Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

[rdf8585]

Time for a new thread.

To kick it off, the Dutchwomen announced their incoming recruiting class today:

http://unionhockeynews.blogspot.com/2013/07/press-release-dutchwomen-announce.html

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Time for a new thread.

To kick it off, the Dutchwomen announced their incoming recruiting class today:

http://unionhockeynews.blogspot.com/2013/07/press-release-dutchwomen-announce.html

Humm....looks like another loooong year ahead for Union.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Humm....looks like another loooong year ahead for Union.

I'd sadly have to agree wrt this recruiting class. These players are generally solid (although one I know about may not even be at that level), but like Vermont's incoming class there are no marquee players. Unlike Vermont, there aren't even a large number of recruits (making it up with numbers there). Know of several better (IMHO) players who were actually interested in Union but were spurned by the coaching staff and ended up elsewhere in D1. Have to continue to wonder about the recruiting ability of the staff (and yes I will point out yet again that the men's team operates under the same constraints and is very successful).

BTW - why is a picture of the men's team on a post about the women's team? Talk about adding insult to injury....

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

There is no reason why Union can't be at least a 'decent' D1 program. It's a good school with a lot going for it [I know the town is not great, but it's no worse than many others].

If the men's team can do it, why can't the women? Not sure the recruiting [it's hard work] is up to snuff...

 

[UCONN FAN]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

There is no reason why Union can't be at least a 'decent' D1 program. It's a good school with a lot going for it [I know the town is not great, but it's no worse than many others].

If the men's team can do it, why can't the women? Not sure the recruiting [it's hard work] is up to snuff...

Quite frankly the women's game is still decades behind the men's agme. There are 7 times as many men vs.women playing the game while only twice as many DI programs. The Union men made it to the frozen four for the first time in it's history just 2 seasons ago. You're not comparing apples and apples.

 

[stanleycup]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Union is a very appealing school. I know first hand of two very good players who are both D1 freshmen this upcoming season who were interested. They received initial interest from the coach and then could not even get a return email. They are both impact D1 players who could have had an immediate impact on the program. Maybe they were the wrong profile of player that they were looking for, not sure what the recruiting strategy is.

Union has its own Jr. tournament in Sept that attracts many great players from the PWHL and other leagues. They should use this event as a recruiting tool. The coaching staff was not very visible the last few years.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Quite frankly the women's game is still decades behind the men's agme. There are 7 times as many men vs.women playing the game while only twice as many DI programs. The Union men made it to the frozen four for the first time in it's history just 2 seasons ago. You're not comparing apples and apples.

Not buying it. That works for the first 3-5 years of a coach's tenure but she has been there 6+ years and the team has made minimal if any progress. They should be more competitive, period. As noted, a good school that would be attractive to many D1 candidates - they just aren't picking the right kids to focus on OR doing anything with them when they get there OR both.

Sometimes a coach just can't get the job done at a specific school (given your U Conn experience, you know that better than anyone - jeez, she even had scholarships). Union requires a coach that can recruit for their specific situation - and there is a type of player/person that fits their profile - they just aren't recruiting them OR getting many of the ones they focus on.

 

[ARM]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

The women's coach should be judged on her own merits, and IMO, it is fair to do so. However, the constant argument that the men have had success is pointless. It's a different environment. Lower profile programs on the men's side have had success because they can attract more seasoned players who aren't the first choice of the top teams. They can keep those players for four years more often, while the blue chip recruits are bolting for the NHL after a season or two. So a program like Bemidji State can reach the Frozen Four even though they don't feature a lot of highly-prized recruits. That's just one example of a difference between recruiting for the men's and women's college game at this point of their evolutions.

 

[123kidd]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

I think the main point here is that they are not winning more. 4 wins last year, 4 the year before and 2 before that. So 10 wins in 3 years and 3 of those were against SH.
How long does a staff get in the ECAC?

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

BTW - why is a picture of the men's team on a post about the women's team? Talk about adding insult to injury....

The picture of the men's team is the blog header. It's on every page.

If the Union women's team can somehow, somewhere find a substantial increase in offense, there's no reason they can't be a player in league play. Goaltending and defense shouldn't hold them back.

