USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2011 Division III Commitments
- Thread starter Bill-R-
- Start date
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
It actually does have to do with recruiting, thanks.
It actually does have to do with recruiting, thanks.
puckrfactor
New member
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how a program with such a high turnover rate can claim that is a reflection on how good the coach is. Reloading is something every program has to deal with each year. Could it be that the turnover is due to promises that are made by coaches to players that don't pan out for whatever reason. Whether it's because a player is a "softie" or just doesn't cut it, isn't the coach somewhat responsible for bringing them to campus. Maybe the homework wasn't done to determine the type of character and hockey skills this player brings. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to throw mud at the program or say he can't coach, I'm just trying to make sense out of how a coach can be considered great if his program consistently has a high turnover rate each year. Just seems strange to me IMHO.
Last edited:
Hammer
We'll be back.
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
I think we better back up for a minute. We need to figure out just exactly what "high turnover rate" means. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to have 1 kid leave per season. If a normal class is 7-8 kids, and 1 doesn't make it, after 4 years you still have a 24-man roster. Maybe a little thin for D-III, but still very functional. Not everyone is going to make it, regardless of the program we're discussing here.
Now, if you've got 2-3 kids leaving every year, over and above graduating seniors, I'm sorry, but you've got a problem. That's close to a third of a full recruiting class leaving every year. That's going to reflect negatively on any coach, regardless of records or accomplishments. If you're losing closer to 2 per season, you've probably got an adjustment to make. That's going to get around to kids, too, and not in a way the coach in question is going to like.
Remy's post shows attrition at a rate of 1/year. Assuming that's correct, I don't find that abnormal. Now, there's going to be years where a couple kids leave, and some where everyone returns, but again, if you're an established program with reasonably normal recruiting classes every year, you're probably bound to lose a kid every year, but not too much more than that.
For the record, I don't have any information with regards to Plattsburgh's program in particular. They are of no business of mine. I post this to provide a general rule of thumb.
P.S. Career ending injuries are not to be included in the above discussion.
I think we better back up for a minute. We need to figure out just exactly what "high turnover rate" means. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to have 1 kid leave per season. If a normal class is 7-8 kids, and 1 doesn't make it, after 4 years you still have a 24-man roster. Maybe a little thin for D-III, but still very functional. Not everyone is going to make it, regardless of the program we're discussing here.
Now, if you've got 2-3 kids leaving every year, over and above graduating seniors, I'm sorry, but you've got a problem. That's close to a third of a full recruiting class leaving every year. That's going to reflect negatively on any coach, regardless of records or accomplishments. If you're losing closer to 2 per season, you've probably got an adjustment to make. That's going to get around to kids, too, and not in a way the coach in question is going to like.
Remy's post shows attrition at a rate of 1/year. Assuming that's correct, I don't find that abnormal. Now, there's going to be years where a couple kids leave, and some where everyone returns, but again, if you're an established program with reasonably normal recruiting classes every year, you're probably bound to lose a kid every year, but not too much more than that.
For the record, I don't have any information with regards to Plattsburgh's program in particular. They are of no business of mine. I post this to provide a general rule of thumb.
P.S. Career ending injuries are not to be included in the above discussion.
Last edited:
puckrfactor
New member
Hammer, I couldn't agree with you more. Very logical and realistic. And so, here is one of the statements I was
troubled with........
"Plattsburgh has had probably 2-3 players on average leave the school for more playing time,...."
There were some other previous comments in this post that also implied a turnover rate that, let's just say, seemed a bit above the norm. Again, I was just puzzled at how this could reflect positively an a program and it's coaching staff.
collegehcky2
Vinegar Strokes
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
I think it depends on what type of attrition it is. As in, if you have players who played a significant amount of games in a season leaving consistently, then you do have a problem.
I think it depends on what type of attrition it is. As in, if you have players who played a significant amount of games in a season leaving consistently, then you do have a problem.
