I have observed Women's D-lll coaching over the years and I still can't grasp the thinking behind the hiring and firing process. The standard fare is to release a underachieving coach after a string of poor seasons usually executed in the spring. I understand that many A.D.'s feel it is unfair to release a coach without giving them an opportunity to "recruit" their team thus a three or four season run. Really? In most other levels of hockey a coach is expected to show improvement over his or her predecessor during their first season. Perhaps not monumental improvement, but improvement just the same. Let me provide an example of two coaches who started as a head coach the same time and on two bottom rung programs. Coach Kivi at Marian has a record of 11-49-4 over her three seasons there. Coach Syrowik at Finlandia has a 1-56-0 record over the same period. Both coaches were players and assistant coaches before taking over their respective programs. Both are within a couple of players of having their "own" team. They are currently the last and second from last place teams in their conference. Kivi took over a program with a 4-65-4 record. Syrowik's predecessors had a 28-158-11 record. In my opinion, one coach has improved her team, the other has not. Granted Coach Syrowik has developed goaltenders who are capable of facing 141 shots in a two game series. My question is, "Why do A.D.'s wait so long to remove an unproductive coach and why in the spring?" Waiting until spring all but assures a successor will have limited or no recruiting for their first season. Why not hire a coach during the active season for 19U hockey and allow the lame duck to finish out their season at the same time? Is the purpose of the program to improve and become a contender or simply fill some dorm rooms and help the bottom line?
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.
Releasing a coach, when and why?
- Thread starter Finfan
- Start date
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
Because when you're dealing with programs with those kinds of history, the problem goes a lot deeper than coaching. The school most likely doesn't care if their program wins or loses as long they keep kids on the roster and graduate them and I'd be willing to bet if you could look at the resources this would be reflected. Your last sentence asked about the purpose of the program, but at many schools, especially at D3 where things tend to be more enrollment driven and there are no athletic scholarships, hockey is a sport that can put 20+ kids in the dorm rooms and even with the operating costs can contribute a significant amount of money to the bottom line.
Because when you're dealing with programs with those kinds of history, the problem goes a lot deeper than coaching. The school most likely doesn't care if their program wins or loses as long they keep kids on the roster and graduate them and I'd be willing to bet if you could look at the resources this would be reflected. Your last sentence asked about the purpose of the program, but at many schools, especially at D3 where things tend to be more enrollment driven and there are no athletic scholarships, hockey is a sport that can put 20+ kids in the dorm rooms and even with the operating costs can contribute a significant amount of money to the bottom line.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
What about the opposite situation when you have a long time coach at a school that never does well. One example is at St. Michael's College. The simple answer is the school does not care about winning or losing. It cares about providing the opportunity for the students to play a varsity sport. That's the way D3 philosophy used to be almost across the board.
What about the opposite situation when you have a long time coach at a school that never does well. One example is at St. Michael's College. The simple answer is the school does not care about winning or losing. It cares about providing the opportunity for the students to play a varsity sport. That's the way D3 philosophy used to be almost across the board.
gojackets
New member
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
I can't imagine how hard it is to find a top notch D3 player that is willing to go to a school like Marian or Finlandia without that being the academic school of their choice. If you are being recruited by Finlandia, Marian, and say St Norbert to stay with the private theme and cost/academics aren't your top priority--why would you choose a school that is 1-56-0 and not going anywhere, over a school that is 44-22-5 and, in general, moving up in the world.
I would assume the kids that go to schools like Finlandia, Marian, Chatham, and especially St Mikes, St. Anselm, etc where they have nothing really to play for...go to the college for their education and play hockey as an added bonus. I know Marian had a goal of being competitive when they first started the program, but when you look at Wisconsin, there isn't a whole lot of high school girls hockey and with 7 Wisconsin schools recruiting and 11 Minnesota schools, and the East teams taking a handful...there aren't a lot of girls out there to get.
Marian hasn't been terrible this year--even when you look at the "blowouts" Adrian 6-2, it was 3-2 until midway through the 3rd, 7-1 game they had about 4 minutes where Adrian scored 5 goals. The crazy 8-7 game vs Superior where they were leading after 2. They played evenly with Trinity...so they are there, just can't get over the hump. Finlandia on the other hand...
