PDA

View Full Version : Severe Ronaldstorm Warning: the Michigan Tech 2010-11 Season Thread, Part the Second



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

bigblue_dl
01-17-2011, 08:22 AM
I know that we can't afford it, but I think the solution is to have a new position that would act as an AD for just the hockey program, maybe a Hockey General Manager. Sanregret is obviously doing a good job as AD for all other sports, and I don't think we can put much of the hockey failure on her. The idea that the school president should be fired because the hockey team sucks, is purely assinine. I'm not sure how the internal structure of the athletic department works, and maybe this suggestion is already the case, but I think that the AD needs to focus solely on the hockey program over the next 3-4 years, and delegate other work to an assistant AD. She should put all of her energy and time towards the hockey team. I don't know if it will help but is sure as hell won't hurt.

geezer
01-17-2011, 08:32 AM
I was finally disappointed enough by Saturday's fiasco to hop up on the "fire Russell" bandwagon. But in talking to a "former player who knows people", he is under contract for next season and the admin isn't willing to eat the contract to get rid of him a year early. So all this talk about replacements would seem to be 14 months premature; unless some wealthy alum is disgusted enough to make a conditional $120K donation.

bigblue_dl
01-17-2011, 08:39 AM
I was finally disappointed enough by Saturday's fiasco to hop up on the "fire Russell" bandwagon. But in talking to a "former player who knows people", he is under contract for next season and the admin isn't willing to eat the contract to get rid of him a year early. So all this talk about replacements would seem to be 14 months premature; unless some wealthy alum is disgusted enough to make a conditional $120K donation.
Maybe The Institution has the need for a $120k/year janitor somewhere.

Shirtless Guy
01-17-2011, 09:16 AM
In this day and age, you can't have a coach go into the final year of his contract without an extension. I understand tech not wanting to eat that money but having a coach in his final year like that...if its anything like this year, it will only hurt things going forward with recruiting.

geezer
01-17-2011, 09:26 AM
In this day and age, you can't have a coach go into the final year of his contract without an extension. I understand tech not wanting to eat that money but having a coach in his final year like that...if its anything like this year, it will only hurt things going forward with recruiting.
yeah, there's that. so a decision will have to be made this year I guess. Carry on with nominating your candidates.

The_Commissioner
01-17-2011, 10:07 AM
Change the AD's boss? Wouldn't that be the president? You can't possibly be suggesting that you get rid of the president of the university because the hockey team is losing??? I apologize if I have my mental org chart messed up.

I haven't seen the current org chart, but if memory serves correctly, the AD reports to a VP. This makes sense because it insulates the University President from potential problems arising in the athletic depart or with boosters.

Nevertheless, the AD is not being held accountable (yet) for Tech's highest profile athletic program turning into a national embarrassment. Would the administration stand by and watch Tech grads fall well below the national average in passing the EIT or gaining admittance to graduate schools? Why is the AD exempt from being taken to task for the neglect of an important part of the MTU franchise/tradition? Who is protecting her and why?

If the Tech name is going to be on something, then there should be resources AND the will dedicated to its success or else we shouldn't be doing it. It is not acceptable to say, "Oh, we run a clean program and our players graduate even though we don't win." Winning and graduating are not opposite outcomes and many schools, including Tech in the winning era, prove that.

This hockey season in Houghton is not an anomoly. The last decade is not an anomoly. The Perpetual Losing Culture(PLC) is so embedded in Tech hockey that even a man of high integrity and deep hockey knowledge like Coach Russell cannot change it. Change needs to happen higher in the org chart than the athletic department. Anything less is confirmation that the President tolerates the PLC.

Shirtless Guy
01-17-2011, 10:10 AM
I haven't seen the current org chart, but if memory serves correctly, the AD reports to a VP. This makes sense because it insulates the University President from potential problems arising in the athletic depart or with boosters.

Nevertheless, the AD is not being held accountable (yet) for Tech's highest profile athletic program turning into a national embarrassment. Would the administration stand by and watch Tech grads fall well below the national average in passing the EIT or gaining admittance to graduate schools? Why is the AD exempt from being taken to task for the neglect of an important part of the MTU franchise/tradition? Who is protecting her and why?

If the Tech name is going to be on something, then there should be resources AND the will dedicated to its success or else we shouldn't be doing it. It is not acceptable to say, "Oh, we run a clean program and our players graduate even though we don't win." Winning and graduating are not opposite outcomes and many schools, including Tech in the winning era, prove that.