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Which is not the case. I can only think of maybe Casey Smith who was a started who left for reasons other then school or cost that played more than 75% of the time. Jason Gorrie and Ryan Silvera left for Brockport because they wern't playing on a regular basis and went to a team (Brockport) where they were starters. Brad Devereaux left for Curry due to playing time. Ian Delong did play a lot his freshman year, but was not a starter for Plattsburgh his SO season and left to be closer to home when Kavanaugh bounced out. Is 2-3 a high number, yes. Mostly because Plattsburgh lost so many this year. Emery brings in good players year after year and if you don't make the regular roster, many choose to leave to go play else where, and 99% of the time Emery will help those players make the move. Case in point Ryan Williams wants to play more. Emery contacted a few teams and found some teams that would be interested in Ryans services. If he was such an *** wouldn't he just show him the door and say goodbye? The Bryan Hince situation was a little odd, and didn't settle well with Emery, and the same goes for the Casey Smith and Mike Kavanaugh transfers. But Plattsburgh has lost a lot of players over the years for graduating early. Again, not the fault of a coach. Pier Luc wanted to become a Mountie (no offense Dan). Galan had to transfer to Geneseo because Plattsburgh did not offer his major. Out of all the players Emery has had leave, Id venture to say only 1 or 2 had anything to do with a high profile player leaving because of Emery and his "style"
Which is not the case. I can only think of maybe Casey Smith who was a started who left for reasons other then school or cost that played more than 75% of the time. Jason Gorrie and Ryan Silvera left for Brockport because they wern't playing on a regular basis and went to a team (Brockport) where they were starters. Brad Devereaux left for Curry due to playing time. Ian Delong did play a lot his freshman year, but was not a starter for Plattsburgh his SO season and left to be closer to home when Kavanaugh bounced out. Is 2-3 a high number, yes. Mostly because Plattsburgh lost so many this year. Emery brings in good players year after year and if you don't make the regular roster, many choose to leave to go play else where, and 99% of the time Emery will help those players make the move. Case in point Ryan Williams wants to play more. Emery contacted a few teams and found some teams that would be interested in Ryans services. If he was such an *** wouldn't he just show him the door and say goodbye? The Bryan Hince situation was a little odd, and didn't settle well with Emery, and the same goes for the Casey Smith and Mike Kavanaugh transfers. But Plattsburgh has lost a lot of players over the years for graduating early. Again, not the fault of a coach. Pier Luc wanted to become a Mountie (no offense Dan). Galan had to transfer to Geneseo because Plattsburgh did not offer his major. Out of all the players Emery has had leave, Id venture to say only 1 or 2 had anything to do with a high profile player leaving because of Emery and his "style"
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
In regards to the argument about Emery and Rice - Two very different coaching styles, but they're two different coaching styles that we have seen time and time again on every level of hockey. Neither has been more successful than the other. The one constant, though, is that the coach has to stick to his style or it will all go to h.e.l.l.
Why is that? Well, quite simply put, because each coaching style needs players who fit in with the atmosphere it creates. Every player needs a different style of coaching. We cannot say that players who thrive in the "Emery style" are any better because of it, or vice versa. I'm sure any ridiculously lengthy statistical analysis of a number of levels of hockey and many coaches over a long period of time would show the two groups (those who need to be yelled at and those who need to be gently criticized) have roughly equal on-ice potential. (NOTE: I don't characterize them as being 'treated like men' and 'treated like babies', because I think that devalues the latter group who have just as much potential under the right circumstances as the former) The important part is matching the players with the coach (and, of course, to the players on the team). I believe that, to a large extent, that is why the two styles exist. Chances are Emery was one of those players who preferred a coach who yelled and had visible intensity when he played.
Now, anybody who looks at Plattsburgh Hockey for even a second knows that Emery has a reputation for being a hothead. Let's be honest here... the players know what they're getting into when the agree to go to Plattsburgh. Sometimes the parents don't, and that can create problems, but for the most part there should no surprises about Emery.
