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.
Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
- Thread starter Slapper
- Start date
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Stuff's gonna hit the fan now. It's a joke...wouldn't have happened without the participation of great players from the Great White North on championship rosters.
This!Oh it's really simple there are more Canadian players on the east coast.
Stuff's gonna hit the fan now. It's a joke...wouldn't have happened without the participation of great players from the Great White North on championship rosters.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
The difference is the culture. I lived in Mass for a couple of years and MN for much of my life. There is no comparison in ameuter hockey. You just have a small following in New England, with the Bruins accounting for most fan following...in Minnesota the game of hockey is a core part of the culture in large part because so many of us played it for years.
The difference is the culture. I lived in Mass for a couple of years and MN for much of my life. There is no comparison in ameuter hockey. You just have a small following in New England, with the Bruins accounting for most fan following...in Minnesota the game of hockey is a core part of the culture in large part because so many of us played it for years.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
5mn_Major,
I'm as big of a supporter of Minnesota amateur hockey as you'll find anywhere, but I must respectfully disagree with what you're saying. A quick look at the rosters of both Wisconsin and UMD will show that they've both relied very little on players developed in Minnesota. And as been pointed out elsewhere many (or even most) of the Minnesota Gophers' key players are not native Minnesotans.
With respect to the Gophers there are of course many notable exceptions, including Anne Schleper and Sarah Erickson (who scored two goals in the NCAA championship game) off of this year's team and other past greats that would include Gigi Marvin, Erica McKenzie, Natalie Darwitz and Krissy Wendell, etc.
As to the hockey "culture", which you say in New England is mostly driven by the Boston Bruins, just note that the Boston area has four D1 programs (BU, BC, Harvard and Northeastern) vs. just one in the Twin Cities. And yes, there is a population difference but the hockey tradition is very strong in the Boston and greater New England areas.
So when looking to explain why the WCHA has dominated the NCAA Tournament championship, I don't believe the answer lies in any perceived difference in the hockey "culture" of the two areas.
5mn_Major,
I'm as big of a supporter of Minnesota amateur hockey as you'll find anywhere, but I must respectfully disagree with what you're saying. A quick look at the rosters of both Wisconsin and UMD will show that they've both relied very little on players developed in Minnesota. And as been pointed out elsewhere many (or even most) of the Minnesota Gophers' key players are not native Minnesotans.
With respect to the Gophers there are of course many notable exceptions, including Anne Schleper and Sarah Erickson (who scored two goals in the NCAA championship game) off of this year's team and other past greats that would include Gigi Marvin, Erica McKenzie, Natalie Darwitz and Krissy Wendell, etc.
As to the hockey "culture", which you say in New England is mostly driven by the Boston Bruins, just note that the Boston area has four D1 programs (BU, BC, Harvard and Northeastern) vs. just one in the Twin Cities. And yes, there is a population difference but the hockey tradition is very strong in the Boston and greater New England areas.
So when looking to explain why the WCHA has dominated the NCAA Tournament championship, I don't believe the answer lies in any perceived difference in the hockey "culture" of the two areas.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I think this debate is getting confused because of two somewhat distinct questions:
(1) why have UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin had better recruits on average than other top eastern programs?
(2) why have UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin won every national title even though there are some years where the talent gap between the best of the 3 and the top eastern team any given year hasn't been particularly large?
I've mainly focused on answering question (2). Other posts have looked more at question (1). Answering (2) is absolutely necessary to explain why the WCHA has won every national title, because the dominance is not due to simply better talent alone, but certainly recruiting success is important for explaining why the WCHA has had some advantage in the first place.
Certainly there are some common answers for both (1) and (2). Once you had at least three (now four) programs with strong financial resources in place, some players know this could be their best chance to develop. ECAC and Hockey East schools each offer their own unique appeal, but that WCHA case is strong.
Other posters have talked about culture. Yes, it doesn't matter so much in terms of a geographic advantage in recruiting locally. But culture does matter in terms of how western schools have promoted their programs and the kinds of crowds they've drawn in. Not sure all the exact reasons for why eastern schools haven't had as much success in terms of attendance. But I can buy culture playing some role there.
I think this debate is getting confused because of two somewhat distinct questions:
(1) why have UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin had better recruits on average than other top eastern programs?
(2) why have UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin won every national title even though there are some years where the talent gap between the best of the 3 and the top eastern team any given year hasn't been particularly large?
I've mainly focused on answering question (2). Other posts have looked more at question (1). Answering (2) is absolutely necessary to explain why the WCHA has won every national title, because the dominance is not due to simply better talent alone, but certainly recruiting success is important for explaining why the WCHA has had some advantage in the first place.
