HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

https://twitter.com/YouthHockeyHub/stat ... 7741506560

Congrats!?

Seems awfully young. He made the National Select 15 Camp and is no doubt a solid 2001 player, but it makes me wonder what the SCSU staff thought was so special that they'd make an offer this early. Time will tell I guess.

I believe Ryan Poehling was still younger when he committed, but he already had varsity experience. Nick Oliver is the only other SCSU recruit who committed prior to playing varsity. He had a modest career at SCSU.

The Exiled One wrote:https://twitter.com/YouthHockeyHub/stat ... 7741506560

Congrats!?

Seems awfully young. He made the National Select 15 Camp and is no doubt a solid 2001 player, but it makes me wonder what the SCSU staff thought was so special that they'd make an offer this early. Time will tell I guess.

I believe Ryan Poehling was still younger when he committed, but he already had varsity experience. Nick Oliver is the only other SCSU recruit who committed prior to playing varsity. He had a modest career at SCSU.

Knowing him, I would bet Oliver's dad had something to do with his situation.

The Exiled One wrote:https://twitter.com/YouthHockeyHub/stat ... 7741506560

Congrats!?

Seems awfully young. He made the National Select 15 Camp and is no doubt a solid 2001 player, but it makes me wonder what the SCSU staff thought was so special that they'd make an offer this early. Time will tell I guess.

I believe Ryan Poehling was still younger when he committed, but he already had varsity experience. Nick Oliver is the only other SCSU recruit who committed prior to playing varsity. He had a modest career at SCSU.

Colleges pull commitments as fast as they give them. you just never hear about it. Just a way the colleges have "Dibs" on a player if they actually turn out good.

What schools have done this, and who were the players?

mulefarm wrote:What schools have done this, and who were the players?

Fairly recent one, Bemidji State, Cole Bjugson.

St Cloud has done it in past 3 years with a kid that is now at Concordia (Moorhead) and another that just finished up with the Magicians. (Keeping the kids names out if it).

Not sure what happened with Bemidji State, but looks like things worked out for the young man. Recent post from his Twitter account.

"Been a long road with some ups and downs but excited to announce that I'll be playing hockey for the University of Nebraska Omaha next year."

Wish him the best of luck at UNO! Go Mavs!

hunting247 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:https://twitter.com/YouthHockeyHub/stat ... 7741506560

Congrats!?

Seems awfully young. He made the National Select 15 Camp and is no doubt a solid 2001 player, but it makes me wonder what the SCSU staff thought was so special that they'd make an offer this early. Time will tell I guess.

I believe Ryan Poehling was still younger when he committed, but he already had varsity experience. Nick Oliver is the only other SCSU recruit who committed prior to playing varsity. He had a modest career at SCSU.

Colleges pull commitments as fast as they give them. you just never hear about it. Just a way the colleges have "Dibs" on a player if they actually turn out good.

They don't have "dibs" until a player signs an NLI. The player can bail any time they want so it's a two way street.

GoldenBear69 wrote:Not sure what happened with Bemidji State, but looks like things worked out for the young man. Recent post from his Twitter account.

"Been a long road with some ups and downs but excited to announce that I'll be playing hockey for the University of Nebraska Omaha next year."

Wish him the best of luck at UNO! Go Mavs!

Be interesting to see how that pans out.

Didn't play hockey last year, i.e.

Wonder if he's only going to be on their practice squad.

Jeffy95 wrote:

hunting247 wrote:

The Exiled One wrote:https://twitter.com/YouthHockeyHub/stat ... 7741506560

Congrats!?

Seems awfully young. He made the National Select 15 Camp and is no doubt a solid 2001 player, but it makes me wonder what the SCSU staff thought was so special that they'd make an offer this early. Time will tell I guess.

I believe Ryan Poehling was still younger when he committed, but he already had varsity experience. Nick Oliver is the only other SCSU recruit who committed prior to playing varsity. He had a modest career at SCSU.

Colleges pull commitments as fast as they give them. you just never hear about it. Just a way the colleges have "Dibs" on a player if they actually turn out good.

They don't have "dibs" until a player signs an NLI. The player can bail any time they want so it's a two way street.

I completely understand that. you are not on any protected list by any means. Basically a verbal commitment means zero (non binding / non legal) until you sign a NLI. You just have less chance to be recruited by another school if you have verbally committed to another school. This is why you see players recruited younger and younger. Players decommitting and going to another school does not happen as often (for hockey), most player decommits leave because they go play pro hockey (OHL, ECHL Etc) One of the more popular players was Brock Boeser who decommitted from Wisconsin and recommitted to UND.

Did he impress in the high school scrimmages where Delano did well?