I can't imagine how hard it is to find a top notch D3 player that is willing to go to a school like Marian or Finlandia without that being the academic school of their choice. If you are being recruited by Finlandia, Marian, and say St Norbert to stay with the private theme and cost/academics aren't your top priority--why would you choose a school that is 1-56-0 and not going anywhere, over a school that is 44-22-5 and, in general, moving up in the world.
I would assume the kids that go to schools like Finlandia, Marian, Chatham, and especially St Mikes, St. Anselm, etc where they have nothing really to play for...go to the college for their education and play hockey as an added bonus. I know Marian had a goal of being competitive when they first started the program, but when you look at Wisconsin, there isn't a whole lot of high school girls hockey and with 7 Wisconsin schools recruiting and 11 Minnesota schools, and the East teams taking a handful...there aren't a lot of girls out there to get.
Marian hasn't been terrible this year--even when you look at the "blowouts" Adrian 6-2, it was 3-2 until midway through the 3rd, 7-1 game they had about 4 minutes where Adrian scored 5 goals. The crazy 8-7 game vs Superior where they were leading after 2. They played evenly with Trinity...so they are there, just can't get over the hump. Finlandia on the other hand...
Last edited:
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
I'm not sure it's fair to include a program like St A's in this mix. One could easily argue that kids who go to any of the seemingly successful non D-3 programs have more to play for in terms of at least winning a regular season conference crown or ECAC Open tournament championship than probably all but 15 or so D3 schools...since that is all that realistically has a shot at making the NCAA's in a given year (and it's usually the same schools year in and year out to boot).
I'm not sure it's fair to include a program like St A's in this mix. One could easily argue that kids who go to any of the seemingly successful non D-3 programs have more to play for in terms of at least winning a regular season conference crown or ECAC Open tournament championship than probably all but 15 or so D3 schools...since that is all that realistically has a shot at making the NCAA's in a given year (and it's usually the same schools year in and year out to boot).
gojackets
New member
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
So it's fork out the big dollars, put on the crest, take a long bus ride, get your lunch handed to you, swallow your pride, you made the team! Sounds like the "every kid gets a trophy" philosophy to me. Are you saying the success of the Wisconsin public universities goes against the D3 philosophy? If what you say about the D-3 philosophy is true why keep score?
So it's fork out the big dollars, put on the crest, take a long bus ride, get your lunch handed to you, swallow your pride, you made the team! Sounds like the "every kid gets a trophy" philosophy to me. Are you saying the success of the Wisconsin public universities goes against the D3 philosophy? If what you say about the D-3 philosophy is true why keep score?
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
I think Franky P is a pretty decent team, but over all I know what you mean.
That is trueI probably meant Franklin Pierce
I think Franky P is a pretty decent team, but over all I know what you mean.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
There's a phrase used in the roleplaying games community that applies here: "hurting wrong fun." It's used when someone who has a strong opinion of how games should be played complains that other people are enjoying their games (not ones that this person is playing, just that he's heard about) in ways that the individual doesn't approve of. That's pretty much what you are doing here.
"Success" is a word without any bright line, objective definitions. It's pretty dumb to tell other people how they ought to define it. Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it, whether it matches your definition of what would constitute success.
It's also very different from the "everyone gets a medal" approach (which I also think comes in for more scorn than it deserves in a lot of situations). In that, someone on the outside is declaring that participants have met the criteria for success. Just going out and having some fun playing hockey in the environment described is meeting a person's individual idea of what constitutes success.
Exactly why that should bother someone else eludes me.
There's a phrase used in the roleplaying games community that applies here: "hurting wrong fun." It's used when someone who has a strong opinion of how games should be played complains that other people are enjoying their games (not ones that this person is playing, just that he's heard about) in ways that the individual doesn't approve of. That's pretty much what you are doing here.
"Success" is a word without any bright line, objective definitions. It's pretty dumb to tell other people how they ought to define it. Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it, whether it matches your definition of what would constitute success.
