What if Union moves beyond Assano?

[Skate79]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

Having posted my thoughts on the conference and measuring the 'gap' between the top and bottom teams, I will say that women's hockey has come a long way in the past 15 years. A LONG WAY. Better skating, fundamentals, goaltending, athleticism, speed are all markedly better. So yes, if you were to use those qualities to measure Union, they are better than six or seven years ago. And I guess that points to the topic of this thread; whether Claudia Barcomb should continue to be the coach. If one believes that she is solely the reason for Union not climbing the ladder in the conference.

[john0128]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

the bottom line is why would players want to go to union? heres some reasons why no player that is truly talented is likely to choose Union:

1) Any player that is good enough to make a difference in a program is likely to get a lot of offers from other D1 schools so...

2) Even though Union is a great school academically, there are other schools that are better if not the same academically, and all those school have better teams and maybe nicer facilities at the moment, and those schools will be able to give that player a real scholarship. (Not CABs fault)

3) Perhaps due to being on a losing team the culture at Union is no longer win oriented and recruits can see that (partly CABs fault)

4) Many top tier players are either heart set on going to the Ivy League, or only looking at school that will pay for their education (Not CABs fault)

5) It is unfair to compare men's recruiting to women's recruiting. In Union's case the fact that the men have a great team has more to do with the very small talent gap and abundance of players available. Many men's players who are high calibre players may not have gotten any offers other than from Union. What I am trying to say is that in men's D1 hockey many recruits show up and completely over perform. They were not the best players in high school (maybe they were too small, or got injured and missed a season) but they surprise everyone once they get to D1 hockey. Catch a few of those players in men's hockey and all of the sudden your team is good and better recruits want to come to the school.

This does not happen in women's hockey. The talent pool isn't deep enough to have surprises like they have in men's hockey. If you were an average player and mediocre recruit in high school, then 99.9% of the time you will not be a high impact level player once you reach D1 hockey. All this to say that I would be surprised if Union was able to all of the sudden land high profile recruits even if CAB got fired.

The problem doesn't seem to be CAB, it is more so that good women's players will have several options and just do not want to go to Union. If the program wants to be successful they should consider changing leagues to the weaker CHA or D3, or start making serious changes as to what their program is about and how they are going to appeal to the better players.

This is not saying that Union doesn't already have talented players. I am just implying that they need more of them if they want to compete in the ECAC.

[Hockeydad4two]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

the bottom line is why would players want to go to union? heres some reasons why no player that is truly talented is likely to choose Union:

5) It is unfair to compare men's recruiting to women's recruiting. In Union's case the fact that the men have a great team has more to do with the very small talent gap and abundance of players available. Many men's players who are high calibre players may not have gotten any offers other than from Union. What I am trying to say is that in men's D1 hockey many recruits show up and completely over perform. They were not the best players in high school (maybe they were too small, or got injured and missed a season) but they surprise everyone once they get to D1 hockey. Catch a few of those players in men's hockey and all of the sudden your team is good and better recruits want to come to the school.

Don't forget that the men have a couple of additional years in juniors to develop that the women don't have.

[HockeyEast33]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

Don't forget that the men have a couple of additional years in juniors to develop that the women don't have.

True sort of - most girls players (at least in NE) repeat a school year and are getting to college when they are 19. A few have even then done a post-grad year in JWHL after that - there is at least one 20 year old freshman that I can think of.

[Skate79]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

What I am trying to say is that in men's D1 hockey many recruits show up and completely over perform. They were not the best players in high school (maybe they were too small, or got injured and missed a season) but they surprise everyone once they get to D1 hockey.

We have the opposite problem with the men's program at Harvard. Recruits that are highly rated or sought after yet come to Cambridge and underperform. By a lot. This year was a prime example but it has been going on for years on end. Changing coaches hasn't really solved the problem.

I don't agree with this theory. There is enough information and video out there on players to know who will perform at D-1 and who won't. It used to be that you could find some diamonds in the rough 15 or 20 years ago. John Murphy for Harvard is a prime example. Walked on and became a key contributor to the national championship squad. I really don't see that happening these days because kids are going the junior route before college and are entering as 19 and 20 year old frosh. You don't really surprise anyone when you have a body of work to show the coaches.

[HockeyEast33]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

We have the opposite problem with the men's program at Harvard. Recruits that are highly rated or sought after yet come to Cambridge and underperform. By a lot. This year was a prime example but it has been going on for years on end. Changing coaches hasn't really solved the problem.

