D-I nationals

[madfred]

with some of the teams that made it with well under .500 records to nationals I was wondering if we are suppose to continue to respect division I or maybe just accept the whole thing is a money-making farce for a few people who don't want to grow up.

[BEEZERAL]

with some of the teams that made it with well under .500 records to nationals I was wondering if we are suppose to continue to respect division I or maybe just accept the whole thing is a money-making farce for a few people who don't want to grow up.

im assuming that you are calling out the DII teams that refuse to move to DI, and you are right.


but in case you are not please explain your post

[Patn Lawton]

with some of the teams that made it with well under .500 records to nationals I was wondering if we are suppose to continue to respect division I or maybe just accept the whole thing is a money-making farce for a few people who don't want to grow up.

Maybe you could start a legit discussion about teams who made it that you don't think should have and why, and/or discuss teams you thought would have gotten in? I think records can be misleading sometimes. Also, post your name in your responses.

[NCSU17]

Maybe you could start a legit discussion about teams who made it that you don't think should have and why, and/or discuss teams you thought would have gotten in? I think records can be misleading sometimes. Also, post your name in your responses.

Records can be very deceiving. Hofstra got an alternate bid, but they played a really tough schedule, and had alot of 1-goal games with top teams in the ECRHA.

[letsgoisles89]

ecrha d-1 standings don't include the inter-regional games for some reason. it says uconn is 7-9-2, but they really finished 9-9-2. I'd imagine inter-regional play had something to do with it - stonybrook cleaned up out of region and i'm pretty sure hofstra did good as well.

[Ben Lambert]

Only 3 alternates for D1? What a a joke.

I like to preface anything I say with I love this league, loved playing in it, love coaching in it, love being involved with it. It's been a big part of my life for almost a decade. I only want to see the league succeed and become what it can possibly be.

This is what needs to happen to this league as a whole starting NEXT YEAR.

Division 1: Ease standards just a bit, not much, to make it easier for teams to make it. Create fundraising programs to help teams who legitimately can't make it.

Division 2: Eliminate Division 2 as it is now, all D2 teams are required to move up and play D1 or stay D2 and play with B/D3 teams.

Division 3/ B teams: The new Division 2. Relaxed standards for teams that can't make it in D1, developmental program for teams who aren't at D1 standards, but want to be there and second teams.

Junior College: Merge into D1/D2, have same standards apply. (credit hours, uniforms, coach, etc, except for the 3 year rule still applies)

See? That was awfully easy!

I defy you to tell me a reason why this would not work and allow me to explain to you why it would.

edit: **If you want me to move this and make it a new thread I am more than willing to do so**

[letsgoisles89]

Only 3 alternates for D1? What a a joke.

I like to preface anything I say with I love this league, loved playing in it, love coaching in it, love being involved with it. It's been a big part of my life for almost a decade. I only want to see the league succeed and become what it can possibly be.

This is what needs to happen to this league as a whole starting NEXT YEAR.

Division 1: Ease standards just a bit, not much, to make it easier for teams to make it. Create fundraising programs to help teams who legitimately can't make it.

Division 2: Eliminate Division 2 as it is now, all D2 teams are required to move up and play D1 or stay D2 and play with B/D3 teams.

Division 3/ B teams: The new Division 2. Relaxed standards for teams that can't make it in D1, developmental program for teams who aren't at D1 standards, but want to be there and second teams.

Junior College: Merge into D1/D2, have same standards apply. (credit hours, uniforms, coach, etc, except for the 3 year rule still applies)

See? That was awfully easy!

I defy you to tell me a reason why this would not work and allow me to explain to you why it would.

edit: **If you want me to move this and make it a new thread I am more than willing to do so**


as much as i'd like to see that happen its much easier said than done

[Ben Lambert]

The most difficult part would be to get the regional commissioners to agree on it. They need to be able to look past their own interests and realize what is BEST FOR THE LEAGUE!!!!

I understand the need to take care of the teams in your region, but at what cost to the league nationwide?

