Transfer Portal

[Reddington]

Let me throw out an example - and I really know nothing on the inner workings of OSU. Let's say players come into OSU on the you pay for two we pay for two model and you pay for the first two. So those players would not be on the ledger. Or money came from academics. Most colleges are handing out merit based money and the bar is low. For example I hear most lax players both boys and girls say "that they wished that their grades were a little better as they could have gotten the same money I'm getting athletically as the regular student body is getting without having to play a sport." Now, is it a far fetch to imagine that a coach would say you can stay, but you are either fourth line or going to be a healthy scratch if those players are not on the books because they were either paying their own way or getting merit based academic. The question becomes can a coach not give a scholarship as promised after you paid for the two years or maybe the coach is saying we will see how it goes - I'm going to guess yes they can because I would think that you may not sign until after sophomore year because you have to sign on the dotted line for atheletic money. I really don't know on this but, someone else might. I think this is how Wisc Minn and apparently now OSU are getting around the Big Ten four year thingie the other guy brought up.


Keep in mind only the Big Ten has the four year scholly and that is to protect the football players, but what they give to football has to apply to the other sports. This is much different than all other scholarships as other schools not in the Big Ten are year to year.

[robertearle]

Let me throw out an example - and I really know nothing on the inner workings of OSU. Let's say players come into OSU on the you pay for two we pay for two model and you pay for the first two. So those players would not be on the ledger. Or money came from academics. Most colleges are handing out merit based money and the bar is low. For example I hear most lax players both boys and girls say "that they wished that their grades were a little better as they could have gotten the same money I'm getting athletically as the regular student body is getting without having to play a sport." Now, is it a far fetch to imagine that a coach would say you can stay, but you are either fourth line or going to be a healthy scratch if those players are not on the books because they were either paying their own way or getting merit based academic. The question becomes can a coach not give a scholarship as promised after you paid for the two years or maybe the coach is saying we will see how it goes - I'm going to guess yes they can because I would think that you may not sign until after sophomore year because you have to sign on the dotted line for atheletic money. I really don't know on this but, someone else might. I think this is how Wisc Minn and apparently now OSU are getting around the Big Ten four year thingie the other guy brought up.


Keep in mind only the Big Ten has the four year scholly and that is to protect the football players, but what they give to football has to apply to the other sports. This is much different than all other scholarships as other schools not in the Big Ten are year to year.

Or can a coach reduce the amount/percent of the scholarship award without 'violating' a two-and-two agreement while still 'encouraging' a player to leave? (They can't in a head-count sport, it would do them no good to do so. But hockey is an equivalency sport.)

I do not know. When I started asking about scholarships, etc, I was hoping there'd be a S-A parent here who had been through it all and could answer some of it for us.

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

When I started asking about scholarships, etc, I was hoping there'd be a S-A parent here who had been through it all and could answer some of it for us.

Seems like the PSU goalie's dad, at one point, posted on the forum. Don't know if he still does.

[BadgerPete]

Prior to the last three championships his women’s coaching legacy was on par with Frost and Miller.

Transfers helped take it to the next level.

Yes, there is no question that Campbell in '19, Watts and Blair in '21, and Compher in '23 were very important in winning those titles. No one is disputing that. There has also never been an offseason at Wisconsin with anything close to the transfer numbers we're seeing with OSU this year.

It is also completely fair to look at a team that was a couple of bounces away from back-to-back national championships with quite a few players out of eligibility, see five underclass players in the portal and wonder about the conversations behind the scenes. Same goes for St. Cloud. It can also be a matter of perspective in the new era of player movement; some might see it as being unfair to players who were recruited based on a set of (assumed) promises and some might say that it's Muzerall's job to win titles and that might lead to some uncomfortable player decisions across the board.

[Hockeybuckeye]

Seems like the PSU goalie's dad, at one point, posted on the forum. Don't know if he still does.

My daughter was a D1 SA but not in hockey.

[HockeyGuy362]

Seems like the PSU goalie's dad, at one point, posted on the forum. Don't know if he still does.

I have a Women's hockey player SA, what questions are you looking for answers for?

