RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

[Waite21]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

I certainly agree with everybody who identifies difficulty in scoring goals as a major problem for RPI's team this year.

Ralph is probably familiar with Craig Laughlin, the color man on Washington Capitals telecasts. (All right, he used to play for Clarkson, but I'll try not to hold that against him too strongly.)

When the Capitals score on a rebound, Laughlin frequently comes out with such old-time Canadian hockeyisms as "He was Johnny on the spot!" and "He made no mistake!"

Here's hoping that in the second half of the season, RPI will have more Johnnies on the spot (no, that isn't meant as a commentary on the Field House rest rooms).

But first, let's hope that the guys make no mistakes, or at least not too many of them, on their final exams this coming week. You can't score a goal if you're academically ineligible.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

I certainly agree with everybody who identifies difficulty in scoring goals as a major problem for RPI's team this year.

Ralph is probably familiar with Craig Laughlin, the color man on Washington Capitals telecasts. (All right, he used to play for Clarkson, but I'll try not to hold that against him too strongly.)

When the Capitals score on a rebound, Laughlin frequently comes out with such old-time Canadian hockeyisms as "He was Johnny on the spot!" and "He made no mistake!"

Here's hoping that in the second half of the season, RPI will have more Johnnies on the spot (no, that isn't meant as a commentary on the Field House rest rooms).

But first, let's hope that the guys make no mistakes, or at least not too many of them, on their final exams this coming week. You can't score a goal if you're academically ineligible.

I rarely watch the Capitals.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

It appears we have returned to square one again. All we want is a team that shows it is getting some traction and not just spinning its wheels. I have been a season ticket holder for 27 years. When I share that with others, I always qualify that with "lots of very lean years". The discussion here seems to be how to get out of the rut and try to identify why RPI seems incapable of playing more competitively at the D1 level. I think when you can't recruit high level players to your program, it leads to poor records which leads to inability to recruit good players. And on and on. When we have had a couple good players (Murley, Haggarty, Polacek, etc) we have better records. If you don't have good players and the coach cannot develop a system that results in a whole that is better than the sum of its parts, we have RPI hockey. The one thing that seems left out of this discussion is :Is RPI making the investment in the program and facilities to make a qualitative difference? I think we all know the answer to that. So, for me, how long does this go on? Is RPI hockey trying to remain a D1 program? Or is it just one in name only?

I have been thinking about that more and more over the last few years. Remember when a former union President stated that he would be happy if the team finished at .400 or something similar? I have the feeling that RPI's admin doesn't even want the team to do that well.

[25+years]

[QUOTE=Ralph Baer;6735792]I have been thinking about that more and more over the last few years. Remember when a former union President stated that he would be happy if the team finished at .400 or something similar? I have the feeling that RPI's admin doesn't even want the team to do that well.[/QUOTE}

The question is why would a college administration that seeks success stand by and virtually encourage failure? If , as an institution, you want to portray your school in the best possible light to encourage students to attend and the community to donate, having what was once the shining star of your school athletically fail seems incredibly counterintuitive. If you don’t want to make the investment financially, I get that. Invest at a lower level, but invest for success. I mean Union, it would seem, decided they wanted to compete in hockey at the D1 level and they have done what is necessary to accomplish that goal. RPI , it would seem, talks the talk, then just stands there and hopes for the best. I don’t think the first order of business is who the players or the coaches are. I think the first order of business is to find someone (or a group of administrators, alumni players, and perhaps a former successful coach or GM type) who can tell you what needs to be done to compete at a high level, tell you what it will cost, and then decide if you want to pursue that goal. And then either make that investment or play at D3 like the other sports.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

I have been thinking about that more and more over the last few years. Remember when a former union President stated that he would be happy if the team finished at .400 or something similar? I have the feeling that RPI's admin doesn't even want the team to do that well.

But the football team has to be the best of the best. Somehow, I think SAJ is trying to position RPI to be another one of those colleges that gets a boatload from ESPN.

