Is Hockey Important to Nescac's?

[nasa69]

The Nescac schools are known for academic excellence. Many are as difficult to matriculate at as the Ivy's. That said, some schools within the division pride themselves in excellence at all levels including athletics while others sustain their athletic programs without demanding the same excellence or providing competitive funding.

Over the last 7 years, measured in winning and losing seasons for the hockey programs, several teams stand out at the top and several hold control of the bottom.
Amherst: 7 winning seasons
Middlebury: 7 winning seasons
Bowdoin: 6 winning seaons
Williams: 5 winning seasons
Trinity: 5 wining seasons
Colby: 4 winning seasons
Tufts, CC, Wesleyan, Hamilton: 2 winning seasons.

The athletic budgets for the schools vary by several fold as Middlebury outlays $5M/yr on athletics with Williams and Amherst spending about $4.7M. Several schools in the Nescac spend closer to $1M including Connecticut College, Tufts, Hamilton, and Wesleyan. Budgets do not seem to be tied directly to endowments as Tufts has one of the largest endowments (1.7B) and ran a surplus on their budget the last several years. Amherst and Williams have an endowment > 1B while Connecticut College is around 200M and the remaining Nescac's 500-800M.

It is obvious that several schools place no emphasis on the sport and are clearly satisfied with poor results as they maintain consistency in their coaching staff in spite of consistently losing seasons: Tufts, CC, Wesleyan. Others are trying to make changes but those changes haven't born fruit yet: Hamilton, Colby. Trinity has made changes and their fruit is bountiful. And then the top programs maintain their consistency and dedication.

[neumyer]

The Nescac schools are known for academic excellence. Many are as difficult to matriculate at as the Ivy's. That said, some schools within the division pride themselves in excellence at all levels including athletics while others sustain their athletic programs without demanding the same excellence or providing competitive funding.

Over the last 7 years, measured in winning and losing seasons for the hockey programs, several teams stand out at the top and several hold control of the bottom.
Amherst: 7 winning seasons
Middlebury: 7 winning seasons
Bowdoin: 6 winning seaons
Williams: 5 winning seasons
Trinity: 5 wining seasons
Colby: 4 winning seasons
Tufts, CC, Wesleyan, Hamilton: 2 winning seasons.

The athletic budgets for the schools vary by several fold as Middlebury outlays $5M/yr on athletics with Williams and Amherst spending about $4.7M. Several schools in the Nescac spend closer to $1M including Connecticut College, Tufts, Hamilton, and Wesleyan. Budgets do not seem to be tied directly to endowments as Tufts has one of the largest endowments (1.7B) and ran a surplus on their budget the last several years. Amherst and Williams have an endowment > 1B while Connecticut College is around 200M and the remaining Nescac's 500-800M.

It is obvious that several schools place no emphasis on the sport and are clearly satisfied with poor results as they maintain consistency in their coaching staff in spite of consistently losing seasons: Tufts, CC, Wesleyan. Others are trying to make changes but those changes haven't born fruit yet: Hamilton, Colby. Trinity has made changes and their fruit is bountiful. And then the top programs maintain their consistency and dedication.

Hockey is important, but it must co-exist with other major team sports such as football, soccer, basketball, lacrosse and baseball. Significant resources are dedicated to it because it is the most expensive of these sports, but from an institutional perspective, it is no more important than the others. In fact, it is less important at most of the schools than its direct competitor, basketball in terms of fan support.

[PrezdeJohnson09]

The Nescac schools are known for academic excellence. Many are as difficult to matriculate at as the Ivy's. That said, some schools within the division pride themselves in excellence at all levels including athletics while others sustain their athletic programs without demanding the same excellence or providing competitive funding.

Over the last 7 years, measured in winning and losing seasons for the hockey programs, several teams stand out at the top and several hold control of the bottom.
Amherst: 7 winning seasons
Middlebury: 7 winning seasons
Bowdoin: 6 winning seaons
Williams: 5 winning seasons
Trinity: 5 wining seasons
Colby: 4 winning seasons
Tufts, CC, Wesleyan, Hamilton: 2 winning seasons.

The athletic budgets for the schools vary by several fold as Middlebury outlays $5M/yr on athletics with Williams and Amherst spending about $4.7M. Several schools in the Nescac spend closer to $1M including Connecticut College, Tufts, Hamilton, and Wesleyan. Budgets do not seem to be tied directly to endowments as Tufts has one of the largest endowments (1.7B) and ran a surplus on their budget the last several years. Amherst and Williams have an endowment > 1B while Connecticut College is around 200M and the remaining Nescac's 500-800M.

It is obvious that several schools place no emphasis on the sport and are clearly satisfied with poor results as they maintain consistency in their coaching staff in spite of consistently losing seasons: Tufts, CC, Wesleyan. Others are trying to make changes but those changes haven't born fruit yet: Hamilton, Colby. Trinity has made changes and their fruit is bountiful. And then the top programs maintain their consistency and dedication.

Most kids go to a nescac school for the education first and then the athletics. I think that mindset filters up to the top to te administrations too. If the sports is getting good kids with solid grades and they aren't causing any issues, they'll likely be doing fine.

Now, is that really to say some of the schools and players don't care about winning? I think that's probably shortsighted. Any athlete competes to win every time they are out there. That's part of the reason why they choose to be an athlete because of the thrill of victory. However, maybe some of the not as successful teams you listed on the hockey end just don't place a huge priority on hockey by building top of the line beautiful rinks etc because its just not as important to them like it might be to Trinity, Bowdoin, Middlebury.

I've got bets on Amherst making a significant rink upgrade in the next 5 years btw.

[Big Panda]

Re: Is Hockey Important to Nescac's?

Shame many of the Nescac schools dont have same emphasis on success as there rivals. I am sure the coaching staffs tell athletic recruits a very positive athletic story as well as the obvious academic benefits to lure them. Unfortunately administrations dont share that belief.

Seems that similar schools like Colgate, Union, Holy Cross, Colorado College that are ranked high academically, have similar finances, dont pay scholarships, but commit to athletics can find the right combination of athletic commitment and academics.

[joecct]

Re: Is Hockey Important to Nescac's?

Shame many of the Nescac schools don't have same emphasis on success as there rivals. I am sure the coaching staffs tell athletic recruits a very positive athletic story as well as the obvious academic benefits to lure them. Unfortunately administrations don't share that belief.

Seems that similar schools like Colgate, Union, Holy Cross, Colorado College that are ranked high academically, have similar finances, dont pay scholarships, but commit to athletics can find the right combination of athletic commitment and academics.

I think Colgate and CC have 18 hockey scholarships.

[bardizzy92]

Re: Is Hockey Important to Nescac's?

Naturally, it is more difficult to recruit because the target market is much smaller. Many top end junior players could not even get into the schools if they wanted to. On the counter point, the need-based financial aid offered at NESCAC's, combined with the academic prowess can sometimes attract top recruits (bubble division 1 players). Every conference has their own obstacles when recruiting.

[nescachockey]

Re: Is Hockey Important to Nescac's?

Don't all leagues that have 10 teams have a mixture of good, mediocre and bad teams?