[Rightnut]

Seems like the PSU goalie's dad, at one point, posted on the forum. Don't know if he still does.

There are up to 18 full scholarships per team in hockey - in both men's and women's. (Schools don't have to use them all). Men do more of the you pay 2 get 2 or some other combination. In women's hockey, which typically have smaller rosters than men's, most players are on full rides. The players who are typically healthy scratches and 3rd goalies are generally either on partials or are paying their own way. So just looking at OSU's roster - and I have no knowledge of OSU at all - they have 25 players listed with stats. So you can reasonably assume that 13-15 are on full rides, leaving 3-5 scholarships to split among 6-10 players and maybe some pay full freight. It would likely work out something close to that. So when Muzzy brings in 3-4 high end transfers- who are getting full rides, she needs to free up "cap space" so has to jettison some players.

[robertearle]

I have a Women's hockey player SA, what questions are you looking for answers for?

Mostly what are the mechanics of the partial scholarship. Is the percentage agreed to at the time the NLI is signed, can it change from year to year without violating the terms of the NLI, how common are two-and-two agreements, how formal are two-and-twos? (Is an NLI even that much like a contract as I'm imagining it to be?) Whatever else you might think would inform the discussion of how student-athletes are treated and how they might come to the not-small decision to transfer.

Thanks.

[robertearle]

There are up to 18 full scholarships per team in hockey - in both men's and women's. (Schools don't have to use them all). Men do more of the you pay 2 get 2 or some other combination. In women's hockey, which typically have smaller rosters than men's, most players are on full rides. The players who are typically healthy scratches and 3rd goalies are generally either on partials or are paying their own way. So just looking at OSU's roster - and I have no knowledge of OSU at all - they have 25 players listed with stats. So you can reasonably assume that 13-15 are on full rides, leaving 3-5 scholarships to split among 6-10 players and maybe some pay full freight. It would likely work out something close to that. So when Muzzy brings in 3-4 high end transfers- who are getting full rides, she needs to free up "cap space" so has to jettison some players.

But if a player started on scholarship at a B1G school, their scholarship is supposedly guaranteed throughout her four years at the school. So "freeing up cap space" theoretically can't happen, unless the player in question started as a walk-on. Or unless the percentage can be reduced without violating the conference policy of guaranteeing four years' worth of scholarship.

[ARM]

Random thoughts ...

When a program like UND or RMU folds, there may be a more altruistic reason to add its displaced players to your roster, but your own recruits are still vulnerable to being displaced by these players. When UND's roster became available, Minnesota was the only WCHA program that didn't add anyone. Frost said that UM could have taken a player who had a single year of eligibility remaining, but beyond that, it didn't have spots (scholarships) available. When a program adds several "refugees" in such a situation, there is bound to be some cost/impact to those who decided to trust in that program earlier.

Not sure if we give out partial asterisks or smaller asterisks, but I feel that someone like Idalski is in a slightly different situation than long-tenured coaches because he is dealing with a roster that he inherited. There may be players who would never have chosen to play for him in the first place or athletes who don't match his desired style of play. It may not be a good fit. That doesn't make him "blameless" if he backs away from a player, but his investment is different than a coach who told a teenager, "This is the right place for you!"

IMO, goaltender is the position where coaches are most likely to struggle when it comes to roster composition and playing time, both because of the stakes involved and the fact that only one can play at a time. It was strange to me that Wisconsin could go as many years as it did playing transfer goalies almost exclusively. I understand the thinking of there is a quality G available who can help the team, but it isn't apparent why the original goalies don't get more of a shot at playing time. One can't deny that both of these goalies won a title. It's true that UM was also playing transfers in net for many of those seasons, but the Gophers did have a No. 1 goalie who never played a full game after her sophomore season due to concussions. I agree that it is a complicated problem without easy answers, but it is surprising to me after seeing Kronish's top-end play that she didn't get much of a shot earlier.

We can all look in the mirror on some of these questions. We want our teams to be as talented as possible. "A star player wants to transfer here for a year or two and bring a couple teammates? Great, add them!" We want the hardware, but we really don't want to admit or much think about those players whose dreams may get derailed by the additions. Such examinations are better reserved for rival rosters.

