What's new
By:
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.

End of Verbal Agreements??

Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

SCSU Euro said:
True, everything IS UND's fault. Rocco and Dell are the reason Mitch's fantasy team sucks
Click to expand...

It's his own fault. Everyone knows:
1. Dells are awesome for the first year and then become bloated pieces of crap.
2. You can never trust a Jesus Freak.
 
Dirty said:
Yes. The awesome thing about this is now UND can be blamed for another thing when this happens. Hooray! Everything is UND's fault! :)

The idea that most of the time any school is out for anyone else but themselves is amusing.
Click to expand...

Pretty hypocritical in my opinion.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

There is on easy partial solution, bump up the number of scholarships to 24, or at least closer to what it takes to actually have a team.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Happy said:
There is on easy partial solution, bump up the number of scholarships to 24, or at least closer to what it takes to actually have a team.
Click to expand...

What was the reasoning for full scholarships being reduced to 18 from 21??
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Hockeybuckeye said:
Having collegiate athletes in the family when they were younger I went throught the process with them. A verbal is just that, a verbal agreement by a prospect to play for a program for a given set of conditions, ie scholarsip money. Either side can op out if they so choose, in the kids case a better offer. It's difficult for a coach to counter an offer as their scholarship money has usually been divided among their current players and what's offered to each incoming so there's really nothing left over to counter with. I don't know firsthand of a coach backing out of their verbal without giving reason but it's probally happened, when it does happen for a given reason it's usually because the kid got in legal trouble or didn't come through on the grades. Now once you sign your letter of intent it's no longer a verbal but a contract that is enforced by the NCAA. For a kid to get out of that the school has to release them, they just can't jump ship as they choose as they can when it's still a verbal.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that, by and large, the coaches have a handshake agreement not to poach from each other and that's what we're talking about. Usually its within the same conference... the usual don't **** where you eat and so on... good neighbors stuff. It may be no coincidence that in the conference shake up and the CHL issues that the issues of "good neighbors" is falling apart... but that begs the question... will the re-constituted conferences do handshakes amongst themselves and is this just an attempt to get ahead on what will be a dissolved gentleman's agreement?

This isn't really about the player as it is about the relationship between the programs.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

jnacc said:
“I think we want to continue the gentlemanly side of college hockey and our close-knit community..."
Click to expand...

Wait, gentlemanly side of hockey? Is that the part where you sit down and talk with your fellow members about your thoughts on the future of your conference? Oh no wait, that's the part where you back the truck up in the middle of the night, load up your like minded friends and then bail. Maybe the UND recruits are just showing the values they see displayed by the university that recruited them ... Karma is a *****.

Hakstol also went on to blame the CHL for the loss of their Sue mascot who had given a verbal to UND but then also decided not to stay... News Flash: This just in, honor and integrity also just decommitted from UND...
Ryan J
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

JohnsonsJerseys said:
Wait, gentlemanly side of hockey? Is that the part where you sit down and talk with your fellow members about your thoughts on the future of your conference? Oh no wait, that's the part where you back the truck up in the middle of the night, load up your like minded friends and then bail. Maybe the UND recruits are just showing the values they see displayed by the university that recruited them ... Karma is a *****.

Hakstol also went on to blame the CHL for the loss of their Sue mascot who had given a verbal to UND but then also decided not to stay... News Flash: This just in, honor and integrity also just decommitted from UND...
Ryan J
Click to expand...

crying.gif
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Slap Shot said:
They aren't gentlemanly enough to honor the handshake line, why honor verbals?
Click to expand...

FWIW, Lucia does not like the "gentleman's agreement"...

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/2008/05/recruitment-when-is-verbal-verbal.html

Minnesota’s Don Lucia is one coach who has publicly stated that he wants to do away with verbal commitments.

“And he’s got a few allies,” McLeod said. “It’s not a majority. But the problem is that the three or four guys talking about (recruiting committed players) are the leaders, the more veteran coaches. That’s what has caused a commotion more than anything.”

Lucia said that some Hockey East schools pushed a new gentleman’s agreement that would allow schools to contact verbally committed players until May 1 of their junior year. The thinking is that the recruiting age would go back up under this type of system.

“The whole issue here is ninth- and 10th-graders,” Lucia said. “What’s going on right now is not good for the players, colleges or anybody. It shouldn’t be a race to see who can first discover and get a ninth-grader.”

Gwozdecky, the most veteran coach in the WCHA, is on the other side of the issue. He says he’d hate to see the day when coaches are recruiting committed players.
Click to expand...

BTW, here was Hakstol's quote...(link below)

“There are a lot of sides to that issue. It’s a very complicated issue. My opinion has changed over time. I was a very strong proponent of it eight to 10 years ago. I think we need to find a middle ground on verbal commitments.

