WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

[devildog]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Having never been through the recruiting process myself or with a kid, please explain something:

- These kids can count. If a school recruits a class of 25 skaters, some have to know that they all aren't making the team. With the plethora of blogs and other musings out there, they have to see where they rank. Why ignore that info? Is it just a case of not wanting to be honest about their skill level? I get that all these kids see themselves as NHL-caliber, but at some point, they have to realize their situation, right?

To me, if I understand you statement correctly, this is what saves college hockey for the small schools. The hot shots all flock to the big money schools, but there is a whole bunch 2nd and 3rd line NHL players spread out among the NCAA getting all they playing time they want. Put a good "team" together with those kind of players, those small schools can play with and beat the big boys.

[MTUHuskies]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

To me, if I understand you statement correctly, this is what saves college hockey for the small schools. The hot shots all flock to the big money schools, but there is a whole bunch 2nd and 3rd line NHL players spread out among the NCAA getting all they playing time they want. Put a good "team" together with those kind of players, those small schools can play with and beat the big boys.

Like Herb Brooks said in Miracle: "I'm not looking for the best players Craig, I'm looking for the right ones"

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[RaceBoarder]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

To me, if I understand you statement correctly, this is what saves college hockey for the small schools. The hot shots all flock to the big money schools, but there is a whole bunch 2nd and 3rd line NHL players spread out among the NCAA getting all they playing time they want. Put a good "team" together with those kind of players, those small schools can play with and beat the big boys.

That's where I wanted to go with this. Why would a kid avoid a school like NMU when they see they are 20th on the depth chart at Michigan, NoDak or Minnesota? With the recruiting info out there, kids and their "advisors" can see that they aren't the only ones who committed. They can see that the kid who is currently schooling them in the USHL also signed on with said school. Why not buy into a smaller program at that point?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

That's where I wanted to go with this. Why would a kid avoid a school like NMU when they see they are 20th on the depth chart at Michigan, NoDak or Minnesota? With the recruiting info out there, kids and their "advisors" can see that they aren't the only ones who committed. They can see that the kid who is currently schooling them in the USHL also signed on with said school. Why not buy into a smaller program at that point?

Because no kid believes they're 20th on the depth chart, they all believe that someone else will be left behind, not them.

[aparch]

Because no kid believes they're 20th on the depth chart, the all believe that someone else will be left behind, not them.

Yep.

Being promised the world with no guarantee of delivering is more important (to some recruits) over only getting a partial ride but guaranteed to see ice time their freshman year.

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

I always wonder if they'd bring back D-II hockey and whether it would be as largely irrelevant as it was before (says the guy whose alma mater won two of the last four contested titles). I honestly don't think so, because if we're just going to be D-I === scholarship and D-III === non-scholarship, then why divide up a pool of 60 schools unless you're looking to lower the number of games played? Wait, that's never going to happen — do that and the top talent won't play D-I hockey.

I don't think that anything will really change in D-I men's ice hockey until the NCAA largely reforms, presuming the latest basketball and football scandals push them to do so.

GFM

Nothing in college athletics will change until the NCAA decides the following:
- What is the goal of athletics at universities? Is University sports primary goal a money making business? Is it to server as a place to develop recruits into potential professional athletes?...
- How important is the overall sports program health? Should the NCAA/Association worry about the health of all schools or focus on the top schools? How important is parity?
- Are recruits an athlete who goes to attend a university or a student who happens to play athletics? How important are academics and academic accomplishments? Should they be paid a stipend for "working" for the university?...
- What are the rules around recruiting? Should recruiting be allowed? How much power does the individual have vs how much power does the institution have? How binding is the letter of intent?

It feels like the NCAA needs to go back to basics.

[JohnsonsJerseys]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

The [old] WCHA would have been hurt without Minnesota or Wisconsin, but it would have done okay-ish tournament wise for attendance, but the checks would have not been to UND and DU's liking.

