Penn State Womens Hockey

[claw]

Unless you have additional information, you're reading a whole lot into that story that isn't there.

Huh? She went to student paper and trashed the coach who cut her and others who made minimal contributions to a new d1 program that has to continue recruiting to improve and balance classes.

Everything I said was in the article. What exactly am I reading into that didnt happen?

 

[wwhyte]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Shoulda known what she was signing up for when she went to a new D1 program.

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

 

[Hux]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

That, and as time advances the program should be able to recruit better players. The strong replace the weak.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Penn State cuts seven players: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/sports/women_hockey/article_686d4aaa-c995-11e3-9954-001a4bcf6878.html

It looks like they may have some pretty good recruits. The proof will be in the pudding and this may turn out to make sense in results, but it seems like cutting seven players is inviting some negative public reaction.

 

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

Of course. What are they supposed to do? Wait 4 years for everyone to graduate and then start over?

They have to continue recruiting better, more established players to make the program competitive and they also have to try and balance out their classes.

Everyone coming into a new program gets a fair shot, but some are going to make it and some are not. I never sat in on any recruiting meetings with Penn State, or anywhere, but I'm willing to bet based on common sense that in some form or another the coaching staff said that the players coming in were going to get an opportunity to be part of the program and that based on their contribution they'd make a decision moving forward about where they fit in. Most players (and especially parents) are not going to take that for what it's worth...of course that only applies to "someone else's kid". You didn't tell me you were going to cut ME therefore you were dishonest with me.

Like I said, IMO, it's pretty obvious that when you go to a new program, you have to contribute significantly and continue to improve, or else they are going to recruit above you. It's simple math and it's written all over the walls. New programs can be a tremendous opportunity, but there's also going to be a higher turnover for the first several years.

 

[ARM]

Just so I understand, are you saying that new programs tend to recruit more players than they need and then cut?

Different programs use different models depending on how many scholarships they have at their disposal in the early years. For example, a program could give 6 scholarships in year one, add 5 more in year two, 4 in year three, and 3 in year four. By the fourth year, that program would be up to the maximum of 18 scholarships. Obviously, it won't be as competitive in the first couple of seasons with that approach, but it may work better in the long term rather than bringing in a huge scholarship class in year one and either seeing it graduate after the fourth season or having to prune a number of players along the way. That may have been the plan all along, but if it wasn't communicated to those impacted in advance, cuts will be just as unpopular as layoffs in the workplace. That's why new programs usually bring in as many impact players as possible with the scholarships that they have available, and then fill out the roster with walk-ons. When it is time to upgrade the talent with new classes, you don't have to pull scholarships from kids already on the roster. The non-scholarship kids generally see the writing on the wall as more scholarship players are added each year and the original walk-ons slip farther down the depth chart. Making wholesale cuts can be a double-edged sword.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Huh? She went to student paper and trashed the coach who cut her and others who made minimal contributions to a new d1 program that has to continue recruiting to improve and balance classes.

Everything I said was in the article. What exactly am I reading into that didnt happen?

Your entire argument presupposes that her claims have no merit. While that's certainly possible, it's also possible that the players who were deemed to be expendable were treated badly.

And, in my mind, they almost were treated badly, even if the specific allegations of bullying aren't true, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a good deal of bitterness. People are talking about how this should be expected in a new program and at least implying, if not outright stating, that these young women should just take it in stride. I think that that's a perfectly good example of the NCAA, its schools, and a lot of fans wanting to have it both ways on the question of amateurism. You're asking for a mindset that would be perfectly appropriate to expect from professionals, but not from notional amateurs.

They made a commitment to Penn State and its hockey program. That's true in the sense of both a lower case "c" and in the title of the letter they signed to play there. Absent some sort of evidence that they failed to live up to their end of the commitment in ways other than just not being good enough at playing hockey, I disagree that their contributions were obviously minimal.

They made a commitment when PSU couldn't get better hockey players, but the school's commitment lasted only until that changed. And these players are reacting in the way that human beings generally do when someone breaks a commitment to them.

