Utica University 2023-24: The Rebuild????

[Hockeyguy1424]

I said this a couple of months ago after I had spoke with someone at the University. I was told my sources didn’t know what they were talking about. As I said before we shall see once the dust settles.

 

[Fishman'81]

To me, it's a lot more about "why" than it is about "when".

Still haven't heard anything from the UU insiders regarding why that move would benefit the program.

Sure, Stonehill was a lousy D-3 squad before it made the move, but its experience serves as a cautionary tale to me. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go winless this season.

Similarly, this good D-3 Utica team would maybe win 4-5 games in D-1 this season, even while playing in the AHA.

What, again, is the point?

 

[Russell Jaslow]

To me, it's a lot more about "why" than it is about "when".

Still haven't heard anything from the UU insiders regarding why that move would benefit the program.

Sure, Stonehill was a lousy D-3 squad before it made the move, but its experience serves as a cautionary tale to me. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go winless this season.

Similarly, this good D-3 Utica team would maybe win 4-5 games in D-1 this season, even while playing in the AHA.

What, again, is the point?

I'm not disputing your point, but you are using terrible examples to try and prove it.

Stonehill is a ridiculous marker to use. I have no idea what they are doing, but they are not even trying to be a D1 program. Utica will at least try. Think LIU, Lindenwood, Augustana. Sure not great, but have pulled some suprises out of their hat. But don't think Stonehill.

Also, stating what the current Utica team would do in D1 is absurd. Sure, there will be a transition period, but again, Utica will go all in trying to be a D1 team, and will recruit accordingly. What could hold then back is whether they get into a conference and if so, which one.

Will it still be all worth it? That's a good question you ask. But come up with better examples to back your point. (And don't use RIT, because quite frankly, despite your idiotic ramblings about them, that has been a successful move to D1 in every measurement.)

 

[Fishman'81]

I'm not disputing your point, but you are using terrible examples to try and prove it.

Stonehill is a ridiculous marker to use. I have no idea what they are doing, but they are not even trying to be a D1 program. Utica will at least try. Think LIU, Lindenwood, Augustana. Sure not great, but have pulled some suprises out of their hat. But don't think Stonehill.

Also, stating what the current Utica team would do in D1 is absurd. Sure, there will be a transition period, but again, Utica will go all in trying to be a D1 team, and will recruit accordingly. What could hold then back is whether they get into a conference and if so, which one.

Will it still be all worth it? That's a good question you ask. But come up with better examples to back your point. (And don't use RIT, because quite frankly, despite your idiotic ramblings about them, that has been a successful move to D1 in every measurement.)

Idiotic? You might want to look that term up. Or simply look in the mirror.

RIT has made the tournament, what? three times in 23 years. Scored 11 goals in 6 total tournament games. Went 3-3, including the minor miracle that was 2010, when they somehow squeaked into the FF and got blasted 8-1.

If that's your definition of a good move to D-1, please. RIT has outkicked it's coverage for an entire generation.

So, as per usual, you're basically full of shit. Citing RIT as a success story re: making that move "up" is beyond absurd. At best, it was a blind hog/acorn deal.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Idiotic? You might want to look that term up. Or simply look in the mirror.

RIT has made the tournament, what? three times in 23 years. Scored 11 goals in 9 total tournament games. Went 3-3, including the minor miracle that was 2010, when they somehow squeaked into the FF and got blasted 8-1.

If that's your definition of a good move to D-1, please. RIT has outkicked it's coverage for an entire generation.

So, as per usual, you're basically full of ****. Citing RIT as a success story re: making that move "up" is beyond absurd. At best, it was a blind hog/acorn deal.

Yep, idiotic is the right word for you.

They have a brand new arena because they went D1.

Even though I think the arena is a tad bigger than it should have been, they still average more fans than they ever did at the old Ritter.

They made a Frozen Four in a time period where long standing traditional D1 hockey programs have not, such as Clarkson and St. Lawrence.

Many, many teams barely make the Frozen Four. Are Northern Michigan, Bowling Green, LSSU, heck even Maine considering their recent troubles, failures as D1 hockey teams? What about Princeton, Dartmouth?

RIT sells out a game in the downtown arena of about 10,500 people every year. RIT has beaten Minnesota, Notre Dame, Denver, UNH to name just some traditional powerhouses.

