PondHockeyGuy
New member
I’m not talking about an offended fandom. I’m talking about a commitment to teammates and to the school.
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
- Thread starter robertearle
- Start date
I’m not talking about an offended fandom. I’m talking about a commitment to teammates and to the school.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
BC men just cut like 5 players to make room for other players coming in. If the teams can do that it would be totally absurd to not let players decide to go where they want.
It sucks for me, personally, to see my favorite players leave, but it's not about me and I just can't get that upset over this. They deserve to be able to make whatever decisions they want to make to take care of themselves.
"College sports" is changing from the way it used to be, yes, but "the way it used to be" was predatory on the athletes.
robertearle
Well-known member
Ohio State volleyball did something similar after this past season, told five players including a couple all-conference quality "we simply don't have scholarships available for you if we honor our commitment to incoming freshmen scholarship players". Now, VB is a "head count" sport, meaning no splitting or partial scholarships, like hockey would be able to do. The players understood the situation, there were no hard feeling, they all went into the portal and found other schools to play for (maybe on scholarship, and maybe not).
That's just the way it is; nobody's choice, nobody's fault. Sh-t happens.
Still Eeyore
New member
If you aren't talking about offended fandom, stop acting so offended.
Still Eeyore
New member
You're demanding accountability for the athletes well beyond the accountability the schools are held to. If a player isn't allowed to choose a different team that is better for them, then schools should not be allowed to choose a different player that would be better for them. Players who are told that they would get ice time shouldn't later be told that they are getting benched or that an incoming freshman is taking their place.
Yes, that would be an absurdity, but the only reason we think that not allowing players to transfer isn't equally absurd is because that's the way it was for so long. It's like the people who argued that free agency would be bad for professional sports.
PondHockeyGuy
New member
I’m not offended and am not demanding anything. Maybe “accountability” is the wrong word. Maybe it’s “respect” for your teammates and the program. And I’m not talking about preventing a player who is not getting any ice time from moving (although I believe persevering and working hard through difficult situations is a good skill to learn). I also believe that the “free” transfer rule just adds to the problem and believe that players that had good careers for 3 or more years shouldn’t be allowed to transfer without sitting out a year. That’s just my opinion.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Commitment to the school? Please, spare me. The same school which can yank your scholarship any year for almost any reason they want to, including if you get injured? It's like those saying you should be committed to a company.
"Take care of yourself, because the company (school) won't."
And the only commitment you have to your teammates is when you're on the ice and in the lockerroom.
Hockeybuckeye
Well-known member
I know how the scholarship system works, my daughter was a D1 athlete (not hockey) with only a specific number of scholarships allotted per sport.
Perhaps the rule limiting how many scholarships are allowed in each sport is too archaic and needs to go?
Perhaps the rule limiting how many scholarships are allowed in each sport is too archaic and needs to go?
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Remember when Alabama football used to give out like over ~100 scholarships, even though half those players would never play? They did this to prevent other schools from getting top talent. Granted nowadays with free transfers and NIL, it's not as much of an issue, but you may still be rewarding the rich schools.
robertearle
Well-known member
At least in women's hockey, increasing the number of scholarships would have a "rich get richer" effect. I expect Wisconsin and Ohio State can afford to allocate more athletic dept money to women's hockey scholarships than St Cloud or Mankato can, eg.
Hockeybuckeye
Well-known member
I'd counter not all families can afford to put their children through college and funding it all through student loans isn't good. More scholarships could benefit the less fortunate whose parents don't make six figures.
And scholarship money doesn't come exclusively from the schools, many are supplemented by booster donations.
Last edited:
robertearle
Well-known member
That doesn't counter my point, it bolsters it. Booster money at Wisconsin and OSU is obviously going to be much, much more plentiful than at Mankato and St Cloud.
Still Eeyore
New member
Athletes don't owe their school jack. They entered into a one-sided agreement in which, other than the possibility of transferring, the school has all the power. Despite the obligations that the student commits to in exchange for a scholarship, the NCAA and its member institutions have spent the last century perjuring themselves in court to prevent them from being considered employees. If the schools want to establish a relationship of equals in which anyone owes anything to the other party, that remains 100% within their power to establish. They choose not to do so. That's on them. Until they decide to change their view on this, they can pound sand.