Certainly there are some common answers for both (1) and (2). Once you had at least three (now four) programs with strong financial resources in place, some players know this could be their best chance to develop. ECAC and Hockey East schools each offer their own unique appeal, but that WCHA case is strong.
Other posters have talked about culture. Yes, it doesn't matter so much in terms of a geographic advantage in recruiting locally. But culture does matter in terms of how western schools have promoted their programs and the kinds of crowds they've drawn in. Not sure all the exact reasons for why eastern schools haven't had as much success in terms of attendance. But I can buy culture playing some role there.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
There is a definite culture difference between Ivy and larger public or private institutions. I don't want this to come across as snobbish although it probably will but there is something unique in attending an Ivy school. It isn't for everyone and balancing extracurricular and academics can be a challenge for some kids.
I can't say if the WCHA recruits would have considered an Ivy because I have no facts to back up that statement one way or another. I do know that significant recruits such as Erica Lawler and Hilary Knight came from New England. I know it must pain Dartmouth fans to see Knight play for the Badgers knowing she grew up in their backyard. But you can make that same argument for a lot of players who leave a state or a country to play for a particular school (to wit; Liza Rybakina coming from the Ukraine through a program set up by Gene Kinasewich from Harvard).
I think a number of factors play into an athlete's decision to attend a particular school. They are in no particular order; finances, program's rep for winning, the program's culture, the university's culture, academics, student life, coaches, and possibly exposure for Olympic consideration. Many more that I'm sure I've overlooked but you get the point.
The Minnesota-Massachusetts debate is a wash. MA hockey programs for girls and boys are very strong and high school games are well attended here in the state. It isn't all about the Bruins and heck, if you want to go that route, why did the North Stars leave a hockey mad state in the first place to venture to Dallas, TX of all places?? That was embarrassing to say the least.
There have been some close and exciting games between eastern schools and the WCHA and eventually, the tide will turn. The Harvard men won a national title on Minnesota's turf in '89 so I'm not buying the home ice argument. Western teams have won in the East as well. Sure it would help to have more title games in the Northeast but I don't see that as tipping the scales in favor of eastern schools. Better coaching and talent will win out no matter where the games are played.
There is a definite culture difference between Ivy and larger public or private institutions. I don't want this to come across as snobbish although it probably will but there is something unique in attending an Ivy school. It isn't for everyone and balancing extracurricular and academics can be a challenge for some kids.
I can't say if the WCHA recruits would have considered an Ivy because I have no facts to back up that statement one way or another. I do know that significant recruits such as Erica Lawler and Hilary Knight came from New England. I know it must pain Dartmouth fans to see Knight play for the Badgers knowing she grew up in their backyard. But you can make that same argument for a lot of players who leave a state or a country to play for a particular school (to wit; Liza Rybakina coming from the Ukraine through a program set up by Gene Kinasewich from Harvard).
I think a number of factors play into an athlete's decision to attend a particular school. They are in no particular order; finances, program's rep for winning, the program's culture, the university's culture, academics, student life, coaches, and possibly exposure for Olympic consideration. Many more that I'm sure I've overlooked but you get the point.
The Minnesota-Massachusetts debate is a wash. MA hockey programs for girls and boys are very strong and high school games are well attended here in the state. It isn't all about the Bruins and heck, if you want to go that route, why did the North Stars leave a hockey mad state in the first place to venture to Dallas, TX of all places?? That was embarrassing to say the least.
There have been some close and exciting games between eastern schools and the WCHA and eventually, the tide will turn. The Harvard men won a national title on Minnesota's turf in '89 so I'm not buying the home ice argument. Western teams have won in the East as well. Sure it would help to have more title games in the Northeast but I don't see that as tipping the scales in favor of eastern schools. Better coaching and talent will win out no matter where the games are played.
mnpokecheck
Drinking the Koolaid
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin maintaining their advantage has possibly been a matter of black hole attraction......how does a recruit not think about the 12 straight titles and the level of competition in the league....and playing 8-10 games a year against the best....plus competitive games vs OSU/Bemidji/UND.
Early on, the commitment these schools made to resources and coaches with the allure of a strong traditional hockey brand and the WCHA moniker probably helped create the quick impact...building the first dedicated womens rink surely didn't hurt. I would think if U of Michigan added a womens team with resources, it would likely have a similar quick transition to upper ranks. Will be interesting to see how long it will take Penn State to leverage its brand. Watching to see if UND can maintain their gains after the Lams complete their careers.
UMD/Minnesota/Wisconsin maintaining their advantage has possibly been a matter of black hole attraction......how does a recruit not think about the 12 straight titles and the level of competition in the league....and playing 8-10 games a year against the best....plus competitive games vs OSU/Bemidji/UND.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
The balancing act must be made no matter where one goes. Whether one university is rated higher than another really doesn't matter that much in terms of an academic workload; that is likely determined more by how easily a chosen field of study comes to an individual student. The slightly shorter Ivy League season, means that there are fewer practices and games that a student athlete will have to fit into a schedule over the course of as year, so that mitigates any presumed increase in academic challenge to a degree.