I guess it's just my gentle midwestern nature to want people to get along, but the way the different regions jerk each other around is asinine to me. I will never understand it.

[BEEZERAL]

The most difficult part would be to get the regional commissioners to agree on it. They need to be able to look past their own interests and realize what is BEST FOR THE LEAGUE!!!!

I understand the need to take care of the teams in your region, but at what cost to the league nationwide?

I guess it's just my gentle midwestern nature to want people to get along, but the way the different regions jerk each other around is asinine to me. I will never understand it.

Ben I agree with you that teams that have consistent success need to be moved to DI. I don't understand why the league does not adopt the European soccer rule where the top 4 teams in DII are required to move up to DI and the bottom 4 teams in DI are required to move down to DII the next year. Within 4-5 years teams would be correctly placed based on their talent level.

[NCSU17]

Only 3 alternates for D1? What a a joke.

I like to preface anything I say with I love this league, loved playing in it, love coaching in it, love being involved with it. It's been a big part of my life for almost a decade. I only want to see the league succeed and become what it can possibly be.

This is what needs to happen to this league as a whole starting NEXT YEAR.

Division 1: Ease standards just a bit, not much, to make it easier for teams to make it. Create fundraising programs to help teams who legitimately can't make it.

Division 2: Eliminate Division 2 as it is now, all D2 teams are required to move up and play D1 or stay D2 and play with B/D3 teams.

Division 3/ B teams: The new Division 2. Relaxed standards for teams that can't make it in D1, developmental program for teams who aren't at D1 standards, but want to be there and second teams.

Junior College: Merge into D1/D2, have same standards apply. (credit hours, uniforms, coach, etc, except for the 3 year rule still applies)

See? That was awfully easy!

I defy you to tell me a reason why this would not work and allow me to explain to you why it would.

edit: **If you want me to move this and make it a new thread I am more than willing to do so**

I wholeheartedly support this. Or something like BEEZERAL said. There needs to be something done for sure.

[MBurke]

The most difficult part would be to get the regional commissioners to agree on it. They need to be able to look past their own interests and realize what is BEST FOR THE LEAGUE!!!!

I understand the need to take care of the teams in your region, but at what cost to the league nationwide?

I guess it's just my gentle midwestern nature to want people to get along, but the way the different regions jerk each other around is asinine to me. I will never understand it.

Please elaborate on what creates the perception that regions jerk each other around and only look out for their own interests as opposed to that of the NCRHA. Having been around this thing for a long time, I haven't seen that kind of attitude in years from anyone affiliated with NCRHA. This is the most cooperative environment we've ever had, and in most cases over the past few years I've seen regions make decisions "for the good of the NCRHA" at expense to their own regions.

Side note: I don't understand the push to put JC's in with 4-year schools. Simply extending the requirements to 9 credits doesn't level the playing field appreciably.


Ben I agree with you that teams that have consistent success need to be moved to DI. I don't understand why the league does not adopt the European soccer rule where the top 4 teams in DII are required to move up to DI and the bottom 4 teams in DI are required to move down to DII the next year. Within 4-5 years teams would be correctly placed based on their talent level.

There are only two issues I have concerning the relegation system you described:

1. You mentioned "consistent success". How about a team that puts together ONE good year and then is gutted - they end up in a division they don't belong in (not a huge deal since they could potentially move down the following year)

2. What happens when a team is successful enough to finish top 4 in DII but can't fit the requirements to move to DI? (Uniforms, coach, etc)?

[Ben Lambert]

Please elaborate on what creates the perception that regions jerk each other around and only look out for their own interests as opposed to that of the NCRHA. Having been around this thing for a long time, I haven't seen that kind of attitude in years from anyone affiliated with NCRHA. This is the most cooperative environment we've ever had, and in most cases over the past few years I've seen regions make decisions "for the good of the NCRHA" at expense to their own regions.

Side note: I don't understand the push to put JC's in with 4-year schools. Simply extending the requirements to 9 credits doesn't level the playing field appreciably.



