Tue 7 Oct, 2008
|
|
|
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
fdhkydemon
03-17-2001 10:19 pm
|
Report this post
|
The university programs are building the National Team. Yes, they restrict National Team programs, but until there is greater field hockey awareness across North America, we cannot loose faith in the university system. Look at the European/Austrailian teams, the teams we seem to envy in terms of there National team training regimens...why are they so effective? They are effective becuase kids are encouraged to play hockey at a young age. These countries welcome hockey so much, that they realize they cannot depend on school funding to support hockey. That is why club hockey is in place, and it is very effective. There are so many clubs that kids, and as the grow into adults, can play hockey forever. Then, when it comes to the selecting the National team, the national team training program just replaces the "club" that the player came from; therefore, enabling National team training outside North American to exsist year round--which in turn, creates, well, players like Vanina Oneto or coaches like Ric C. So until North American is at the point in field hockey evolution where it can abandon the university/school system of teaching/providing/giving hockey we cannot abandon it. Think about all the players and coaches in North America, unless they are people like Rachel Hiskins or Marina DiGiacomo (who come to America, and throw the NCAA field hockey records of their feet because of their "club" hockey experience), where did they learn hockey? From school; as there is just no subsitute for the school-hockey system right now. So yes, I would have to say that university programs are building the national team (because really, where else did the players learn/are learning their hockey). While it would help the National team, if players were available year round--to train. It is the same program, that is preventing the national team unity, that is also improving the national team; as players continue to grow as a hockey player while they compete for their respective university. Many (Belbin, etc.) have criticized American players for turning down a National team opporunity or even what could turn into an Olympic opportunity, so they could play for their school team. While I would love to have this opportunity, that some players give away, I also, do not blame them. Schoo gave them hockey, and so they will continue to give back to the school. In a way, it is representative of the team unity that field hockey so passionately enlists in all of us. Hopefully, one day, we will not need to debate this topic, as North America will see the beauty in field hockey that the rest of the world sees, but until then one must savor the university programs--even if it means some sacrifice to repuation of the stars and stripes or the maple leaf.
-Rebecca
|
|
badasscndian
03-18-2001 5:43 pm
|
Report this post
|
fdhkydemon, that was well put. I agree with you that our club system isn't at the same standard as it is in europe or australia. Until our club system gets better we are going to have to support our university teams because they do develop our national team players. I live in calgary, Canada. In our provincial association its the U of C/U of A players or alumni that are coaching and participating. In the high school system its the U of C/U of A players volunteering their summers to save fieldhockey in our city, not to mention many U of C/U of A alumni teachers coaching at their respective schools. Right now I can see alot of girls turning to other sports, mostly due to a lack of coaches. In our Ladies League, most future university players, present players and former players participate in the A division, in fact supply many of the teams with players. Another reason for a lack of competitive field hockey is a lack of turf pitches. I know here in calgary we have 1 full turf pitch for almost a million people. And we can't even use it when we want. We get kicked off because of cheerleading practise and marching band practise. I think that canadian cities need more facilities. Our Leagues would be more competitive if we could play more, right now we play once a week as a club. I don't know what its like around north america, but if its anything like it is here we aren't going to beable to build our club system with 1 turf pitch, in which we play on 1 time during the week. I started playing about 5 years ago, and even in that time span the participation of players under the age of 12 has increase dramatically. As well as with in our provincial association. More and more individuals are participating in the U-14, and U-16 groups, that is a large step here in alberta. So I think field hockey will only get better in North america. It will take sometime, but we will dominate soon enough. What sport isn't canada or the US picking up the slack in. We only strive to get better and we will. So I say for now, keep those university programs alive and healthy.
U of C field hockey is back!!! Great season girls, those other teams better look out next season.
|
|
Al Mattei
03-20-2001 9:40 am
|
Report this post
|
I think that the NCAA is getting a little more savvy when it comes to the game of field hockey, at least in comparison to other sports.
If you'll notice, a number of American college-eligible players have ditched NCAA soccer and its countdown clock and multiple subs for play in MLS, Project 40, or Europe. Think for a moment: U.S. star Landon Donovan is 18, Bobby Convey 17.
But unlike soccer, field hockey is supposed to conform to international; the only differences between an NCAA game and a Test match will be (a) the unlimited roster and (b) no buckets next to the scorer's table -- at least until the tournament.