I don't agree with this theory. There is enough information and video out there on players to know who will perform at D-1 and who won't. It used to be that you could find some diamonds in the rough 15 or 20 years ago. John Murphy for Harvard is a prime example. Walked on and became a key contributor to the national championship squad. I really don't see that happening these days because kids are going the junior route before college and are entering as 19 and 20 year old frosh. You don't really surprise anyone when you have a body of work to show the coaches.

The more I think about this the more I agree with the above. If mens players are committing as freshman (they are), tracked for the full four years, and then play another year or two of juniors, how many "surprises" can there really be? Seems like the women's game should generate a lot more "surprises" in terms of who is successful in college. So this would lend itself to Union being more successful then it is on the women's side - food for thought...

[ARM]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

5) It is unfair to compare men's recruiting to women's recruiting. In Union's case the fact that the men have a great team has more to do with the very small talent gap and abundance of players available.

IMO, this is the key point. Look at the top scorers in men's hockey. Nobody has yet reached 50 points. On the women's side, there are a number of players who have considerably more. In men's hockey, there are a good number of players that have reached the 40-point plateau, and even more that are in the 30-40 range. For women, the very top scorers produce even more, but it tails off more rapidly; the plateaus are narrower. If you're a team that has one, two, or in rare cases even more of these top scorers, then you have people that can are going to get into the scoring column every weekend, and over the course of the season, that will make the difference between winning and losing a number of times. If you are Union, you're left to try to get a couple of goals off of screens, deflections, or scrums and hope that is enough to win games.

The landscape is improving. Even the worst teams have more talent. Their third-line players can hold their own on the ice against a good first line for a time. Fifteen years ago, that resulted in a goal almost right away.

In men's hockey, lower ranked teams have players who weren't heavily recruited but wind up in the Hobey Baker conversation. In women's hockey, that usually only happens with goalies. Once in a while a forward like Melissa Boal or Felicia Nelson will wind up as a top 10 finalist for the Kaz, but because of her impact, she improves her team to the extent that they finish in the upper division of the league. St. Cloud State finished 3rd in the WCHA the year that Nelson, Caitlyn Hogan, Holly Roberts, and Meghan Pezon were seniors; the next year, they were all gone, and SCSU was dreadful.

Programs like Union wind up with the records that they do because there aren't enough offensive players to go around, and the majority of the most gifted wind up on a small number of teams. In theory, that happens in men's hockey as well, but there is less separation on the men's side between the blue-chip recruits and the next tier, and each tier contains more athletes.

[OneTimer]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

What will never be known in this forum is how much admissions has or has not cooperated with the coaching staff. It would seem that admissions has cooperated equally between the men's and women's program.

[D2D]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

IMO, this is the key point. Look at the top scorers in men's hockey. Nobody has yet reached 50 points. On the women's side, there are a number of players who have considerably more. In men's hockey, there are a good number of players that have reached the 40-point plateau, and even more that are in the 30-40 range. For women, the very top scorers produce even more, but it tails off more rapidly; the plateaus are narrower. If you're a team that has one, two, or in rare cases even more of these top scorers, then you have people that can are going to get into the scoring column every weekend, and over the course of the season, that will make the difference between winning and losing a number of times. If you are Union, you're left to try to get a couple of goals off of screens, deflections, or scrums and hope that is enough to win games.

The landscape is improving. Even the worst teams have more talent. Their third-line players can hold their own on the ice against a good first line for a time. Fifteen years ago, that resulted in a goal almost right away.

In men's hockey, lower ranked teams have players who weren't heavily recruited but wind up in the Hobey Baker conversation. In women's hockey, that usually only happens with goalies. Once in a while a forward like Melissa Boal or Felicia Nelson will wind up as a top 10 finalist for the Kaz, but because of her impact, she improves her team to the extent that they finish in the upper division of the league. St. Cloud State finished 3rd in the WCHA the year that Nelson, Caitlyn Hogan, Holly Roberts, and Meghan Pezon were seniors; the next year, they were all gone, and SCSU was dreadful.

Programs like Union wind up with the records that they do because there aren't enough offensive players to go around, and the majority of the most gifted wind up on a small number of teams. In theory, that happens in men's hockey as well, but there is less separation on the men's side between the blue-chip recruits and the next tier, and each tier contains more athletes.

This is all so true. Just look at the Minnesota men's team - they are No. 2 in the polls and in PWR, but have only one sweep (against UAA) in the WCHA all season. And they have just one player in the nation's top 25 in terms of scoring, with 42 points. On the women's side, Kessel, Brandt and Bozek have 223 points between the three of them.

And look at Quinnipiac's men's team. They are No. 1 in the polls and in PWR, but they have NOBODY with even 30 points. But their women's team has three players with at least 30 points each, led by Kelly Babstock with 55. Yet Quinnipiac is not ranked and their season is over...