Congrats!

hunting247 wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote:

hunting247 wrote: Colleges pull commitments as fast as they give them. you just never hear about it. Just a way the colleges have "Dibs" on a player if they actually turn out good.

They don't have "dibs" until a player signs an NLI. The player can bail any time they want so it's a two way street.

I completely understand that. you are not on any protected list by any means. Basically a verbal commitment means zero (non binding / non legal) until you sign a NLI. You just have less chance to be recruited by another school if you have verbally committed to another school. This is why you see players recruited younger and younger. Players decommitting and going to another school does not happen as often (for hockey), most player decommits leave because they go play pro hockey (OHL, ECHL Etc) One of the more popular players was Brock Boeser who decommitted from Wisconsin and recommitted to UND.

Who says they have less of a chance of being recruited by another school? If a school really wants a kid, they're going to go after him regardless of a "commitment" that means literally nothing.

MrBoDangles wrote:Did he impress in the high school scrimmages where Delano did well?

Congrats!

He wasnt there at Edina tournament since it was same time as Natl camp.

Goldy Gopher wrote:

hunting247 wrote:

Jeffy95 wrote: They don't have "dibs" until a player signs an NLI. The player can bail any time they want so it's a two way street.

I completely understand that. you are not on any protected list by any means. Basically a verbal commitment means zero (non binding / non legal) until you sign a NLI. You just have less chance to be recruited by another school if you have verbally committed to another school. This is why you see players recruited younger and younger. Players decommitting and going to another school does not happen as often (for hockey), most player decommits leave because they go play pro hockey (OHL, ECHL Etc) One of the more popular players was Brock Boeser who decommitted from Wisconsin and recommitted to UND.

Who says they have less of a chance of being recruited by another school? If a school really wants a kid, they're going to go after him regardless of a "commitment" that means literally nothing.

There are only a few programs that don't honor verbals and keep recruiting someone else's commit. This was a topic of discussion at last years national coaches meetings. It is gentlemans agreement to back away from these kids and is a disadvantage to some of the smaller programs.

The Gentleman's agreement is a joke

Verbal commitments to players who only have youth hockey experience is a joke.

alcloseshaver wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

hunting247 wrote: I completely understand that. you are not on any protected list by any means. Basically a verbal commitment means zero (non binding / non legal) until you sign a NLI. You just have less chance to be recruited by another school if you have verbally committed to another school. This is why you see players recruited younger and younger. Players decommitting and going to another school does not happen as often (for hockey), most player decommits leave because they go play pro hockey (OHL, ECHL Etc) One of the more popular players was Brock Boeser who decommitted from Wisconsin and recommitted to UND.

Who says they have less of a chance of being recruited by another school? If a school really wants a kid, they're going to go after him regardless of a "commitment" that means literally nothing.

There are only a few programs that don't honor verbals and keep recruiting someone else's commit. This was a topic of discussion at last years national coaches meetings. It is gentlemans agreement to back away from these kids and is a disadvantage to some of the smaller programs.

Do you really think that a gentleman's agreement is going to stop a coach from aggressively recruiting a player that they really want? If so, well...

Goldy Gopher wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:There are only a few programs that don't honor verbals and keep recruiting someone else's commit. This was a topic of discussion at last years national coaches meetings. It is gentlemans agreement to back away from these kids and is a disadvantage to some of the smaller programs.

Do you really think that a gentleman's agreement is going to stop a coach from aggressively recruiting a player that they really want? If so, well... :roll:

Generally, recruiting a verbally committed player is less productive than recruiting an uncommitted player. Therefore, even coaches that have publicly abandoned the gentleman's agreement won't target a verbally committed kid unless; A)He's exceptionally talented, and B)They had been recruiting him before he committed. This is why you generally find recruits that switch commitments usually go from one big name school to another big name school, like BU to BC/Northeastern/Harvard/etc. Though I'm sure there's an example or two, you don't often see a breakout recruit "upgrade" from a small school to a big name school, because the big name school ignored the recruit when he was less known. That's the kind of thing that sticks with a kid. It's also why verbal commitments will never go away entirely.

As for the future of the gentleman's agreement, as I've said, it's less productive to recruit verbally committed players. Therefore, schools with fewer recruiting resources have an incentive to maintain the GA amongst themselves. The non-GA coaches may go after their recruits, but since the GA has to be a mutual agreement, the GA schools are free to go after the non-GA school recruits in turn.

In short, the GA doesn't have to be universally adopted to maintain some level of effectiveness. Some coaches participate and some don't, and those that don't tend to steal from each other.

