Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

1. How much does the coaching staff's relationship with players and percieved coaching ability hamper recruiting? How do you think Scott has done in this area?

2. It has been said that the current administration (President) does not support hockey and that the program will never regain it's past glory umless this changes. Do you agree and what specifically does the "Administration" need to do that effects the program?

3. Are the current facilities a hinderence to recruiting? When looking at other CCHA schools where would you rank it?

4. Do players who are current recruits look at BGSU as a good program based on the performance in the '70's and '80's or is that too long ago and do they only know the past 15+ years?

5. If a new coach came in should it be Danton Cole? If not, who and why?

Thanks for your honest opinions.

Dublin Falcon

Good question, Dublin. I'm interested in hearing about the recruiting from a player's perspective (history and facilities to be specific.)

Dublin, good questions, maybe questions that should have been asked years ago.
Below is what I have heard from players and from players parents.
1. Paluch does not have a good manner with this employees.
"beatings will continue until moral improves". People have questioned the veracity of Paluch and Fogarty.

2. Facility: Parents have said that the ice arena is very nice. BGSU has a great location ( much better than Miami - Oxford, Ohio ???), great size school, great education, once apon a time great tradition.
But, U of M. - tradition, Miami, OSU, North Dakota, BC great faciltiies. A class "A" prospect will look at the facility, and the major commitment from the administration. I've been told that this is a major concern.

3.Danton Cole has the pedigree - MSU with Mason, many years in the NHL, Stanley Cup with NJ. Head coach in the AHL. I have also been told by a hockey Alumni Dad that we may need a big name coach. Not sure who that would be. I'm open to suggestions.

Facility needs to be addressed very quickly to help with the 2008 recruiting.

1. I think that the relationship of the coach with the players has a huge impact of the players that are recruited to come to BG. I know for certain that players have come to BG and current and former players have told them not to come here. Personally I usually tell recruits that BG is a great town, excellent environment and the most fun I have had in my life. The only downside is a hockey. (By hockey I mean the coaches). I understand that these comments are not good for recruiting but I don't want other kids to have to go through the coaching circumstances that I had to go through. Some kids come anyways becuase they have no where else to go, I also think that the players that BG is signing right now aren't great. I think that Paluch is trying to create a BC environment with small fast players. But we can't recruit the same skill as a BC so all we are getting is small average players. I would rather have a big average player.
2. I will be the first to say I don't know much about this topic, I really don't know what effects the pres and administration have on the team, good or bad.
3. I don't think the facilities are a problem. Clearly they are not a glorious establishment. Personally I liked it better than an Ohio State because it had a old time and certian type of feeling to it. I think if the crowds could be rockin and loud that is what brings in the players to a team not the facilities. Granted if you are going to BG and say North Dakota those are extremes and will attract players differently.

4. I am sorry to say that the success from way back when doesn't mean anything. With the team doing as bad as it has been doing lately, who cares if they won 20 years ago.

5. I honestly don't know a whole lot about Danton cole so I can't really remark on him. I have heard good and bad. But in my opinion it couldn't hurt, but if it were me hiring I would look elsewhere too.

1. How much does the coaching staff's relationship with players and perceived coaching ability hamper recruiting? How do you think Scott has done in this area?

This is perhaps most likely the best of your questions, and proves the point made Jack Welch former CEO of General Electric corp. the current youth in the USA dosnt ask "what I can do for you and the team, but instead ask how or more so what are you going to "give" (give being the operative word here) me if i come to x,y, z school" I believe in the tried and true coaching style, that the Head Coach is just that, he is not your friend, does not care about your feelings or any of that beyond you the player being capable of performing your duties, his job is to push you to perform the tasks he asks, when he asks, with question or hesitation, period. Weather that be through negative or positive enforcement or some mixture of both. Then he evaluates how you measure up to those objectives and standards. i think this is also why you see whiners praising the assistant coaches and staff, in part a: because part of their job is to befriend the players and relay this moral information iback to the coach. Then in part B because our society is partly to blame for this behavior for engaging in an an "everyones a winner mentality, as parents try to ease the pain of losing and going on rewarding mediocrity, removing the real pressures to perform at the appropriate levels. i remember taking a knee in the locker room prior to taking the field,or ice saying a prayer to a god that may or may no exist, not because I believed in that god, but because that prayer brought further unity to my team and then if you screwed up the Coach would be in your face, cussing you up and down and sitting you on the bench for a play to think about it. Now with out stating the obvious if a HS coach did any of those things he would be sued by Bobbies overly PC protective parents, which in turn morphs its ugly head into the fact that many of the youth today feel that just because they have scholarship, or have been recruited are some how are deserving of great praise and respect. When in reality, all they have done is to earn further opportunity and nothing to earn the "respect", and that when and if the head coach gives you singled out praise, it will be because you have gone above and beyond his expectations, and not just done what is expected of you. This all goes back to the basic high caliber coaching approaches that are well not as commonplace as they once were. I also would like to add that i dont single out any one of these opinions to be the golden bullet here, or that any one current or former player is a product of all of this individually but instead pieces and parts are everywhere and its a societal issue.