This hockey season in Houghton is not an anomoly. The last decade is not an anomoly. The Perpetual Losing Culture(PLC) is so embedded in Tech hockey that even a man of high integrity and deep hockey knowledge like Coach Russell cannot change it. Change needs to happen higher in the org chart than the athletic department. Anything less is confirmation that the President tolerates the PLC.The football program is completely funded by donations from Alumni because the athletic department almost cut it. Do you really think MTU is financially able to spend MORE money on hockey now than they are?

huskyfan
01-17-2011, 10:15 AM
Russell's done a good job on almost everything but winning. recruiting (yeah, yeah I know some of you disagree, but I think something goes wrong AFTER the players get to Tech), fund raising, facilities upgrades, good spokesman for the program, etc etc. He would be the perfect hockey "AD". kick him upstairs so to speak. I doubt Tech has the $$$ to add the position though. and he may not be interested in it.

(topic change)

we attended Air Force hockey last weekend. Serratore (the coach) is something else. he's barking at the players the minute they come off the ice if they screwed something up. and his postgame show is a hoot. its a 10-15 minute "stream of consciousness" - all him - not questions from the announcer - and he does call out players, names names, talks about the team not being psychologically in the game. now here's a guy coaching a team - probably every single player on the team is 2x smarter than he is - and all are receiving extensive training in leadership - yet this rooster of a coach totally commands the players respect and gets results.

maybe Tech needs a heavier hand?

The_Commissioner
01-17-2011, 10:15 AM
In this day and age, you can't have a coach go into the final year of his contract without an extension. I understand tech not wanting to eat that money but having a coach in his final year like that...if its anything like this year, it will only hurt things going forward with recruiting.

If nothing else, what you've revealed here is the handwriting on the wall.

bigblue_dl
01-17-2011, 10:22 AM
Tech hockey has been receiving significant donation to renovate the arena and other hockey facilities. Maybe after a couple last improvements are complete (cough...video scoreboard...cough) that same revenue stream can be utilized into increasing the compensation for coaches and other hockey-specific athletic department positions.

The_Commissioner
01-17-2011, 10:40 AM
The football program is completely funded by donations from Alumni because the athletic department almost cut it. Do you really think MTU is financially able to spend MORE money on hockey now than they are?

It takes X amount of dollars to compete at the D1 level. Notice the operative word is "compete," not 'win.' A look at Tech's record in the last 25 years doesn't give me a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings that we are competitive. We are playing the game, but are we really competing?

If we are spending LT than X dollars, then I must ask why the administration thinks they can get away with playing fast and loose with an important part of the University's tradition. If we are not going to do what it takes to compete, why continue to play the (D1) game?

It's not like MTU cannot tinker with the tradition when it no longer makes sense to continue with a loser. Notice that the school was born under the name Michigan College of Mines. How many students will receive Mining Engineering degrees this year?

oldish husky
01-17-2011, 10:48 AM
How an administration responds to academic success of graduates vs hockey success are two different things. It's a university with a hockey program (insert sarcasm here), not a hockey organization with a school.

Having said that, I do like the idea of a dedicated AD for hockey in some capacity. Money is tight, but it always seems to show up somehow for things that the administration really cares about. Should hockey be one of those things? That's not a question I'm qualified to answer.

geezer
01-17-2011, 10:49 AM
It takes X amount of dollars to compete at the D1 level. Notice the operative word is "compete," not 'win.' A look at Tech's record in the last 25 years doesn't give me a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings that we are competitive. We are playing the game, but are we really competing?

If we are spending LT than X dollars, then I must ask why the administration thinks they can get away with playing fast and loose with an important part of the University's tradition. If we are not going to do what it takes to compete, why continue to play the (D1) game?

It's not like MTU cannot tinker with the tradition when it no longer makes sense to continue with a loser. Notice that the school was born under the name Michigan College of Mines. How many students will receive Mining Engineering degrees this year?
wait, what? If you're suggesting that MTU should drop hockey, why are you here posting at all? Go play with your Wii.

The_Commissioner
01-17-2011, 10:52 AM
wait, what? If you're suggesting that MTU should drop hockey, why are you here posting at all? Go play with your Wii.

I'm suggesting the administration, to use an old cliche, either 'crap or get off the pot.' Or if you are an angler, 'fish or cut bait.'

BTW, what's a "Wii?"

oldish husky
01-17-2011, 10:53 AM
It takes X amount of dollars to compete at the D1 level. Notice the operative word is "compete," not 'win.' A look at Tech's record in the last 25 years doesn't give me a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings that we are competitive. We are playing the game, but are we really competing?