[25+years]

But the football team has to be the best of the best. Somehow, I think SAJ is trying to position RPI to be another one of those colleges that gets a boatload from ESPN.

Interesting thought. I’m surprised, with that perspective, the hockey team would be allowed to opt out of the ESPN tv package. I have a less thought out plan theory than that. I think it’s more “We gave you a new coach and a new weight room and we built a sky box that no one uses” “What more do you want?” The reality is high level competitive college athletics in this day and age takes much more of an investment than that. And when the first thing you do for athletics at a school with a great tradition of D1 hockey is hire an AD who only knows that hockey is a sport played on skates ( no disrespect intended) and you pretty much leave the hockey alumni out of the coach search, you are making a pretty clear statement of what your hockey commitment is.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

Interesting thought. I’m surprised, with that perspective, the hockey team would be allowed to opt out of the ESPN tv package. I have a less thought out plan theory than that. I think it’s more “We gave you a new coach and a new weight room and we built a sky box that no one uses” “What more do you want?” The reality is high level competitive college athletics in this day and age takes much more of an investment than that. And when the first thing you do for athletics at a school with a great tradition of D1 hockey is hire an AD who only knows that hockey is a sport played on skates ( no disrespect intended) and you pretty much leave the hockey alumni out of the coach search, you are making a pretty clear statement of what your hockey commitment is.

Opting out of the ESPN package, which is not TV but rather online subscription, is actually a fight between RPI TV and the ECAC. It's the ECAC that has the contract with ESPN, not the individual schools. The ECAC takes the streams from the various schools and feeds them out, thereby profiting (in this case, money from ESPN) without compensating the schools whatsoever. This is the same deal that existed in the playoffs, although the ECAC received pretty much all viewing money. The staff advisors for RPI-TV have stated they will not give away their feed without either just compensation or promise to offer at no cost to the viewer. Given RPi-TV's reputation for a stellar product compared to anything the league would put into place, we were not included in the subscription deal. http://www.rpitv.org/news_updates/28...live-on-rpi-tv

As for leaving the alumni out, I actually think that was a good idea, applying the "too many cooks" theory as justification. Were the alumni heavily involved when Appert was hired? I wasn't following the program that closely at the time (nor was I here) to know. Although we want our legacy to persevere throughout history, we do have to trust in our representatives (in this case, the administration) to be able to complete the task with the best interests of RPI in mind. The previous AD made some terrible contractual decisions, giving a 4 year extension if we finished a game above 500. I certainly wouldn't have given an extension after the 2010-11 season. After 2012-13 would have then been justified because we had 3 good seasons out of 4, and then that shows the administration impresses the desire for consistency upon the staff. The fact that coach searching was done by a firm that was doing hockey for the first time may have offended some, but there is a first time for everything. And from what I've seen with this coach, he has good concepts and we've seen flashes of solid execution of these concepts. How he impresses consistency of excellence upon these players is yet to be seen, and I believe is what all of us are hoping to see. What that takes, I don't know, and is why I (or my mother, sk8tronthepond ) am not behind the bench. But until that question gets answered, we're going to be in the gutter for a while.

[Noresmen]

It appears we have returned to square one again. All we want is a team that shows it is getting some traction and not just spinning its wheels. I have been a season ticket holder for 27 years. When I share that with others, I always qualify that with "lots of very lean years". The discussion here seems to be how to get out of the rut and try to identify why RPI seems incapable of playing more competitively at the D1 level. I think when you can't recruit high level players to your program, it leads to poor records which leads to inability to recruit good players. And on and on. When we have had a couple good players (Murley, Haggarty, Polacek, etc) we have better records. If you don't have good players and the coach cannot develop a system that results in a whole that is better than the sum of its parts, we have RPI hockey. The one thing that seems left out of this discussion is :Is RPI making the investment in the program and facilities to make a qualitative difference? I think we all know the answer to that. So, for me, how long does this go on? Is RPI hockey trying to remain a D1 program? Or is it just one in name only?

