Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:36:10 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|