I will also throw in there that the suggestion that facilities and administrative help are the reason for Plattsburgh are, to me, "garbage". Emery, McShane, and a number of other coaches use the resources available to them to turn good/great players into a team, just like any other coach, certainly. What makes them great coaches, what changes the program, is that these men know how to consistently, with constantly changing groups of people, do it to make a WINNING team. (Not to mention the fact that Emery's support from the administration has, in recent years, been significantly less than some people seem to believe, but Emery keeps the program running at the elite DIII levels nonetheless).
In regards to the turnover rate at Plattsburgh - Certianly, there is a lot of turnover.
-Players like Wilson and Greene graduate early. Good for them, they can now move on into the next important phase in their lives. Not the coach's fault, but it certainly adds additional responsibility to the coach's recruiting.
-Galan transferred to Geneseo because he was changing majors and his new desired program wasn't offered at Plattsburgh, and Geneseo was willing to take him. Again, not coach's fault but an extra recruiting responsibility to him.
-Hince couldn't afford to continue at Plattsburgh so decided last-minute to turn Pro. Same reflection on coach.
-Smith got hit in the head more than a few times by opposing players, still not coach's fault. In fact, this one reflects very nicely on coach because he kept Ward on as a student-assistant coach for the senior year, allowing the student to continue to make an active contribution to the team and glean any value fromt he experience he could. Plus, ncie thing to have on his résumé, especially if he ever went into coaching or management.
Now, yes, there are the situations like the Kavanaugh, DeLong, and Devereaux of this year. They weren't earning the ice time they wanted and felt like they could contribute more elsewhere, so coach encouraged them to go when they suggested them might want to leave. Coach is hired by the school to be a coach. He recruits and develops the student-athletes to represent the school, he provides to them a medium in which they can continue to develop teamwork and other real-life skills, and he encourages an atmosphere which instills the necessary prioritization of school before hockey. But above all, he coaches a hockey team and tries to make them a winning team. I find it hard to believe that there is anything in his contract or job description that states he must give all recruited players x% of ice time. That would be absurd if the coach's goal were to field a winning team. Players need to earn their ice time. On a top-level team like Plattsburgh, Norwich, etc, that's going to be a difficult task. Emery is ALWAYS going to give every student-athlete on the team ample opportunity to earn their ice time at any given practice, but if a player simply doesn't play to the level of the rest of the team perhaps he IS better off at a slightly lower-level team (not in any way meant to belittle Curry's program). Emery's job is to provide all of the players the opportunity and means to demonstrate their value to the team, but it lies solely on the players to do so. I don't see how this can be construed to reflect negatively on the coaching. Perhaps over in the NESCAC with their uppity attitudes toward their egalitarian and high-class educational philosophies coaches are expected to include EVERY recruited player regardless of whether they earned it or not, so this concept of Emery not giving players ice time seems "unjust", but out in the real world that crap don't fly. You want something, you earn it. Plain and simple.
Coaches (with the obvious exception of the likes of Jim Tressel hehe) are generally honest to their players. The coach of Siena's ACHA team, my coach, coaches a lot like Emery. He's very intense, in-your-face, and he yells a lot or makes you feel stupid when you've done something stupid. But he's also very honest. I've heard him say to players at tryouts "Look, I'm coaching this team to win. So I'm not going to promise anybody ice time. I can promise you the opportunity to earn your ice time, but that's all I can promise you." And guess what? Even at the ACHA (club) level, we have certain players who see a lot of games from the stands because they don't properly utilize their opportunities to earn ice time. Coach is still fulfilling his only duties... to coach a winning team and to foster an environment of school-first mentality. To try to field a winning team while giving adequate ice time to everybody regardless of the work they put in for the team, well it just doesn't work, I'm sorry!
