Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

You say that as if NY were a key recruiting ground for the 10 D-1 schools in NY, which is definitely not the case. Sure, the occasional Matt Cavosie, Sam Paolini, or Erik Cole comes along, but certainly not nearly frequently enough to field a team with NY-only talent. If SU started up a men's team, they'd recruit nationwide (and in Canada), the same as pretty much everyone outside of Minnesota does.

LynahFan:

I'm surprised you did not include Ithaca's own Dustin Brown as having been a potential recruit for a N.Y. Division I school. He was certainly eligible. NCAA regulations, or at least NCAA enforcement, hardly ever interfere with recruiting.

 

[blockski]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Blockski suggests that player development and sport growth are different categories, and I see that logic. However, I think that growth will encourage player development, and I think that snagging top prospects will grow the sport. One of these days an American version of Sidney Crosby or Alex Ovechkin will come floating out of Detroit or Hibbing or Los Angeles. If it were to happen now, he would play with the NTDP and then spend a year in London or Kelowna. That is where the best players are going. You can argue about whether or not college is just as good, but Major Junior's position as a place where top prospects become top draft picks and top pros is undeniable.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, though. Talent like Ovechkin or Crosby is good enough to play in the NHL as soon as they are old enough - hence they play juniors by default. That's like saying college basketball is failing because LeBron didn't go to school.

That doesn't concern me, since those talents represent a very small percentage of the overall talent pool. So long as college hockey is getting talented kids and developing them at a high level (kids like Dany Heatley, Toews, etc), it'll be fine. You can't worry about the LeBrons, you need to try and get the kids that think they're good enough to jump right away and show them how college can make them better players.

Furthermore, I don't think college hockey needs those kinds of players at all. Hockey's development track isn't so fast that you're washed up once you hit 25, and college hockey has an excellent track record of identifying and developing talent that might not otherwise get seen. Just from the team I root for - Joe Pavelski was a late draft pick, plays 2 years at Wisconsin, earns All America honors, wins an NCAA title, and ends up playing in the NHL right off the bat. Brian Elliott was also a very late pick, plays a full 4 years (with slower development by goalies quite common) and has been starting consistently in the NHL this past season.

In short, I think the continuum of talent is much more broad than you lead on. No, college hockey won't get the super-elite talent, but junior hockey isn't really getting that talent through the merits of their development track either, but rather because of the age level. Given the talent that is in college hockey, I think college has a much better track record of developing the talent it does have, thanks to the decreased number of games and the practice/instruction available to players.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think the best way for college hockey to expand isn't so much hoping that half a dozen southern schools or west coast schools are suddenly going to add teams en-masse and form the PAC-6 hockey conference in 2015 or whatever. That just seems highly unlikely to occur given the probable need to create a money pit of a women's team and the lack of guarantee that hockey is going to be any kind of money maker outside of where it currently is.

As far anyone outside of perhaps Denver and CC are concerned, California based college hockey may as well be Alaska pt. 2 without the exemption.

Ideally, you'd look to add teams along the fringes of where college hockey already exists, so they can have reasonable travel if they have to play a season or two independent while the current hockey conferences figure out what to do.

Find colleges in the Iowa/Missouri/Illinois triangle. Hell, we're talking about giving St. Louis a 2nd Frozen Four. Look around Maryland/DC/Virginia. See if Kentucky would like in without inviting Mississippi State, Florida, and LSU.

 

[Puck Swami]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think the best way for college hockey to expand isn't so much hoping that half a dozen southern schools or west coast schools are suddenly going to add teams en-masse and form the PAC-6 hockey conference in 2015 or whatever. That just seems highly unlikely to occur given the probable need to create a money pit of a women's team and the lack of guarantee that hockey is going to be any kind of money maker outside of where it currently is.

As far anyone outside of perhaps Denver and CC are concerned, California based college hockey may as well be Alaska pt. 2 without the exemption.

Ideally, you'd look to add teams along the fringes of where college hockey already exists, so they can have reasonable travel if they have to play a season or two independent while the current hockey conferences figure out what to do.

Find colleges in the Iowa/Missouri/Illinois triangle. Hell, we're talking about giving St. Louis a 2nd Frozen Four. Look around Maryland/DC/Virginia. See if Kentucky would like in without inviting Mississippi State, Florida, and LSU.