RIT got marketing exposure on ESPN you can't buy -- Barry Melrose declared them one of his favorite teams, and even came to Rochester to publicize them.

Talk to anyone in the RIT PR and marketing departments (I have), and they will tell you how much easier it is to recruit students to attend RIT ever since their hockey team went D1. (Which is a huge reason many schools spend money on sports, even at the D3 level, to build an aura of being a "winner" all around.)

We all know for years your debating skills are the worse in the history of Mankind, except for Donald Trump -- which is ironic since I know how much you hate him.

Keep your mouth shut. You are incapable of proving a point. At all. Don't even try anymore.

 

[Fishman'81]

Yep, idiotic is the right word for you.

They have a brand new arena because they went D1.

Even though I think the arena is a tad bigger than it should have been, they still average more fans than they ever did at the old Ritter.

They made a Frozen Four in a time period where long standing traditional D1 hockey programs have not, such as Clarkson and St. Lawrence.

Many, many teams barely make the Frozen Four. Are Northern Michigan, Bowling Green, LSSU, heck even Maine considering their recent troubles, failures as D1 hockey teams? What about Princeton, Dartmouth?

RIT sells out a game in the downtown arena of about 10,500 people every year. RIT has beaten Minnesota, Notre Dame, Denver, UNH to name just some traditional powerhouses.

RIT got marketing exposure on ESPN you can't buy -- Barry Melrose declared them one of his favorite teams, and even came to Rochester to publicize them.

Talk to anyone in the RIT PR and marketing departments (I have), and they will tell you how much easier it is to recruit students to attend RIT ever since their hockey team went D1. (Which is a huge reason many schools spend money on sports, even at the D3 level, to build an aura of being a "winner" all around.)

We all know for years your debating skills are the worse in the history of Mankind, except for Donald Trump -- which is ironic since I know how much you hate him.

Keep your mouth shut. You are incapable of proving a point. At all. Don't even try anymore.

What a compelling argument, with neither conflation nor diversion...

As brilliant as the above is, you really should consider starting your own thread.

Please..?

 

[Russell Jaslow]

What a compelling argument, with neither conflation nor diversion...

As brilliant as the above is, you really should consider starting your own thread.

Please..?

That’s all you got? Stop trying. Just stop trying.

 

[JSicedog]

Oh, there definitely was something to it. A lot in fact. At one time.

But now, I believe it's dead in the water. And some of my sources do know what's going on behind the scenes.

I think we will agree to disagree here. Our sources are saying opposite things.

Fish - if Utica ends up like an RIT that would be looked at as a success, you realize that right? RIT Hockey moving D1 has proved to be a very successful move for the school.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

I think we will agree to disagree here. Our sources are saying opposite things.

We will find out. I was going to say soon, but that hasn't been the case at all. This appears to be the never ending story. LOL

Fish - if Utica ends up like an RIT that would be looked at as a success, you realize that right? RIT Hockey moving D1 has proved to be a very successful move for the school.

Oh, no. Now, you are going to set off Fishy boy. Stand back.........

 

[Jensen35]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Heenan is currently recruiting top JR players this season and telling them they are 100% going D1.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Heenan is currently recruiting top JR players this season and telling them they are 100% going D1.

I know. It's a great slight of hand, if you get my drift...

 

[UCBadger]

We will find out. I was going to say soon, but that hasn't been the case at all. This appears to be the never ending story. LOL

Well, that's the problem. One can't prove a negative. There will (most likely) not be a press conference announcing "We are not going D2/D1. Carry on."

I hope nobody is turning blue holding their breath over this.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Well, that's the problem. One can't prove a negative. There will (most likely) not be a press conference announcing "We are not going D2/D1. Carry on."

I hope nobody is turning blue holding their breath over this.

I know. I can be right for years, and then just be wrong once, and that's it. (Although, Illinois did state publicly they were not going D1, but that's because they admitted so publicly they were seriously considering forming a D1 program.)

 

[Fishman'81]

I think we will agree to disagree here. Our sources are saying opposite things.

Fish - if Utica ends up like an RIT that would be looked at as a success, you realize that right? RIT Hockey moving D1 has proved to be a very successful move for the school.

That all hinges on how one defines "success"...

RIT's impact in D-1 is, by any reasonable description, minimal.