Teammates are a slightly, but not much, more complicated question. Learning to not let your happiness depend upon the unhappiness of someone else required to remain your co-worker is also a valuable skill to learn. Learning how to let go of possible resentments is a valuable skill to learn, too.
wiscolorado
New member
Props. Congrats to the Buckeyes. I still have no reason to believe that you or anyone else in this forum has any legitimate insight into the internal goings-on of the OSU women's hockey program.
Last edited:
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Back in the Shannon Miller and Laura Halldorson era, the Gophers had a player from the the Duluth area who had to transfer to UMD due to a family medical situation. Such was the rivalry between the two programs that instead of playing hockey, she went out for the UMD track team. I don't think you'd be likely to see something like that in men's hockey. When you interview outgoing seniors about what their lasting memory of their time at Whatever University, it's always the same answer: "My time with my teammates." It seems like the bond between teammates in women's college hockey can't be overstated.
That being said, I totally agree with you on the ultimate point: that type of loyalty can't be mandated. If you don't want to be here anymore, it's a free country. The program will be better off with a new player who still wants to play for that team and won't gain anything if the former player has to spend 12 months in street clothes on gamedays.
Offsides Guy
Active member
To me, the biggest negative of the new transfer rule is how difficult it makes things for a program trying to rebuild. Once a program starts to slide these day, better players often enter the portal hoping to get picked up by a better program (ex, Barnes & Bilka?) where they think they can win more. In the old days, such players would more likely stay and even help recruit good players to achieve a turnaround. Another good example of this is Gopher men’s basketball right now.
Now, one could argue a coach can use the transfer portal to get good quickly but I think that applies much more to teams on the cusp of being really good than it does to programs in a slide.
Lastly, not saying the transfer rule should be changed, just observing one of its unintended consequences.
Now, one could argue a coach can use the transfer portal to get good quickly but I think that applies much more to teams on the cusp of being really good than it does to programs in a slide.
Lastly, not saying the transfer rule should be changed, just observing one of its unintended consequences.
This is a bunch of disjointed thoughts, but here we are ...
There should also be accountability for programs who change what they offer a student athlete as their career goes on. It feels like everyone is putting this all on the student athletes and not at all taking into account that program may change scholarship offerings, playing time/role promises etc ...
I also think a lot of people think changing schools, picking up new classes/majors/degrees and joining a new teams are super easy. They aren't and most everyone who's moved programs the past few seasons would tell you so. I know it seems like this is all done on a whim, but it really isn't. Yes, there are on-ice positives to the experience, but the off-ice stuff is difficult and winning games doesn't always make up for that turmoil.
I'm not sure why we're mad that student athletes who made commitments/decisions at age 16, often to a coach different than the one they are currently playing for, might view it differently at 22. At OSU, for instance, Maltais and a few of the other seniors and grads would have been recruited by Hanrahan - two coaches before Nadine. St. Cloud State are on their third coach in five seasons. They're supposed to become different people as they grow and mature. Faulting them for that and shifting desires and priorities feels really unfair.
Well, I don't, but some actually do. You dismissing our program and the fact that some do have inside information doesn't change that fact.
BadgerPete
Active member
However disjointed, there are good thoughts here. I personally appreciate that student athletes have some more agency now. While people love to bang the drum about commitment and loyalty to a team, we never seem to ask the same from the coaches who can move freely and add who they wish. Whether it's a woman who just finished their first year and isn't feeling the college to a last year player who hasn't sniffed the postseason and wants a chance (that a team will offer them) to play in some meaningful March games, that freedom is good.
I also think people are really cavalier about the finite nature of a college career. For 95%+ of these players, this is literally it for truly meaningful hockey. The idea that the choice they made when they were 16 should lock them into that last chance being miserable or unfulfilling is a little ridiculous. When we throw around sitting out a year (for the first transfer), we're literally saying you get a 20-25% of your career punishment for availing yourself of what literally any other student can do. I think it's also a bit myopic when we fail to view the portal beyond a pure free agency standpoint. Students can not enjoy campuses, programs, routines, distance from home, and it's a good thing for the student-athletes that they have an avenue to make the most of their eligibility.