PDA

View Full Version : D1 or D3 ??



Pages : [1] 2

valiantfan08
08-04-2009, 08:24 PM
I must admit I only see one or two Division 1 games a year and probably 5-6 D3 games a year. However, I often wonder why would a young girl who may not be an impact player or a player who does not play at all would still want to go "play D1" when in fact they don't play. Just a thought.

notfromaroundhere
08-04-2009, 09:08 PM
I must admit I only see one or two Division 1 games a year and probably 5-6 D3 games a year. However, I often wonder why would a young girl who may not be an impact player or a player who does not play at all would still want to go "play D1" when in fact they don't play. Just a thought.

Ego.

Or more likely, Parent's ego.

joegrav
08-04-2009, 09:20 PM
Or because if you can't be in the Olympics, winning a D1 championship (and playing with some of the best players in the world) is pretty much the pinnacle of the women's game?

Not to mention the facilities and perks that a lot of D1 programs have that D3 programs can't offer.

Nothing wrong with playing D3, but I wouldn't bag on anyone for playing D1 even if they get limited icetime. They're just chasing the dream like anyone else.

vellnueve
08-04-2009, 09:20 PM
Maybe they like the school?

joegrav
08-04-2009, 09:24 PM
To cite BC as an example, even if you ride on the bench most of the time, you get to play in the same rink that Joe Mullen, Brian Gionta, Brian Leetch, Nate Gerbe, Alison Quandt, Sarah Carlson, Molly Schaus, and Kell Stack have played on, plus you get access to strength and conditioning facilities designed for a top-40 D1A football program. And, they get to throw on the same jersey and be a part of the same program that plays on ESPN, etc.

Same goes if you play for the Gophers or Wisco or BU or North Dakota or another storied program. It's an honor just to play on that level.

Not to mention the fact that, as vell said, the primary consideration is (or at least should be) academic and social fit at a certain school.

valiantfan08
08-04-2009, 09:40 PM
at the end of the day their is no NHL and pro scouts at your games, so you might as well and enjoy the experience and PLAY. Obviously the high end players should play D1.

notfromaroundhere
08-04-2009, 10:23 PM
I'll grant it that certain college environments (large flagship State U for example) don't exist in D3, so if that is your thing, go there. I guess they must enjoy practicing with the varsity squad and hang with them on game day.

Hard to imagine though spending so many years playing youth hockey to spend so much time practicing at college with only an occasional shift when you do get to dress....

The good news is though that many of them come to miss the game time and transfer to D3 after a year or 2 of this.

gojackets
08-05-2009, 12:25 AM
I'll grant it that certain college environments (large flagship State U for example) don't exist in D3, so if that is your thing, go there. I guess they must enjoy practicing with the varsity squad and hang with them on game day.

Hard to imagine though spending so many years playing youth hockey to spend so much time practicing at college with only an occasional shift when you do get to dress....

The good news is though that many of them come to miss the game time and transfer to D3 after a year or 2 of this.

mostly to UW-Superior :D :D

77-22
08-05-2009, 08:48 AM
I will throw a twist into this..

Student who Loves two or more sports, could PLAY Div 1 in either... to do this you have to give up 1 of them in most cases.

Follow the Dream.... If that dream is two sports on college you have to give up something either way

UCONN FAN
08-05-2009, 09:47 AM
even if you ride on the bench most of the time,

Wow, thats one way to look at it I guess. So give up a chance to actually play the sport you love at, lets say a NESCAC school to wear the same jersey Gionta and ect wore? Crazy!!!! Hopefully you find a good school and a place you will play.

THE Icemom
08-05-2009, 09:50 AM
I agree with whomever said something about ego. Bragging rights..."I play D1 hockey at **********". It doesn't matter if they see one shift a game or one shift all season, they can say they play D1 hockey. Since it is more important that the academic fit be right, the first priority should be just that. Is this a school I want to attend, do I want big or small classes, do I mind there are 10,000 students or is that overwhelming to me, would I do better with a school the size of my high school. These are the questions a student should be pondering. They should not be picking the school based on whether it is a D1 or D3 program, they should be picking the school based on the school itself. Hockey is still, when day is done, just a game.

Just my two cents.

Plugger
08-05-2009, 10:15 AM
Maybe they like the school?

They better more than just like the school, they better love it. Any child going to play D1 or even D3 for that mattaer are a very select few each year. Most of the kids going on to play hockey in college are usually the better players on their teams they played on while in high school. It would be hard for anyone who used to be one of the better players, who got the most ice time on their pre-college teams, to then become a player who many times does not dress for most college games.

These are young competitive people, and as I look around the D1 and D3 rinks at the players who do not dress, they are not usually all that happy.

Sooooo, you better love the school you are at, because the sport that you loved in high school that now you do not play that much for, is going to be a very frustrating part of your life.

I do not know many kids that love to practice, but do not mind not playing games. Find a school that you really like where you know you will be a real factor in games and enjoy your 4 years.

Just my 2 cents!!

ccookie79
08-05-2009, 01:07 PM
If hockey is that far up on my daughter's priority list, I'd want her on the team where she might get some playing time. It's not like there's a post-college ice hockey career for her anyway so I'd want her to be happy and enjoy the time she has left in the sport. If her academics were such that D1 is the place to be, then I'd take the bench with the better curriculum.

