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.