Look it up.

 

[Sir Nubs]

That all hinges on how one defines "success"...

RIT's impact in D-1 is, by any reasonable description, minimal.

Look it up.

Shockingly, you don't get it. While RIT's impact in D1 hockey is *relatively* minimal, the impact D1 hockey has made on RIT as an institution - as already outlined in earlier posts - is astronomical.

 

[Russell Jaslow]

Shockingly, you don't get it. While RIT's impact in D1 hockey is *relatively* minimal, the impact D1 hockey has made on RIT as an institution - as already outlined in earlier posts - is astronomical.

This.

Yes, Fishy boy is correct, the impact RIT made on D1 hockey is relatively minimal. As can be said for many other schools. But it's not RIT's job to enhance D1 hockey. It's their job to enhance themselves as an institution of higher education. And in that sense, as has been posted many times by many people citing many examples, it has been a success for RIT.

Fishy boy is way too myopic -- and stubborn, and dare I say, idiotic -- in viewing this.

 

[WCHornet]

Well, that's the problem. One can't prove a negative. There will (most likely) not be a press conference announcing "We are not going D2/D1. Carry on."

I hope nobody is turning blue holding their breath over this.

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, BLUE Fish !

 

[UCBadger]

This.

Yes, Fishy boy is correct, the impact RIT made on D1 hockey is relatively minimal. As can be said for many other schools. But it's not RIT's job to enhance D1 hockey. It's their job to enhance themselves as an institution of higher education. And in that sense, as has been posted many times by many people citing many examples, it has been a success for RIT.

Fishy boy is way too myopic -- and stubborn, and dare I say, idiotic -- in viewing this.

Russell is correct...its about what is best for the institution, and in this current higher ed environment, what can help the institution survive. Currently about 1/3 of our on ground students are athletes. Should we not have added football, lacrosse, field hockey, ice hockey 22 +/- years ago (and track and field a decade or so ago) who knows if Utica, the college, would still be around. Its been a bad few years for many smaller, and ever some larger, independent institutions. If moving to D2 will increase interest in our athletic programs in particular (not yet sold on that myself, but it may be true) and the institution in general, especially if it involves us getting more students who require less financial aid, then I will ride on that wagon. The expectation would be that the increased cost D2 athletics with D1 Hockey (more coaches, more travel, more non-academic cost) will be more than offset by increased tuition & room and board revenue, both from athletes and additional students. If that is not realized, then a move to D2 could very well sink an institution. I am glad I don't have to make that decision.

 

[Fishman'81]

Russell is correct...its about what is best for the institution, and in this current higher ed environment, what can help the institution survive. Currently about 1/3 of our on ground students are athletes. Should we not have added football, lacrosse, field hockey, ice hockey 22 +/- years ago (and track and field a decade or so ago) who knows if Utica, the college, would still be around. Its been a bad few years for many smaller, and ever some larger, independent institutions. If moving to D2 will increase interest in our athletic programs in particular (not yet sold on that myself, but it may be true) and the institution in general, especially if it involves us getting more students who require less financial aid, then I will ride on that wagon. The expectation would be that the increased cost D2 athletics with D1 Hockey (more coaches, more travel, more non-academic cost) will be more than offset by increased tuition & room and board revenue, both from athletes and additional students. If that is not realized, then a move to D2 could very well sink an institution. I am glad I don't have to make that decision.

Is there any actual evidence, anywhere, that indicates such a move improves the college experience for anyone associated with the university in question?

 

[Fishman'81]

This.

Yes, Fishy boy is correct, the impact RIT made on D1 hockey is relatively minimal. As can be said for many other schools. But it's not RIT's job to enhance D1 hockey. It's their job to enhance themselves as an institution of higher education. And in that sense, as has been posted many times by many people citing many examples, it has been a success for RIT.

Fishy boy is way too myopic -- and stubborn, and dare I say, idiotic -- in viewing this.

Explain how RIT going D-1 has enhanced Jack Shit for RIT students, or for the the college in a general sense. Cite the "many examples", you old, drunken gas-bag.

I've only talked about hockey, as in win/loss, attendance, etc. If UU goes D-1, it'll very likely work out even worse than it has for RIT.

All your bullshit regarding "intangibles" is just that. It hasn't happened in Rochester, and it wont happen in Utica.