Here's another irony. DU and UND bailed because of the "high cost of the WCHA" sans UW / UM. Yet, by leaving the WCHA, they gave up the opportunity to have additional home games via AK exemptions which would have MORE than made up for any perceived lost revenue. Living in Denver, I can tell you first hand DU's popularity in their own head is much greater than what it actually is. They can't even sell out their own home games (6000 seat arena in a metro population of 2,500,000+ people) playing "powerful hockey only school NCHC opponents". If you can't even draw 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the local population to watch your team, your ego is way bigger than your fan base.

Let's just swag some numbers. Say you host only one extra exemption home game per season. You're a "power house team" so you should have no problem filling your own barn playing a top flight non-conference game. (As a "top" program everyone will want to come play you.) Now take those 6000 seats and assume you only make a minimal $5 profit per seat after operating expenses - that's $30k. You're telling me the small schools cost your "high profile" program >$30,000 per season? Right, tell me another one.

The real problem is that DU can't fill their own building so they used the Bi6-7 as an excuse and bailed, telling their fans it was the small schools that caused all their financial woes and empty seats. You would think a "big hockey school" wouldn't have a problem finding the money to compete on a national level, regardless of who they played. Short on money? How about call all your so called "fans" and hold out your hand like other schools have to do?

Everyone says the new WCHA would be broke and the teams would fold. So how do all the "poor schools" in the new WCHA continue to exist? Surely we would have all folded once the "money makers" left the conference. **Looks around** That's weird because last I checked, the conference still has the same number of teams it did when it realigned. Which conference has teams truly more dedicated to keeping their programs running?

Granted the two AK programs are on thin ice, but that has nothing to do with hockey. That's an entire collegiate athletics department state wide nearly being burned to the ground via a legislative dumpster fire.

Ryan

[gfmorris]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Nothing in college athletics will change until the NCAA decides the following:
- What is the goal of athletics at universities? Is University sports primary goal a money making business? Is it to server as a place to develop recruits into potential professional athletes?...
- How important is the overall sports program health? Should the NCAA/Association worry about the health of all schools or focus on the top schools? How important is parity?
- Are recruits an athlete who goes to attend a university or a student who happens to play athletics? How important are academics and academic accomplishments? Should they be paid a stipend for "working" for the university?...
- What are the rules around recruiting? Should recruiting be allowed? How much power does the individual have vs how much power does the institution have? How binding is the letter of intent?

It feels like the NCAA needs to go back to basics.

I agree 100%.

GFM

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

That's where I wanted to go with this. Why would a kid avoid a school like NMU when they see they are 20th on the depth chart at Michigan, NoDak or Minnesota? With the recruiting info out there, kids and their "advisors" can see that they aren't the only ones who committed. They can see that the kid who is currently schooling them in the USHL also signed on with said school. Why not buy into a smaller program at that point?

The "saving" thing is there is only so much ice time. If someone wants to play college hockey and get "pushed" out, there will/could be schools out there that can pick them up. I wouldn't be surprised to see some WCHA level schools consistently appear to "under recruit" and pick up player(s) who have lost their spot on big money teams.

The "Wild West" thing rarely works in the long term. Look at what has happened to MLB. They don't have a salary cap and only a handful of teams have a consistent chance to win the World Series. The smaller teams have to pick their chances to make a run and then go through a long rebuilding process. In the NFL (excluding the Browns and New England) the teams competing for playoff slots change year to year. That to me is much more exciting to know my team can be relevant after a few seasons rather than a decade if ever.

[Squarebanks]

Here's another irony. DU and UND bailed because of the "high cost of the WCHA" sans UW / UM. Yet, by leaving the WCHA, they gave up the opportunity to have additional home games via AK exemptions which would have MORE than made up for any perceived lost revenue. Living in Denver, I can tell you first hand DU's popularity in their own head is much greater than what it actually is. They can't even sell out their own home games (6000 seat arena in a metro population of 2,500,000+ people) playing "powerful hockey only school NCHC opponents". If you can't even draw 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the local population to watch your team, your ego is way bigger than your fan base.