Bottom line is that for a number of reasons there is a lot more parity in D1 men's hockey than in women's. And as a fan of both, I don't see this as a bad thing! In fact, one reason I enjoy the women's game A LOT is that the very best players stay with their college team for all four years (for the most part) vs. with the men's so many of the most talented leave early. Around here in Minnesota, we see the same thing at the high school level - for the most part all of the best players stay through their senior year vs. so many of the boys leaving early for juniors or the USA development team in Ann Arbor.

[Call It]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

This is all so true. Just look at the Minnesota men's team - they are No. 2 in the polls and in PWR, but have only one sweep (against UAA) in the WCHA all season. And they have just one player in the nation's top 25 in terms of scoring, with 42 points. On the women's side, Kessel, Brandt and Bozek have 223 points between the three of them.

And look at Quinnipiac's men's team. They are No. 1 in the polls and in PWR, but they have NOBODY with even 30 points. But their women's team has three players with at least 30 points each, led by Kelly Babstock with 55. Yet Quinnipiac is not ranked and their season is over...

Bottom line is that for a number of reasons there is a lot more parity in D1 men's hockey than in women's. And as a fan of both, I don't see this as a bad thing! In fact, one reason I enjoy the women's game A LOT is that the very best players stay with their college team for all four years (for the most part) vs. with the men's so many of the most talented leave early. Around here in Minnesota, we see the same thing at the high school level - for the most part all of the best players stay through their senior year vs. so many of the boys leaving early for juniors or the USA development team in Ann Arbor.

I just said this on the UNH thread...I think that the role of a solid Defensive D-man has been overlooked by to many Women's coaches. They seem to recruit D-man that can put up points more than stop the other teams first line. That is why we have players with big points. Also, the top players by and large go to a small percentage of schools (i.e. MN, WI, Cornell, and the school that has the next Olympic coach)

[HockeyEast33]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

I just said this on the UNH thread...I think that the role of a solid Defensive D-man has been overlooked by to many Women's coaches. They seem to recruit D-man that can put up points more than stop the other teams first line. That is why we have players with big points. Also, the top players by and large go to a small percentage of schools (i.e. MN, WI, Cornell, and the school that has the next Olympic coach)

I totally agree with this. I am constantly shocked when watching D1 games by the poor backward skating techniques of many of the defensemen. I have never seen so much defense being played by defensemen who deliberately turn to skate forwards with onrushing forwards rather than squaring up. Inevitably, these kids get beat regularly to the backside as they turn and in goes the forward on an odd man rush. For me, if you can't skate backwards as well and as agilely as most forwards, you have no business playing defense. But the defense selections to the USA Hockey National Teams are ALL based on how much offense you generate and so are all star teams around the country as a result.

Coaches seem to place a premium on size, followed by offense, followed by the ability to stop people defensively. I actually think that many, if not most, of the best defensive defensemen in the country end up playing D3 hockey because they can't get a shot at D1 because they don't put up stats. That's a poor commentary on the coaching corps in women's hockey.

[OnMAA]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

True sort of - most girls players (at least in NE) repeat a school year and are getting to college when they are 19. A few have even then done a post-grad year in JWHL after that - there is at least one 20 year old freshman that I can think of.

Three points:
1 - Most from Ontario enter college at 18, some at 17. There are some that do a PG year, but that is a minority.
2 - On the opposite side of the spectrum, recruits from Quebec are on average 1.5 years older, as they do 2 years after grade 11, and their age cutoff is at the start of the school year, rather than calendar year.
3 - There is an special "Age Exemption" rule for Men's Hockey, on when they can start and how old they can be. That rule is driven by the fact that the NCAA schools are competing with the Canadian Junior A leagues for the talent pool. That age exemption rule does not exist on the female side, or other sports in general for that matter. This limits the amount of time you can delay the start of your college career, before you start losing years of eligibility.

[OnMAA]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

IMO, this is the key point. Look at the top scorers in men's hockey. Nobody has yet reached 50 points. On the women's side, there are a number of players who have considerably more. In men's hockey, there are a good number of players that have reached the 40-point plateau, and even more that are in the 30-40 range. For women, the very top scorers produce even more, but it tails off more rapidly; the plateaus are narrower. If you're a team that has one, two, or in rare cases even more of these top scorers, then you have people that can are going to get into the scoring column every weekend, and over the course of the season, that will make the difference between winning and losing a number of times. If you are Union, you're left to try to get a couple of goals off of screens, deflections, or scrums and hope that is enough to win games.

The landscape is improving. Even the worst teams have more talent. Their third-line players can hold their own on the ice against a good first line for a time. Fifteen years ago, that resulted in a goal almost right away.