Now, back to Emery... Why does this reflect positively on him? Simply put, it's because he still succeeds despite all of it. Losing Belanger, Hince, Smith, Wilson... those were all huge losses to the team. But the team didn't skip a beat, they just kept going. And why is that? Because Emery had created a great TEAM, not just great individual players. As a result, he was able to go out, find the right guy to fit in where the outgoing player was, and put the new cog into the machine and achieve very similar results. Dealing with a high turnover that results from Academic, Financial, and Athletic concerns without losing the effectiveness of the team as a whole is a talent possessed by great coaches. Disagree with me if you want, I don't care. It's true of all sports on all levels. I respect a great coach when I see one, even o teams that I absolutely hate.
In regards to the argument about Emery and Rice - Two very different coaching styles, but they're two different coaching styles that we have seen time and time again on every level of hockey. Neither has been more successful than the other. The one constant, though, is that the coach has to stick to his style or it will all go to h.e.l.l.
Why is that? Well, quite simply put, because each coaching style needs players who fit in with the atmosphere it creates. Every player needs a different style of coaching. We cannot say that players who thrive in the "Emery style" are any better because of it, or vice versa. I'm sure any ridiculously lengthy statistical analysis of a number of levels of hockey and many coaches over a long period of time would show the two groups (those who need to be yelled at and those who need to be gently criticized) have roughly equal on-ice potential. (NOTE: I don't characterize them as being 'treated like men' and 'treated like babies', because I think that devalues the latter group who have just as much potential under the right circumstances as the former) The important part is matching the players with the coach (and, of course, to the players on the team). I believe that, to a large extent, that is why the two styles exist. Chances are Emery was one of those players who preferred a coach who yelled and had visible intensity when he played.
Now, anybody who looks at Plattsburgh Hockey for even a second knows that Emery has a reputation for being a hothead. Let's be honest here... the players know what they're getting into when the agree to go to Plattsburgh. Sometimes the parents don't, and that can create problems, but for the most part there should no surprises about Emery.
I will also throw in there that the suggestion that facilities and administrative help are the reason for Plattsburgh are, to me, "garbage". Emery, McShane, and a number of other coaches use the resources available to them to turn good/great players into a team, just like any other coach, certainly. What makes them great coaches, what changes the program, is that these men know how to consistently, with constantly changing groups of people, do it to make a WINNING team. (Not to mention the fact that Emery's support from the administration has, in recent years, been significantly less than some people seem to believe, but Emery keeps the program running at the elite DIII levels nonetheless).
In regards to the turnover rate at Plattsburgh - Certianly, there is a lot of turnover.
-Players like Wilson and Greene graduate early. Good for them, they can now move on into the next important phase in their lives. Not the coach's fault, but it certainly adds additional responsibility to the coach's recruiting.
-Galan transferred to Geneseo because he was changing majors and his new desired program wasn't offered at Plattsburgh, and Geneseo was willing to take him. Again, not coach's fault but an extra recruiting responsibility to him.
-Hince couldn't afford to continue at Plattsburgh so decided last-minute to turn Pro. Same reflection on coach.
-Smith got hit in the head more than a few times by opposing players, still not coach's fault. In fact, this one reflects very nicely on coach because he kept Ward on as a student-assistant coach for the senior year, allowing the student to continue to make an active contribution to the team and glean any value fromt he experience he could. Plus, ncie thing to have on his résumé, especially if he ever went into coaching or management.
