This is the best concise, rational, perspective-laden analysis of the background
of Minnesota's recruiting policy I've ever seen.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The College Hockey Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Douglas J. Peterson
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 11:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Minnesota Recruiting
>
>
> It's almost like there needs to be a FAQ item that deals with Minnesota
> recruiting.  The discussion occurs every year.  Unfortunately it elicits some
> rancorous discussion.
>
> The focus on in-state recruiting started with the John Mariucci period, about
> 1952 through 1966.  You have to keep in mind his purpose which was to promote
> hockey in the state of Minnesota.  He felt if there wasn't a place for hockey
> players at the lower, or younger, levels to go then hockey wouldn't develop
> and grow in the state.  One way he did that was through providing them
> opportunities to play at the University of Minnesota.
>
> Mariucci wasn't a purist though.  He wanted a good program, that was part of
> the promotion as well.  He did recruit from Canada.  It may not have been a
> lot, but he did.  However, promotion wasn't just recruiting it was active
> development of hockey programs in the state.  He went around the state
> "lobbying" and speaking.  While he was a coach 160+ hockey rinks were built
> in the state.  He also was active in promoting the development of the
> University of Minnesota-Duluth hockey program.  Later on he actively
> encourage Herb Brooks to take the job at St. Cloud and bring it up to
> Division I.
>
> I think you can argue about whether the purpose still exists.  I think it
> does to a degree, but that the role of the University of Minnesota doesn't
> have to be the same.  There are now five Division I schools there.
>
> An interesting side discussion has also been the cost savings of the
> recruiting policy.  Did it really save money to recruit in-state?  It depends
> on whether you can tell the wooden nickels from the real ones.  At a hockey
> department level it might matter to the department on the cost of
> scholarships, but that depends on how the budgets are done and how the wooden
> nickels are moved around.
>
> The cost to the school and taxpayers would seem to be the same in-state or
> out.  The professors don't get paid any differently.  Does it matter in a
> bigger picture?  That depends on what you see the role of a state school as.
> That's an argument I'm preferring to avoid.  I have already had a related
> discussion with a University of Minnesota dean when I was a grad-student.
>
> In-state recruiting probably did save money on recruiting expenses.  Car
> trips and short commuter flights would just seem to cost less than plane
> flights across the continent.  Of course, I can't see it costing that much
> more to cross the bridge from Moorhead (MN) to Fargo (ND), or even a drive up
> to Thunder Bay.
>
> The problem I see is that it seemed liked Woog was a purist without a
> purpose.  It seemed he was more interested in promoting the All-Minnesota
> policy than promoting the development of hockey in Minnesota.  He may have
> hurt more than he helped.
>
> Doug Peterson
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.