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.

RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

ServinisScores said:
When I say sub-standard culture, I refer to winning. Periods, games, seasons....etc. It's just not there.
Click to expand...

I would respectfully disagree, in part, and reluctantly concur, in part. It seems to me that we lack appropriate focus. Priorities aren't clear or are too diffuse. Attention to detail is spread too thin compared to the available resources. Hence my consistent mention of the support staff. A head coach is more of a CEO of a mid-sized business these days. What OGC needs more than anything else, I'd suggest, is a good HR person.

In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.

In my professional life, I'm quite good at what I do and am recognized for it. I've been at it longer than OGC and am still learning new things and am still getting better at it. No reason to think he won't continue to improve either.
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

FreshFish said:
In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.
Click to expand...

That is why you have Assistant/Volunteer Coaches (known as support staff)! Decisions whether it is tactical or administrative, should be made in collaboration. You don't know how open SA is to input from his Assistant/Volunteer coaches. Some coaches don't allow input due to the fact that they like to control everything.

Ultimately, game strategy, team play and systems, team personnel, in game adjustments, etc. are the head coaches responsibilities. Some are better at it than others.
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

sk8tronthepond said:
That is why you have Assistant/Volunteer Coaches (known as support staff)! Decisions whether it is tactical or administrative, should be made in collaboration. You don't know how open SA is to input from his Assistant/Volunteer coaches. Some coaches don't allow input due to the fact that they like to control everything.

Ultimately, game strategy, team play and systems, team personnel, in game adjustments, etc. are the head coaches responsibilities. Some are better at it than others.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHTLIi3erIg
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

FreshFish said:
I would respectfully disagree, in part, and reluctantly concur, in part. It seems to me that we lack appropriate focus. Priorities aren't clear or are too diffuse. Attention to detail is spread too thin compared to the available resources. Hence my consistent mention of the support staff. A head coach is more of a CEO of a mid-sized business these days. What OGC needs more than anything else, I'd suggest, is a good HR person.

In that regard, not so much a "consultant" as a "second opinion" might be helpful. That is exactly why even a small to mid-sized business has a board of directors, someone to provide perspective on long-term development. ANY coach has to deal with plenty of short-term tactical issues. There also has to be a process for long-term assessment as well. It seems to me that it is in this latter area that OGC is still learning and developing.

In my professional life, I'm quite good at what I do and am recognized for it. I've been at it longer than OGC and am still learning new things and am still getting better at it. No reason to think he won't continue to improve either.
Click to expand...

This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMO
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

engineerhockeyfan said:
This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMO
Click to expand...

Technically it is a business because you have revenues (tickets/concessions) and expenditures. The players are "paid" in the form of scholarships.
Long range forecast is where you set up a flexible system where the flexibility lies in the players you recruit and their talents, and you simply reload year after year.
Obviously you've very much brought up the concept that Appert's system is too rigid. We've seen the same thing year in and year out. Just replace the players, and even the assistants, and it's the same thing. And if he can't understand that after eight years, patience dwindles quickly.
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

engineerhockeyfan said:
This is not a business, and cannot be run like one. If it were, we would pay the players and would not lose the best ones to the pros.
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
As for the players, they are students first. A very small percentage of them go on to the pros so their focus should be in the classroom.
I don't envy any college hockey coach. There are a very few Yorks and Parkers.
Our coach seems to have a system that he believes in, and it appears that his players don't or can't play it.
It seems to me that the really good coaches adapt to the players that he has at his disposal. And I think that is where SA needs to change.
He needs to shape a system around the talent he has and not just the top five players. JMO
Click to expand...
As to the last sentence in your Post.....why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

engineerhockeyfan said:
How do you have a long range forecast, when the players change every year?
Click to expand...

"Long" range = strategy over course of entire season, from 1st day of training to last day of playoffs.

Another excellent analogy, to which you allude indirectly, is that of a curriculum. Any good teacher has a curriculum for the entire semester / course year planned out ahead of time, including benchmarks (also known as mid-term exams, mid-term projects, etc.). While the curriculum is a guide, you cannot stick to it rigidly no matter what; you also have to adapt depending upon the progress of your students. Can you accelerate the curriculum based on better-than-expected progress? Do you need to include some remedial work due to less-than-expected ability or knowledge? etc.