“I think we want to continue the gentlemanly side of college hockey and our close-knit community. At the same time, I think it’s time we take a real close look at exactly what we’re doing.”
Click to expand...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/228555/
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Patman said:
Yes, the big boys don't like losing on their bets. Sure, they're happy to let a good kid go to a minnow because it won't really affect them... but now that they're getting fewer good kids the market is getting hard and it sounds like they're looking for opportunities.

-----

FURTHER, this makes me continue to be suspicious of College Hockey Inc. as I'm unsure whose interests they represent. Does he represent the constituent schools or only certain schools?

-----

The CHL has nothing to do with this discussion other than that the top schools who get players who tease them via the CHL are losing out. Are we arguing that college hockey is only good when certain key programs have routine success? If so, then I think the rest of us need to pay attention and realize that College Hockey Inc. is not in fact serving our interests. If that means no longer making nice in public, so be it. This is an internal matter to college hockey... don't whine that the devil made you do it... unless you want to admit to the horns on your own head.
Click to expand...

SCSU just lost a kid mid season to major junior. I know that has nothing to do with recruiting, but any agreement that keeps them away from our players would be huge.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
FWIW, Lucia does not like the "gentleman's agreement"...
Click to expand...

False. He said he's against verbals because the result of it is causing kids to commit earlier and ealier, but he said nothing about being in agreement with poaching commitments and in fact it's clear from his comments he doesn't like it:

Lucia said that some Hockey East schools pushed a new gentleman’s agreement that would allow schools to contact verbally committed players until May 1 of their junior year. The thinking is that the recruiting age would go back up under this type of system.

“The whole issue here is ninth- and 10th-graders,” Lucia said. “What’s going on right now is not good for the players, colleges or anybody. It shouldn’t be a race to see who can first discover and get a ninth-grader.”
Click to expand...

On the other hand Hakstol said, "At the same time, I think it’s time we take a real close look at exactly what we’re doing" which clearly indicates he is in favor or exploring pushing the envelope. Come on.
 
Last edited:
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Slap Shot said:
False - he said he doen't like the idea of pressing younger and younger kids to verbal and that it's cleary being pressed by teams from out East. Re-read the article. He said nothing about being in agreement with poaching commitments.
Click to expand...

Re-read what I said. I never said anything about poaching kids.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

JDUBBS1280 said:
Why not just recruit more US players? UND is just as popular as a program as any. Not that the CHL isn't attractive to US born, just not as likely to go that route. Generally speaking the kids going the CHL route couldn't care less about a degree in the 1st place so why waste a scholarship on them. I'd think the alumni would question that just as much as they'd question the poaching.
Click to expand...
You realize the last two players that de-committed from UND were American's right? Both players were on the USDT.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Slap Shot said:
When you referred to him not liking the, "gentleman's agreement" that's what I interpreted. If not mea culpa.
Click to expand...

My point was that a lot of Minnesota fans were blasting Hakstol for his stance on the agreement, when in reality, he and Lucia see eye to eye. Neither would violate it, but they both want to change the agreement.

Personally, I'm okay with recruits staying on the table until they reach an agreed upon age (like the Hockey East agreement) or until they sign the LOI. I also like the idea of taking the CHL off the table for the freshman year once the LOI has been signed. As for recruiting CHL kids, I think that is a slippery slope, but I think if you limited it to only kids who were 18 or younger (along with other obvious limitations) it might work.
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

mnstate0fhockey said:
So, we want to combat losing players to the CHL late by stealing committed recruits from smaller programs late?

Does this seem hypocritical to anyone else?
Click to expand...
Your coach is the one that doesn't like the verbals ...
Minnesota’s Don Lucia is one coach who has publicly stated that he wants to do away with verbal commitments.

“And he’s got a few allies,” McLeod said. “It’s not a majority. But the problem is that the three or four guys talking about (recruiting committed players) are the leaders, the more veteran coaches. That’s what has caused a commotion more than anything.”

Lucia said that some Hockey East schools pushed a new gentleman’s agreement that would allow schools to contact verbally committed players until May 1 of their junior year. The thinking is that the recruiting age would go back up under this type of system.

“The whole issue here is ninth- and 10th-graders,” Lucia said. “What’s going on right now is not good for the players, colleges or anybody. It shouldn’t be a race to see who can first discover and get a ninth-grader.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: End of Verbal Agreements??

Patman said:
The difference here is that, by and large, the coaches have a handshake agreement not to poach from each other and that's what we're talking about. Usually its within the same conference... the usual don't **** where you eat and so on... good neighbors stuff. It may be no coincidence that in the conference shake up and the CHL issues that the issues of "good neighbors" is falling apart... but that begs the question... will the re-constituted conferences do handshakes amongst themselves and is this just an attempt to get ahead on what will be a dissolved gentleman's agreement?

This isn't really about the player as it is about the relationship between the programs.
Click to expand...
So it becomes like a blood feud, once the line is crossed then it's a war and nothing's sacred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top