Choosing a school can be similar to choosing a house. The buyer/student can look at all sorts of facts and statistics, but in the end has to feel comfortable. The house and school both have to feel like home, and someplace that the person choosing feels is a good overall fit for what she wants. I understand why people want to live on a prestigious golf course or in a Manhattan condo, but that doesn't mean I'd ever want to live there.
Multiple factors I'm sure, two of which were money and an owner's desire to escape the publicity of a pending sexual harassment suit.
I doubt UND will ever sink back down to the bottom of the league. They are now attracting recruits that are far superior to what they once had.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I don't know about Lawler but I do know that Knight didn't grow up in their back yard, she moved to Hanover while attending Choate.
I think the WCHA has an advantage for, among other things, being public institutions. Many Easterners have a built in bias against public schools. Look at the list of Eastern schools with successful women's hockey programs and they are all private. Schools like UConn, Maine, NH and Vermont lag behind, and U-Mass Amherst only has club. So, in very general terms, it seems to me that Western girls who have no bias have no problem staying close to home and playing for public universities. Eastern girls, if given the choice, would tend to choose a BC or BU over WI or MINNY based upon the public school bias. This would also assume that the girls are choosing schools based on acedemic preferences, rather than hockey preferences. I know I am over-generalizing but i'm sure this is a factor.
I don't know about Lawler but I do know that Knight didn't grow up in their back yard, she moved to Hanover while attending Choate.
I think the WCHA has an advantage for, among other things, being public institutions. Many Easterners have a built in bias against public schools. Look at the list of Eastern schools with successful women's hockey programs and they are all private. Schools like UConn, Maine, NH and Vermont lag behind, and U-Mass Amherst only has club. So, in very general terms, it seems to me that Western girls who have no bias have no problem staying close to home and playing for public universities. Eastern girls, if given the choice, would tend to choose a BC or BU over WI or MINNY based upon the public school bias. This would also assume that the girls are choosing schools based on acedemic preferences, rather than hockey preferences. I know I am over-generalizing but i'm sure this is a factor.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I think a main reason for the WCHA's dominance is the fact no one else has won.
UW has Mark Johnson as coach(Olympic coach). Period. That certainly attracts the best recruits from all over. Gophers have the tradition and great facilities and yes they get the very best Minnesota girls. UMD's Miller is a great coach, prefers Canadians and European players and usually gets the best of them. She knows the women’s game and how to coach the women’s game. She has a style of play that she wants and finds players to fill that style.
All these coaches play a wide open, use the whole ice, come into the o zone with a purpose, and most important cycle the play back to the d and then in the other side. Always looking for the back side scoring chance. I see so many women’s team that try to play like the men. Chip it out, Dump and chase or try to beat the d on their own. In my opinion the wrong way to play the women’s game and ugly.
All this being said. I do feel next year will be the year of the EAST. I hope not but see it happening.
I think a main reason for the WCHA's dominance is the fact no one else has won.
UW has Mark Johnson as coach(Olympic coach). Period. That certainly attracts the best recruits from all over. Gophers have the tradition and great facilities and yes they get the very best Minnesota girls. UMD's Miller is a great coach, prefers Canadians and European players and usually gets the best of them. She knows the women’s game and how to coach the women’s game. She has a style of play that she wants and finds players to fill that style.
All these coaches play a wide open, use the whole ice, come into the o zone with a purpose, and most important cycle the play back to the d and then in the other side. Always looking for the back side scoring chance. I see so many women’s team that try to play like the men. Chip it out, Dump and chase or try to beat the d on their own. In my opinion the wrong way to play the women’s game and ugly.
All this being said. I do feel next year will be the year of the EAST. I hope not but see it happening.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
It starts with recruiting.........
The WCHA offers a better brand of hockey, plays a tougher schedule and, in turn (other then Cornell) will attract the top talent. (The best want to play against the best)
Maybe the east coast has lost some of it's "allure" factor that it once had.
Don't discount the palaces that Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Duluth play out of (helps recruiting) there are some pretty tired barn's on the East coast.
After the recruiting advantage comes the coaching factor. I would think that most would agree that the WCHA has the lions share of top notch coaches. (The best want to play for the best)
Add all these factors up and you can see why the WCHA is always winning the NCAA.
Now this could be a cyclical thing, maybe, maybe not.
It starts with recruiting.........
The WCHA offers a better brand of hockey, plays a tougher schedule and, in turn (other then Cornell) will attract the top talent. (The best want to play against the best)
Maybe the east coast has lost some of it's "allure" factor that it once had.
