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.

Transfer Portal - 2024

Still Eeyore said:
I'm ambivalent about it. As a general rule, I'm not in favor of bringing in more than 1-2 transfers each season. Beyond that, you can mess up a team's culture, especially if you're bringing in a number of transfers with only one year of eligibility left. It also can upend the expectations of playing time for players that are already in the program. I know a lot of other hockey fans believe in aggressive competition for lineup spots and if you lose out, them's the breaks. I'm just not in favor of an environment red in tooth and claw, not only in college athletics, but in pretty much any workplace. The way Muzerall decommitted a bunch of prospective freshmen after signing transfers a couple of years ago falls into my definition of problematic.

That said, if there's a season when a third transfer is justified, it's this one. The Gophers are bringing back only two of their top six defensemen. Klepinger and Franco got some time, but neither looked like someone that's going to grow into a regular, though I say that advisedly, as I said the same thing about Nicholson during her first three seasons, and she was solid last year. Not tremendous, but not someone that worried me when she came over the boards. They have three incoming freshmen defenders, and the two transfers. Adding some experience was probably a good idea, and Morrow and Parkkonen each have two years left.
Click to expand...

Minor correction...They have 4 incoming freshmen defenders:

Carly Humphrey
Kate Kosobud
Gracie Graham
Chloe Primerano
 
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
Maybe I missed it but did Lacey Martin, formerly of Boston University, land anywhere?
Click to expand...

Lacey Martin made a "Thank you Hockey" post on Instagram in early May so I believe she is hanging up her skates and not using her 5th year of eligibility. I was a bit surprised by that as I thought she would be a good addition to a number of teams.

Fun fact -- long ago, before they had a girls hockey team, I graduated from Minnetonka High School. I try to keep track of where former Skippers are playing hockey so I was also wondering about Martin when she entered the portal.
 
Defender Iliana Smith fron Union to Elmira
Defender Emma Morel from Norwich to Elmira
Forward Alexis Hornsby from New England College to Trinity
Forward Hannah Keating from Utica to University of New England
Goaltender Rieley Jessie-Gerelli from Western New England to Adrian ACHA D1
Goaltender Kirsten DiCicco from VSU Castleton to University of New England


Forward Anya Laxton accepted an assistant coaching role for Alabama's ACHA team so she could probably be considered withdrawn from the portal. Her WSU teammate Caroline Gates is playing golf instead of hockey, not 100% sure where.
 
Last edited:
Curious about at this point of the off season is there any movement of unclaimed DI players moving to DIII? It seems hard to imagine putting your name in the portal and then saying "just kidding" when you can't find a new home.
 
I'm not sure where to dump this info but it's for all to digest, so here it goes. The NCAA is no longer limiting scholarships (18 in the past), but instead limiting rosters, to 26 for women's hockey. The way I read it is everyone gets a fully funded scholarship and partials will be a thing of the past. I'm not sure when this goes into effect.

This should really help WI as they used to spread 18 scholarships amongst the 20-23 players, them having 26 fully funded roster spots will really help with depth, something that they have had challenges on the last few years.
 
Timothy A said:
I'm not sure where to dump this info but it's for all to digest, so here it goes. The NCAA is no longer limiting scholarships (18 in the past), but instead limiting rosters, to 26 for women's hockey. The way I read it is everyone gets a fully funded scholarship and partials will be a thing of the past. I'm not sure when this goes into effect.

This should really help WI as they used to spread 18 scholarships amongst the 20-23 players, them having 26 fully funded roster spots will really help with depth, something that they have had challenges on the last few years.
Click to expand...

Where's the funding coming from for this to happen? Athletic departments across the country are cutting costs left and right and your saying all sports will now fully fund every athlete? The only way for that to happen is from NIL money.
 
Sierra said:
Where's the funding coming from for this to happen? Athletic departments across the country are cutting costs left and right and your saying all sports will now fully fund every athlete? The only way for that to happen is from NIL money.
Click to expand...

The article did not say where the money would come from other than possibly from a school specific internal shell game, but the NCAA is mandating it, so it has to happen. It will be multiple months before the court proceedings are finalized as this was part of a lawsuit. I'd bet it won't affect us until the 25/26 season.
 
From what I have read, scholarships will not be limited, only roster size. That does not mean that schools must provide full scholarships to all rostered players.
 