Now, yes, there are the situations like the Kavanaugh, DeLong, and Devereaux of this year. They weren't earning the ice time they wanted and felt like they could contribute more elsewhere, so coach encouraged them to go when they suggested them might want to leave. Coach is hired by the school to be a coach. He recruits and develops the student-athletes to represent the school, he provides to them a medium in which they can continue to develop teamwork and other real-life skills, and he encourages an atmosphere which instills the necessary prioritization of school before hockey. But above all, he coaches a hockey team and tries to make them a winning team. I find it hard to believe that there is anything in his contract or job description that states he must give all recruited players x% of ice time. That would be absurd if the coach's goal were to field a winning team. Players need to earn their ice time. On a top-level team like Plattsburgh, Norwich, etc, that's going to be a difficult task. Emery is ALWAYS going to give every student-athlete on the team ample opportunity to earn their ice time at any given practice, but if a player simply doesn't play to the level of the rest of the team perhaps he IS better off at a slightly lower-level team (not in any way meant to belittle Curry's program). Emery's job is to provide all of the players the opportunity and means to demonstrate their value to the team, but it lies solely on the players to do so. I don't see how this can be construed to reflect negatively on the coaching. Perhaps over in the NESCAC with their uppity attitudes toward their egalitarian and high-class educational philosophies coaches are expected to include EVERY recruited player regardless of whether they earned it or not, so this concept of Emery not giving players ice time seems "unjust", but out in the real world that crap don't fly. You want something, you earn it. Plain and simple.
Coaches (with the obvious exception of the likes of Jim Tressel hehe) are generally honest to their players. The coach of Siena's ACHA team, my coach, coaches a lot like Emery. He's very intense, in-your-face, and he yells a lot or makes you feel stupid when you've done something stupid. But he's also very honest. I've heard him say to players at tryouts "Look, I'm coaching this team to win. So I'm not going to promise anybody ice time. I can promise you the opportunity to earn your ice time, but that's all I can promise you." And guess what? Even at the ACHA (club) level, we have certain players who see a lot of games from the stands because they don't properly utilize their opportunities to earn ice time. Coach is still fulfilling his only duties... to coach a winning team and to foster an environment of school-first mentality. To try to field a winning team while giving adequate ice time to everybody regardless of the work they put in for the team, well it just doesn't work, I'm sorry!
Now, back to Emery... Why does this reflect positively on him? Simply put, it's because he still succeeds despite all of it. Losing Belanger, Hince, Smith, Wilson... those were all huge losses to the team. But the team didn't skip a beat, they just kept going. And why is that? Because Emery had created a great TEAM, not just great individual players. As a result, he was able to go out, find the right guy to fit in where the outgoing player was, and put the new cog into the machine and achieve very similar results. Dealing with a high turnover that results from Academic, Financial, and Athletic concerns without losing the effectiveness of the team as a whole is a talent possessed by great coaches. Disagree with me if you want, I don't care. It's true of all sports on all levels. I respect a great coach when I see one, even o teams that I absolutely hate.
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Because its not the coaches fault if players need a degree, find a life long dream, go pro, can't afford it, need to be closer to home, graduate early or can't cut the team. Some guys don't like riding the pine. Some guys are very happy being a 4th line role player their whole career. Your top teams put their best players on the ice every game that they can. So then it becomes a question of "over recruiting"...... yes its a fine line but if a player doesn't work hard and transition into the college game from day 1, he isn't going to play right away. Plattsburgh has had several leaders not play very much in their first season or two, but stick it out and become great players. Some guys want that, some guys want to play now or not at all. Sorry but that doesn't reflect on the coach. Some coaches wouldn't help their players find a new place and contact other coaches for guys who want out, Emery does (most of the time). How many coaches would sit out their Senior captain, point leader, in a must win game on Senior night....or sit out an all american in a SUNYAC Championship game because he was 10 minutes late on curfew...does he yell at his players (not as much anymore but,) yes. But for some reason players still come, have come, and will continue to come play for Bob and walk away after their time is up with a lot of respect just as some of the other great "firey" coaches have done over the years in all sports.
Because its not the coaches fault if players need a degree, find a life long dream, go pro, can't afford it, need to be closer to home, graduate early or can't cut the team. Some guys don't like riding the pine. Some guys are very happy being a 4th line role player their whole career. Your top teams put their best players on the ice every game that they can. So then it becomes a question of "over recruiting"...... yes its a fine line but if a player doesn't work hard and transition into the college game from day 1, he isn't going to play right away. Plattsburgh has had several leaders not play very much in their first season or two, but stick it out and become great players. Some guys want that, some guys want to play now or not at all. Sorry but that doesn't reflect on the coach. Some coaches wouldn't help their players find a new place and contact other coaches for guys who want out, Emery does (most of the time). How many coaches would sit out their Senior captain, point leader, in a must win game on Senior night....or sit out an all american in a SUNYAC Championship game because he was 10 minutes late on curfew...does he yell at his players (not as much anymore but,) yes. But for some reason players still come, have come, and will continue to come play for Bob and walk away after their time is up with a lot of respect just as some of the other great "firey" coaches have done over the years in all sports.