There are only two issues I have concerning the relegation system you described:

1. You mentioned "consistent success". How about a team that puts together ONE good year and then is gutted - they end up in a division they don't belong in (not a huge deal since they could potentially move down the following year)

2. What happens when a team is successful enough to finish top 4 in DII but can't fit the requirements to move to DI? (Uniforms, coach, etc)?


The way people vote at seeding meetings and for nationals bids. Are people really that delusional when they vote for the teams who will receive bids? They must be. I have been in seeding meetings before, Mike, I know the attitudes of regions and regional directors. If you want me to name specifics I can, but I don't think they should be out there for all to see, so I will refrain.

If it's truly the most cooperative environment you've ever had, people must be keeping their mouth shut when they know they're being treated unfairly. I suspect this to be the case.

Side note: It doesn't? 9 Credit hours, same coaching and uniform requirements, etc? I don't see why there would be such a huge deal made of it. Give me a reason why it wouldn't be fair.

1. You answered your own question

2. They stay D2 with the other lower level teams until they can. This is why it's a developmental league... to develop teams who can move up and contribute to the league.

[NCSU17]

1. You mentioned "consistent success". How about a team that puts together ONE good year and then is gutted - they end up in a division they don't belong in (not a huge deal since they could potentially move down the following year)



Then they would have a tough year. Then go back to D2. And maybe if they really lose all their players, they can somehow petition to the league that 7 of their top 9 scorers or whatever have graduated, and they would be unable to field a competitive team.

[MBurke]

The way people vote at seeding meetings and for nationals bids. Are people really that delusional when they vote for the teams who will receive bids? They must be. I have been in seeding meetings before, Mike, I know the attitudes of regions and regional directors. If you want me to name specifics I can, but I don't think they should be out there for all to see, so I will refrain.

I understand your complaint about seeding meetings and it's always been an issue, especially when there are team reps instead of regional directors at the meeting - that's why seeding meetings have been eliminated this year and we've gone to a World Cup style format for advancing from pool play. See the press release from the last national meeting.

As for nationals bids, there of course will always be some level of regional bias - I have no clue how you propose to eliminate that. Even when trying to be completely impartial, it's difficult to do so when you haven't seen all of the teams play through an entire season. What I can say is that every rep at that bid meeting has in front of them every single game the teams have played and there is a good amount of discussion before selecting each team. I think you're familiar with how the process works, but giving out a bid requires some level of consensus.


Side note: It doesn't? 9 Credit hours, same coaching and uniform requirements, etc? I don't see why there would be such a huge deal made of it. Give me a reason why it wouldn't be fair.

Because I can walk down to Lone Star College down the street right now with my diploma from high school, sign up for 9 credits and hand them a check for $453.00. Voila - I'm registered. Doing the same at the universities I attended would have required a full admissions process, verifiable grades coming in, and significantly more financial commitment.

Almost every JC club I've ever seen is a group of players who have been together on tournament squads since grade school and continue through their time at JC. I'm completely going off the top of my head here, but I'd venture a guess that less than half continue at a four-year school and most exhaust their three-year eligibility.

Though the hockey would have been exceptional, I'm not sure if we'd be in very good shape had DI in CRH been dominated by Lindenwood, St. Charles and Meramec for 5+ years. Sorry if that sounds like an anti-GP thing, it's not: they were arguably the three best teams in the country for that period of time. I can only imagine how many teams would have sandbagged out of DI had JC's (+ Lindenwood) taken over competitively.



2. They stay D2 with the other lower level teams until they can. This is why it's a developmental league... to develop teams who can move up and contribute to the league.

You're missing my point. If a team can simply claim they're not organized enough to keep from moving up, how have we changed from what we have now? "Our coach may be quitting, we can't move to DI"....etc.

[BEEZERAL]

Please elaborate on what creates the perception that regions jerk each other around and only look out for their own interests as opposed to that of the NCRHA. Having been around this thing for a long time, I haven't seen that kind of attitude in years from anyone affiliated with NCRHA. This is the most cooperative environment we've ever had, and in most cases over the past few years I've seen regions make decisions "for the good of the NCRHA" at expense to their own regions.