Finally, a coach changing schools is obviously a totally different animal. It's expected they'll try to steal kids they recruited at their previous school and that they'll cut ties with some of the recruits they inherited.

The Exiled One wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:There are only a few programs that don't honor verbals and keep recruiting someone else's commit. This was a topic of discussion at last years national coaches meetings. It is gentlemans agreement to back away from these kids and is a disadvantage to some of the smaller programs.

Do you really think that a gentleman's agreement is going to stop a coach from aggressively recruiting a player that they really want? If so, well...

Generally, recruiting a verbally committed player is less productive than recruiting an uncommitted player. Therefore, even coaches that have publicly abandoned the gentleman's agreement won't target a verbally committed kid unless; A)He's exceptionally talented, and B)They had been recruiting him before he committed. This is why you generally find recruits that switch commitments usually go from one big name school to another big name school, like BU to BC/Northeastern/Harvard/etc. Though I'm sure there's an example or two, you don't often see a breakout recruit "upgrade" from a small school to a big name school, because the big name school ignored the recruit when he was less known. That's the kind of thing that sticks with a kid. It's also why verbal commitments will never go away entirely.

As for the future of the gentleman's agreement, as I've said, it's less productive to recruit verbally committed players. Therefore, schools with fewer recruiting resources have an incentive to maintain the GA amongst themselves. The non-GA coaches may go after their recruits, but since the GA has to be a mutual agreement, the GA schools are free to go after the non-GA school recruits in turn.

In short, the GA doesn't have to be universally adopted to maintain some level of effectiveness. Some coaches participate and some don't, and those that don't tend to steal from each other.

Finally, a coach changing schools is obviously a totally different animal. It's expected they'll try to steal kids they recruited at their previous school and that they'll cut ties with some of the recruits they inherited.

If kids rarely go from a verbal commit to a small school, to a big school, isn't there a possibility that the quality of the player is more at play than some phantom GA?

SCSU is okay with recruiting a Bantam from Delano because they know there will be no competition from the North Dakota's and Minnesota's of the world.

EDIT
If a gopher coach goes into a kid's house and the first thing the kid says is "I'm not going to lie coach, I really think I'd be a great fit in Mankato." Does the coach immediately pack up shop and leave? My guess is absolutely not but feel free to prove me wrong.

Goldy Gopher wrote:If kids rarely go from a verbal commit to a small school, to a big school, isn't there a possibility that the quality of the player is more at play than some phantom GA?

Maybe, maybe not. Probably more to do with the perceived quality of the player at the time of the commitment. Dennis Cholowski went from an unknown prospect to a first round draft pick. I guarantee somebody from a non-GA school contacted him after he had already verballed to SCSU. Obviously, their attempts didn't work.

Goldy Gopher wrote:SCSU is okay with recruiting a Bantam from Delano because they know there will be no competition from the North Dakota's and Minnesota's of the world.

Like I said, he's not worth recruiting to UND or UMN yet. Neither was Ryan Poehling or Jack Ahcan when they committed. If Pinoniemi develops into a stud, Gopher fans will wonder why they didn't get him and/or say that the Gophers should just "steal" him away, which is going to be much easier said than done for the reasons I listed above. That's why you don't see it happen very often.

The Gophers obviously do the same thing as their recruits are getting younger as well. The only difference is that they pull the trigger on kids who are also getting attention from UND and Notre Dame, not the kids who are just getting attention from just SCSU. If a freshman prospect initially chooses Notre Dame over UMN and develops as expected, he's much more likely to be recruited back than the youngster who was only recruited by SCSU but then exceeded expectations.

Goldy Gopher wrote:EDIT
If a gopher coach goes into a kid's house and the first thing the kid says is "I'm not going to lie coach, I really think I'd be a great fit in Mankato." Does the coach immediately pack up shop and leave? My guess is absolutely not but feel free to prove me wrong.

Not sure there's anything to prove here. You'd have to ask Lucia I suppose. My guess is that tDon would tell you they tend to maintain contact with committed recruits and are less likely to initiate contact with committed recruits.

The Exiled One wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:If kids rarely go from a verbal commit to a small school, to a big school, isn't there a possibility that the quality of the player is more at play than some phantom GA?

Maybe, maybe not. Probably more to do with the perceived quality of the player at the time of the commitment. Dennis Cholowski went from an unknown prospect to a first round draft pick. I guarantee somebody from a non-GA school contacted him after he had already verballed to SCSU. Obviously, their attempts didn't work.

Goldy Gopher wrote:SCSU is okay with recruiting a Bantam from Delano because they know there will be no competition from the North Dakota's and Minnesota's of the world.