Let's just swag some numbers. Say you host only one extra exemption home game per season. You're a "power house team" so you should have no problem filling your own barn playing a top flight non-conference game. (As a "top" program everyone will want to come play you.) Now take those 6000 seats and assume you only make a minimal $5 profit per seat after operating expenses - that's $30k. You're telling me the small schools cost your "high profile" program >$30,000 per season? Right, tell me another one.

The real problem is that DU can't fill their own building so they used the Bi6-7 as an excuse and bailed, telling their fans it was the small schools that caused all their financial woes and empty seats. You would think a "big hockey school" wouldn't have a problem finding the money to compete on a national level, regardless of who they played. Short on money? How about call all your so called "fans" and hold out your hand like other schools have to do?

Everyone says the new WCHA would be broke and the teams would fold. So how do all the "poor schools" in the new WCHA continue to exist? Surely we would have all folded once the "money makers" left the conference. **Looks around** That's weird because last I checked, the conference still has the same number of teams it did when it realigned. Which conference has teams truly more dedicated to keeping their programs running?

Granted the two AK programs are on thin ice, but that has nothing to do with hockey. That's an entire collegiate athletics department state wide nearly being burned to the ground via a legislative dumpster fire.

Ryan

Worth noting that that North Dakota and Denver have both made trips to Alaska since realignment...multiple trips in the case of North Dakota.

Also, “legislative dumpster fire” is not an inaccurate statement. But both programs are safe now.

[Jimjamesak]

Worth noting that that North Dakota and Denver have both made trips to Alaska since realignment...multiple trips in the case of North Dakota.

Also, “legislative dumpster fire” is not an inaccurate statement. But both programs are safe now.

To be fair the Legislature has gotten better on the House side since those Republicans crossed over to form the majority with the Democrats.

[Jimjamesak]

Here's another irony. DU and UND bailed because of the "high cost of the WCHA" sans UW / UM. Yet, by leaving the WCHA, they gave up the opportunity to have additional home games via AK exemptions which would have MORE than made up for any perceived lost revenue. Living in Denver, I can tell you first hand DU's popularity in their own head is much greater than what it actually is. They can't even sell out their own home games (6000 seat arena in a metro population of 2,500,000+ people) playing "powerful hockey only school NCHC opponents". If you can't even draw 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the local population to watch your team, your ego is way bigger than your fan base.

Let's just swag some numbers. Say you host only one extra exemption home game per season. You're a "power house team" so you should have no problem filling your own barn playing a top flight non-conference game. (As a "top" program everyone will want to come play you.) Now take those 6000 seats and assume you only make a minimal $5 profit per seat after operating expenses - that's $30k. You're telling me the small schools cost your "high profile" program >$30,000 per season? Right, tell me another one.

The real problem is that DU can't fill their own building so they used the Bi6-7 as an excuse and bailed, telling their fans it was the small schools that caused all their financial woes and empty seats. You would think a "big hockey school" wouldn't have a problem finding the money to compete on a national level, regardless of who they played. Short on money? How about call all your so called "fans" and hold out your hand like other schools have to do?

Everyone says the new WCHA would be broke and the teams would fold. So how do all the "poor schools" in the new WCHA continue to exist? Surely we would have all folded once the "money makers" left the conference. **Looks around** That's weird because last I checked, the conference still has the same number of teams it did when it realigned. Which conference has teams truly more dedicated to keeping their programs running?

Granted the two AK programs are on thin ice, but that has nothing to do with hockey. That's an entire collegiate athletics department state wide nearly being burned to the ground via a legislative dumpster fire.