AldenPartridge1819
New member
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Do you have any idea how many full-time assistant coaches exist in D3? Support from the school plays into it. You seriously think it doesn't?
Maybe just an essay for an answer, rather than a graduate thesis.
Do you have any idea how many full-time assistant coaches exist in D3? Support from the school plays into it. You seriously think it doesn't?
Maybe just an essay for an answer, rather than a graduate thesis.
CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
Nate LePage, Siena '13
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
What I was trying to say is, yes, there are advantages there for certain programs. I'm not going to deny that. But to use that to write off the obvious talent of the coach himself is ridiculous and shortsighted. I'm sorry, but even at a school that provides ALL the bells and whistles to the program, if you don't have a top-tier head coach you're not going to find your team CONSISTENTLY at the top of the game. So yes, administrative support does play a role. But so does the the ability of the coach.
What I was trying to say is, yes, there are advantages there for certain programs. I'm not going to deny that. But to use that to write off the obvious talent of the coach himself is ridiculous and shortsighted. I'm sorry, but even at a school that provides ALL the bells and whistles to the program, if you don't have a top-tier head coach you're not going to find your team CONSISTENTLY at the top of the game. So yes, administrative support does play a role. But so does the the ability of the coach.
AldenPartridge1819
New member
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Sorry for contributing to the hijacking of this thread, but I just want to say one more thing about the above quote.
I agree that players have different learning styles on the ice, just as they do in the classroom, but I disagree with how the "yelling" style is viewed here. In my opinion, while certain players may need to be "yelled" at, they do not deserve to be belittled. From my experience and observations, belittling is what is going on more often than not. There are different ways to "yell" and motivate players without calling them names, throwing tantrums, threatening them, etc.
Teachers deal with different learning styles all the time. They have to try different strategies to motivate and get the most out of their students. We don't expect them to yell at or belittle our kids in order for them to perform, so why do we tolerate it from our coaches?
Sorry for contributing to the hijacking of this thread, but I just want to say one more thing about the above quote.
I agree that players have different learning styles on the ice, just as they do in the classroom, but I disagree with how the "yelling" style is viewed here. In my opinion, while certain players may need to be "yelled" at, they do not deserve to be belittled. From my experience and observations, belittling is what is going on more often than not. There are different ways to "yell" and motivate players without calling them names, throwing tantrums, threatening them, etc.
Teachers deal with different learning styles all the time. They have to try different strategies to motivate and get the most out of their students. We don't expect them to yell at or belittle our kids in order for them to perform, so why do we tolerate it from our coaches?
hawkhockey
Registered User
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Do not know Coach Emery or know if any of the statements regarding his coaching style are accurate, but according to a definition of hazing that is used by some relative to NCAA
athletics, if any of the "hothead" statements are true he should be careful.after the Bowdoin incident re:hazing, hockey doesn't need any bad publicity in this area.
I get it that all coaches have their own style but think Woody Hayes,bobby Knight et al.
Emery seems like a good coach record wise but there is more to DIII coaching than results.
hope the definition of hothead is different in NY than it is in NE and that this is much about nothing.
Do not know Coach Emery or know if any of the statements regarding his coaching style are accurate, but according to a definition of hazing that is used by some relative to NCAA
athletics, if any of the "hothead" statements are true he should be careful.after the Bowdoin incident re:hazing, hockey doesn't need any bad publicity in this area.
I get it that all coaches have their own style but think Woody Hayes,bobby Knight et al.