Incremental adding of programs on the college hockey fringes will keep the basic status quo at 60-70 programs, but won't generate the kind of substantial growth to get into the 100 program-area where college hockey becomes more viable as a national sport. To generate growth momentum, you need the copycat effect from schools that can afford it. We can debate whether hockey should be a national sport (some people think it should only be an east/midwest sport), but I still believe the emphasis needs to be on big school brands in the south and west. The fringe East-Midwest programs will come anyway once the bigger schools South and West start adding programs.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think it would help schools actually consider starting up a D-1 team when big-time roundball factories like UConn and UMass actually begin to show some real success and money making from their hockey programs. Right now those 2 are sort of a joke that way.

If I'm Syracuse and look at UConn or UMass you have to wonder.....are we going to be throwing $ down a drain?

Having Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and Michigan State stay strong is an obvious lure if we're going to ever convince Illinois/Northwestern/Iowa/Purdue/Indiana/Penn State to ever start something up. If Oseicki turns tOSU into something substantial look out. Now 5 big 10 schools kicking *** and that just *might* lead to one or more other B10 schools seriously considering hockey. IF one or two more B10 schools join in and have some success I can see maybe schools in relative close proximity considering this addition. Namely Missouri (obviously try to build off st. louis blues interest somehow), Kentucky (proximity to ohio schools/and CBJ), Tennessee (build off Nashville predators interest if possible, though that interest is small).

And to be honest I think those that oppose expansion in the south are not considering just how rabid those fans are for their COLLEGE sports. I don't think any more than 5-10% of Kentucky fans give a s-h-i-t about their players once they leave school but man for that 1 year, 2, 3 or more they're always there and always going nuts at the games.

The main thing is being competitive early. Say if the Volunteers get a team they can't go 4-32 for 4 consecutive seasons, that would kill the momentum of starting up the team. They'd have to enjoy UNO type success at least (hover around .500 and scare the big dogs once in a while) to ensure a lasting team.

.02

 

[Osorojo]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think it would help schools actually consider starting up a D-1 team when big-time roundball factories like UConn and UMass actually begin to show some real success and money making from their hockey programs. Right now those 2 are sort of a joke that way.



And to be honest I think those that oppose expansion in the south are not considering just how rabid those fans are for their COLLEGE sports. I don't think any more than 5-10% of Kentucky fans give a s-h-i-t about their players once they leave school but man for that 1 year, 2, 3 or more they're always there and always going nuts at the games.
.02

I agree with your assessment that most fans have little concern for college athletes after they leave school. Fans are interested in winning teams, not successful graduates who contribute to and strengthen our society.

Big trouble starts when the NCAA and colleges adopt policies which subordinate academic expectations to the quest for winning teams and increased sports revenues. Such predatory policies have accompanied explosive growth in the popularity and profitability of many college sports.
This would NOT be the best way to "grow" college hockey, but it will remain an extremely tempting path for hockey schools to follow.

 

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I think it would help schools actually consider starting up a D-1 team when big-time roundball factories like UConn and UMass actually begin to show some real success and money making from their hockey programs. Right now those 2 are sort of a joke that way.

If I'm Syracuse and look at UConn or UMass you have to wonder.....are we going to be throwing $ down a drain?

Personally, i think its the other way around... it'll take one of the other big name schools to upstage UConn at D-1 hockey to make UConn serious. You have to realize UConn is D-1 school and only sees themselves relating to other D-1 schools. Its an institutional thing... hockey is not really on their radar. I think if you worked at the students a bit they'd gladly support hockey... I know there's a lot of fans... but that's not how the institution operates.

 

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Incremental adding of programs on the college hockey fringes will keep the basic status quo at 60-70 programs, but won't generate the kind of substantial growth to get into the 100 program-area where college hockey becomes more viable as a national sport. To generate growth momentum, you need the copycat effect from schools that can afford it. We can debate whether hockey should be a national sport (some people think it should only be an east/midwest sport), but I still believe the emphasis needs to be on big school brands in the south and west. The fringe East-Midwest programs will come anyway once the bigger schools South and West start adding programs.

all this is really silly speculation as it would pre-suppose a catalyst. I think college hockey should be happy and encouraging of any school who wants to start a varsity program and should generally see what they can do to reasonably accommodate folding them into the community.

