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.
Transfers thread
- Thread starter Arafel
- Start date
Re: Transfers thread
Right on. One program I know poached both its top forward goal scorer and defenseman goal scorer after they had committed somewhere else.
Right on. One program I know poached both its top forward goal scorer and defenseman goal scorer after they had committed somewhere else.
Commitments mean little these days. A lot of coaches are now recruiting up to the NLI.
Re: Transfers thread
Shhhh. Let's just wait and see if Wisconsin guy realizes 22% of his team's offense came from poaches.
Shhhh. Let's just wait and see if Wisconsin guy realizes 22% of his team's offense came from poaches.
Puckdrop14
New member
Last edited:
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Transfers thread
I don't think loyalty to their program has anything to do with it when these programs have all the power.
Transfers and decommitments have benefited BC, but I would feel the same way if it hadn't. In D1 this sport is basically these players' whole lives. They should be happy doing it.
My bitterness with Clarkson getting these transfers is limited to my frustration that BC's path to the natty is now tougher -- which I know is the ARM bat signal!
My take on this is that given how much control the programs and the NCAA have over these players, any time the players have any tiny crack in the rules for an opportunity to put themselves in a better situation or even just to be somewhere where they'll be happier is A-OK with me. For many of these players this is the top level of their sport, and it only lasts for 4 years. They *should* be making the absolute most of it.
I don't think loyalty to their program has anything to do with it when these programs have all the power.
I don't know if you're talking about BC or not, but this almost exactly matches BC's situation too. Lonergan was originally committed to Harvard and Miano was originally committed to BU. Both, for one reason or another, ended up at BC, and I hope they're happier women for it.
Transfers and decommitments have benefited BC, but I would feel the same way if it hadn't. In D1 this sport is basically these players' whole lives. They should be happy doing it.
My bitterness with Clarkson getting these transfers is limited to my frustration that BC's path to the natty is now tougher -- which I know is the ARM bat signal!
Re: Transfers thread
Another Angle: If a player can parlay her hockey skills into into a full ride for both an undergraduate degree AND a Master's, she certainly has my admiration.
Further a "program" isn't some sort of soulless, inanimate object. It includes the coaches who work with little job security. It's the trainer and the SID who work for modest pay, because it's a labor of love. Even fans, who give up whole weekends at time to support their team, deserve a little consideration.
I get that every situation is different. If loyalty hasn't been earned, so be it. Or, if an opportunity that can't be refused arises, so be it. All I'm saying is that loyalty is relevant in the conversation.
In general, I agree with this. And it's true for most players, whether the experience lasts for 4, 5 or 6 years.
Another Angle: If a player can parlay her hockey skills into into a full ride for both an undergraduate degree AND a Master's, she certainly has my admiration.
It's easy to bash "big brother," be it the NCAA or University Administration. But loyalty to teammates should factor into these decisions.
Further a "program" isn't some sort of soulless, inanimate object. It includes the coaches who work with little job security. It's the trainer and the SID who work for modest pay, because it's a labor of love. Even fans, who give up whole weekends at time to support their team, deserve a little consideration.
I get that every situation is different. If loyalty hasn't been earned, so be it. Or, if an opportunity that can't be refused arises, so be it. All I'm saying is that loyalty is relevant in the conversation.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Transfers thread
I hope the people who seem to take this personally have never changed employers because they thought it would be a better fit for their own lives. And that they spent a year unemployed before starting their new job.
I hope the people who seem to take this personally have never changed employers because they thought it would be a better fit for their own lives. And that they spent a year unemployed before starting their new job.
Last edited:
Re: Transfers thread
Requiring D-1 transfer athletes to sit out one season is pretty analogous to a non-compete clause -- imposing a one year limitation, in a single sport, at the elite level. The student remains free to transfer to another school at any time. She can pursue any course of study, limited only by her ability to gain admission to the relevant program. She can participate in any other extracurricular activity. And there's broad agreement on the thread that in the case of a student who's graduated from her first school, there should be no limitation at all.
I'll allow that by asking Varsity athletes to take loyalty into account, I'm taking it a step further. I am suggesting that they hold themselves to a slightly higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors. But I've always believed that sports should be a bit of an escape from the business world. A place where concepts like team and loyalty continue to matter -- even if we fall short of the ideal.