Don't discount the palaces that Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Duluth play out of (helps recruiting) there are some pretty tired barn's on the East coast.
After the recruiting advantage comes the coaching factor. I would think that most would agree that the WCHA has the lions share of top notch coaches. (The best want to play for the best)
Add all these factors up and you can see why the WCHA is always winning the NCAA.
Now this could be a cyclical thing, maybe, maybe not.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
And I hit "post" before finishing my thought. So the best Western players tend to stay West to play because there is no compelling reason not to. Compare this to DIII, where many of the best Western players do in fact come East and the East dominates the NCAA tournament at that level.
And I hit "post" before finishing my thought. So the best Western players tend to stay West to play because there is no compelling reason not to. Compare this to DIII, where many of the best Western players do in fact come East and the East dominates the NCAA tournament at that level.
giwan
Really??!!
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Not really. The academic challenges are there regardless of the length of schedule. The team starts training in October a little over a month after school starts. There are games that bump up against a shorter reading period and then exams. About the only break they get is the games that come after January 1st when school is in intersession and there are no classes. Otherwise, with travel, practice and games, it is a challenge to maintain a very good grade point average and submit quality work. There are times when Harvard players have to miss practice for a make-up exam or paper and you wouldn't find that at BU, BC, Minnesota or Wisconsin.
Not really. The academic challenges are there regardless of the length of schedule. The team starts training in October a little over a month after school starts. There are games that bump up against a shorter reading period and then exams. About the only break they get is the games that come after January 1st when school is in intersession and there are no classes. Otherwise, with travel, practice and games, it is a challenge to maintain a very good grade point average and submit quality work. There are times when Harvard players have to miss practice for a make-up exam or paper and you wouldn't find that at BU, BC, Minnesota or Wisconsin.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Okay but she was in Hanover long enough for Dartmouth to know about her and spend time trying to convince her to attend. Unless her grades were not going to cut it or she had a desire to play for a WCHA school and ruled out the Ivies from the get-go, then Dartmouth really has to feel like they blew a chance to get a quality player. No disrespect to the current squad but she would have made a big diff.
Okay but she was in Hanover long enough for Dartmouth to know about her and spend time trying to convince her to attend. Unless her grades were not going to cut it or she had a desire to play for a WCHA school and ruled out the Ivies from the get-go, then Dartmouth really has to feel like they blew a chance to get a quality player. No disrespect to the current squad but she would have made a big diff.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I don't have a beef with most of what you wrote except this line. The Bright Center, Thompson Arena at Dartmouth, Conte Forum and Agganis Arena (although the women play at Walter Brown) are all great rinks. I don't consider them 'tired'; if a player is picking a program because of the rink, then she needs to get her priorities in line.
I don't have a beef with most of what you wrote except this line. The Bright Center, Thompson Arena at Dartmouth, Conte Forum and Agganis Arena (although the women play at Walter Brown) are all great rinks. I don't consider them 'tired'; if a player is picking a program because of the rink, then she needs to get her priorities in line.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Right, but that is the same at most schools. A shortened schedule, even by a few weeks, reduces the number of academic/athletic conflicts, particularly for freshmen trying to adjust. Everything varies from school to school. Some teams are faced with more grueling travel schedules than others. Even if athletics gets priority over academics, and I would say that you are incorrect to assume that is always the case outside of Harvard, the same amount of work still has to be performed at some point. Academic challenges may be rigorous at Ivy League schools, but they are not unique to the Ivies.
Last edited:
NUWH DogHouse
The Voice From Above
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
Hopefully I don't get completely chewed out for this but could it have to do with the fact that most of the Western schools are public state schools while a vast majority of the eastern schools are private (exception UNH I know and UVM plus Maine and UConn)? State schools can be a little laxer about academics for entrance and possibly for during the playing season. Plus any summer semesters they have to take to make up for lesser schedules during season can be made cheaper.
Obviously this is by far not the only reason but does anyone else think it might play a role?
Hopefully I don't get completely chewed out for this but could it have to do with the fact that most of the Western schools are public state schools while a vast majority of the eastern schools are private (exception UNH I know and UVM plus Maine and UConn)? State schools can be a little laxer about academics for entrance and possibly for during the playing season. Plus any summer semesters they have to take to make up for lesser schedules during season can be made cheaper.
Obviously this is by far not the only reason but does anyone else think it might play a role?
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
In the battle to recruit top talent everyone has great difficulty keeping up with MJ and staff...but primarily it's MJ in my opinion. It seems very few actually can for any length of time. As long as he's at UW I anticipate matching his success through successive classes to be very difficult.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
Re: Why is WCHA always winning NCAA.
I find the whole argument that Harvard isn't good enough because school is harder to be laughable.