 

[D2D]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

The women's coach should be judged on her own merits, and IMO, it is fair to do so. However, the constant argument that the men have had success is pointless. It's a different environment. Lower profile programs on the men's side have had success because they can attract more seasoned players who aren't the first choice of the top teams. They can keep those players for four years more often, while the blue chip recruits are bolting for the NHL after a season or two. So a program like Bemidji State can reach the Frozen Four even though they don't feature a lot of highly-prized recruits. That's just one example of a difference between recruiting for the men's and women's college game at this point of their evolutions.

This is spot on.

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

after 6 years? not recruiting right/smart. easy as that. ditto for colgate....at some point, as a coach/program you need to be semi-competitive.

 

[Still A Game]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

My daughter was highly recruited. It seemed like Union went about it like they couldn't get her. Like any of the girls.....she just needed to be wanted. Union could have had her easily if they would have just said they really wanted her. They didn't, or were too bashful about it. These are young girls trying to build a program. Its a long road for them and my daughter plays for another school now.

 

[ARM]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

after 6 years? not recruiting right/smart. easy as that. ditto for colgate....at some point, as a coach/program you need to be semi-competitive.

Colgate's head coach has been there a year, so your "ditto" makes no sense in this context.

 

[UCONN FAN]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Not buying it. That works for the first 3-5 years of a coach's tenure but she has been there 6+ years and the team has made minimal if any progress. They should be more competitive, period. As noted, a good school that would be attractive to many D1 candidates - they just aren't picking the right kids to focus on OR doing anything with them when they get there OR both.

Sometimes a coach just can't get the job done at a specific school (given your U Conn experience, you know that better than anyone - jeez, she even had scholarships). Union requires a coach that can recruit for their specific situation - and there is a type of player/person that fits their profile - they just aren't recruiting them OR getting many of the ones they focus on.

I agree with you on the UCONN experience. Scholarship schools vs. non is different for sure. The academic standards and the $200,000 in tuition is a major set back as it relates to recruiting. So what about Princeton, Yale or Brown? Harvard and Cornell are the two schools doing well without scholarships and let's face it Union is not either. The women's field of players is not deep enough yet. (Yale has a very good incoming freshman class but let's see)

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

I agree with you on the UCONN experience. Scholarship schools vs. non is different for sure. The academic standards and the $200,000 in tuition is a major set back as it relates to recruiting. So what about Princeton, Yale or Brown? Harvard and Cornell are the two schools doing well without scholarships and let's face it Union is not either. The women's field of players is not deep enough yet. (Yale has a very good incoming freshman class but let's see)

Well, I'd say that Princeton has often been good but has been inconsistent - they have sometimes been able to attract pretty good recruits (off and on). Now that they appear willing to commit earlier like Harvard and Cornell do, I would expect that they will move back into more serious contention. I thought Yale was on track with last year's class (Ferrara, Haddad, etc.) and this year's incoming class (Staenz, Marchin, Yip-Chuck, etc.), but next year's class is not looking very strong to me based on "announced" folks and I wouldn't put them at the level of the previous two by any means (you know 3 of the commits) - but it looks like Yale can be competitive in recruiting as well though. Brown - who knows - thought Bourbeau would do better recruiting but this incoming class is pretty weak IMHO - weird because Brown is a hot school right now. You left out Dartmouth and I would say they do well recruiting and success wise.

So, all-in-all, I would expect 4 or 5 of the 6 Ivies to be pretty competitive next season despite their inability to offer athletic scholarships. And all of them have been competitive at times in the last 5 years except for Brown and there was a lot of badness going on there before Bourbeau arrived by other's accounts. Union hasn't ever been close to competitive and just doesn't seem to be heading there. Just isn't working for me (or more importantly them) - they should be getting better and they aren't.

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

Colgate's head coach has been there a year, so your "ditto" makes no sense in this context.

'ditto' makes all the sense in the world [giving Fargo a pass for now]...similar locations and situations...vs. the rest of D-1....with similar results over the past say half dozen years.

I agree with a few other comments on the board...the low-key recruiting [if that's what it is] ain't working.

 

[hab]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

So, all-in-all, I would expect 4 or 5 of the 6 Ivies to be pretty competitive next season despite their inability to offer athletic scholarships. And all of them have been competitive at times in the last 5 years except for Brown and there was a lot of badness going on there before Bourbeau arrived by other's accounts. Union hasn't ever been close to competitive and just doesn't seem to be heading there. Just isn't working for me (or more importantly them) - they should be getting better and they aren't.