In men's hockey, lower ranked teams have players who weren't heavily recruited but wind up in the Hobey Baker conversation. In women's hockey, that usually only happens with goalies. Once in a while a forward like Melissa Boal or Felicia Nelson will wind up as a top 10 finalist for the Kaz, but because of her impact, she improves her team to the extent that they finish in the upper division of the league. St. Cloud State finished 3rd in the WCHA the year that Nelson, Caitlyn Hogan, Holly Roberts, and Meghan Pezon were seniors; the next year, they were all gone, and SCSU was dreadful.

Programs like Union wind up with the records that they do because there aren't enough offensive players to go around, and the majority of the most gifted wind up on a small number of teams. In theory, that happens in men's hockey as well, but there is less separation on the men's side between the blue-chip recruits and the next tier, and each tier contains more athletes.

This is a key observation. While the dept of the talent pool in women's hockey at the college has increased tremendously over the last 10 years, there is still a much bigger gap between top and bottom in the women's game, compared to the men's game. This is partly driven by the fact that virtually ALL the top women end up playing varisty hockey, where as most of the top tier talent on the men's side plays in the Junior leagues in Canada. Having said that, the biggest factor remains to be the amount of players in the talent pool. The ratio is still about 1/5 or 20%. (Used to be less than 10% years ago)

IIHF numbers:
==========
Canada.....Minor Hockey 455,806 - Females 86,675 (Roughly 19%)
USA.........Minor Hockey 305,453 - Females 66,692 (Roughly 21%)

[YabaDabaDoo]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

I totally agree with this. I am constantly shocked when watching D1 games by the poor backward skating techniques of many of the defensemen. I have never seen so much defense being played by defensemen who deliberately turn to skate forwards with onrushing forwards rather than squaring up. Inevitably, these kids get beat regularly to the backside as they turn and in goes the forward on an odd man rush. For me, if you can't skate backwards as well and as agilely as most forwards, you have no business playing defense. But the defense selections to the USA Hockey National Teams are ALL based on how much offense you generate and so are all star teams around the country as a result.

Coaches seem to place a premium on size, followed by offense, followed by the ability to stop people defensively. I actually think that many, if not most, of the best defensive defensemen in the country end up playing D3 hockey because they can't get a shot at D1 because they don't put up stats. That's a poor commentary on the coaching corps in women's hockey.

When looking at the state of women’s hockey and to your point Union in particular and to your point regarding D, It seems to me that she “CAB” has tried to start from the net out, Union’s goaltending for the past 3 to 4 years has been superb! I believe that both last years and the present could have gone anywhere.
No one is talking about the man behind the curtain, that being USA Hockey Player Development and the “AT LARGE” selection process. I believe that every D1 & D3 coach gets the player development selection list and uses it as the starting point for their recruiting so by association parents and players place a great deal importance on make the list. Unbeknown to many that USA Hockey is really only interested in “Maybe” 13 to 15 players out of the 60 to 80 headed to the beloved camp, not that the other players aren’t good but they are needed to create the competitive environment to see how the anointed do.
Two years ago USA Hockey created the “Active Player Pool” that was supposed to be updated monthly and never was they should have said annually because that was the case. USA Hockey created the “Warren Strelow Program” Maybe in the beginning “the first three years” it was something but the last three were a joke and for a program that touts the selection of the nations be goalies, the Olympians/top National team players were given a pass? And there has NEVER been transparency when it comes to any of its selection processes.
Back to the point, schools like Union also are hamstrung in another way that other schools with scholarships aren’t that being the carrot and stick.
The NCAA does not make it very easy for a player of a team who is good but not playing to look elsewhere in that they “the player” must sign their death warrant by going to the coach and ask for a release before they can start conversation.
So there is a lot of areas for improvement, maybe CAB & Co. should try to get the U18 National team gig? Worked for BC

[Call It]

Re: What if Union moves beyond Assano?

[QUOTE=OnMAA;5657756]This is a key observation. While the dept of the talent pool in women's hockey at the college has increased tremendously over the last 10 years, there is still a much bigger gap between top and bottom in the women's game, compared to the men's game. This is partly driven by the fact that virtually ALL the top women end up playing varisty hockey, where as most of the top tier talent on the men's side plays in the Junior leagues in Canada. QUOTE]

This is an excellent point. All of the top girls from the World play NCAA. The Top Talent on the Men's side play WHL, OHL, QMJHL, AHL or some even go to the NHL at 18 or 19 thus allowing for a much more even playing field in the NCAA. If all of the top 18-23 year old men played NCAA, I imagine it would look the Women's side with the top being excellent and the bottom not so much.