[Rightnut]

But if a player started on scholarship at a B1G school, their scholarship is supposedly guaranteed throughout her four years at the school. So "freeing up cap space" theoretically can't happen, unless the player in question started as a walk-on. Or unless the percentage can be reduced without violating the conference policy of guaranteeing four years' worth of scholarship.

I don't know how the rules on the B1G guarantee intersects with the general scholarship situation. Not sure if a school can actually pull it or just tell the player that you will never see the ice and essentially pressure the player to move.

[Offsides Guy]

Random thoughts ...

When a program like UND or RMU folds, there may be a more altruistic reason to add its displaced players to your roster, but your own recruits are still vulnerable to being displaced by these players. When UND's roster became available, Minnesota was the only WCHA program that didn't add anyone. Frost said that UM could have taken a player who had a single year of eligibility remaining, but beyond that, it didn't have spots (scholarships) available. When a program adds several "refugees" in such a situation, there is bound to be some cost/impact to those who decided to trust in that program earlier.

Not sure if we give out partial asterisks or smaller asterisks, but I feel that someone like Idalski is in a slightly different situation than long-tenured coaches because he is dealing with a roster that he inherited. There may be players who would never have chosen to play for him in the first place or athletes who don't match his desired style of play. It may not be a good fit. That doesn't make him "blameless" if he backs away from a player, but his investment is different than a coach who told a teenager, "This is the right place for you!"

IMO, goaltender is the position where coaches are most likely to struggle when it comes to roster composition and playing time, both because of the stakes involved and the fact that only one can play at a time. It was strange to me that Wisconsin could go as many years as it did playing transfer goalies almost exclusively. I understand the thinking of there is a quality G available who can help the team, but it isn't apparent why the original goalies don't get more of a shot at playing time. One can't deny that both of these goalies won a title. It's true that UM was also playing transfers in net for many of those seasons, but the Gophers did have a No. 1 goalie who never played a full game after her sophomore season due to concussions. I agree that it is a complicated problem without easy answers, but it is surprising to me after seeing Kronish's top-end play that she didn't get much of a shot earlier.

We can all look in the mirror on some of these questions. We want our teams to be as talented as possible. "A star player wants to transfer here for a year or two and bring a couple teammates? Great, add them!" We want the hardware, but we really don't want to admit or much think about those players whose dreams may get derailed by the additions. Such examinations are better reserved for rival rosters.

I definitely give Idalski a pass for both your reason and that he has a unique and not exactly “warm & fuzzy” personality. I wasn’t shocked to see so many SCSU portal entries. Re OSU, unless my kid was an all-world player coming out of HS, I’d advise her to play elsewhere. I think Muzz has proven enough that a significant number of her young players are at risk of being replaced by transfers every year. It’s true that other coaches use the portal, but Muzz has made it clear she sees the portal as a key element of her program’s strategic success. Not criticizing her for it, just wouldn’t want my kid set up for that kind of replacement disappointment down the line.

[Xcfire]

Random thoughts ...

When a program like UND or RMU folds, there may be a more altruistic reason to add its displaced players to your roster, but your own recruits are still vulnerable to being displaced by these players. When UND's roster became available, Minnesota was the only WCHA program that didn't add anyone. Frost said that UM could have taken a player who had a single year of eligibility remaining, but beyond that, it didn't have spots (scholarships) available. When a program adds several "refugees" in such a situation, there is bound to be some cost/impact to those who decided to trust in that program earlier.

Not sure if we give out partial asterisks or smaller asterisks, but I feel that someone like Idalski is in a slightly different situation than long-tenured coaches because he is dealing with a roster that he inherited. There may be players who would never have chosen to play for him in the first place or athletes who don't match his desired style of play. It may not be a good fit. That doesn't make him "blameless" if he backs away from a player, but his investment is different than a coach who told a teenager, "This is the right place for you!"