Getting swaths of schools (say 3 or more) in a cluster to just take on hockey will take an incredible frame of mind change and a catalyst at all those schools or a conference level. I don't see that coming out of the D-1 schools... I certainly don't see this happening in the Northeast. It would also CERTAINLY need to be predicated on some sort of change of NCAA or Federal protocol (Title IX for instance). You would need a strong market and a belief that you could bring in local players.

IMO, I don't think you need it to be a "national" sport... I think if you hit the right cities... Chicago, St. Louis, Portland OR, Seattle, Philly, and other cities in between on a semi-northern tier you can get some traction going. College baseball hardly depends on their northern entries.

All of this is conjecture... point being is that we don't have to hope for the Big10 to jump but rather, if college hockey wants to be proactive, stimulate interest in schools looking for an edge or are proximate to major cities. Talk up the benefits of giving your school that unique rub and point out the athletes in the area playing elsewhere. The surest thing that will make college hockey "national" is to get the eyes on the sport. Note that networks only care about eyeballs and not so much where they come from. Its just that by being "national" national you can usually guarantee you more eyeballs.

I'd sooner fight it up one program at a time rather than hope for a "miracle".

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Personally, i think its the other way around... it'll take one of the other big name schools to upstage UConn at D-1 hockey to make UConn serious. You have to realize UConn is D-1 school and only sees themselves relating to other D-1 schools. Its an institutional thing... hockey is not really on their radar. I think if you worked at the students a bit they'd gladly support hockey... I know there's a lot of fans... but that's not how the institution operates.

but the problem is what traditional rival does UConn have, or UMass for that matter, that will start up a hockey team and kick their arses at it, draw fans and achieve post-season success?

I'm unfamiliar with the teams out there so I mean would UMaryland start a team, Terrapin hockey? I guess a big obstacle I see is how these institutions are going to need a ton of $ to start up and maintain and w/out having big rivals and seeing some real success from them I'm not sure the Marylands, Georgetown's or whomever UConn/Umass's rivals are...I'm not sure they'd see a reason to start a D-1 hockey program

 

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Exactly!
It always makes me scratch my head when I read threads about college hockey expansion and such a large percentage of the talk is about programs like Grand Valley State, Lindenwood, Liberty, and the like. I of all people certainly don't have a problem with D-II and D-III schools playing up in hockey. Part of the charm of the NCAA D-I hockey world (to me, at least) is that schools like Ferris State can regularly compete with Michigan, Merrimack with BC, St. Cloud with Minnesota, etc... (some better than others). However, adding more of those types of schools (while not a bad thing in and of itself) does little or nothing towards truly growing the sport nationally for interest, popularity, recognition, and genuine fan-base size. It just adds more teams.

this is incredibly short sighted... the only way you get more interest is with more talk... to get more talk more people have to have a stake. The real problem here is that some people want to pretend they are sitting at the big kids table with these D-1 BCS schools. Guess what, if you aren't one, you aren't... and even if you're D-1 you only get to sit in their glow. Further, if it did happen the glow would be on them... not you. Aren't you in this for your team? Not many people are just fans of the greater glory of the sport... there's not enough attachment to that.

Bottom line... growth is growth... interest is interest. Maybe one day we are "big time"... but that doesn't happen by looking for the mega-conference savior. Its through schools like Lindenwood, GVSU, and Liberty. How else do you lure people in without showing that it can be done? Why would these mega-schools do anything if it doesn't appear worth their while. If we had 100 teams maybe that speaks with a louder voice than 58.

 

[Patman]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

but the problem is what traditional rival does UConn have, or UMass for that matter, that will start up a hockey team and kick their arses at it, draw fans and achieve post-season success?

I'm unfamiliar with the teams out there so I mean would UMaryland start a team, Terrapin hockey? I guess a big obstacle I see is how these institutions are going to need a ton of $ to start up and maintain and w/out having big rivals and seeing some real success from them I'm not sure the Marylands, Georgetown's or whomever UConn/Umass's rivals are...I'm not sure they'd see a reason to start a D-1 hockey program

Well, with UConn you just have to start the program (if any of you boys are reading this... sorry, its true). Whenever UConn gets mentioned i have to burst the bubble. Its not that I enjoy doing it... i just see its silly to say "well, if UConn became serious".