All of those quirky NCAA rules of the last few years -- subbing for a penalty stroke, stopping the ball inside the circle on a corner, etc. -- are gone.
I cannot speak for the style of field hockey at Canadian universities, but I do know that NCAA Division I cultivates tremendous players, and is, I feel, one of the top two or three women's circuits in the world.
That being said, the challenge is to extend the competitive level beyond the age of 21 (or in the case of Marina DiGiacomo, 24). The United Airlines League is doing a decent job in this regard, though it is relegated to three weekends a year, playing around the clock.
If only UAL could, perhaps, use its sponsorship to defray travel expenses for actual league play? Instead of schlepping seven teams to one site, I'd love to see each of the UAL teams have a real home ground. If need be, you may have to have an eight-team league where, on each weekend, three teams travel to two host sites to play three doubleheaders. That gives more opportunities for those who may not ordinarily get to see the game.
I would also like to see franchises in the UAL opened to investors. Make it like the United Soccer Leagues, where you need only somewhere between 5 and 8K to run a D-3, PDL, or W-League soccer team.
I'd jump in if I could franchise an existing youth or adult club team (Washington Shredders, New York/New Jersey Thoroughbreds, North Jersey Eagles, South Jersey Spirit, Philadelphia Enigma, etc., etc.), and add a general manager, secure a home field, troll for corporate sponsorship, and schedule home games with actual fans.
|
|
Liz, former CIAU athlete
03-29-2001 12:02 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
To be honest, I question the ethics of some coaching staff. While in university I was a provincial ranked athlete, but I rarely saw action except for 1 or 2 games in a season, reason being my coach was a @#$%!. I have questioned whether I should have to another school, but didn't, I wanted their academic program; however, as it turns out, I don't use my degree with what I do know anyhow, this why I question my situation. What is done is done. As to your discussion, while attending university, I understand the vast majority of our women's national team trained at York U, and our provincial team out of U of Toronto, neither of which I attended. I feel as though my hockey suffered, not playing when should been.
|
|
G. Barrie
04-04-2001 6:48 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
Is it just me or is this NCAA site biased to U of Maryland??
|
|
Where's the beef?
04-10-2001 11:29 am
|
Report this post
|
|
Mr. Barrie, cite, please.
|
|
Big Poppa
04-26-2001 3:03 pm
|
Report this post
|
Field Hockey Enthusiasts,
I have become aware that Queen's University in Kingston have no renewed the contract of their head coach Richard Bennett with the intent of sacking both the indoor and outdoor programs. This has been a huge shock to the field hockey community in Kingston. If you would like to voice your concerns, you can contact the athletic director at mcfarlan@post.queensu.ca and the former coach Richard Bennett at fieldhoc@post.queensu.ca
Thank you...
|
|
badasscndian
04-27-2001 1:09 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
This news of the queens university program would be devastating. I know that good players come out of there, again I go to U of C here in Calgary, and last season a player from Queens came here on a transfer to finish school, and she is great. We have lost a few good players due to eligibility after the fall of 2000 season and this ex-queens player will definately help us out. Cutting the program of varsity field hockey any where in this country is a big deal, I think that this issue should be addressed by FHC. It's hard enough getting competition in this country eliminating a team isn't going to help. What is the reasoning for cutting the program?? lack of money, lack of interest, lack of competition?? what??
|
|
Peter Munsing
12-06-2001 8:47 pm
|
Report this post
|
But only for half the sport......
Wow, all these comments and nobody seems to remember there is.....ta da....a mens team in hockey. How do college programs help them? Precious little. A few coaches do try to let elite men practice with the team by calling them associate coaches, but some have indicated this is more out of concern for free labor than to try to help the elite male player attending college. Male coaches don't appear to be doing much to help their younger bretheren, either by being an advocacy voice within USFHA to get USFHA to take a stronger position to end such things as having young men play in skirts (titration by shame--what a year of youth classic that is ), or on the college level to alter the rules so that elite level men who attend college can practice with the team. From the perspective of my son looking at colleges in the US or Canada, with all due respect I don't see that the college programs are doing anything that will help him, his mates, help the sport to grow (from his perspective).
Sure there are a lot of components of the sport that have failed young men, its not just colleges, but college programs aren't doing anything for them so from my perspective the article and the comments address only half the sport.
|
|
kiran
12-07-2001 12:52 am
|
Report this post
|
Re: But only for half the sport......