I understand the impatience with Union's results but the comparisons with the Ivy League teams are missing an important point. Yes, the Ivies have been more successful without offering athletic scholarships but they are in an entirely different situation when it comes to the ability to throw money at promising hockey players. The endowments of universities like Harvard, Yale and Princeton are so enormous that they can deem almost anyone to be in need of financial aid, and if they want you (whether for academic or other reasons) they can make it attractive for you to attend. Union does not have that luxury. The latest data I have seen shows Union's endowment at a mere $328 million. The poorest of the Ivies (Brown) has an endowment 7.5 times larger than that and the richest (Harvard) has an endowment that is over 90 times as large as Union's. I know of one player who really liked Union and was attracted to playing there, but her parents income levels were a bit too high to qualify for financial aid. I suspect that Harvard would deem the same family as destitute.

The real mystery in all of this is not why the Union women's team has struggled, but why the Union men's team has succeeded: truly a remarkable story and one which needs more attention.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

I understand the impatience with Union's results but the comparisons with the Ivy League teams are missing an important point. Yes, the Ivies have been more successful without offering athletic scholarships but they are in an entirely different situation when it comes to the ability to throw money at promising hockey players. The endowments of universities like Harvard, Yale and Princeton are so enormous that they can deem almost anyone to be in need of financial aid, and if they want you (whether for academic or other reasons) they can make it attractive for you to attend. Union does not have that luxury. The latest data I have seen shows Union's endowment at a mere $328 million. The poorest of the Ivies (Brown) has an endowment 7.5 times larger than that and the richest (Harvard) has an endowment that is over 90 times as large as Union's. I know of one player who really liked Union and was attracted to playing there, but her parents income levels were a bit too high to qualify for financial aid. I suspect that Harvard would deem the same family as destitute.

The real mystery in all of this is not why the Union women's team has struggled, but why the Union men's team has succeeded: truly a remarkable story and one which needs more attention.

Union certainly does have a smaller endowment than the Ivies, but that is not the financial aid pool and in fact they are only marginally related (Harvard or Princeton for instance could send every kid for free and it would have only minimal impact on their endowment - they use the endowment primarily for other purposes). Union has a very strong financial aid pool. According to their website, they award $39MM of scholarships to 60% of their students for an average award of $30,500 and overall financial aid of $60MM for an average award of $46,900. They also have academic merit awards that are separate from these scholarships. These are pretty substantial financial aid awards.

Your premise that Ivies "throw money at hockey players" is just flat out wrong. Union and the Ivies both use the Expected Family Contribution method to calculate need (there are some individual school uniquenesses in what they consider, but the differing methods generally yield similar results). All Ivy League aid is need based and need is based on a standard calculation (this is a requirement of being in the Ivy League). If a kid is on the Olympic team and her parents make $1MM a year, the kid is going to pay full tuition. If a kid just squeaks into the school and is on the fourth line but her parents earn $35K between them, that kid is going for free. As a more concrete example, I am aware of at least two highly recruited current D1 players who were USA U18 players/candidates that REALLY wanted to attend/play at an Ivy League school, but also had full scholarship offers at non-Ivies. Both sets of parents made over $100K per year and tried to negotiate free rides at the Ivies because they figured that they would "throw money at the players". They got nowhere - the kids both ended up at the scholarship schools because they decided that the benefit of attending the Ivy didn't justify giving up the scholarship (personal choice).

The Ivies all understand that there are certain types of kids that they can attract (combination of skill, income level, academics, and desire to attend the school) and are generally good at identifying those kids and pursuing them. Union doesn't seem to be able to figure out with any consistency who these kids are and even when they do seems unable to capture them with any reliability.

 

[ARM]

Re: Union College Dutchwomen 2013-2014

The Ivies all understand that there are certain types of kids that they can attract (combination of skill, income level, academics, and desire to attend the school) and are generally good at identifying those kids and pursuing them. Union doesn't seem to be able to figure out with any consistency who these kids are and even when they do seems unable to capture them with any reliability.

What do you see as Union's advantage over the Ivy programs? I agree that there is some pool of recruits that do not consider an athletic scholarship to be a must. Where do you think Union can make inroads such that a potential D-I recruit would pick the Dutchwomen over one of the Ivies?