Like I said, he's not worth recruiting to UND or UMN yet. Neither was Ryan Poehling or Jack Ahcan when they committed. If Pinoniemi develops into a stud, Gopher fans will wonder why they didn't get him and/or say that the Gophers should just "steal" him away, which is going to be much easier said than done for the reasons I listed above. That's why you don't see it happen very often.

The Gophers obviously do the same thing as their recruits are getting younger as well. The only difference is that they pull the trigger on kids who are also getting attention from UND and Notre Dame, not the kids who are just getting attention from just SCSU. If a freshman prospect initially chooses Notre Dame over UMN and develops as expected, he's much more likely to be recruited back than the youngster who was only recruited by SCSU but then exceeded expectations.

Goldy Gopher wrote:EDIT
If a gopher coach goes into a kid's house and the first thing the kid says is "I'm not going to lie coach, I really think I'd be a great fit in Mankato." Does the coach immediately pack up shop and leave? My guess is absolutely not but feel free to prove me wrong.

Not sure there's anything to prove here. You'd have to ask Lucia I suppose. My guess is that tDon would tell you they tend to maintain contact with committed recruits and are less likely to initiate contact with committed recruits.

Can you further explain the difference between maintaining and initiating contact in this context? Are the phone lines are open if the kid wants to talk on a Tuesday night about the Vikings? I'm assuming all communication is initiated by the school whether it's a "Hey, how are you doing?" or a "Here's how you're going to fit into our third line."

Goldy Gopher wrote:Can you further explain the difference between maintaining and initiating contact in this context? Are the phone lines are open if the kid wants to talk on a Tuesday night about the Vikings? I'm assuming all communication is initiated by the school whether it's a "Hey, how are you doing?" or a "Here's how you're going to fit into our third line."

They maintain their pursuit of kids who committed elsewhere at a young age rather than initiate contact with a committed kid with whom they've never contacted before. It's not that they couldn't initiate contact with a committed kid, it's just typically more fruitful to keep going after kids you've been recruiting prior to their commitment elsewhere.

Look at Tarek Baker, for example. He was initially recruited by both UMN and UW. He didn't wow in the USHL, so the Gophers delayed his entry. Eaves called him up and told him the Badgers were still interested, so he switched. (Eaves was fired after that, so Baker is a bit of a pickle at the moment.) Why didn't Eaves recruit Jake Wahlin or Blake Lizotte or Nick Swaney or Jake Jaremko or any of the other forwards from "small" schools who have clearly proven themselves in the USHL? The answer is because it would be a lot more difficult and a lot less likely to work.

The Exiled One wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote:Can you further explain the difference between maintaining and initiating contact in this context? Are the phone lines are open if the kid wants to talk on a Tuesday night about the Vikings? I'm assuming all communication is initiated by the school whether it's a "Hey, how are you doing?" or a "Here's how you're going to fit into our third line."

They maintain their pursuit of kids who committed elsewhere at a young age rather than initiate contact with a committed kid with whom they've never contacted before. It's not that they couldn't initiate contact with a committed kid, it's just typically more fruitful to keep going after kids you've been recruiting prior to their commitment elsewhere.

Look at Tarek Baker, for example. He was initially recruited by both UMN and UW. He didn't wow in the USHL, so the Gophers delayed his entry. Eaves called him up and told him the Badgers were still interested, so he switched. (Eaves was fired after that, so Baker is a bit of a pickle at the moment.) Why didn't Eaves recruit Jake Wahlin or Blake Lizotte or Nick Swaney or Jake Jaremko or any of the other forwards from "small" schools who have clearly proven themselves in the USHL? The answer is because it would be a lot more difficult and a lot less likely to work.

I didn't know it was possible to "maintain pursuit" without contacting the kid. Forgive my stupidity.

EDIT
The fact that Eaves didn't pursue the laundry list of better players in the USHL surely had nothing to do with his firing.

Goldy Gopher wrote:I didn't know it was possible to "maintain pursuit" without contacting the kid. Forgive my stupidity.

I must have misunderstood your question. Of course "maintaining pursuit" would involve contacting the prospect or at least reminding him that you're still scouting him.

Goldy Gopher wrote:

alcloseshaver wrote:

Goldy Gopher wrote: Who says they have less of a chance of being recruited by another school? If a school really wants a kid, they're going to go after him regardless of a "commitment" that means literally nothing.

There are only a few programs that don't honor verbals and keep recruiting someone else's commit. This was a topic of discussion at last years national coaches meetings. It is gentlemans agreement to back away from these kids and is a disadvantage to some of the smaller programs.

Do you really think that a gentleman's agreement is going to stop a coach from aggressively recruiting a player that they really want? If so, well...

Your guy Lucia wants it honored.