2. It has been said that the current administration (President) does not support hockey and that the program will never regain it's past glory umless this changes. Do you agree and what specifically does the "Administration" need to do that effects the program?


The President does not like hockey, he is no particular fan of the game and that is pretty common place. The team sucked when he came here under buddy powers and Sidney has never tried to be the fan that Olscamp was/is of the game. Sidneys in perspective better at everything Olscamp sucked at, and if surgically combined they would make super president. His backing of the program would help in that it would energize the need for a new facility, or as the case may be and additional facility.

3. Are the current facilities a hinderence to recruiting? When looking at other CCHA schools where would you rank it?
Absolutely the best latest greatest is always more appealing, not nesesarly better but more appealing. We have a facility that ranks in the bottom 1/3, the build has many very real and persistent structural issues, that do not compromise the integrity of the structure, but that are making it more and more expensive to maintain, from roof issues, to brick mortar points. The new AD is fully aware of these issues and will offer them up to anyone in detail.

4. Do players who are current recruits look at BGSU as a good program based on the performance in the '70's and '80's or is that too long ago and do they only know the past 15+ years?
The past is just that it is the past, different coaches different players. Heck even the game was different then. The tradition does this however, the former greats inject cash just as they do at any alma matter. Our former greats are now at that place in their lives where this is now more commonplace. Now if after York we had gone out and gotten a good coach, some one who could have kept the team in the tops overall inthe NCAA its a different story.

5. If a new coach came in should it be Danton Cole? If not, who and why?
we dont need a new coach...yet. Everyone allways wants a new coach and in some cases it works the new coach every couple years works some times, there is proff out there, no one can deny that. But there is more evidence out there that supports allowing a coach a "reasonable" period of time to develop his team. Now hind sight is 20/20 a phrase we are all far to familiar with. case and point buddy powers. a great assistant coach, with out a question, and he deserved a shot. Initally on the wave of BGSU successes he did well, he maintained quality teams, but his coaching was just not good we all can see the end result and that downward trend in his tenure at BGSU. i say again he was a great assistant, what made him good at one and not the other is all opinion and does not matter...heck I will stretch and say that i feel it would be good for BGSU and Pooch to bring him back in at that capacity, only because none of the kids knew him as the HC and that Buddy was dam good at his job. ill say further that as Scott emulates Jerrys coaching style and
and makes the changes and adaptations that suit him and BGSU as he sees it needs to be done he could well miss the boat and fall like powers did...but he deserves the chance. Big dog says he likes bigger harder hitting players (midwest hockey) and Growing up in bg, having been weened on this style of hockey I agree, but I also played out east in prep school and the wide open full throttle speed of (east coast) hockey is equally exciting. i believe that as big dog pointed out very clearly, that this is what Scott is going for, A fast, endurance team, that will out skate their opposition. as opposed to a 1970's BGSu team under mason teams that had the speed players but really and quite superbly as only MAson could mixed in the enforcers who would just wear guys down. Big Dog is also right when he says we are not geting the A list players, and this is factored in from everything from the facility to as Big dog puts down his personal and unpleasant experience. right or wrong it is what its and all adds up to something. the way I see it... I dont know if it will work out in the end, or if the team will be succesfull to the extent of making the frozen four. No one does. what i do know is that an old facility does hurt in recruiting, esp when other schools are currently building and or have plans to build. does finishing dead last hurt, yep with out question it does. does Scotts vision get players in the door yes. does that vision get us the A list players, nope. Will this team, that is young and working toward that vision help recruiting, not greatly but it will add in. Does Scott deserve the same fair shake that buddy got. Yes.
Does the team deserve the support of the alumni, the student body and the community, yes and for nothing more than BGSU hockey games are a hell of lot of fun.
as far as replacements go...
i would like to think that former alumi John Markle, tom Newton , or Ken Morrow or ever Gary Galley could be called back to restore this program...it seems former BGSU players who played for some of the toughest coaches in college hockey have had much success in the coaching arena and that pulling them in could be a direction to go, should things not work out Scott, which i think in the end they will, cause for a new coach to come in and go a different direction, right there your talking 3 years min to see what they do.

wow macman what a novel. But for the first time since I have come on here, I can say that I agree with most of what you are saying. seriously, there were a lot of good points there.
There were somethings that i disagree with however.
1. The players expecting to that becuase they have made it to collage that they are the kings and everyone must give them respect. I do think that fans do give the players respect and rightfully so, the players work harder than most of you will ever know. I don't think that the players expect this though. When we sign up to play, we understand that the coach is boss and i am ok with that. The part I have a problem with is when the coach makes decisions that are weird and obscure. Over time these begin to pile up and the faith in that person dwindles. Also respect goes both ways, so when you are given none as a player it is difficult to show it back. Another great point you stated "respect is earned."
2. The only other main issue I have is that you said that Buddy was a good asst. Coach, could it be that this situation has repeated itself? There is no question that Paluch has incredible credentials and was clearly a great asst. coach. Head coaching is very different however. Much like buddy I think Paluch would make a good asst. coach but unfortunately a poor head coach.