The business world may appear to offer unlimited freedom, but it really doesn't. Contractual obligations and governmental regulation limit individual choice. Reasonable people can disagree about what the rules should be. Debating such questions doesn't mean someone is "taking it personally."
As one example, some employees are required to sign non-compete clauses. To be enforceable, they need to reasonable in terms of time period, geographic reach and type of subsequent employment.
Requiring D-1 transfer athletes to sit out one season is pretty analogous to a non-compete clause -- imposing a one year limitation, in a single sport, at the elite level. The student remains free to transfer to another school at any time. She can pursue any course of study, limited only by her ability to gain admission to the relevant program. She can participate in any other extracurricular activity. And there's broad agreement on the thread that in the case of a student who's graduated from her first school, there should be no limitation at all.
I'll allow that by asking Varsity athletes to take loyalty into account, I'm taking it a step further. I am suggesting that they hold themselves to a slightly higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors. But I've always believed that sports should be a bit of an escape from the business world. A place where concepts like team and loyalty continue to matter -- even if we fall short of the ideal.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: Transfers thread
Someone in this thread said, "I just wish loyalty mattered a little more than it currently does . . ." This is an implication that athletes transferring are showing disloyalty. That's not a dispassionate discussion of the rules; that's making it personal. Your disclaimer below still doesn't quite grapple with that.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. The NCAA has spent decades arguing in court that scholarship athletes are not employees. Their arguments reach the point of being patently ridiculous, including claiming that generating revenue is not a consideration in how they run their operations. For some reason, judges keep buying these arguments, and so athletes are definitively not employees.
And if the NCAA would treat the athletes as employees, I'd even agree with this. Ask Marc Buoniconti whether they are treated that way.
It is very thoughtful of you to volunteer other people to live up to higher standards, especially when those on the other side of the transaction are living down to a lower standard than actual employers. This isn't your life; it's theirs. They are not your escape from the business world. If you need one, I recommend yoga. Or the Bahamas. They need to make decisions about their lives. The idea that any of us have standing to pass judgment on why they choose to move to a different school is ethically obtuse. It implies that it's about us, that we have some sort of agency over their lives.
Enjoy sports because they are fun and exciting. If you're lucky, they add some meaning to your life; I know they have mine. But don't project any of that onto the athletes and expect them to subordinate their needs to yours.
Someone in this thread said, "I just wish loyalty mattered a little more than it currently does . . ." This is an implication that athletes transferring are showing disloyalty. That's not a dispassionate discussion of the rules; that's making it personal. Your disclaimer below still doesn't quite grapple with that.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. The NCAA has spent decades arguing in court that scholarship athletes are not employees. Their arguments reach the point of being patently ridiculous, including claiming that generating revenue is not a consideration in how they run their operations. For some reason, judges keep buying these arguments, and so athletes are definitively not employees.
And if the NCAA would treat the athletes as employees, I'd even agree with this. Ask Marc Buoniconti whether they are treated that way.
It is very thoughtful of you to volunteer other people to live up to higher standards, especially when those on the other side of the transaction are living down to a lower standard than actual employers. This isn't your life; it's theirs. They are not your escape from the business world. If you need one, I recommend yoga. Or the Bahamas. They need to make decisions about their lives. The idea that any of us have standing to pass judgment on why they choose to move to a different school is ethically obtuse. It implies that it's about us, that we have some sort of agency over their lives.
Enjoy sports because they are fun and exciting. If you're lucky, they add some meaning to your life; I know they have mine. But don't project any of that onto the athletes and expect them to subordinate their needs to yours.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: Transfers thread
My definition of poaches is basically the grad transfer situation, UW had/has no one on the UW roster that fit that category.
For the record, the only pre-enrollment flips I know of on the roster now are Gardner and Blessi. Kepler transferred but sat a year. For my own personal knowledge, who else pre-enrollment flipped?
Has Q had any recent coaching changes?
My definition of poaches is basically the grad transfer situation, UW had/has no one on the UW roster that fit that category.
For the record, the only pre-enrollment flips I know of on the roster now are Gardner and Blessi. Kepler transferred but sat a year. For my own personal knowledge, who else pre-enrollment flipped?
Has Q had any recent coaching changes?