Examples that could fit either the business analogy or the curriculum analogy (I merely used that with which I was more familiar):
"Here is your individual skill level today: here are the benchmarks for where we want your individual skill level to be at these key measuring points during the season."
"Here is the strategy we ultimately want to employ on the power play, once we succeed at certain benchmarks. Here are the steps we will take to get there, and meanwhile here are the interim strategies we will use until we do."
"Here is our practice schedule, a schematic for the season, which we will adjust depending upon actual development compared to target.
-- Here is the practice schedule for the month;
-- and for the week,
-- and for the practice session we are about to start.
... "xx minutes on these individual fundamentals, broken out into groups for forwards, defensemen, and goalies. Here are our coordination drills, for the forwards as a group, and defense + goalies as a group. Here are our situation-specific drills: how do we respond to a press, how do we break down opponents' defense x, y, z. Here are our special teams drills."


If you look at the size of the budget of many Division I programs, they have a larger budget to work with than many businesses do. and how can you say the players are not "paid" when many of them indeed do receive scholarships? that can be worth tens of thousands of dollars!


If you take any analogy too literally, it will eventually break down; the concept is to use it for guidance, not as an instruction manual.


At certain elements, we can be pleased and proud of the program. at other elements, we can be frustrated. It appears to me that there are two different and complementary considerations: the holistic overall strategic plan is incomplete, and the day-by-day tactics are inconsistent. Both can be fixed, and we do see signs that progress is ongoing, though we are frustrated in that it is occurring in fits and starts rather than smoothly.


Finally, there is no dishonor in doing your absolute best and having forced someone better to extend themselves to win. I have played on teams that won over opponents who were exerting themselves to the very best of their abilities, and I have played on teams that played to the very best of our abilities yet were beaten by someone even better.

To the extent that we did not beat teams we could have beaten by better mental effort, that is the source of our discontent.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

FreshFish said:
"Long" range = strategy over course of entire season, from 1st day of training to last day of playoffs.

Another excellent analogy, to which you allude indirectly, is that of a curriculum. Any good teacher has a curriculum for the entire semester / course year planned out ahead of time, including benchmarks (also known as mid-term exams, mid-term projects, etc.). While the curriculum is a guide, you cannot stick to it rigidly no matter what; you also have to adapt depending upon the progress of your students. Can you accelerate the curriculum based on better-than-expected progress? Do you need to include some remedial work due to less-than-expected ability or knowledge? etc.

Examples that could fit either the business analogy or the curriculum analogy (I merely used that with which I was more familiar):
"Here is your individual skill level today: here are the benchmarks for where we want your individual skill level to be at these key measuring points during the season."
"Here is the strategy we ultimately want to employ on the power play, once we succeed at certain benchmarks. Here are the steps we will take to get there, and meanwhile here are the interim strategies we will use until we do."
"Here is our practice schedule, a schematic for the season, which we will adjust depending upon actual development compared to target.
-- Here is the practice schedule for the month;
-- and for the week,
-- and for the practice session we are about to start.
... "xx minutes on these individual fundamentals, broken out into groups for forwards, defensemen, and goalies. Here are our coordination drills, for the forwards as a group, and defense + goalies as a group. Here are our situation-specific drills: how do we respond to a press, how do we break down opponents' defense x, y, z. Here are our special teams drills."


If you look at the size of the budget of many Division I programs, they have a larger budget to work with than many businesses do. and how can you say the players are not "paid" when many of them indeed do receive scholarships? that can be worth tens of thousands of dollars!


If you take any analogy too literally, it will eventually break down; the concept is to use it for guidance, not as an instruction manual.


At certain elements, we can be pleased and proud of the program. at other elements, we can be frustrated. It appears to me that there are two different and complementary considerations: the holistic overall strategic plan is incomplete, and the day-by-day tactics are inconsistent. Both can be fixed, and we do see signs that progress is ongoing, though we are frustrated in that it is occurring in fits and starts rather than smoothly.


Finally, there is no dishonor in doing your absolute best and having forced someone better to extend themselves to win. I have played on teams that won over opponents who were exerting themselves to the very best of their abilities, and I have played on teams that played to the very best of our abilities yet were beaten by someone even better.