Ryan

You were on the right track with DU’s ego. The NCHC has never really been about money, don’t get me wrong, money was always a part, it’s always been about prestige. DU and NoDak have been two schools, since the 90’s at least, seeking some sort of validation, NoDak against it’s football brother, DU against just being an irrelevant, third rate Stanford. With the B1G schools leaving, suddenly any prestige would be gone. Sure, it would’ve been a guaranteed NCAA birth every year but it’s hard to sell yourself as big if all you’re doing is beating up no names. So, they basically tried to position themselves close to prestigiously equal to the B1G, a conference with every other power school.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Having never been through the recruiting process myself or with a kid, please explain something:

- These kids can count. If a school recruits a class of 25 skaters, some have to know that they all aren't making the team. With the plethora of blogs and other musings out there, they have to see where they rank. Why ignore that info? Is it just a case of not wanting to be honest about their skill level? I get that all these kids see themselves as NHL-caliber, but at some point, they have to realize their situation, right?

well here is an example:

That is a list of every defenseman currently committed to Michigan according to Elite Prospects or Heisenberg. The different colored year is the last chance to come in without losing eligibility.
While that list is really long, if none of them come in until they're 20 or 21, it won't be a problem...because the commits rage from 15 to 21.
I tried to look into this to call them out but its hard to do that without knowing what promises have been made by Michigan to each of them. Obviously it won't work out for all of them but it's hard to prove that right now.

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Here's another irony. DU and UND bailed because of the "high cost of the WCHA" sans UW / UM. Yet, by leaving the WCHA, they gave up the opportunity to have additional home games via AK exemptions which would have MORE than made up for any perceived lost revenue. Living in Denver, I can tell you first hand DU's popularity in their own head is much greater than what it actually is. They can't even sell out their own home games (6000 seat arena in a metro population of 2,500,000+ people) playing "powerful hockey only school NCHC opponents". If you can't even draw 0.25% (one quarter of one percent) of the local population to watch your team, your ego is way bigger than your fan base.

Let's just swag some numbers. Say you host only one extra exemption home game per season. You're a "power house team" so you should have no problem filling your own barn playing a top flight non-conference game. (As a "top" program everyone will want to come play you.) Now take those 6000 seats and assume you only make a minimal $5 profit per seat after operating expenses - that's $30k. You're telling me the small schools cost your "high profile" program >$30,000 per season? Right, tell me another one.

The real problem is that DU can't fill their own building so they used the Bi6-7 as an excuse and bailed, telling their fans it was the small schools that caused all their financial woes and empty seats. You would think a "big hockey school" wouldn't have a problem finding the money to compete on a national level, regardless of who they played. Short on money? How about call all your so called "fans" and hold out your hand like other schools have to do?

Everyone says the new WCHA would be broke and the teams would fold. So how do all the "poor schools" in the new WCHA continue to exist? Surely we would have all folded once the "money makers" left the conference. **Looks around** That's weird because last I checked, the conference still has the same number of teams it did when it realigned. Which conference has teams truly more dedicated to keeping their programs running?

Granted the two AK programs are on thin ice, but that has nothing to do with hockey. That's an entire collegiate athletics department state wide nearly being burned to the ground via a legislative dumpster fire.

Ryan

I believe the Alaska schools pay for teams to travel to Alaska. Don't know what % but there is some money paid out.

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

well here is an example:

That is a list of every defenseman currently committed to Michigan according to Elite Prospects or Heisenberg. The different colored year is the last chance to come in without losing eligibility.
While that list is really long, if none of them come in until they're 20 or 21, it won't be a problem...because the commits rage from 15 to 21.
I tried to look into this to call them out but its hard to do that without knowing what promises have been made by Michigan to each of them. Obviously it won't work out for all of them but it's hard to prove that right now.

As bad as we think over-recruiting is, schools like U of MI need to have some protection against guys who leave early. They have to have a rough idea of who is going to leave when and how many kids they need to have lined up. If they need to cut a few or push their commitment out another year or two, the program's success (their job) is more important.