I don't know that UConn and UMass becoming serious powers would entice the rest. UConn is new to the big-time scene. UMass isn't big-time. They'll also get the "northeast" tag. I don't know... maybe it'll give other schools somebody to talk to if they're considering it.

4 posts in here in a short succession. I have to find something better to do

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Just keep in mind that if that "tipping point" ever does arrive, the days of Ferris State and Merrimack competing with Michigan and BC will probably come to an end in a hurry. More people will watch college hockey, but it won't be the same sport.

I don't disagree with that. I also never said I favor expanding college hockey with multiple BCS schools. Just that that would be the only way for significant growth for the sport nationally. I personnally don't have a problem with the way things are. But for those who desire the sport to grow by leaps and bounds, you can add all the GVSUs, Lindenwoods, RITs, Clarksons, Mankatos, etc. that you want. It won't make a difference for your cause. That only increases visibility to the casual fan incrementally, if at all. Yes, it will add a few thousand die-hards at those new schools, but not any fans from elsewhere. Can you imagine the "ratings" (I'm well aware our sport doesn't actually get ratings, just using it for lack of a better term) for a GVSU vs. RIT tournament game outside of the college hockey die-hard circles, Rochester, and wherever GVSU is located (no disrespect, I'm just too lazy to look it up right now)?

 

[4four4]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

There are 37 million of us. It doesn't take a high participation rate to churn out 2 dozen D-1 athletes. You could take Colorado, all of New England, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and our population would be roughly equivalent.

The sport isn't sponsored by CIF or any of the sectional high school federations and there are no plans or proposals to even discuss the issue as far as I know.. There are no top tier Junior teams in the state. There is no grass roots drive to bring hockey to the Pac 10 or the west coast. Hell, lacrosse has a much better shot at adding programs in sunset country. We don't even have a full complement of men's soccer teams in the Pac 10 (5 of 10) and the participation rate and general interest in the sport obliterates hockey out west. Unless Phil Knight shows up at Oregon with a 60 million dollar check to fund an ice rink and a team and all the BC schools decide to jump ship for the NCAA, Pac 10 hockey has no shot of getting off the ground. Nada. none.

One caveat I guess. "Pac 10" hockey's best shot is for the conference to grab Colorado in the upcoming game of expansion musical chairs and have them start a program. The Big 12 North is a much better option for these pie in the sky expansion dreams than the Pac 10, SEC, or vast majority of the ACC.

The Straight Edge: California ripe for Div. I NCAA hockey

Not only that, but the grassroots efforts in the state are yielding a considerable bounty of young talent. That’s why the time is right for the NCAA to come to Cali.

The writer obviously disagrees with you.

From The Rink

Frankly, the first college or university that decides to add Division I hockey in California will have just an absolute bounty in front of it. They will have their pick of some of the most talented kids in the country and they've got some great young kids coming up.

Looks like Paul Kelly disagrees with you.

It is obviously an uphill battle but weirder things have happened in the past.

 

[Henry]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Canadian junior hockey better prepares players to jump to the NHL. NCAA is obsessed or has been obsessed with 21 year old freshman. Unlike other sports hockey is not centered on high school hockey. Junior hockey has no equivalent in the other major sports. It is expensive and Title IX almost guarantees you will have to have a women's team if you start a mens program. Lacrosse much cheaper and you get a pretty high end recruit academically, I don't see too much growth in college hockey. Most of these kids leave early anyway. They are better off to play Major Junior, if they don't go pro part of the deal is the junior team will pay for college. If they stay in Canada they can still play CIS. There are too any alternatives to college hockey. Also the college programs usually revolve around the coach and not star players. In Major junior it's like a junior NHL with players treated like stars and more games played. I think several good players have been derailed by going the college route. Petrecki would have developed into a Chris Pronger type had he gone the Major Junior route. He always looked like a fish out of water at BC.