How big of an impact does the number of former players getting pro contracts (at the AHL and NHL level) have?

2. The only other main issue I have is that you said that Buddy was a good asst. Coach, could it be that this situation has repeated itself? There is no question that Paluch has incredible credentials and was clearly a great asst. coach. Head coaching is very different however. Much like buddy I think Paluch would make a good asst. coach but unfortunately a poor head coach.[/quote]


While your conclusion has already been formulated, mine is still optimistic, however; your right that is why I brought this up.

Now if you please, i will be putting my orange glasses back on, and begin looking for all the positives about this team, players, and coaches, and return to my life of an eternal optimists.


now as for players leaving early for the pros etc, I have seen myself go from the good for them camps to the now, the time has come for a scholarships to include a contractual clause that would cause a student who leaves to advance their athletic careers, to be held responsible for repayment of thier scholarship monies earned if they left prior to completing all thier sports eligablibility.
The pure number of college athletes who are leaving early now is hurting all the sports teams
,

Flipper wrote:How big of an impact does the number of former players getting pro contracts (at the AHL and NHL level) have?

IMO it really depends at what level - there is a huge difference between getting a 1-way NHL deal (you get paid the NHL contract amount versus a 2 way contract that pays much less if you go to the AHL or ECHL).

I know that Andrew Saurer changed his mind and turned down a BGSU deal for NMU because his JR coach said the NMU was better now at putting players in the NHL. On a side note, BG did not offer a deal to O'Fallon, the stud goalie at Vermont.

In any case - I agree with the theams that it is bad for college hockey and sports in general. I would suggest that if a program is putting guys into the NHL versus the ECHL or lower that kids will notice that in making their decision as where to go.

1. How much does the coaching staff's relationship with players and percieved coaching ability hamper recruiting? How do you think Scott has done in this area?

The staff's relationship with players and percieved coaching ability is very important to recruiting. Players want to join a program that has a healthy coach/player relationship across the board. Recruits get to sit in on pre-practice, and pre-game meetings to see how everything is run (sometimes a bit of acting is displayed). During their trip they spend a lot of time with the current players (one of the players is their host), and they also have meetings with the coaches. Naturally, the meetings with coaches involve a lot of "salesman" talk (some of which is true, and some of which is "what they want to hear"). The time with the players allows for a more honesty. At this point in time, I think that recruits can see that there is tension between most players, and the coach (just from seeing how they interact in the lockerroom). When the players talk with the recruits they often tell them: what a great town, and great school BG is; how BG has very loyal fans; what a great atmosphere the rink is (when it is packed and loud); what a great strengh and conditioning staff we have; how much fun the team has together; etc. However, many will be honest about their feelings for the coach, and his abilities.

2. It has been said that the current administration (President) does not support hockey and that the program will never regain it's past glory unless this changes.

This is the first that I have heard this, so I do not have any input here.

3. Are the current facilities a hinderence to recruiting? When looking at other CCHA schools where would you rank it?

I think that we have a great facility! The (potential) atmosphere is awesome. Nebraska Omaha built a huge facility, and I personally liked playing in their old barn better. The atmosphere there was unreal. Ohio State needed a new rink (badly), but it is hard to fill the "Shot". Miami needed some more seating, so I think it is good that they built a new facility. I also think that Miami was smart when they made the seating capacity realistic, and not 20,000. Obviously, we dont have a state-of-the-art building, but a recruit is looking for a place that is fun to play at. A jacuzzi and sauna in the lockerroom would be a nice touch haha (kidding).

4. Do players who are current recruits look at BGSU as a good program based on the performance in the 70's and 80's or is that too long ago and do they only know the past 15+ years?

I do think that the history is important, and it is definately considered as a positive by recruits. Having a National Championship is huge, and all of the big names that have played at BG is huge too. However, the record over the past several years is probably going to trump this in a lot of cases.

5. If a new coach came in should it be Danton Cole? If not, who and why?

I cannot really weigh-in in regards to Danton Cole, but I hear that he is a good guy, and may be good for the job. I do not think that he would have interest in the job, but Nelly would be a great fit. I think that his resume speaks for itself. I think that he would be able to connect with the players on several levels.