Emery seems like a good coach record wise but there is more to DIII coaching than results.
hope the definition of hothead is different in NY than it is in NE and that this is much about nothing.
norm1909
Larry Normandin
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
The "Middlebury incident" seems closer to topic than the "Bowdoin incident". I have witnessed many a Emery "hothead" moment, "belittle" no, highlight the "mistake" resulting in self-guilt and embarrassment yes, excessive - well that is on eye of the beholder.
The "Middlebury incident" seems closer to topic than the "Bowdoin incident". I have witnessed many a Emery "hothead" moment, "belittle" no, highlight the "mistake" resulting in self-guilt and embarrassment yes, excessive - well that is on eye of the beholder.
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Actually, Tressell was so honest and true to his players that he lied to the NCAA!
Actually, Tressell was so honest and true to his players that he lied to the NCAA!
bakdraft21
Well-known member
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
lets just say what it is..............R.I.Ts
fault
lets just say what it is..............R.I.Ts
faultRe: 2011 Division III Commitments
To bring a military perspective in to this. When you look at Army drill sergeants, some utilize intimidation, others are more subtle with their teaching techniques. Some people react better to one way, some to another. It doesn't mean that one is better than another, but there are some that I would prefer to report to more than others.
lets just say what it is..............R.I.Ts
To bring a military perspective in to this. When you look at Army drill sergeants, some utilize intimidation, others are more subtle with their teaching techniques. Some people react better to one way, some to another. It doesn't mean that one is better than another, but there are some that I would prefer to report to more than others.
puckrfactor
New member
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Just curious....but why is it that Emery, as some have put it, don't have the Administration's support as they had in the past, even though they put a competitive team on the ice?
Just curious....but why is it that Emery, as some have put it, don't have the Administration's support as they had in the past, even though they put a competitive team on the ice?
PSUChamps2001
Member of the REAL Zoo Crew
Re: 2011 Division III Commitments
Exactly what we are talking about. Emery has had to deal with severe budget cuts during the mid to late 00's. Financial Aid packages were pretty much non existent as the school wanted to invest their finances in the other programs (basketball, baseball, and soccer). While most of us Cardinal Hockey fans didn't mind helping out the other programs, the school needed a few mediocre seasons (for whats expected at Plattsburgh) to realize Plattsburgh Mens Hockey is Plattsburgh. While the soccer teams and basketball teams have enjoyed a few successful seasons, its the hockey team that continues to put thousands of PAYING fans in the seats every game. Thats something the school could not ignore.
Also Emery has had to now compete with a strong womens program. This has had more to do with players exiting more then anything else.
Exactly what we are talking about. Emery has had to deal with severe budget cuts during the mid to late 00's. Financial Aid packages were pretty much non existent as the school wanted to invest their finances in the other programs (basketball, baseball, and soccer). While most of us Cardinal Hockey fans didn't mind helping out the other programs, the school needed a few mediocre seasons (for whats expected at Plattsburgh) to realize Plattsburgh Mens Hockey is Plattsburgh. While the soccer teams and basketball teams have enjoyed a few successful seasons, its the hockey team that continues to put thousands of PAYING fans in the seats every game. Thats something the school could not ignore.
Also Emery has had to now compete with a strong womens program. This has had more to do with players exiting more then anything else.
puckrfactor
New member
I must admit I am relatively new to the DIII scene and i learn abit more each time I read the posts On this blog. Tons of history and tradition! It's amazing and very interesting. There's a lot of insight from fans, former players, etc. who have a tremendous passion for this corner of the college hockey world and have been around for more than a few seasons shall we say! Great discussions.....atleast most of the time anyway! lol
So while we are all waiting for the next recruiting update, ill ask another question......
PSU Champ2001 - You made the statement at the end of your last post..."Also Emery has had to now compete with a strong womens program. This has had more to do with players exiting more then anything else."
Can you please expand on this? How does a competitive womens program cause men to leave early?