>>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

[nyi19]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Let them get some more expeirence? Skater-wise, we have 3 Seniors, 5 Juniors, 5 Sophomores, and 8 Freshman. Without looking at past line charts, on Friday and Saturday we played all 8 freshman because of injuries. We have a young team.

Hopefully the coaching staff doesn't resign itself to these same excuses. Experience isn't everything.

Minnesota's national championship-winning team last season had 11 underclassman skaters and 7 upperclassman skaters last season. Eerily similar numbers to the ones you just described regarding RIT.

The natural reply to this comment is "obviously Minnesota is going to get better recruits." Precisely. Is that not the goal? How can/will RIT does this?

Or rather, WILL RIT ever be able to do this?

[mar7967]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Hopefully the coaching staff doesn't resign itself to these same excuses. Experience isn't everything.

Minnesota's national championship-winning team last season had 11 underclassman skaters and 7 upperclassman skaters last season. Eerily similar numbers to the ones you just described regarding RIT.

The natural reply to this comment is "obviously Minnesota is going to get better recruits." Precisely. Is that not the goal? How can/will RIT does this?

Or rather, WILL RIT ever be able to do this?

Without scholarships, I doubt RIT will ever be able to get the caliber of recruits that Minnesota gets.

[nyi19]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Without scholarships, I doubt RIT will ever be able to get the caliber of recruits that Minnesota gets.

Then what's the solution? Is there one? Does there need to be one?

[shelfit]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Without scholarships, I doubt RIT will ever be able to get the caliber of recruits that Minnesota gets.

Not just Minnesota but MANY other teams are and will continue to be chosen over RIT by the better recruits. I don't think you'll ever see any U18 type of players choosing RIT anytime soon.

"This program's issues go far beyond the crease."

I'm interested to know more specifically what you mean by this. I know one of the issues is you can't rule by fear year after year and not expect it to bite you in the a** at some point in time. You can only fool people for so long. I think this program's best days are behind them and that we are seeing the beginning of the end to this program's current coach.

[nyi19]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Not just Minnesota but MANY other teams are and will continue to be chosen over RIT by the better recruits. I don't think you'll ever see any U18 type of players choosing RIT anytime soon.

"This program's issues go far beyond the crease."

I'm interested to know more specifically what you mean by this. I know one of the issues is you can't rule by fear year after year and not expect it to bite you in the a** at some point in time. You can only fool people for so long. I think this program's best days are behind them and that we are seeing the beginning of the end to this program's current coach.

Didn't mean to imply I have an inside knowledge of anything. By "beyond the crease" I just meant all the things we already know as far as no scholarships, etc., that we've already talked about.

Perhaps the prospect of "going D-I soon" is what landed Scotty all those top-tier D-III players all those years? Maybe, maybe not. I'd say probably not. Program was well-enough established already.

But what those girls didn't know is that they were better than any recruits Scotty would get as a D-I coach, not just a D-III coach milking the promise of going D-I to try to sway recruits. Those 2009-2012 RIT teams would likely beat the current version. I know that's the elephant in the room that no one is allowed to mention, but most people with non-biased logic will know top D-III programs are just as good, if not better, than low-level D-I schools.

So top-tier D-III players — at least the ones who have admitted to themselves that playing competitive hockey is more important to them than just saying "Hey, I play D-I hockey!" — will go to top-tier D-III schools. Legitimate D-I players will go to legitimate D-I programs.

The rest? They'll go to RIT, Lindenwood, Union, Brown, etc., etc. etc. And it's a cycle that sees little chance of changing.

[shelfit]

Didn't mean to imply I have an inside knowledge of anything. By "beyond the crease" I just meant all the things we already know as far as no scholarships, etc., that we've already talked about.

Perhaps the prospect of "going D-I soon" is what landed Scotty all those top-tier D-III players all those years? Maybe, maybe not. I'd say probably not. Program was well-enough established already.

But what those girls didn't know is that they were better than any recruits Scotty would get as a D-I coach, not just a D-III coach milking the promise of going D-I to try to sway recruits. Those 2009-2012 RIT teams would likely beat the current version. I know that's the elephant in the room that no one is allowed to mention, but most people with non-biased logic will know top D-III programs are just as good, if not better, than low-level D-I schools.

So top-tier D-III players — at least the ones who have admitted to themselves that playing competitive hockey is more important to them than just saying "Hey, I play D-I hockey!" — will go to top-tier D-III schools. Legitimate D-I players will go to legitimate D-I programs.

The rest? They'll go to RIT, Lindenwood, Union, Brown, etc., etc. etc. And it's a cycle that sees little chance of changing.

Very well stated. Agree 100%.

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

most people with non-biased logic will know top D-III programs are just as good, if not better, than low-level D-I schools.

I'm going to disagree with this.

The caliber of play in D-I is clearly better than it was in D-III. The skaters are faster and more skilled. Some of this can be attributed to improved conditioning and training, but I have a hard time believing that's all of it.

Certainly, there probably are many marginal D-I players deciding to play D-III instead. But I think even a low-level D-I team has better depth, top to bottom, than a top D-III team. A D-III team could win a few games but would not fare well over the course of a full season.

As a top-tier D-III program, we played D-I teams occasionally. How many did we win? I know we had one against Robert Morris, but RoMo was an infant program at the time.


Powers &8^]

[nyi19]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Certainly, there probably are many marginal D-I players deciding to play D-III instead. But I think even a low-level D-I team has better depth, top to bottom, than a top D-III team.

I think you're blissfully naive.

[knight7]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

So top-tier D-III players — at least the ones who have admitted to themselves that playing competitive hockey is more important to them than just saying "Hey, I play D-I hockey!" — will go to top-tier D-III schools. Legitimate D-I players will go to legitimate D-I programs.