If we are spending LT than X dollars, then I must ask why the administration thinks they can get away with playing fast and loose with an important part of the University's tradition. If we are not going to do what it takes to compete, why continue to play the (D1) game?

It's not like MTU cannot tinker with the tradition when it no longer makes sense to continue with a loser. Notice that the school was born under the name Michigan College of Mines. How many students will receive Mining Engineering degrees this year?

The commissioner makes a very good point. If the argument is that money is too tight to invest in the hockey program further, then one has to ask if the money already invested is wasted at a time when money is tight. If you need a car, you can't buy just the body, and then explain that it doesn't move because you can't afford the engine. At that point whatever money you spend on the body is a waste because it just sits in your driveway while you walk to work.

Either buy the whole car, or move to the scooter league???

Shirtless Guy
01-17-2011, 11:03 AM
The commissioner makes a very good point. If the argument is that money is too tight to invest in the hockey program further, then one has to ask if the money already invested is wasted at a time when money is tight. If you need a car, you can't buy just the body, and then explain that it doesn't move because you can't afford the engine. At that point whatever money you spend on the body is a waste because it just sits in your driveway while you walk to work.

Either buy the whole car, or move to the scooter league???I dont even know why I get involved in this kind of crap. The Hockey program isn't going anywhere because it doesn't lose money for the University thanks to the WCHA check. The School has been investing tons of money into infrastructure thanks to donations that allowed for new seats, suites, boxes and other things like the treadmill. It could be considered appropriate to discuss whether those were the right investments instead of paying more for the staff around Russell. Huskyfan brought up probably the biggest argument against Russell besides his record. The apparent lack of development from players after they get here. Recruiting does seem to be pretty good but players seem to plateau some time before their junior year.

bigblue_dl
01-17-2011, 11:11 AM
I agree that the program isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It is obvious that the administration is commited to at least having a team, I'm not convinced anymore that they care if the team is competitive. They have dumped way too much money into the facilities to walk away. The only problem with all of this is if Tech's hand gets forced by the elephant in the room, anyone who is familiar with the state of western college hockey knows what I'm talking about.

Biddco
01-17-2011, 11:34 AM
Biddco's team song is "I Just Had Sex."

There's really only one choice for ours.

******** width="640" height="385">******* name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4pXfHLUlZf4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param>******* name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>******* name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>******* src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4pXfHLUlZf4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I very much approve! :D

oldish husky
01-17-2011, 12:14 PM
I dont even know why I get involved in this kind of crap. The Hockey program isn't going anywhere because it doesn't lose money for the University thanks to the WCHA check. The School has been investing tons of money into infrastructure thanks to donations that allowed for new seats, suites, boxes and other things like the treadmill. It could be considered appropriate to discuss whether those were the right investments instead of paying more for the staff around Russell. Huskyfan brought up probably the biggest argument against Russell besides his record. The apparent lack of development from players after they get here. Recruiting does seem to be pretty good but players seem to plateau some time before their junior year.

My point wasn't that the program should go away. I very much want it to stay and be competitive. When I wrote this it was under the assumption that keeping the program was the only acceptable option, and given that that is the case, it should be supported.

Thinking back, way back, Russell's greatest selling point when he got the job was recruiting based on his performance at Ferris and Cornell. The ability to do the rest of the "head coach" stuff was unknown. Maybe it's just simply a case where Russell is a really good assistant coach for recruiting.

geezer
01-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Huskyfan brought up probably the biggest argument against Russell besides his record. The apparent lack of development from players after they get here. Recruiting does seem to be pretty good but players seem to plateau some time before their junior year.
This is interesting to me so I looked it up. Going only by points - Considering players that Russell has coached for 3-4 years, they average 6.85, 10, 9.65, and 10.26 points by year. Many of them make a good jump to their sophomore year, then a number of them do regress while most are pretty flat beyond that point.
Gwilliam, Skworchinski, Kerr, and Kivisto produced a lot more in their last year or two. Angelow, Batovanja, Bunger and St. Louis fell off a cliff. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with linemates, injuries, PP roles, and etc. but the "junior slump" is a lot more frequent than you'd expect. That graph should read 6.85, 10, 15, 20 in a perfect world.

And a bunch of other things screw it up - I probably wasn't consistent in dealing with 3-yr transfer players, gwilliam's parts of 5 yrs, etc. My lunch break is too short for accuracy.

And there's this: the same group of all available players scored 429 points in their first two years, and 539 points in their most recent two years (some of these are current seniors; many played only 3 yrs)