Penn State Womens Hockey

[hockeylife]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

With the newest article .....Yikes! This will definately make things harder for recruiting.

 

[Cali]

With the newest article .....Yikes! This will definately make things harder for recruiting.

Yeah there is no doubt in my eyes that the coach a huge part of the problem. The decisions are tough ones to make but there are much better ways to handle them. Communication is a start. There are too many D1 coaches that treat their players like assets and not like people.

 

[Rightnut]

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.

I agree. It's a two way street and both sides have an "opportunity cost" as the players, especially the scholarship players, likely passed on other schools and the school probably passed on other players. To cut so many players makes it look simply like he is clearing the roster to get new "better" players. While that may be the way the world works it certainly will raise a red flag to potential recruits.

 

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

It took 17 freshmen to put up a roster and start this D-1 program, but if all 17 really expected to go the full four years on the team, they were dreaming. Any coach would be looking to trim that group as soon and as much as possible, or he'd be in a world of hurt when they graduate.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

this!

 

[wwhyte]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

Thanks, great explanation.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

It took 17 freshmen to put up a roster and start this D-1 program, but if all 17 really expected to go the full four years on the team, they were dreaming. Any coach would be looking to trim that group as soon and as much as possible, or he'd be in a world of hurt when they graduate.

And it looks like Brandwene has gone about trimming that group in a way that maximizes the bitterness and hurt feelings.

 

[ARM]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I know zip about Penn State's coach or his handling of the team, so I won't comment on PSU specifically.

In terms of managing the roster, I'd be interested in how Brian Durocher went about it when BU moved from club to varsity. The first D-I season, BU had 20 freshmen. That class dropped to 14 as sophomores, 11 as juniors, and 10 as seniors. Still, I can't see him making wholesale cuts, because it seems to go against how he views his team. For example, in the NCAA quarterfinal in Minnesota, Durocher started a fourth-line senior who plays little to let her be recognized by hometown fans. A lot of coaches would do that in a regular-season game, but few would in a national tournament. BU has been as successful as any new program in the last decade as far as reaching the top echelon and staying there. To a large extent, you reap what you sow.

Any time there is turmoil on a roster, it reflects poorly on a staff. Even if the coach is blameless in any dispute, the question becomes, "Why did he recruit multiple players with supposed 'bad attitudes?'"

 

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

The first D-I season, BU had 20 freshmen. That class dropped to 14 as sophomores, 11 as juniors, and 10 as seniors. Still, I can't see him making wholesale cuts, because it seems to go against how he views his team.

I know exactly zero about BU, so I'll go with your saying Durocher cut six of the initial freshmen after the first season and three more of them after the second season. Maybe Brandwene is trying to follow Durocher's plan - they both axed nine by the end of two seasons.

 

[Cali]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I know exactly zero about BU, so I'll go with your saying Durocher cut six of the initial freshmen after the first season and three more of them after the second season. Maybe Brandwene is trying to follow Durocher's plan - they both axed nine by the end of two seasons.

If he was trying to follow Durocher's plan then he left out one important part…that being how he views his team.

 

[Sean Pickett]

BU Women's Hockey

BU Women's Hockey

As I understand it Coach Durocher only used 4 or 5 scholarships each of the first four seasons on freshman when BU started their program. After the first season Coach Durocher informed those players he was letting go before the end of season banquet. At the banquet he said how difficult it was, but that he was letting them go, and he acknowledged what they did for the program. As far as I recall he did the same after each season when he let a player or players go.

Sean

 

[BigSandy]

Penn State

Penn State

I dont know anything about Penn State or their hockey program, but it sure sounds like the coach had something to do with all the turmoil. If there had been a small group of players that approached the AD regarding the coach, you can make the argument that it might be a splinter group that is not happy, but when 13 players were present, that means that their was some serious issues with the team, and the coach was part of that. Interesting that some of the 13 players are still on the roster, that must make some uncomfertable moments around the team.
Coaches and programs have the right to improve their teams as they see fit, and students/players can ask for permission to transfer when they see fit, we can all agree on this, id would be interested to see the ratio comparison, school cuts player, too player ask for transfer, from reading on here, my guess is that the program cutting player is probably higher.
The one thing to take in consideration is that for most student/players its not just the sport that means something, we forget that they are also getting a education, and when a coach tells them that they are not wanted back, its not just the hockey that is affected, its their education, their life outside of hockey that is also affected. These players are not highly paid athletes, for the most part, they are struggling (financially) young adults. Even though nothing is guaranteed to them when they signed, most of them were recruited by their coaches, and most if not all expect to finish at their chosen school. Its a fine line, I understand that coaches have expectations and are judged by wins and losses. In the Penn States case, a lot of those girls that were cut were needed when the program was struggling and building, now that the program is getting better, they are not needed, it doesnt seem fair..