GarbageGoal08
08-05-2009, 04:11 PM
Some people love the WHOLE aspect of the game, rather than just the glory and praise given for scoring lots of goals.

Winning a D1 Championship is the closest that most girls can get to winning a Stanley Cup. You're still a part of the team, doing the workouts, bonding, and are still very important in the teams success

D2D
08-05-2009, 04:32 PM
Many good points so far but here are some other considerations that I don't think have been mentioned:

1. Some may have a D1 scholarship offer (athletic, even if partial) that comes into play when weighing their decision. Even if it's probable at the time that she likely won't get much playing time, money (bottom line cost) can be a big consideration, especially in this economy.

2. Some may choose to take advantage of their hockey skill as a way to gain admission to a prestigious school, like one of the Ivy's, which could outweigh playing time considerations. Here again, the final cost could actually be less (vs. a prestigious/private D3 school) when financial need is taken into consideration. Or if cost is not a serious issue, or no issue at all, mere acceptance into her "dream school" can take priority over being a 1st liner at the D3 level.

3. For a variety of reasons D1 coaches will try and ususally succeed at attracting more players than they can have suit up at given game. There will almost always be some extras, irrespective of all the individual decisions made (and the rationale for making them) from the perspective of each player. Some who come in with high expectations don't pan out; others who are recruited as role players end up over-achieving and become an intregal part of the team.

Bottom line is that it's easy to second-guess a player's reasoning after it's all said and done, as the circumstances and priorities for each one will be different!

BTW67
08-05-2009, 05:22 PM
Also, who's to say that a player who starts out on the bench won't be able to develop their game and get more ice time as they get older and gain experience? They have to have the heart and the drive to "pay their dues" and there are no guarantees. At the same time, what better way is there to improve than to play/practice with the best? The challenge can be rewarding in and of itself.

crzyeagle
08-06-2009, 12:12 PM
A lot of the points made so far have been spot on. Also there is that "broken leg" scenario. Say you break your leg during the beginning of the season or during the season and can't play the rest of the year. Would you be happy at the school as a student? I would hope so if you already made your decision to attend. But again would you be happy to be a student of your school? Would you be ok with (for the time being hopefully) being a "normal" student? I took that into consideration when I chose what school I ended up playing D1.

And the other points made about being happy with the role you've been given have been spot on too. Especially this season with my team's coaching change, I know that there are going to be a few players that may not accept their new role if that includes sitting in the stands during home games and staying on campus during road trips.

It's all on the decision of the athlete if that want to have that ability to say they play D1 even if that means actual limited playing time or if they want to go the D3 route and play the role they've been given on that team. I think for a lot of D1 athletes too that may not get much playing time, it's the territory that comes with being a D1 athlete. All the perks, especially when it comes to getting summer jobs at sports clinics, the clinic staff can boast that they have D1 athletes working for them, etc..

Put athletics aside though and academics should be the first priority like the others have stated because there's no Stanley Cup finals for women so you better be prepared for life after college is over!

Those are my 2 cents...

wihobserver
08-06-2009, 12:17 PM
If hockey is that far up on my daughter's priority list, I'd want her on the team where she might get some playing time. It's not like there's a post-college ice hockey career for her anyway so I'd want her to be happy and enjoy the time she has left in the sport. If her academics were such that D1 is the place to be, then I'd take the bench with the better curriculum.

and what if this was about your son instead of your daughter...i sense a bit of a double-standard based on gender in your post...should the priority list be any different if this was your son?...imho it shouldn't be

brookyone
08-06-2009, 01:31 PM
and what if this was about your son instead of your daughter...i sense a bit of a double-standard based on gender in your post...should the priority list be any different if this was your son?...imho it shouldn't be
The circumstances or scenario between the men and women are so different...I don't think you can make any standardized comparison. A standout player in D-I women's hockey does not have the possibilty of playing professionally after college, a distinct possibility the standout NCAA men's player does enjoy.

Unfortunately...a double standard in this case is probably very realistic and I can understand where decisions based on, or driven by that reality may benefit the female hockey player long term.

spike
08-06-2009, 01:34 PM
and what if this was about your son instead of your daughter...i sense a bit of a double-standard based on gender in your post...should the priority list be any different if this was your son?...imho it shouldn't be

You bring in another set of issues that make a boy's choice clearly different. With the girls, there is no professional path after college. With boys, there is a path. So, in addition to finding the right school, the right coach, the right roster, etc., the boys also have to factor in their chances of advancing into a professional career, and have to decide which program gives them the best shot. I know many cases where this issue was more important to the player than the academics. Hypothetically if a boy turns down a bottom of the roster spot at Notre Dame in order to play 1st line at a lesser academic institution, nobody bats an eyelash because he's taking his best shot at getting to the next level. But, if a girl turns down a bottom of the roster spot at BC to get a regular shift at SCSU, people question her priorities. (I don't mean to impune St. Cloud by the way, I'm just using that as an example of my point.) IMHO this is not gender bias or a double standard, its because of the career opportunities available to the boys.