Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wallstreet

Pages: [1]
Men's hockey / Re: 2017-18 Discussion
« on: October 01, 2017, 09:30:07 am »
I'm going to pick Endicott to win it all in just their third year of NCAA III hockey. The Gulls were a really strong team last year and have lost essentially no one to graduation; tons of firepower up and down that lineup. Great facility, relentless recruiting, strong coaching and a roster stuffed with D-I transfers. That's the recipe for fast-track program advancement.

Men's hockey / Re: roster limits
« on: June 17, 2017, 09:48:30 am »
Don't believe there are any roster limits. Look no further than Endicott & Hobart who roster almost 40 players, which is nuts but, can't argue that it seems to work for them. Don't know how a coach even manages that many players on the ice at the same time. I mean 7 lines, 6 D pairs, 4-5 goalies? In my opinion, over the top and unfair to have 15+ guys in the stands every game; why would a player tolerate that.
Yes, my player skates in a top D-III program and they give him everything he needs by way of equipment top to bottom. Has to only buy his own skates but at a steep discount. There's some rule about the school owning the equipment and whatever they purchase has to be returned to them as their property. School gets new gear every year and lets the players buy the past seasons (excluding uniforms) for a few bucks. Cant speak for every school but would think that's the norm.

Men's hockey / Re: NEHC Expansion
« on: January 25, 2017, 02:44:48 pm »
Great addition to the league but the travel will kill these guys. Why add so many thousands of miles and dollars to the budget? ECAC West is a solid league and getting stronger every year. This makes no sense; has me scratching my head...

Men's hockey / Re: Attrition
« on: November 01, 2016, 08:27:28 am »
Good players, (recruited players) don't just become "bad players" overnight... If a guy at the D-III level was good enough to pursue and ultimately recruit, its tough to understand how and or why a coach would give up on him after one year. At the D-I level where the stakes are always higher and the programs success and profile is heightened, I would say the coaches have to make more difficult decisions. There are always options for that kid, (change schools, get a waiver, drop down to D-III, back to Jr's for a year, etc). D-III is a much more challenging situation. Most of the players at this level are guys with many less options should they fall out of favor with a particular coach or program; the same program and coach that sold themselves to that player several months earlier. It's complicated to say the least and I'd argue that although the season is shorter in games, most of these programs at the D-III level are very intense and in some cases, overly pushed with younger coaches each trying to stake their claim and rise to the next level. In the case of Mr. McShane and the Norwich program that's being referenced, he has nothing to prove to anyone and is a fine coach with a solid reputation spanning 40+yrs. I see no reason for him to be sending players to the woodshed after only one season; (I can't imagine he's doing any of the real recruiting anymore anyway). These D-III guys aren't the one/two yrs and done like the top D-I kids. They are making their school decisions almost exclusively on what they are being told by coaches and how they feel they can contribute to that particular program's success. It's hard to get my head around the notion that a player is good enough to be chased around, sold on a school, coach and program and in less than one year after accepting what he's told, applying, choosing to attend, and writing the tuition check, is now not good enough to play for your team. My feelings are these: You recruit a kid & he's yours for 4 years. That means programs need to choose their recruits wisely. No more bringing in 10 guys for 3 spots; it's not fair to the players who may have other options. Just be more truthful and transparent in the recruiting process so a player can make the best decision for him or her and the school doesn't get a reputation for putting it's winning percentage before the total value of the student/athlete. There are many layers to this... it's not that easy to just shuffle them in and push them out. Just my opinion...

Men's hockey / Re: Attrition
« on: October 03, 2016, 12:54:18 pm »
One of the most thought through posts I've ever read. PL, you're clearly someone who "get's it". These young student/athletes have so much on their plates. My player hasn't stopped since the second he got on campus this year. School workload, gym, on-ice, off-ice, team building exercises, volunteer work, work study, ($7 per/hr, INSANE) for a couple of extra bucks and only if he can squeeze it in, social life (what's left of it), jeez! It really is a labor of love for him but can see how it wears thin on kids and parents alike; it's a grind at this level for sure. I'll never understand the coaches that go out and recruit against their own returning players knowing how much they've sacrificed and the level of commitment it takes to actually be a D-III athlete. And what about the programs with 10 guys in the stands every night... why is that necessary? Nice work Peter - good read!

Men's hockey / Re: Daniel Webster
« on: June 03, 2015, 09:32:27 am »
Some big things are going on at University of New England. I just read the school hired Jack MacDonald who was previously the AD at Quinnipiac (took that program from 0-100) and University of Denver before that. He has proven high level collegiate hockey experience. UNE just built a multimillion dollar facility and let go of the only coach their program has known, Brad Holt. Are they possibly looking to apply for the open spot in the Atlantic League? With the hiring of Jack MacDonald things could quickly move in that direction. The location is spot on and the school has an aggressive pro-hockey attitude. They are also adding football to their athletic program officially getting underway in either '16 or '17; interesting stuff. I always wondered why Norwich didn't try and make that move to AH but clearly, after all these years of dominating the East, they haven't the interest nor the budget. I've read St Anselm had the opportunity too but backed out for whatever reason. Maybe UNE is a fit in Atlantic Hockey and is willing to spend the money to elevate their program? Endicott could then slide into their vacated slot in ECAC (E). Then perhaps Daniel Webster would be accepted into ECAC (NE). Lots of ifs and hows but I guess whoever is ultimately hired as the new coach at UNE will be a big tell. Stay tuned!

Men's hockey / Re: Endicott College??
« on: July 24, 2014, 07:56:54 pm »
UNE just built a $25MM ice complex and is working hard at getting good recruits. They get over a thousand fans at most every home game at the new arena so without question it's a program on the rise. I'm not sure they would leave the ECAC East under any circumstances - at least without a fight. The CCC developing a conference for hockey is a concept/ idea that may or may not have legs. If it forms it will more than likely not have UNE as a participant.

Pages: [1]