 

[PowerForward]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

There is no doubt in my mind that the coach plays a big factor in this unfortunate situation. When 46% of the team goes to the Assoc. AD to discuss the hockey program and coach, there is a problem. I'd imagine some of the team that didn't go to the meeting share similar opinions of the coach but were/are afraid of any retaliation they may face. It also sounds like communication is not a strong attribute of Coach Brandwene. Not giving reasons as to why players were cut and not looking at or speaking to a player for three weeks is not only inappropriate but unprofessional and immature! I'm not naive to the fact that in building a new program there will be cuts and replacements but when multiple players share similar opinions I don't think it's just 'sour grapes'.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up for what you believe in and these girls believe(d) in the Penn State Women's Ice Hockey program. These girls took the appropriate route to express their concerns. Unfortunately, it's easier to replace a player than a head coach in a situation like this. I don't know how long Coach Brandwene's contract is but unless there is some progression on and off ice in the next few seasons I'd imagine he might be looking for a new job.

Penn State has great potential in developing into a dominant program with some major draw for recruits (scholarship, arena, school, etc..) but nobody wants to play for a coach with some unfavorable characteristics. If I was a recruit for next season, I'd start to wonder what I signed up for.

 

[Cali]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

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.

There is some truth to that statement but in the dynamic of coach-player, who is supposed to be the adult? The student-athlete is just learning to find their way in life and they enter a new school eyes wide open, excited but also very nervous. IMO the coach is supposed to be there to guide them along. When that doesn't happen, the teammates become the source of support. When many of the students share the same feelings towards a coach then the dysfunction gains momentum. It is all avoidable if the coach treats the player like a person, not an asset.

 

[claw]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

There is some truth to that statement but in the dynamic of coach-player, who is supposed to be the adult? The student-athlete is just learning to find their way in life and they enter a new school eyes wide open, excited but also very nervous. IMO the coach is supposed to be there to guide them along. When that doesn't happen, the teammates become the source of support. When many of the students share the same feelings towards a coach then the dysfunction gains momentum. It is all avoidable if the coach treats the player like a person, not an asset.

I agree with you, however every time someone says that a coach isn't doing those things it is not always true. I just want to see some proof beyond an allegation and a couple of subjective statements.

 

[ZedLeppelin]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Former strength and conditioning coach speaks out about Penn State women's hockey coach: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/sports/women_hockey/article_05bed14e-cb75-11e3-8c75-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[Cali]

I agree with you, however every time someone says that a coach isn't doing those things it is not always true. I just want to see some proof beyond an allegation and a couple of subjective statements.

Based on the numerous people coming forward with their opinions, that proof may come in the form of popular vote.

The other point is that the head coach recruited these players. If they are all now not good enough to play at this level then it would seem to me that he either did a poor job of recruiting or he did a poor job of developing the players. Both are negative reflections on his ability. I find it inexcusable that a coach lays the blame at the feet of a player in saying that they didn't develop. Isn't that part of the definition of a "good coach". That may be the case with one or two, not seven.

 

[96IllinoisDad]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

Based on the numerous people coming forward with their opinions, that proof may come in the form of popular vote.

The other point is that the head coach recruited these players. If they are all now not good enough to play at this level then it would seem to me that he either did a poor job of recruiting or he did a poor job of developing the players. Both are negative reflections on his ability. I find it inexcusable that a coach lays the blame at the feet of a player in saying that they didn't develop. Isn't that part of the definition of a "good coach". That may be the case with one or two, not seven.

Actually 9 if you count the 2 from the previous season (who apparently had scholarships as well) and 7 from this season.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

I agree with you, however every time someone says that a coach isn't doing those things it is not always true. I just want to see some proof beyond an allegation and a couple of subjective statements.

The funny thing is that you're the only one who has taken a position of being certain as to whether those allegations are true. You have repeatedly condemned the players and asserted that they are spoiled and in the wrong. The rest of us have taken the stance that we don't know whether those allegations are true. Some of us also think that there is evidence of Brandwene running the program poorly aside from the specific allegations of bullying but that doesn't depend upon them being true.

So what you are mostly doing is projecting a mirror image of your belief that you know what happened onto others who don't.

 

[Mountain_Hockey_Dad]

Re: Penn State Womens Hockey

One thing that no one has mentioned so far is if it is possible that the head coach might be part of a package deal when the Pegula's stepped up to underwrite the cost to start the men's and women's hockey program including the cost of building the arena, maybe this coach was someone they knew and recommended. If this were indeed the case, I think it could be difficult for the AD or school to make a coaching change.

I have a daughter that plays college hockey and I feel like I'm constantly reminded that if it were not for title IX, about 80% (maybe more) of the women's programs would not exist. Is it a priority for most women's programs to be successful? - NO

Is it necessary for most schools with a men's hockey program to field a women's program to offset the men's scholarships? - YES