Do you honestly believe that Union, Cornell or Princeton for that matter have better facilities or a stronger commitment to hockey facilities then RPI? Or even SLU? It starts with a coaching staff. The main person isn’t the HC but the recruiting coach. The vision that he can sell. That’s the first step in the process.

RPI has a good structure of facilities. They aren’t the best but they certainly are not the worst. There are also some talented hockey players on this team as well. IMO I’ll say it again this coach isn’t playing to the strong suits of his players. He’s trying to make them play to a suit that fits him. Monty is in the NHL because he adapted to what he had to work with and made both them and he successful.

[capswon]

Do you honestly believe that Union, Cornell or Princeton for that matter have better facilities or a stronger commitment to hockey facilities then RPI? Or even SLU? It starts with a coaching staff. The main person isn’t the HC but the recruiting coach. The vision that he can sell. That’s the first step in the process.

RPI has a good structure of facilities. They aren’t the best but they certainly are not the worst. There are also some talented hockey players on this team as well. IMO I’ll say it again this coach isn’t playing to the strong suits of his players. He’s trying to make them play to a suit that fits him. Monty is in the NHL because he adapted to what he had to work with and made both them and he successful.

I agree. Not playing guys to their strengths. What concerns me is what we see going forward. Wonder if any kids leave during Christmas break.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

Great work and creativity at our annual gingerbread house competition. Congratulations to the winning team - “The Botanical Garden” pic.twitter.com/ZE74W1FzaA

— RPI Men's Hockey (@RPI_Hockey) December 15, 2018

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

I agree. Not playing guys to their strengths. What concerns me is what we see going forward. Wonder if any kids leave during Christmas break.

Conceivably someone will leave since we are getting 3 additional players and that will mean more players would sit out.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

Conceivably someone will leave since we are getting 3 additional players and that will mean more players would sit out.

Not sure that would mean they'd leave. Based on what you broadcast to this forum in the game threads, we've been having 3 eligible scratches each night, and that's going up to 6. That sounds like a healthy number to me, as it promotes competitiveness in practice, but doesn't make it hopeless for an up and coming player; on par with professional leagues. It'd be surprising this year to see anyone leave in December, and would make things much worse.

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI Hockey 2018 - 2019: 28 Guys Skate onto a Rink ...

Not sure that would mean they'd leave. Based on what you broadcast to this forum in the game threads, we've been having 3 eligible scratches each night, and that's going up to 6. That sounds like a healthy number to me, as it promotes competitiveness in practice, but doesn't make it hopeless for an up and coming player; on par with professional leagues. It'd be surprising this year to see anyone leave in December, and would make things much worse.

I agree that 6 is a good number (not including perhaps the 3rd goalie), but someone could think that the grass is greener elsewhere. Also remember that Troy York, a Smith recruit. left midseason last year despite playing regularly.

[rpi82]

But the football team has to be the best of the best. Somehow, I think SAJ is trying to position RPI to be another one of those colleges that gets a boatload from ESPN.

I hope you are joking. ESPN doesn’t give a boatload of money to D-IIII or D-II schools. Nor does it give much to bad D-I FB schools. Here in CT the athletic dept is bleeding badly despite 15 NCAA basketball championships in the last 23 years. When they got left out of the major leagues they ended up in a group that cumulatively (all league schools for BB and FB) get less TV money than the P5 does per school. Think $20M in annual subsidies from general student funds. You don’t want be in that situation.

I’d rather see my alma mater go D-III across the board before it gets completely delusional about an across the board upgrade.

[rpi82]

I agree that 6 is a good number (not including perhaps the 3rd goalie), but someone could think that the grass is greener elsewhere. Also remember that Troy York, a Smith recruit. left midseason last year despite playing regularly.

What happened there was clearly not ice time related. Smith said something about not wanting to make the commitment required to be a D-I player. My guess is that was referring to off-ice commitments.