Your argument that they should just assume that those commitments should last just so long as Penn State can't get better players presupposes a level of professionalism that is not supposed to be present at the NCAA level. That may be the way things actually do work but I have a hard time blaming the players for believing the words that coaches, administrators, and the NCAA coat the world with implying otherwise. And if you do, ask yourself whether you really think it would be better if athletes just routinely stop believing what their coaches tell them. If those in charge just want to admit that college athletics are being run on a basis of professionalism, great, but they need to live with all of the consequences of that and not just hide behind it when they want to get better players.

All that's said assuming that the specific allegations aren't true. If they aren't, that's the woman who made them but I find her bitterness understandable. But they might also be true, and you don't really have any way to know that they aren't.

 

[Cali]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The optics of the player speaking up only after she was cut may not be the greatest, but is she wrong in her allegations of bullying? Isn't fear of repercussion one of the trademarks of a victim of bullying? This fear of repercussion may, in fact, be the reason why she is only speaking up now.

Bully coaches are in way too many places in elite sports. Here is an article written about bullying. Look at the list of characteristic traits and apply it your team's coach. I bet we would be surprised at how many coaches really are bullies, based on this list of criteria.

https://www.competitivedge.com/“coaching-abuse-dirty-not-so-little-secret-sports”

 

[claw]

The optics of the player speaking up only after she was cut may not be the greatest, but is she wrong in her allegations of bullying? Isn't fear of repercussion one of the trademarks of a victim of bullying? This fear of repercussion may, in fact, be the reason why she is only speaking up now.

Bully coaches are in way too many places in elite sports. Here is an article written about bullying. Look at the list of characteristic traits and apply it your team's coach. I bet we would be surprised at how many coaches really are bullies, based on this list of criteria.

https://www.competitivedge.com/“coaching-abuse-dirty-not-so-little-secret-sports”

How many things on that list are subjective? A player who feels their competitive value is more than the coach feels it is will very easily feel many of these things even if they may not be true. For instance its easy when coach never plays you to say coach doesnt like me, or coach doesnt talk to me or coach is a bad communicator. Those things are two way streets. Im not naive and certainly there are probably way too many coaches that take things too far, but IMO saying a coach that does two of those things is abusive is ridiculous, especially given the subjectivity of many criteria.

 

[Call It]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The lesson here is that, "There are no guarantees in life!"

Women's College Hockey is not a right or entitlement.

 

[Cali]

How many things on that list are subjective? A player who feels their competitive value is more than the coach feels it is will very easily feel many of these things even if they may not be true. For instance its easy when coach never plays you to say coach doesnt like me, or coach doesnt talk to me or coach is a bad communicator. Those things are two way streets. Im not naive and certainly there are probably way too many coaches that take things too far, but IMO saying a coach that does two of those things is abusive is ridiculous, especially given the subjectivity of many criteria.

You're correct, but what's the number? If not 2 is it 5? Is it 10? How about 20? When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

 

[claw]

You're correct, but what's the number? If not 2 is it 5? Is it 10? How about 20? When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

Its nothing as far as that list goes. Some of the things on the list are legit, many of them are bogus. That article is very flawed and is a disservice to people who are dealing with real bullying by suggesting that anyone who feels their coach doesnt pay them enough attention or perceive enough care from their coach or feels their coach yells too much is abusing them.

 

[claw]

When your paycheck depends on winning, many of these traits become real.

Ill also add that when our society depends on parents who raise their children to think its always someone elses fault, everyone deserves a participation certificate, and that theyre entitled to x y and z because they can do ANYTHING if they just try hard then we become really freakin soft as a society.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Its nothing as far as that list goes. Some of the things on the list are legit, many of them are bogus. That article is very flawed and is a disservice to people who are dealing with real bullying by suggesting that anyone who feels their coach doesnt pay them enough attention or perceive enough care from their coach or feels their coach yells too much is abusing them.

Again, either you have additional specific information about this situation or you're making things up.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The lesson here is that, "There are no guarantees in life!"

Women's College Hockey is not a right or entitlement.

It may not be an entitlement, but that doesn't mean that a commitment shouldn't go both ways. If a coach wants loyalty, he also needs to show it.

 

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

It may not be an entitlement, but that doesn't mean that a commitment shouldn't go both ways. If a coach wants loyalty, he also needs to show it.

a coach has a right and an obligation to improve his team. players can leave the team at any time, why shouldn't a coach have a right to improve his or her team if they see fit?

since you're so hung up on "inside info" you have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes. maybe these players attitudes alone warranted this action by the coach? perhaps it's entirely related to their contribution athletically. either way, the coach has the right at the end of a season to move forward, ESPECIALLY in a situation where it's a new program and you're dealing with players from the inaugural roster who may not really be suited to play at that level.