NYI- you are blissfully naive. Some players actually go for the education. They understand the NHL isn't an option in life. Secondly, even the low level D1 would routinely handle the top end D3 teams. For all the reasons LtPowers mentioned. Granted the lower level teams don't have the depth of a Minnesota or BC or Wisconsin but there are several D1 level players on each of those teams. As far as competitive hockey, they play the those D1 one teams and don't hide in D3 to win a trophy to say we are the best. They get it, it's the education not the promise of a National Title. In reality in the Women's hockey world there is one Champ and no one remembers 2-34. So get the education and enjoy the journey.

[nyi19]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

So top-tier D-III players — at least the ones who have admitted to themselves that playing competitive hockey is more important to them than just saying "Hey, I play D-I hockey!" — will go to top-tier D-III schools. Legitimate D-I players will go to legitimate D-I programs.

NYI- you are blissfully naive. Some players actually go for the education. They understand the NHL isn't an option in life. Secondly, even the low level D1 would routinely handle the top end D3 teams. For all the reasons LtPowers mentioned. Granted the lower level teams don't have the depth of a Minnesota or BC or Wisconsin but there are several D1 level players on each of those teams. As far as competitive hockey, they play the those D1 one teams and don't hide in D3 to win a trophy to say we are the best. They get it, it's the education not the promise of a National Title. In reality in the Women's hockey world there is one Champ and no one remembers 2-34. So get the education and enjoy the journey.

I could have written that response. I knew that was coming.

So first it's "WINNING PROGRAM!! YEAH!!" until the program isn't doing so great, and then it's "WE'RE BUILDING. WE'RE D-I. IT'LL BE FINE!!!" until there's no light at the end of the tunnel and it turns into "IT'S FOR THE EDUCATION!"

You're right. Girls who play D-III don't care about their education. Degrees from D-III schools don't mean nearly as much.

Whatever's convenient

[bc6696]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

I could have written that response. I knew that was coming.

So first it's "WINNING PROGRAM!! YEAH!!" until the program isn't doing so great, and then it's "WE'RE BUILDING. WE'RE D-I. IT'LL BE FINE!!!" until there's no light at the end of the tunnel and it turns into "IT'S FOR THE EDUCATION!"

You're right. Girls who play D-III don't care about their education. Degrees from D-III schools don't mean nearly as much.

Whatever's convenient

I interpreted that a little different. For me personally, setting the bar high and aiming to achieve at that level is #1. I am very competitive in most things I do, that said I would want to push myself to try at the highest level possible; D1, for instance. If I am not good enough to be recruited by MN, BC, WISC, or other highly successful programs, then why not still push myself to try at the highest level available at a great academic institution? (Like Brown or Union)

[hockeylifer]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

I agree with you bc6696. A lot of girls turn away from top DIII schools because "yes", they want to play DI hockey. Shouldn't the school come first? Absolutely, but let's face it these girls are athletes first and if you ask them they will all tell you, I wanted to play at the highest level possible. It's not like RIT is a bad school either, right? I think this team has more to offer than they are showing right now. They are a very young team with two high impact upper classmen injured. Give them a break, it is definitely a re-building year for this program. Good luck, Tigers!

I interpreted that a little different. For me personally, setting the bar high and aiming to achieve at that level is #1. I am very competitive in most things I do, that said I would want to push myself to try at the highest level possible; D1, for instance. If I am not good enough to be recruited by MN, BC, WISC, or other highly successful programs, then why not still push myself to try at the highest level available at a great academic institution? (Like Brown or Union)

[shelfit]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

Very late in the season a few years ago I was at a game between two below average D1 women's teams. Both teams failed to make their conference playoffs that year. Then a few weeks later I attended the women's D3 final four. None of those D3 teams could have beaten either of the two D1 teams that I had just seen a couple of weeks earlier. I was honestly very shocked by how much slower and sloppier the D3 games were in comparison to the D1 teams especially considering they were the four top D3 teams in the country. To put it plainly, there is a distinct and clear difference between low end D1 and high end D3. Anyone that says differently hasn't seen enough games in person at both levels of play. Yes there are individual players at the D3 level that could definitely play D1 hockey on a bottom half team and there are some D1 players that would be better suited playing D3 hockey but as a whole D3 is not comparable to D1.

[ARM]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

To put it plainly, there is a distinct and clear difference between low end D1 and high end D3.

I think that is more likely to be true later in the season for a couple of reasons. One is that D-I teams have had more practices and workouts by the end of the season. There are more limitations on team activities at D-III. Also, playing better competition over the course of the season forces the low end D-I teams to improve faster.

[shelfit]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers: Going for another successful CHA title defense (15-16)

I think that is more likely to be true later in the season for a couple of reasons. One is that D-I teams have had more practices and workouts by the end of the season. There are more limitations on team activities at D-III. Also, playing better competition over the course of the season forces the low end D-I teams to improve faster.

Actually there are more NCAA rules restricting the number of hours per week that D1 programs can officially get together for team activities (is it around 20 hours?). There are no such rules and restrictions for D3 as far as I know.

As far as the number of workouts and so on, I'd say it's all relative. Overall a D3 player isn't going to become vastly better just by having a longer season. Better players are better players and that's just the way it is. It's that way within each level too. In other words some D1 players are simply more talented than others no matter how much harder those others work or how much more time they spend trying to improve. It's the same in D3 too. Better talent is better talent. It is often true that "hard work will beat talent if talent doesn't work hard" but unfortunately it's also true that talent doesn't have to work that much harder to beat those that work very hard but don't have as much talent by comparison to begin with.

I disagree with your last sentence and once again it's all relative to each level. Union proves you wrong. They are an example of a team that hasn't become that much better relative to their conference opponents over the years no matter how good their schedule is.