Mr. Munsing,
While I do agree that men should have opportunities to play field hockey at universities and colleges, I think that pushing for varsity men's teams is hoping for too much. Fact of the matter is, field hockey is considered a female sport in N. America and when you hear that women's programs might be scrapped such as in Queen's, thinking about adding varsity men's field hockey teams seems a bit unrealistic. First generate an interest, it wouldn't be hard to create a men's field hockey club in university, but the interest has to be there first. Women have had to put up with a lot worst than having to train with the opposite sex, and wear skirts, in the name of sport. And why does everything always have to revolve around the men anyway? As I see it, the men have their club system and the women have university teams to play for, but I do wish both sexes could have both because each has its benefits. The men certainly do miss out on some scholarships but I also wish the women's club system was more developed. The article was about university women's sport and how it conflicts with National training and not developing field hockey in general. Does every single article have to mention men's field hockey too?
Kiran
|
|
Carl Dalton
12-08-2001 1:39 pm
|
Report this post
|
I have coached in the Canadian university (CIAU-CIS) system and I also coached the Alberta Provincial Women's team at the Nationals. The CIAU-CIS is a very important development ground for the National Womens program but it only supplies the players with just over two months of training and game play.
In our second of three scheduled tournaments for the west region we played in heavy snow and the game had to be stopped for a ten minute period as the snow was so heavy the the umpires and officials could not see the match and play was stopped.
These are not ideal times to be playing a sport which your hands are so important in your ability to have a high level of stick/individual skills and control your ability to receive and hit efficiently. How can this be carried out at a high standard when players are wearing gloves (which has to have a detrimental affect on your sense of feel which is so important in the game of Field Hockey) headwear and layers of restrictive extra clothing and sometimes playing on fields that does not allow the ball to roll truely (because of snowfall). To not be able to see the field markings made it almost impossible for players to know when to shoot and for goalkeepers to get their bearings from the "D" markings.
I don't beleive that we are getting the maximum benefits from the University season as the players are struggling to be able to concentrate and perform to their maximum capacity because of these outside factors( very cold temperatures and snowfall ).
Any competition which is a feeder to a higher level needs to plan its season around the higher level competition so that athletes can gain maximum benefits from all of these competitions if they are good enough.
The CIAU-CIS competition does not allow for this as it has the timing of its season set at the same time every year. If you have players in the National team and they are on tour at this time, they go with the National team and their University team has to be able to cover their loss.
If players are turning down National opportunities in the USA University system to play with their University team something has to be wrong with their perception of reaching the top in your sport. Thast is unless they are being pressured or forced to play for their respective Universities because of their scholarships. I find it hard to understand why a player would choose to play for their University over representing their country in tournaments which could be as prestegious as the Olympic Games, World Cup, Pan Ams etc. And also combined with this is the opportunity to play against the best players in the world in a number of different countries around the world. These are rare opportunities and usually are the goal for any competetive sportsperson as they aspire to reach the top in their field.
In looking at the websites for a number of the top American Universities I took interest in checking out individual profiles and seeing that a number of the top players in each team were in fact from other countries. Players from Netherlands, Australia, Argentina, England, Germany etc seem to be sprinkled throughout and there are also a number of foreign coaches in the system. So the system not only has players that do not commit to national duties, but it readily accepts players and coaches into its ranks from strong hockey countries from around the world. This has to effect the development and opportunities of a number of local athletes who have not had the opportunity to participate in this great sport from an early age. As they will find it increasingly difficult to excell in their chosen sport when the opportunities are being reduced by imports. Sure they will learn a lot from these players and coaches but if there is not regular opportunities for high level game play they will never progress to the necessary levels that they would if they were involved in game play against the top players.
Their seems to be a number of problems with both the Canadian and American field hockey systems and until there is a better working relationship between University systems and Provincial/National bodies field hockey in these two countries will never reach the heights that I'm sure it could.
The Men's programs in both countries will also suffer as long as there is not suitable opportunities created for men to partake in this great sport.
Most countries from around the world seem to be able to supply playing opportunities for both Men and Women alike without many problems.
The biggest problem in Canada and USA seems to be the perception that this is a female gender sport, and until this changes it will be hard for the men's programs to prosper.
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
x11