Side note: I don't understand the push to put JC's in with 4-year schools. Simply extending the requirements to 9 credits doesn't level the playing field appreciably.



There are only two issues I have concerning the relegation system you described:

1. You mentioned "consistent success". How about a team that puts together ONE good year and then is gutted - they end up in a division they don't belong in (not a huge deal since they could potentially move down the following year)

2. What happens when a team is successful enough to finish top 4 in DII but can't fit the requirements to move to DI? (Uniforms, coach, etc)?

a gutted team would play 1 year of DI and move back down. There are worse things in the world than having to playone year of D1.

For the equipment requirements, most top DII teams already have matching stuff. We got matching gloves and helmests for $60 a pair of gloves and $80 a helmet. Companies like hockey giant are desperate to make a deal for bulk orders. And besides each regions regional director should be see every team in their region. They know which teams are organized enough to meet the requirements of D1

[cdolan]

Is it really that hard to decide whether or not your team is going to be good? When the season starts, can't you tell if you'll be able to complete. I'm pretty sure we are all legally adults. How about putting a team in the division based on talent, not on matching gloves or school size. And if you are a team that wants to play on a lower level just because you can win, then you're a bunch of chumps anyway. I think that the players who have talent would much rather play competitive hockey then b teams.

[ISFN]

Bring back the Premier league!

[Ben Lambert]

I understand your complaint about seeding meetings and it's always been an issue, especially when there are team reps instead of regional directors at the meeting - that's why seeding meetings have been eliminated this year and we've gone to a World Cup style format for advancing from pool play. See the press release from the last national meeting.

As for nationals bids, there of course will always be some level of regional bias - I have no clue how you propose to eliminate that. Even when trying to be completely impartial, it's difficult to do so when you haven't seen all of the teams play through an entire season. What I can say is that every rep at that bid meeting has in front of them every single game the teams have played and there is a good amount of discussion before selecting each team. I think you're familiar with how the process works, but giving out a bid requires some level of consensus.



Because I can walk down to Lone Star College down the street right now with my diploma from high school, sign up for 9 credits and hand them a check for $453.00. Voila - I'm registered. Doing the same at the universities I attended would have required a full admissions process, verifiable grades coming in, and significantly more financial commitment.

Almost every JC club I've ever seen is a group of players who have been together on tournament squads since grade school and continue through their time at JC. I'm completely going off the top of my head here, but I'd venture a guess that less than half continue at a four-year school and most exhaust their three-year eligibility.

Though the hockey would have been exceptional, I'm not sure if we'd be in very good shape had DI in CRH been dominated by Lindenwood, St. Charles and Meramec for 5+ years. Sorry if that sounds like an anti-GP thing, it's not: they were arguably the three best teams in the country for that period of time. I can only imagine how many teams would have sandbagged out of DI had JC's (+ Lindenwood) taken over competitively.



You're missing my point. If a team can simply claim they're not organized enough to keep from moving up, how have we changed from what we have now? "Our coach may be quitting, we can't move to DI"....etc.


Our coach may be quitting isn't a valid excuse. I'm sure SOMEONE can stand in and be "coach" even if they are purely there for show. Not hard to do. D2 will be like playing B and a team who wants to sandbag will be subject to such a decline in talent from d1 to d2 that they will do what they need to do to make their team comply. If not, you're playing D2. You want to quit? Well then you didn't want to play enough in the first place and your program is going nowhere anyway with that kind of drive for success. Best of luck in the rec league.


"Because I can walk down to Lone Star College down the street right now with my diploma from high school, sign up for 9 credits and hand them a check for $453.00. Voila - I'm registered. " and "Almost every JC club I've ever seen is a tournament team..." is HUGE slap in the face to myself and all my players as well as the guys who play for St. Charles and run their program. Off the top of my head: Gus Maloney, Andy Meade, Blake Propp, Chris Dolan... all guys from SCC/STLCC who have moved on to 4 year institutions. Looking at the rosters for the past 5 years I see one maybe two guys from stlcc and maybe the same from scc who are even near what you'd call "ringers from a tournament team."