Timothy A said:
I'm not sure where to dump this info but it's for all to digest, so here it goes. The NCAA is no longer limiting scholarships (18 in the past), but instead limiting rosters, to 26 for women's hockey. The way I read it is everyone gets a fully funded scholarship and partials will be a thing of the past. I'm not sure when this goes into effect.

This should really help WI as they used to spread 18 scholarships amongst the 20-23 players, them having 26 fully funded roster spots will really help with depth, something that they have had challenges on the last few years.
Click to expand...

To me, I think it means you CAN offer 26 full rides, doesn't mean they have to or will though.
 
BackyardIce said:
From what I have read, scholarships will not be limited, only roster size. That does not mean that schools must provide full scholarships to all rostered players.
Click to expand...

Exactly. After all, the Ivies are still not going to offer scholarships.

26 (same as men) is a terrible number. You have to carry three goalies, so that leaves 23. You suit up 19 skaters for a game. So, only four backups for an entire season? Which means you can only have four injuries at one time. Good luck with that. (From what I understand, there was no consultation with each individual sport when these numbers were created.)
 
Russell Jaslow said:
Exactly. After all, the Ivies are still not going to offer scholarships.

26 (same as men) is a terrible number. You have to carry three goalies, so that leaves 23. You suit up 19 skaters for a game. So, only four backups for an entire season? Which means you can only have four injuries at one time. Good luck with that. (From what I understand, there was no consultation with each individual sport when these numbers were created.)
Click to expand...

I don't know, the fourth line and the third defensive pair don't play a lot anyway, so there's more top three line top four D depth right there. You'd have to have nine injuries to get a point where you only have 12 forwards and four defenseman to play. That's rather unlikely for the women anyway. The men it, could be another story.
 
Timothy A said:
I don't know, the fourth line and the third defensive pair don't play a lot anyway, so there's more top three line top four D depth right there. You'd have to have nine injuries to get a point where you only have 12 forwards and four defenseman to play. That's rather unlikely for the women anyway. The men it, could be another story.
Click to expand...

I would not want to enter a game not being able to suit up 19 skaters. No matter the situation.
 
Timothy A said:
Wisconsin has done it. Yes, not ideal, but doable.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin has, indeed, done it multiple times. Remember when Sam Cogan played defense for a game or two back in the day? Last year, we had 23 on the roster, including three goalies, and two forwards were injured all year and never suited up at all. Fortunately, our other injuries over the season were not season-ending for the affected players, but we sure scrambled on occasion.
 
Still Eeyore said:
Minnesota did it for most of last year.
Click to expand...

Which is why I don’t get the pearl clutching about the size of OSU’s roster next year.

The haves have smaller rosters in Olympic years, the have nots that live in turmoil often do.

Would love to hear someone talk about player usage in a game.

I’m thinking 16 skaters get meaningful ice time on most rosters.

For fun (yes lol) I looked at some old rosters on college hockey stats. Super quick to check as it tells you how many players on a team. UMD won it all in 2010 with 18 skaters. That was an anomaly in terms of being able to win it all. Minnesota had 18 skaters in 13/14 and 17/18. Wisco had 19 in 09/10. Cornell has had some lean years. Harvard had like 16 in 13/14 (that’s not enough). Princeton had a small roster in 17/18. To be clear this is NOT ideal and precludes winning a trophy most likely. It seems multiple programs are ok with having a good chance of winning a natty 3 out of 4 years and having a smaller roster in the 4th year.

As an aside, nothing has ever replaced the organization and ease of use of college hockey stats. I would love if there were some way to bring it back.
 
Lindsay said:
... how many players on a team... Wisco[nsin] had 19 in 09/10.
Click to expand...

Since 2005, Wisconsin has failed to make the NCAA tournament only twice. 2009-10 was one of those years. During that time frame, they failed to make the WCHA 'final four' only once, and that was in 2009-2010.

Wisconsin in 2009-2010 is a great example of why you do NOT want to have a "short" roster. One injury to a key player - freshman Brianna Decker broken arm late in that year - and the weakness of the short roster becomes all the more magnified.
 
robertearle said:
Since 2005, Wisconsin has failed to make the NCAA tournament only twice. 2009-10 was one of those years. During that time frame, they failed to make the WCHA 'final four' only once, and that was in 2009-2010.

Wisconsin in 2009-2010 is a great example of why you do NOT want to have a "short" roster. One injury to a key player - freshman Brianna Decker broken arm late in that year - and the weakness of the short roster becomes all the more magnified.
Click to expand...

So why are Minnesota and Wisconsin never criticized when they have short benches?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top