Re: UNH Commits & Recruiting: 2017 and Beyond
So before anyone chops my head off, believe me...it would've been great had he chosen us. Not sure this is sigh worthy???
Any individual choice can be explained by extraneous factors. That's why one has to take a broader view of patterns. Losing kids who already had a natural reason to come (already committed (Farabee, Ryczek, Commesso), were already here (Foegele), have a family connection (Gildon)) is one data point. Having absolutely no traction whatsoever in recruiting top 15 year olds (last in HE in 2000s commitments), and little traction in any recruiting (lowest number of commits of HE, and that includes holdovers Cipollone and Darcy), and having to overpay for marginal talent (scholarships to non-descript walkons Sato, Sacco, Cefalu) where other teams get more talented players at little cost because they want to play for an up and coming program, are all signs of a larger pattern about how UNH and its coaches to be are viewed by the hockey world.
Until and unless they develop some traction, and use the (false?) appearance of being a top 15 team on the upswing to bump recruiting, they are spinning their wheels. This is now year three of essentially killing time waiting for a change, and rather than use the time to build a foundation, that foundation has eroded to the point that the pipeline is one I would trade for almost every top 30 NCAA team, and all HE teams except UMass and perhaps Merrimack.
You also might notice a pattern that when a new coach comes, they have a definite idea of who they want, and have connections with kids, so that when hired, there is a flurry of new commits. See Michigan, Northern Michigan, Michigan State, U.Mass, etc. That signals a plan. Compare that to UNH's inaction, it sends a vibe of learning on the job. Not exactly what a kid who wants to advance in hockey would sign up for.
So, no, Michael Gildon is not sigh worthy, if that makes you feel better.