The fact that these guys may or may not have been playing together since grade school-- how does that matter? Good club programs make for good college players. We just happen to have it great here in STL because Mackie runs the best high school program in the entire country. Rick Mattesons's Cobra club, the Blast at All American, etc, these are all organizatins whose players we WANT in the NCRHA, right?

In addition, at SCC, students are required to maintain a minimal GPA and have had to for at the very least the past 4 years, so that theory goes out the window. Couple that with the fact that STLCC has had barely any success since the inception of the NCRHA and your theory on JC goes even further out the window, especially in the GP.

GP JC teams have won how many championships in the past 5 years? 1, maybe 2? How many times has a JC team beat LU, or any other top tier team in D1 or even D2? Once? Twice? To say that SCC/STLCC were among the top 3 teams in the country for the past 5 years is also a jab at all the quality D1/D2 teams on the coasts and in the south.

To suggest that JC teams operate in this manner (a tournament team who goes to a JC to play hockey and fail all of their classes but who cares as long as they play) isn't the way we run things here in the Gp. I can't speak for other regions, but that's pretty much the polar opposite of the way it goes down here.

And so what if someone exhausts their eligibility in 3 years and gets an associate degree? Perhaps they only need a certificte or are in a specialized training course (i.e. a nurse)? That means what? They play their 3 years and they're done but somehow they aren't as qualified to play hockey as their 4 year counterpart in the same league?

You're saying that nobody who plays at a 4 year institution goes to play hockey and not necessarily to go to school? After being involved with UMSL for 7 years in one way or another, I can guarantee you that isn't true. We had about a 85-90% graduation rate from our squads, but there are those who played for a few years with school on the back burner or maybe still in the fridge...

I'm getting dirty looks from my boss, gotta go...

post away!!

[alex]

seeding meetings have been eliminated this year and we've gone to a World Cup style format for advancing from pool play. See the press release from the last national meeting.


Where can this press release be found? Just curious on the new format.

[DCbullets14]

What is the coaching requirement for D1? Are their schools that do not have a coach?

[MBurke]

Where can this press release be found? Just curious on the new format.

Should be in the news archives. Or have your club rep get a copy of the meeting minutes!

[alex]

Should be in the news archives. Or have your club rep get a copy of the meeting minutes!

IHC says my reply must be "at least 10 characters."

Thanks.

[MBurke]

Our coach may be quitting isn't a valid excuse. I'm sure SOMEONE can stand in and be "coach" even if they are purely there for show. Not hard to do. D2 will be like playing B and a team who wants to sandbag will be subject to such a decline in talent from d1 to d2 that they will do what they need to do to make their team comply. If not, you're playing D2. You want to quit? Well then you didn't want to play enough in the first place and your program is going nowhere anyway with that kind of drive for success. Best of luck in the rec league.


I think the same would be true if we got the "sandbagging" teams out of DII in a less extreme fashion.

As for the rest of the post, no insult intended. I'm not belittling the value of an education at a community college. My experience with my own schooling clearly proves that "higher" levels of education are not necessarily any more challenging or academically rigorous.

I can cover the rest with you elsewhere since JC/DI combination is getting a bit off topic here :)

[Meade]

Burke I just emailed you regarding the new seeding ordeal, thanks.

[Ben Lambert]

I think the same would be true if we got the "sandbagging" teams out of DII in a less extreme fashion.

As for the rest of the post, no insult intended. I'm not belittling the value of an education at a community college. My experience with my own schooling clearly proves that "higher" levels of education are not necessarily any more challenging or academically rigorous.

I can cover the rest with you elsewhere since JC/DI combination is getting a bit off topic here :)

Sounds good-- I emailed you, shoot me one back.