Author Topic: Attrition  (Read 1593 times)

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Attrition
« on: September 29, 2016, 02:14:40 pm »
Three years later, and this is still happening: http://d3hockey.com/faceoff/2013/features/langella-players-perspective

It makes me angry in general, even more so to see it happen so much at my school, Norwich, and worse yet to see so much apathy around situations like these.

Offline wallstreet

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #1 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!

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2016, 01:01:27 pm »
I'll never understand the coaches that go out and recruit against their own returning players

Simply put, it's the easy way out. One or two guys every couple of years? Fine. Whatever. I can understand some people not fitting in, but not nine guys in one year when you only lost one senior?

Cutting is not even attrition anyway. The word shouldnít even be used in this situation. Attrition is the natural decline of numbers in a group. Our kindergarten class is small this year because two families moved away. Thatís attrition. Our office crew is treading water because three people retired and management didnít rehire. Thatís attrition.

Attrition is not telling a hockey player from western Canada who would have never even seen the Norwich University campus had he not been invited to play on its hockey team that he is cut.

Did any of the players from last yearís team leave on their own accord? Maybe. But not all of them. Cutting is not attrition.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2016, 01:03:30 pm by PeterLangella »

Offline judgetrainer

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +15/-4
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2016, 11:38:05 am »
Interesting post. I am not an expert (heck, I was never an athlete!) but I do see the extra effort required for D3 players.

Attrition is a word that is used a lot in higher ed. It is supposed to describe the kids that leave school and do not earn their degree. Athletes leave for the same reason other students do: finances, academics, social fit, etc. Add in the demands for athletes (coaches change, injuries, and so on) and the numbers must add up. I watch my alma mater and see small recruiting classes and large. I hope most earn their degree in four years. I also know that some of them will not. This is more than a sports issue. Look at the numbers for all students. I suspect you will see some level of attrition.

Offline spwood

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Karma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2016, 09:07:42 am »
Maybe "attrition" or cuts are not fair, but then these aren't 10 year old midget hockey players either.  These are twenty-something year old men.  Life is not necessarily fair.  If playing time was guaranteed, would you get the same effort from them?  When these players were making their decisions, did Norwich's winning history play a part?  Of course it did.  If the coaches no long think this player is sufficiently contributing to that winning, what are they supposed to do?

I'm sure that for any player that Norwich is recruiting, Norwich is not their only option.  They made a decision to go to Northfield.  I'm sorry for the players that it doesn't work out for, but this isn't kindergarten and everyone doesn't get a participation trophy.  These aren't young kids being duped by evil adults.  These are young adults who have to know they are receiving a sales pitch and make their decision accordingly.

Offline PeterLangella

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2016, 10:13:33 pm »
I'm sorry, spwood, but I have to disagree. I think leadership is about guiding through thick and thin, not cleaning house when adversity hits.

Offline spwood

  • Second-stringer
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • Karma: +4/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2016, 09:20:31 am »
Then we agree to disagree.  This is Div III hockey, not Little League.  The coach gets to run his program to get the best possible outcome (wins), until the Administration tells him otherwise.  You're asking a coach whose job depends on results (certainly the case in Norwich) to take an inferior roster because the incumbent kid is entitled?  How very 2016...

Offline PSUChamps2001

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2016, 12:01:00 pm »
This is Division III athletics where academics comes first and it doesn't matter how good/bad a team is....(TIC)

Funny you say that Steve. We had a parent take their kid to a different organization because he wasn't on the "A" squad last year. So he went to the other organization this year, pays twice as much, a less competitive team and didn't make the "A" squad there either. The parent went on a tirade and the end of last year trying to accuse our team/organization of all these false allegation charges, and turning us in for inaccurate paperwork yadda yadda. He son is actually 1 year younger then what should have been playing at the teams level last year, but didn't understand how her "star" wasn't on the "A" team.

I do somewhat understand what Pete is saying that because the player isn't as good or doesn't turn out to be player the coach thought he would be he shouldn't be let go or replaced. Sometimes a player doesn't have the on ice skill but can be a contributor off the ice and in the locker room.

Luckily in DIII they allow players to transfer with no penalty. And I'm sorry, people can spout the "we chose school X because of their great academics" until you're blue in the face. Parents can say it, but if you ask the majority of the players.....we loved the school, we loved the town, but the team is a winner.... Most of these top players at your top programs are not picking the schools because of the academics....politicians are truthful and criminals don't lie either...you do get some kids who go for an academic program here and there, but most are going to WIN. Norwich is a unique place, but ask potential players if the hockey program was canceled, would they stay? Or if you had a career injury before you stepped foot on the ice, would you still pick that school? If it was all about academics wouldn't they all say yes? So that takes care of the  "DIII is academics first" manure that people try to use. They might want it to be, but I don't the the majority fall into that category as players.

As far as coaches "over recruiting" or cutting upperclassmen....for younger more talented players.....I'm with you Steve. Kinda a "Ya-Duh" thought. But again it goes back to the fact if you believe DIII is ALL about academics only. These coaches want to win, and want to have a successful program. Now I am also a firm believer that some coaches just are not good recruiters and or good "coaches" and can't get the best out of their players they originally recruit. Some have to have these big recruiting groups to give them more apples to pick from. Or they go out and get multiple DI transfers so the work was probably already done for them. I know for us, Bob has had his share of players who he has "coached" to become team leaders....Dave young comes to mind.

Having said that, I know a couple of the Junior programs have a "do not call" list when it comes to college programs and their "recruiting" policy and try to steer their kids away from those schools - yes more so DI schools because a lot of kids have no idea about DIII till their DI hopes get dashed with the "you're not good enough sorry"....meaning a lot of kids know going in. I also don't think these coaches are promising kids spots. Most coaches tell the "fence" kids, your playing time will depend on your hard work and effort. I've sen some pretty talented kids sitting in the stands because they don't work as hard as those on the ice.

I also think there is a difference in doing this once every few years (especially if your program is struggling and you need a shake up) and doing it every year because you and your coaching staff have failed at recognizing talent and potential talent, and getting it out of the player and your team struggles. I do also know that Emery will normally always help a player find a different school if he is not happy with his playing time and has put forth an effort to get better.

So in short, I'd have to say "what's the big deal" if coaches aren't promising positions for 4 years. In my view of things, you recruit for what you lost AND the at least 3-5 extra for transfers, injuries, competition. Sometimes bringing in that new freshman can push those 4th line/bench players a little more. If I have a chance to upgrade my roster, am I going to tell little Joey to go to my arch rival because I might not have a spot when he would be a 2nd line starter?? Crazy.


Offline wallstreet

  • Junior Varsity
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Attrition
« Reply #8 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...