 

[FRICKER]

Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Who said anything about New York "being a key recruiting ground for the D-1 programs in the state"???? I just said that they have deep roots, meaning Syracuse would have to overcome their long histories. When I was at Clarkson, we had only two Americans on the roster and one was from Lake Placid. Unless you take "the island of Minnesota" into account, ALL D-1 programs recruit across a wide area of the US & Canada, and some even have brought in Europeans. NY's talent pool is not that great, although players like Marty Reasoner have come from Upstate.

 

[GoNU5]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I would very much like to see college hockey expand to less traditional areas, and I definitely see some positive signs for short term growth: Syracuse's creation of the D1 hockey (for women, I think they only have a club team for men's), Linenwood Academy looks interested in D1 hockey, etc. Depending on financial situations, interest, etc. I could conceivably see a few new teams in D1 over the next 5 or 10 years.

However, in order to expand into whole new conferences, and put college hockey across the country, there needs to be an expansion of the junior teams that college's draw from. Look at the current junior leagues. They are in the Midwest and Northeast, with only a handful of teams in a non-traditional setting (the NAHL has 2 in Texas, and next year have 1 in California and 1 in New Mexico). Talented kids in the South and West Coast go the the Midwest and Northeast to junior teams.

I think the creation of College Hockey Inc. is a good move as it shows the interest there is to expand the brand, and I think if there is to be a move to expand the D1 teams, they should have a vested interest in seeing the creation of junior leagues in the South and West Coast. These would serve a few purposes: it would allow talented kids in these regions the ability to play close to home, it could expand the number of talented players to choose from for D1 schools (and if D1 is to add 15 or 20 teams they'll need some sort of junior league expansion), and it would allow teams in those areas the ability to pick from local talent. Not to mention there would be more local interest in college hockey. A junior league in California, for example, could tap the local interest in the sport, allow a large number of players to play locally, instead of flying to Iowa or Minnesota, and get local exposure, hopefully sparking interest in area colleges to look into the possibility of a D1 team.

EDIT- Something of interest I saw in those articles about college hockey in California that was interesting was the mention of the NHL teams there interested in helping expand the game to the state. Paul Kelly should definitely jump on this, and see what sort of support he could get from these teams to help persuade local colleges to add D1 teams. I think he should also look at the Southern NHL teams to see if they have any interest in doing the same.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Canadian junior hockey better prepares players to jump to the NHL. NCAA is obsessed or has been obsessed with 21 year old freshman. Unlike other sports hockey is not centered on high school hockey. Junior hockey has no equivalent in the other major sports. It is expensive and Title IX almost guarantees you will have to have a women's team if you start a mens program. Lacrosse much cheaper and you get a pretty high end recruit academically, I don't see too much growth in college hockey. Most of these kids leave early anyway. They are better off to play Major Junior, if they don't go pro part of the deal is the junior team will pay for college. If they stay in Canada they can still play CIS. There are too any alternatives to college hockey. Also the college programs usually revolve around the coach and not star players. In Major junior it's like a junior NHL with players treated like stars and more games played. I think several good players have been derailed by going the college route. Petrecki would have developed into a Chris Pronger type had he gone the Major Junior route. He always looked like a fish out of water at BC.

I 100% disagree with your Canadian Junior vs. NCAA argument. and that doesn't necessarily belong in this thread. but for the record the NHL is getting more and more of its players from NCAA. it's pretty simple

 

[FRICKER]

Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

IMO, you're "spot on" solovsfett!!! When I was working for a Tier II Junior "A" club (Compuware) I only suggested the Majr Junior route if a player was a "lock" first round NHL draft pick or if they were unable to get certified by the NCAA Clearinghouse. Playing more games in Major Junior versus having more prctice time in D-1 hockey only means a player should research the kind of practices the college runs.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

I just said that they have deep roots, meaning Syracuse would have to overcome their long histories.

What do you mean by "overcome" then? The only area where I see history mattering is recruiting, so if you're not talking about that, what are you talking about? History is worth exactly zero goals once the two teams take the ice. If SU won't have any trouble recruiting (which you concede), then they'll have the players to field a competitive team, so (tautologically) they'll be competitive. What else is there to overcome?

 

[FRICKER]

Should College Hockey grow? Does it need change?

Lynahfan........"tautologicaly"????.......isn't that intuitively obvious? Remember, I be a hockey puck, not a Rhodes scholar!