To the extent that we did not beat teams we could have beaten by better mental effort, that is the source of our discontent.
Click to expand...

Now why didn't I think of that? Bottle it, sell it, and then retire. Any buyers?
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

hockeymascot said:
Any buyers?
Click to expand...

Wooden, John. Auriemma, Geno. Brooks, Herb. Harkness, Ned. Jackson, Phil. Auerbach, Red. Belicheck, Bill. Lombardi, Vince. Saban, Nick. Probably a few dozen more. Ask FS23, he's got a whole list.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

turk181 said:
As to the last sentence in your Post.....why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?
Click to expand...

Bobby Orr did not fit the Boston Bruins system when they brought him in. Do you think they should have passed on him?
 
Re: RPI Offseason Thread: 7 Months of Drivel

turk181 said:
why recruit a player if you don't think he fits the system you want to run?
Click to expand...

It's quite interesting to look at the UCLA teams under John Wooden. It's a tricky difference between "system" and "style of play." They had a short fast team in their earlier years, then a big-man dominated team with Alcindor/Jabbar and then another different kind of team with Walton.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden#UCLA

in 1964, the final piece of the puzzle fell into place when assistant coach Jerry Norman persuaded Wooden that the team's small-sized players and fast-paced offense would be complemented by the adoption of a zone press defense.[31] The result was a dramatic increase in scoring, giving UCLA a powerhouse team that went undefeated on its way to the school's first basketball national championship.
....
The Bruins' 1967 incarnation returned with a vengeance with sophomore star Lew Alcindor, reclaiming not only the conference title, but the national crown with an undefeated season, and then retaining it every season but one until Wooden's retirement in 1975.
The 1970 squad proved that nobody was indispensable to the success of the UCLA program, not even Lew Alcindor, as Sidney Wicks, Henry Bibby, Curtis Rowe, and John Vallely carried the Bruins to their fourth consecutive NCAA title
The 1972-1973 season was one of the most memorable campaigns in the history of UCLA basketball. Freshmen became eligible to play varsity ball for the first time, and the Bruins went 30-0 and stretched their winning streak to a record 75 straight in breezing through the NCAA tournament [with freshman center] Bill Walton.
Click to expand...

So four completely different incarnations as far as "style of play": short and fast then tall and dominating then all-around athleticism then tall and quick.

However, did Wooden adapt to his players, or was Wooden's "system" so thorough and so comprehensive that any collection of talented, coachable athletes could succeed with it??

I only remember the last few years of Wooden's career, I was too young to pay attention to most of it.


I did get a chance to watch a coaching genius closely for about twelve years (and counting), though. When we first moved to Connecticut, I was idly changing channels (not nearly as many back then), and checked to see what was on public television. Much to my surprise, it was a women's college basketball game. What is women's college basketball doing on public tv??? it was surprisingly entertaining, much more fascinating than I had imagined possible. They have a unique situation at UConn, a "head coach" and an "associate head coach." They have had specials that televise how practices work, interviews, the coach had a weekly show that broke down that week's games in detail. an incredible amount of detail.

Here was a man (actually, a man / women co-head coach tandem) that had a "system" that could work with any players who were willing to cooperate. the style of play was quite different from one year to the next, but you could always count on three things no matter what.
-- they'd work really hard no matter what the score was, because the goal was not to win, it was to be the best you possibly could be. you were competing against your own weakness, not the other team. you see players diving after loose balls when they are up by 30 or down by 10. be in the moment and focus on what was in front of you in that moment, and always do your best and never make excuses. the hardest part of the game is mental, your toughest opponent is always your own temptation to be lazy every now and then.
-- They'd always have a ferocious defense.
-- if you watched closely during the course of a season, you could see how individual players would improve their fundamentals: footwork, boxing out, setting picks. they are particularly good at taking a gangly awkward teenage girl and turning her into an athletic, skilled, polished young woman.

Lots of people will point to his stars, and of course they are important. but it is the way they develop and utilize role players year after year that makes the program so dominant.

and even after 29 years, he keeps getting better. he is still learning, still experimenting, still adding new material to his repetoire.

Yeah, these are some of the most exceptional coaches who have ever coached in any sport. if you pay attention to the details you can really learn a lot that is transferable to other parts of life or to other sports.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top