 

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Again, either you have additional specific information about this situation or you're making things up.

WTH are you talking about additional info or I'm making it up? I'm referencing a specific article that was posted in a general sense and not tying it to any specific incident. Get over yourself.

However since you're hung up on me having additional info, why do I need it? Here are the facts from this article:

1) Accusation was made by a player who had an axe to grind and who clearly didn't have a problem talking to the media about her feelings
2) Despite that, nothing was said in support of the accusation except that "he talked to us like we were kids", "he didn't talk to me", "he's a hypocrite", "i dont respect him", and "he's not a good coach". All very, very subjective and certainly not indicative of bullying, IMO.
3) Another player was interviewed and said she was shocked or hurt, but that the cuts were to allow other players on to the roster. She gives no indication of anything to do with bullying.
4) According to the scorned player, 13 players, including her, went to meet with the AD because they didn't like the Coach and they are frustrated with the direction of the program. Doesn't say they went there because they were concerned about abuses that were taking place and concerned for their safety.

Sorry, but I need a little more than that to assume that something wrong is really going on. Doesn't mean I'm "making stuff up" if I don't have more info, it means that I'm making an informed decision based on the info at hand which is coming directly from an obviously involved and upset player. I could make the same case to you that if you're buying what she's selling based on this swiss cheese article then you must have some super duper top secret insider information or else you're just making up that this actually happened.

 

[96IllinoisDad]

WTH are you talking about additional info or I'm making it up? I'm referencing a specific article that was posted in a general sense and not tying it to any specific incident. Get over yourself.

However since you're hung up on me having additional info, why do I need it? Here are the facts from this article:

1) Accusation was made by a player who had an axe to grind and who clearly didn't have a problem talking to the media about her feelings
2) Despite that, nothing was said in support of the accusation except that "he talked to us like we were kids", "he didn't talk to me", "he's a hypocrite", "i dont respect him", and "he's not a good coach". All very, very subjective and certainly not indicative of bullying, IMO.
3) Another player was interviewed and said she was shocked or hurt, but that the cuts were to allow other players on to the roster. She gives no indication of anything to do with bullying.
4) According to the scorned player, 13 players, including her, went to meet with the AD because they didn't like the Coach and they are frustrated with the direction of the program. Doesn't say they went there because they were concerned about abuses that were taking place and concerned for their safety.

Sorry, but I need a little more than that to assume that something wrong is really going on. Doesn't mean I'm "making stuff up" if I don't have more info, it means that I'm making an informed decision based on the info at hand which is coming directly from an obviously involved and upset player. I could make the same case to you that if you're buying what she's selling based on this swiss cheese article then you must have some super duper top secret insider information or else you're just making up that this actually happened.

First, you are reading into article that this kid went to press instead of the other way around. Maybe true but not in article.

Second, a coach is free to run his program how he sees fit within the rules. He can cut walkons and he can pull scholarships. On the other hand, kids can run to media and tell their friends. New recruits certainly can use this information to determine their future. In other words, does a new recruit want to go to a place where a coach cuts walkons and pulls scholarships?

To think that this move wouldn't have any impact on future recruiting is naive. Any coach knows this, and I'm sure the coach in this case weighed the harm (whatever impact) that it would cause. In addition to 3 kids who were on scholarship, many were rising seniors. So I'm sure there is more to the story. Quite simply, the coach is going to need to address it with recruits who ask. I'm sure he'll have a reason other than making way for better players.

Also in reference to one of your earlier posts, during my d's recruiting process, no coach ever suggested that there was a possibility or practice of cutting players from the roster (playng time was different). In fact, many coaches went out of their way to say that they do not pull scholarships.

 

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Two former players react to the recent cuts: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/sports/women_hockey/article_0e2de2ee-ca93-11e3-80da-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Also in reference to one of your earlier posts, during my d's recruiting process, no coach ever suggested that there was a possibility or practice of cutting players from the roster (playng time was different). In fact, many coaches went out of their way to say that they do not pull scholarships.

That post was in specific regard to new programs which are managed (out of necessity) differently from established programs over the first couple of seasons