It's also very different from the "everyone gets a medal" approach (which I also think comes in for more scorn than it deserves in a lot of situations). In that, someone on the outside is declaring that participants have met the criteria for success. Just going out and having some fun playing hockey in the environment described is meeting a person's individual idea of what constitutes success.
Exactly why that should bother someone else eludes me.
pokechecker
Banned
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
So why did you post here then? Aren’t you imposing your judgment in somebody else’s game? Aren’t you spoiling their fun?
You impose your definition of success, and then tell others it’s pretty dumb to tell others how to define it. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
“Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it”
true, but I think that’s why colleges/universities have Rec Sports/Club teams (or adults have beer leagues)
It always cracked me up the reaction of kids to “not keeping score” and “every kid is a winner” (give them all a medal) leagues, the kids keep score and they don’t value the medal (because everyone values something by the effort required to achieve it)
it's all for the parent, they can't stand to see their kid lose to someone else's kid and mostly it is parents who never themselves were athletes and really don't understand athletics
So why did you post here then? Aren’t you imposing your judgment in somebody else’s game? Aren’t you spoiling their fun?
You impose your definition of success, and then tell others it’s pretty dumb to tell others how to define it. I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
“Going to college and having fun just playing some hockey without investing much into whether you win or lose is a perfectly valid way to approach it”
true, but I think that’s why colleges/universities have Rec Sports/Club teams (or adults have beer leagues)
It always cracked me up the reaction of kids to “not keeping score” and “every kid is a winner” (give them all a medal) leagues, the kids keep score and they don’t value the medal (because everyone values something by the effort required to achieve it)
it's all for the parent, they can't stand to see their kid lose to someone else's kid and mostly it is parents who never themselves were athletes and really don't understand athletics
Last edited:
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
I find your response interesting though I do not agree with your concept of "fun." To determine where your point of view comes from I too, would have to make an assumption. Having played and coached in multiple sports over a lifetime, I have learned that player's have "fun" when they play and even more "fun" when they succeed. I have also learned through experience to expect to receive value for my dollar. Giving a player equipment, a fancy stick and saying "have fun" is fine for mite hockey. Doing the same for "elite" hockey is not value wise. My original question was "why" and "when" to release a coach? I chose the two coach examples because of their experience and like tenure. It is the respective A.D.'s responsibility to determine if a coach is showing improvement for the program or not? It is the school's responsibility to provide the student athlete with the opportunity to "succeed" as well as have fun. If you were competing for a promotion at your work and co-workers continually passed you, would you say, "That's OK, I am having fun?
I find your response interesting though I do not agree with your concept of "fun." To determine where your point of view comes from I too, would have to make an assumption. Having played and coached in multiple sports over a lifetime, I have learned that player's have "fun" when they play and even more "fun" when they succeed. I have also learned through experience to expect to receive value for my dollar. Giving a player equipment, a fancy stick and saying "have fun" is fine for mite hockey. Doing the same for "elite" hockey is not value wise. My original question was "why" and "when" to release a coach? I chose the two coach examples because of their experience and like tenure. It is the respective A.D.'s responsibility to determine if a coach is showing improvement for the program or not? It is the school's responsibility to provide the student athlete with the opportunity to "succeed" as well as have fun. If you were competing for a promotion at your work and co-workers continually passed you, would you say, "That's OK, I am having fun?
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
This is a nonsensical answer because it keeps shifting viewpoints, such that it's impossible to figure out what your point is. Whose perspective would you like me to address? The athletic director's? The coach's? Athletes that are on the team? People that aren't on the team but would like to be? My previous response looked at it from the perspective of players currently on the team because that seemed to be what the bit of yours that I quoted was referring to, namely that it is hurting wrong fun for a player to enjoy hockey when they are losing all the time.
And my response to that is the same: it's not your place to tell people whether or not they are legitimately enjoying the experience and deriving fulfillment from it. That's their decision.
This is a nonsensical answer because it keeps shifting viewpoints, such that it's impossible to figure out what your point is. Whose perspective would you like me to address? The athletic director's? The coach's? Athletes that are on the team? People that aren't on the team but would like to be? My previous response looked at it from the perspective of players currently on the team because that seemed to be what the bit of yours that I quoted was referring to, namely that it is hurting wrong fun for a player to enjoy hockey when they are losing all the time.
