Opponents and Others, 2022-23

[redice]

With a few spectacular exceptions (eg: K.Dryden) college hockey players do not dominate the cream of professional hockey players - as athletes do in most other sports. How come?

Even the great Ken Dryden did some time in the minors before emerging as an NHL star.

[Trotsky]

With a few spectacular exceptions (eg: K.Dryden) college hockey players do not dominate the cream of professional hockey players - as athletes do in most other sports. How come?

Because hockey established the CHL as its feeder system, while the NFL and NBA use the factory ahem "colleges."  It's the same reason most baseball players don't come up through college, though many do.

[Swampy]

With a few spectacular exceptions (eg: K.Dryden) college hockey players do not dominate the cream of professional hockey players - as athletes do in most other sports. How come?

Even the great Ken Dryden did some time in the minors before emerging as an NHL star.

IIRC, Dryden finished the season, spent a few weeks at Montreal's AHL team, and then was called up for the first Stanley Cup series, which was against the Boston Bruins. At the time I was living in a communal house in Somerville, with one TV and almost 90% Bruins fans. I got home from work, as the first game was starting, and my housemates asked me, "Who's this guy Dryden?" They soon learned, and I had the last laugh. **]

[Dunc]

With a few spectacular exceptions (eg: K.Dryden) college hockey players do not dominate the cream of professional hockey players - as athletes do in most other sports. How come?

Because hockey established the CHL as its feeder system, while the NFL and NBA use the factory ahem "colleges."  It's the same reason most baseball players don't come up through college, though many do.

Yeah players tend to get drafted out of junior leagues (Ex. CHL (OHL,WHL,QMJHL) or USHL). European Professional Leagues are also common

I think what turns a lot of teams away from NCAA is that unless someones talent level is through the roof, oftentimes the players coming out of the junior leagues will be younger and wont necessarily commit to playing in their junior league for long while most NCAA students that are drafted do usually stick around for the full 4 years of college, and a lot can happen in four years which creates a large risk associated with drafting them.

[osorojo]

Year after year some universities have hockey teams in the top twenty, even the top ten, and neither the size of the school nor the endowment of the school nor the academic credentials of the school seem to be a predictor of their success in D-1 College Men's hockey?! It's reasonable to assume that these continually successful colleges and universities share some common condition(s) which contribute their winning ways. No-fair copping out with "They get better players". How do they continually get better players? Are some recruiters and coaches just lucky, year after year?

[scoop85]

Year after year some universities have hockey teams in the top twenty, even the top ten, and neither the size of the school nor the endowment of the school nor the academic credentials of the school seem to be a predictor of their success in D-1 College Men's hockey?! It's reasonable to assume that these continually successful colleges and universities share some common condition(s) which contribute their winning ways. No-fair copping out with "They get better players". How do they continually get better players? Are some recruiters and coaches just lucky, year after year?

Usually a combination of schools that prioritize hockey, have great facilities, and a tradition of excellence. Think North Dakota.

[Trotsky]

Year after year some universities have hockey teams in the top twenty, even the top ten, and neither the size of the school nor the endowment of the school nor the academic credentials of the school seem to be a predictor of their success in D-1 College Men's hockey?! It's reasonable to assume that these continually successful colleges and universities share some common condition(s) which contribute their winning ways. No-fair copping out with "They get better players". How do they continually get better players? Are some recruiters and coaches just lucky, year after year?

Certain college coaches build symbiotic networks with CJHL and BCHL coaches.  The juniors coach draws the attention of the college coach to certain players, the college makes offers to those players.  The coaches probably have similar styles to make the transition from one level to the next easier. It's mutually advantageous if it results in a conveyor belt to the pros, since both coaches' reputations are bolstered.

The college name also has a lot to do with it, since the hockey community associates it with quality and trust.  It is *very* hard to fuck up as coach of Minnesota, North Dakota, Denver, BU, BC, and Michigan.  It's probably pretty hard to fuck up at Cornell, Harvard, and Clarkson, although some have worked at it.

[osorojo]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

[Trotsky]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

College hockey is different because it's not entirely driven by dollars, yet.  In the Professional College Sports, money is everything.  Winning coaches move to the most lucrative gig.  The best players go to the schools that are on television to attract the hype that drives their professional careers (and the branding that generates their real money, which dwarfs their salaries).  Academics factor at zero, since star students never crack a book or attend a class.  The athlete is a marketing tool for the university, and the university is a vehicle for the athlete positioning himself to become a celebrity.

As college hockey gets bigger, that will be its future.  The Big x and PAC y will eventually dominate and every existing hockey power not named Michigan or Minnesota will have the relative status of Ivy League football.  That is unless the entire bubble bursts and professional athletics is severed from "education."

[Scersk '97]

It's probably pretty hard to fuck up at Cornell, Harvard, and Clarkson, although some have worked at it.

"Paging Brian McCutcheon and George Roll! Paging Mr. McCutcheon and Mr. Roll!"

Both lost control of their teams, i.e., the players just weren't willing to play for them anymore; they lost the plot. Vide all previous discussion of the miraculous emergence of Brad Chartrand. (For what it's worth, I was very worried about this re: Schafer back in 2013.)

And then there's Mark Morris and, say, Mel Pearson. Good coaches, perhaps, but just not cut out for the college hockey ranks, where part of the job has always been to shepherd young men and to mold their habits.

[Swampy]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

Some schools pick individual sports to highlight. Johns Hopkins emphasizes lacrosse, Providence College has basketball and, with much less emphasis, hockey, Clarkson & Q have hockey, Gonzaga has basketball, etc. Football is the most expensive sport for top-tier competitiveness,  Basketball comes in second, but a strong program needs maybe 10 blue-chip players to compete, compared to, say, 50 in football.

[abmarks]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

The number of teams playing D1 hockey is also a factor.  We've got 60 something hockey teams vs. 350 D1 basketball teams or 250+ D1 football teams (125 FCS, 129 FBS). That makes for far less competition in recruiting.

[Trotsky]

A "tradition of excellence" sounds good, but how do these schools - many of them small and neither wealthy nor large, MAINTAIN this "tradition of excellence" in the face of other schools with many more students, much more money, and better facilities? Is there something unique about college hockey which enables teams from relatively small, relatively unknown colleges/universities to enjoy success in Division One men's ice hockey?

The number of teams playing D1 hockey is also a factor.  We've got 60 something hockey teams vs. 350 D1 basketball teams or 250+ D1 football teams (125 FCS, 129 FBS). That makes for far less competition in recruiting.

But the pool is likewise smaller; I think that balances.

[ugarte]

if you people keep engaging with the low effort bullshit oso throws at you i'm going to lose my mind

[Scersk '97]

if you people keep engaging with the low effort bullshit oso throws at you i'm going to lose my mind

Bot? I'm beginning to wonder.