsin and tell me it's not the same offer.

One of my great pet peeves in the world is when someone doesn't understand that how much the seller has paid for something has absolutely no bearing on it's value or what the buyer should pay.

And I know somebody will read that and think "Yeah... But...

NO! NO! NO! IT"S IRRELEVANT!!! ARRGH! JUST GO TO ****ING OSU THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SUCH A DUMB ***!


So, it's probably good I'm not recruiting.

This is simple economics/math that some people allow to be affected by their personal/family pride.

As a parent that is saving for my kids college costs - the key is this, "what is my bottom line cost?"

If school A is $20,000 a year in tuition and room and board, if they give us a 25% scholarship, my cost is now 15k

If school B is $40,000 a year in tuition and room and board, if they give us a 40% scholarship, my cost is now 24k

My kid goes 9,000 a year less into debt x 4 years = $36,000 even though he gets "less" of a scholarship.

Pride and principles also have a price for some of these families apparently!

Ronnieb
04-04-2016, 10:36 AM
Depending on the school (private, public). For 80% of recruits the questions are all the same. In state or out of state? What does family do for a living? What is your ability to obtain financial aid? do you have savings to pay for cost of attendance? What is your ability to obtain academic aid? Really, scholarship $$$$ are the last part of the question. Recruiting is simply run as a business for the institution to get the biggest bang for the buck. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.

BuB
04-04-2016, 07:14 PM
Depending on the school (private, public). For 80% of recruits the questions are all the same. In state or out of state? What does family do for a living? What is your ability to obtain financial aid? do you have savings to pay for cost of attendance? What is your ability to obtain academic aid? Really, scholarship $$$$ are the last part of the question. Recruiting is simply run as a business for the institution to get the biggest bang for the buck. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.

Yeah, the problem to me and the argument here is on the Recruit/Family side, IMO. Too often their ego and pride get in the way of taking a "lesser" percentage scholarship even thought their bottom line would be less than the converse of that. It's dumb. I coach (not hockey) and have tried explaining this to some families and their kids when they colleges come talking.

Some get it, but some of the others are delusional about their kids talent and perceived "value" to their potential college team.

Ronnieb
04-04-2016, 07:26 PM
Yeah, the problem to me and the argument here is on the Recruit/Family side, IMO. Too often their ego and pride get in the way of taking a "lesser" percentage scholarship even thought their bottom line would be less than the converse of that. It's dumb. I coach (not hockey) and have tried explaining this to some families and their kids when they colleges come talking.

Some get it, but some of the others are delusional about their kids talent
and perceived "value" to their potential college team.

Agreed. I was just hoping maybe the delusionals were reading :):)

Almington
04-05-2016, 06:27 PM
It has been pointed out to me that no one outside of the UW athletic department knows the exact numbers for each player. I simply posted some general "rules of thumb" that allow us to estimate what the scholarship situation is for UW. There have been some top flight players who had almost no scholarship money (leaving more to build a better team around them) and players with nearly a "full ride" who never lived up to the expectations when they were recruited.

Bonin21
04-06-2016, 09:40 AM
Didn't you get a commit from MN yesterday? Forgot where I saw it.