Had to do some digging to resurrect this thread.. but definitely time to congratulate Coach Asano, her assistants and all the players for finally breaking "the streak" and getting an ECAC victory!!! Hopefully won't take anywhere near as long to get the next one . Wins over Maine & North Dakota are also great signs that the program is progressing. I know there is much work to be done before U is truly competing for playoff spots, etc., but the team definitely appears to be faster and more skilled than in the past. Way to Go!!..and
Goooooooooooooooooooooooo U!!!!!!
I don't see that as being a reasonable goal. To be a national contender, you have to be able to recruit a few players that could go anywhere. Union is caught in the middle in their league. They can't offer scholarships. They have high academic standards that limit the pool of student athletes who can gain acceptance, but yet they don't quite match the prestige of the Ivies. So it's going to be tough to win recruiting battles versus other ECAC schools. Barring some other advantage -- a legendary coach everyone wants to play for, on ice celebrations including Zamboni driving -- it'll be tough to contend. I think that they can still improve, and they've obviously demonstrated some progress, but it will be an uphill climb.Claudia Asano begins her third season as head coach with the goal of turning Union women’s hockey into a national contender.
I'd agree, but how is it that the Union men have generally been respectable and not at the bottom of the ECAC every year? In what way does the same argument not apply?
True, IMO. There is probably a smaller gap to begin with in men's hockey between the top/bottom players, and because of the NHL, the very best have either a brief stint in college or no NCAA at all.I would argue that there is a bigger dropoff in talent between the top and bottom of the D1 Women's players and the D1 Men's players.
Beyond nfah's comments, I'd say that the women have a chance to be "respectable and not at the bottom of the ECAC every year" as well. Unless I've missed it, I don't think that the Dutchmen are truly national contenders though.I'd agree, but how is it that the Union men have generally been respectable and not at the bottom of the ECAC every year? In what way does the same argument not apply?
Ok, I can agree with that.I would argue that there is a bigger dropoff in talent between the top and bottom of the D1 Women's players and the D1 Men's players.
I can see that being true now and going forward, but I don't think this was true 5 years ago, when the top line talent was leaps and bounds above everyone else.Women's teams are generally sorted by their depth more than their top line talent.
I'll concede that perhaps it was unfair. But if the coach let's the comment be publicly released such that potential recruits can see it, then it becomes part of her record. She can't very well disavow it once it is out there and tell recruits, "That's just PR; personally, I don't see us contending nationally." So I'd prefer a more realistic goal statement such as, "steadily improve the team's standing in the ECAC" or, "continue to build the strength of the Union program." It doesn't do current recruits much good to talk about goals that won't be achieved within their four years. At least the Dutchwomen did have 3 legit D-I wins this season after none the year before, so that's something to build upon.I think it's rather unfair to home-in on one phrase that was obviously written by a PR person in Union's athletic department. And, this is something that is going to be read by potential recruits, so what should be said? ... I have no problem with the coaches having high goals for the team & the program.
So it's going to be tough to win recruiting battles versus other ECAC schools. Barring some other advantage -- a legendary coach everyone wants to play for, on ice celebrations including Zamboni driving -- it'll be tough to contend.