And my response to that is the same: it's not your place to tell people whether or not they are legitimately enjoying the experience and deriving fulfillment from it. That's their decision.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
For someone who invokes the "it's not your place to tell people," you do a fine job of it. Your defense of losing programs makes me ask, are you a college administrator, A.D. or just a parent of a player on a losing program?
The thread began with questions about the protocol of releasing coaches and the timing of such releases. It questioned why many D-3 universities give unproductive coaches multiple years to prove they are unable to improve a losing or maintain a winning program. Understand?
As to your assumption it is "fun" for a competitive player to play on a consistently losing team, Kumbaya.
For someone who invokes the "it's not your place to tell people," you do a fine job of it. Your defense of losing programs makes me ask, are you a college administrator, A.D. or just a parent of a player on a losing program?
The thread began with questions about the protocol of releasing coaches and the timing of such releases. It questioned why many D-3 universities give unproductive coaches multiple years to prove they are unable to improve a losing or maintain a winning program. Understand?
As to your assumption it is "fun" for a competitive player to play on a consistently losing team, Kumbaya.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
None of the above. I'm a season ticket holder of the Minnesota Golden Gophers, which I assume meets your definition of a successful program. As this is the only part of your comment that made sense, it's the only part I'm responding to.
None of the above. I'm a season ticket holder of the Minnesota Golden Gophers, which I assume meets your definition of a successful program. As this is the only part of your comment that made sense, it's the only part I'm responding to.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
There is also School Branding, some schools don't want to be known as a loser at anything.
There is also School Branding, some schools don't want to be known as a loser at anything.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
Well they didn't win it all last year But they have a chance this year. We'll see!
Well they didn't win it all last year But they have a chance this year. We'll see!
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
I would venture to guess that most DIII schools won't fire their coach if their team is not successful, especially if the coaches aren't given the resources to be successful. Would think it'd be hard to tell a coach, Hey, your recruiting budget isn't that much, you don't get a full-time assistant coach, we're not going to pay you very much....but you need to win. I think a lot of DIII schools still pride themselves on the DIII motto of academics first and it's a bonus if their sports team have success. You look at a team like Norbert and Scholastica who have been successful from the start and you can tell the school cares a lot about making their teams successful and have put the money into their respective programs. There are some DIII schools that choose to allocate their money other places. At DI, if money is thrown towards the program, the school demands a payout which is typically wins. Yes, hockey teams bring players to the school and those kids can typically pay more, but I can't imagine DI school, that invests financially in the program, happily defining success if the girls are "having fun" even if they don't win games.
I would venture to guess that most DIII schools won't fire their coach if their team is not successful, especially if the coaches aren't given the resources to be successful. Would think it'd be hard to tell a coach, Hey, your recruiting budget isn't that much, you don't get a full-time assistant coach, we're not going to pay you very much....but you need to win. I think a lot of DIII schools still pride themselves on the DIII motto of academics first and it's a bonus if their sports team have success. You look at a team like Norbert and Scholastica who have been successful from the start and you can tell the school cares a lot about making their teams successful and have put the money into their respective programs. There are some DIII schools that choose to allocate their money other places. At DI, if money is thrown towards the program, the school demands a payout which is typically wins. Yes, hockey teams bring players to the school and those kids can typically pay more, but I can't imagine DI school, that invests financially in the program, happily defining success if the girls are "having fun" even if they don't win games.
Re: Releasing a coach, when and why?
Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
None of the above. I'm a season ticket holder of the Minnesota Golden Gophers, which I assume meets your definition of a successful program. As this is the only part of your comment that made sense, it's the only part I'm responding to.
Maybe if Minnesota wins the National Championship this year we can re-define them as a successful program!
Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
None of the above. I'm a season ticket holder of the Minnesota Golden Gophers, which I assume meets your definition of a successful program. As this is the only part of your comment that made sense, it's the only part I'm responding to.
Maybe if Minnesota wins the National Championship this year we can re-define them as a successful program!