I am intrigued by this thread.  NMU clearly needs to fill out the
     roster after losing players to graduation and discipline problems.
     What I wonder is what will happen in the future.  If their class is 13
     this year, what does that mean for the next three years?  Small
     recruiting classes followed by another huge class in the fourth year?
 
     I'm sure this has happened at other universities.  The case I can
     comment on would be Michigan's classes of '93 and '97.  During the '93
     season, I wondered how they would replace a large departing class of
     seniors (Chris Tamer, David Harlock, Pat Neaton, David Roberts, Mark
     Ouimet, Dan Stiver) which would soon also include the departure of two
     juniors (Aaron Ward and Cam Stewart).  All of a sudden, this team
     which was good enough to reach the previous two Final 4's was losing
     its top 4 defenseman and 4 of its top forwards.
 
     We now know that Red Bererson more-than-adequately replaced them with
     this year's senior class (Morrison, Botterill, Madden, Legg, Luhning,
     Sloan, Schock, Frescoln, Bourke).  What happens next year?  Can
     another recruiting class be brought in to replace this graduating
     class?
 
     Certainly, non-Michigan fans wouldn't mind seeing a decline when this
     class leaves.  I'm less interested in the specific case of the
     Michigan team than I am in the general philosophy.
 
     Does it make for a more stable program to try for recruiting classes
     of roughly equal size each year?  Certainly, recruiting exactly 6
     players each year would give you a team which constantly has senior
     leadership, freshman enthusiasm, etc.  On the other hand, having a
     13-player freshman class this year should make NMU a force to be
     reckoned with by the time these 13 are juniors and seniors.
 
     Perhaps it is a philosophy preference.  Would the coach rather have
     consistent quality; or would he rather have a roller-coaster ride with
     a team that is not as good but learning how to win, then a team that
     is very good, then back to the learning stage again.
 
     How do you feel as fans towards this question?  I think it would be
     different based on the stature of the program you follow.  For Ohio
     State, for example, there has not been much success to this point.  I
     would think they would be happy to have a very large recruiting class
     which could make the team strong for a year or two.  For teams that
     are consistently in the top 5 every year, consistency would seem
     preferable since they do not need the 'monster' class to put them into
     the elite group.
 
     Glenn Auerbach
     [log in to unmask]
 
     Michigan '88-'93; A2 townie '93 - ??
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.