IMO, goaltender is the position where coaches are most likely to struggle when it comes to roster composition and playing time, both because of the stakes involved and the fact that only one can play at a time. It was strange to me that Wisconsin could go as many years as it did playing transfer goalies almost exclusively. I understand the thinking of there is a quality G available who can help the team, but it isn't apparent why the original goalies don't get more of a shot at playing time. One can't deny that both of these goalies won a title. It's true that UM was also playing transfers in net for many of those seasons, but the Gophers did have a No. 1 goalie who never played a full game after her sophomore season due to concussions. I agree that it is a complicated problem without easy answers, but it is surprising to me after seeing Kronish's top-end play that she didn't get much of a shot earlier.

We can all look in the mirror on some of these questions. We want our teams to be as talented as possible. "A star player wants to transfer here for a year or two and bring a couple teammates? Great, add them!" We want the hardware, but we really don't want to admit or much think about those players whose dreams may get derailed by the additions. Such examinations are better reserved for rival rosters.

I see what your saying but it’s competitive sport I believe in the coaches put the best players on the ice for the best results
every year is different as far as goalie goes it’s 50% on defense in front of them! I’ve seen a lot of goalies put up huge stats and the next year defense changes so was it the defense or goalie? Practice starts early coaches see what goes on they know what they have it’s great Kronish got her shot, but let’s face it she should of won the spot earlier if she beat out the other goalies in practice

[Lindsay]

Re OSU, unless my kid was an all-world player coming out of HS, I’d advise her to play elsewhere. I think Muzz has proven enough that a significant number of her young players are at risk of being replaced by transfers every year. It’s true that other coaches use the portal, but Muzz has made it clear she sees the portal as a key element of her program’s strategic success. Not criticizing her for it, just wouldn’t want my kid set up for that kind of replacement disappointment down the line.

agree with this, and I agree with what Badger Pete replied to me earlier although I would add Lacey Eden to the transfer list.

What raises my eyebrows at OSU is that they lost Sydney Morrow. Getting her on the roster as a freshman showed a step forward in their recruiting but it didn’t hold. The transfer game at this volume won’t work forever for reasons already stated and Elander and Muzerall can both develop players so losing a team usa U18 player in Morrow is a miss.

Id be curious to know which programs called Bilka and Barnes. It’s not just OSU raiding a portal, it’s players choosing OSU. Can see how
thats frustrating in the same way that it is frustrating that most of the best North American recruits choose the same programs over and over when coming out of high school.

[HockeyGuy362]

Mostly what are the mechanics of the partial scholarship. Is the percentage agreed to at the time the NLI is signed, can it change from year to year without violating the terms of the NLI, how common are two-and-two agreements, how formal are two-and-twos? (Is an NLI even that much like a contract as I'm imagining it to be?) Whatever else you might think would inform the discussion of how student-athletes are treated and how they might come to the not-small decision to transfer.

Thanks.

When you sign you NLI, the agreement states what your scholarship is going to be. At the Big10 schools this can't change due to NCAA rules, but at the other WCHA schools, BSU, MSU, UMD St Cloud, they get a new agreement each year and they can change. If you were offered a full ride, they rarely change, small community, that gets out quickly and incoming players may not trust what they are offered. If you are doing a 2 and 2, then one year, your agreement at those schools shows 100%, the other year shows 0%. From my understanding the 2 and 2's at OSU, Wisco, etc, are really 1/2 scholarships each year.

As far as transferring, from what I know of the kids that have transferred, none where due to scholarships, it was about playing time, or a chance to win a NCAA title. There is also they don't like the coach, but other than the Harvard issue, most of not liking the coach, really means I am not playing as much as I think I should be, or as much as my parents think I should. Where my daughter plays there have been a few transfers, mostly due to playing time, unfortunately it wasn't always the player. At this point in their careers, most realize where they fit in, and when they are on the 3rd or 4th line, they understand they aren't as good as the 1st and 2nd liners, but their parents don't and force them to leave. I know one year her team had a kid come in, she told all the girls she knew she was a 4th liner and not going to see a lot of ice, but the next year she transferred, as the parents thought she should play more, she left and went to be a 4th liner at another school.

As a hockey parent I have seen a lot of coaches over the 25 years of watching my kids play, and I think most parents believe they can coach better than their kids coaches, we can't, but we think we can.