Re: Transfers thread
Quote Originally Posted by pgb-ohio
"I'll allow that by asking Varsity athletes to take loyalty into account, I'm taking it a step further. I am suggesting that they hold themselves to a slightly higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors. But I've always believed that sports should be a bit of an escape from the business world. A place where concepts like team and loyalty continue to matter -- even if we fall short of the ideal."[/QUOTE]
When talking loyalty that is also a two way street and i have heard of and know first hand of coaches/teams telling players that they should look elsewhere or are not welcome at the program anymore after they had committed to them that they would give them a 4 year hockey experience. Why is it that loyalty is often only talked about in the context of player to team and not team to player.
Quote Originally Posted by pgb-ohio
"I'll allow that by asking Varsity athletes to take loyalty into account, I'm taking it a step further. I am suggesting that they hold themselves to a slightly higher standard than would be required by most other endeavors. But I've always believed that sports should be a bit of an escape from the business world. A place where concepts like team and loyalty continue to matter -- even if we fall short of the ideal."[/QUOTE]
When talking loyalty that is also a two way street and i have heard of and know first hand of coaches/teams telling players that they should look elsewhere or are not welcome at the program anymore after they had committed to them that they would give them a 4 year hockey experience. Why is it that loyalty is often only talked about in the context of player to team and not team to player.
Puckdrop14
New member
Who knows if these two players were even tendered offers for their 5th year’s? Is it possible that funding was not available given the number of incoming freshmen on both teams? Both players suffered difficult injuries that left them questionable to play long term although Sauve has been back and playing regularly for two years now. I do agree that many decommitments occur annually which really puts the loyalty debate to rest for many of us.
Last edited:
Suffice it to say that none of us know all the variables involved in the decision-making for these players. There are variables on both sides of the equation that are never going to be fully known and are none of our business really. It could be a simple case of wanting a change of scenery for the fifth and final year of their eligibility or maybe the Master's degree they're looking for wasn't offered where they got their Bachelor's degree. Whatever the case, it's not even mid-July so enjoy the rest of the summer, let them enjoy the rest of the summer, and we'll all look forward to a new hockey season when the time is right!
Puckdrop14
New member
Right you are! Go Croatia!
I typically only recognize soccer as a conditioning tool for hockey, but I will say I'm picking England in that semi.
Re: Transfers thread
Hey you didn't even have to jump on the sword I was talking Wisconsin but ...
wow about a third of BC's goals came from those two decommits.
.
Hey you didn't even have to jump on the sword I was talking Wisconsin but ...
wow about a third of BC's goals came from those two decommits.
.
Re: Transfers thread
A fair reading of my posts? Mostly musings about the rights and wrongs of the situation, trying to see the issue from all sides. Consciously non-judgmental.
I certainly defer to your legal expertise as how litigation would play out. But I don't think this issue will come to that, and it shouldn't.
The funny thing is, there's little reason for you to play dirty. Yes, in the WCHA, we require in-conference transfer students to sit out one season. Perhaps that one exception annoys. But to the best of my knowledge, that's the only transfer limitation in Women's D-1 Hockey. For the most part, you've already "won" on the merits.
This is really pathetic, even for you. You intentionally edited out "society wide," changing the character of my comment. Nowhere in my posts do I express personal disapproval of any of the transferring students.
A fair reading of my posts? Mostly musings about the rights and wrongs of the situation, trying to see the issue from all sides. Consciously non-judgmental.
I didn't mean to suggest that "court-ordered loyalty" was a viable approach. Transfer rules should be resolved outside the court system to the maximum extent possible. I was just looking for an analogy that would offer some guidance as to how one could voluntarily balance the competing considerations.
I certainly defer to your legal expertise as how litigation would play out. But I don't think this issue will come to that, and it shouldn't.
Says the poster who disapproves of personal attacks. At least you stopped short of demanding I head to a nursing home.
Once again, you've distorted my comments beyond recognition. Passing judgment? I specifically said that: Those of us "outside of the room" don't need to know all of the reasons behind a transfer. But hey -- don't let accuracy stand in the way of knocking over the straw man.
The funny thing is, there's little reason for you to play dirty. Yes, in the WCHA, we require in-conference transfer students to sit out one season. Perhaps that one exception annoys. But to the best of my knowledge, that's the only transfer limitation in Women's D-1 Hockey. For the most part, you've already "won" on the merits.