We currently have 3 sets of coaches that you can send emails to:
· Division I Women’s Hockey Coaches (all coaches)
· Division III Women’s Hockey Coaches (all head coaches and several assistants
· U Sports (Canada) Women’s Hockey Coaches (head coaches only)
Champs App Messaging sends real emails to coaches (regardless of whether or not they have an active Champs account). Coaches will receive the emails at their regular school email address (not within Champs App).
Send Yourself a Test Email
You have the ability to send messages by email address. So if you want to test the tool by sending an email to yourself you can. Or if you want to send an email to a non-college coach, you just need to put in their email address in the Step 1 box.
Message Templates
There are currently 4 templates that you can use to send emails to coaches. Just pick the template that is right for your situation. We will be adding more templates and features in the near future.
Note: The Subject line and the contents of the email can all be customized even after you select a template. This way you can ensure sending a unique message to a coach.
Make Sure Your Player Profile is Up-To-Date
Every template automatically populates with information from your Player Profile into the email. So if you want to save yourself time from entering the same information multiple times, make sure your current team, graduation year, jersey #, upcoming schedule etc. are up-to-date.
Email Details
Please note that the actual email gets sent via Champs App on a player’s behalf (with your name appearing as the Sender). Specifically, it is sent from a generic Champs email address. BUT, the “reply-to” email address is your own email address. In addition, your email address is included in the template by default. Most coaches probably won’t notice where it is sent from (they will focus on the name not the sender’s email address), but it is important for users to know exactly how it works.
This analysis look at the teams selected for the Girls Tier I U16 playoffs. Given the importance of being seen at Nationals from recruiting perspective, I examined the at-large team selections and the seedings.
As a reminder: If you are heading to the Tier 2 girls playoffs, you can still be scouted by DI coaches. This week I spoke with a DI coach who will be in East Lansing and will be looking for the top players from smaller regions that can’t easily play for a Tier I team.
Girls 16U Selections
Below you can see the ranking of the 16 teams who will be playing at the 16U Tier I Nationals. The 3 highlighted teams (Minnesota Magazine, Massachusetts Spitfires and Minnesota Hardware) are the at-large invitations, then there is the host team (Florida Alliance) and the other 12 are the district champions.
The USA Hockey 2024 National Guidebook provides the following description for how they decide on the at-large teams and seedings:
As far as the last team to miss the playoffs, the Mid Fairfield CT Stars had a 95.57 which was 0.93 below the last at-large team, Minnesota Hardware. Similar to the U14s, that is a pretty large difference in ratings (in other age groups I’ve seen a rating difference of only 0.01 or 0.02 between bubble teams) and thus there shouldn’t be much concern about the Stars not being selected based on their rating.
Girls 16U Seedings
For the U16 age groups, the seedings are non-controversial. They match identically to the MyHockeyRankings sorting of the 16 qualified teams.
However, if the selection committee looked at the last 10 games for each of the top 10 teams (as they appear to do in other age groups), there is a reasonable argument to be made for a re-arranging of the Top 8 teams. Specifically, two of the at-large teams could have been seeded higher. The same for Belle Tire. Especially since those teams’ full-year ratings were so close to the teams above them in the rankings.
Want to be scouted at Nationals? Use Champs App Messaging to quickly & easily let coaches know your game schedule
Let NCAA coaches know you’ll be at Nationals and your game schedule. The Champs App Messaging tool is the fast, easy way to send error-free messages to coaches before and during the event.
You can easily select a coach & email template and the message automatically populates the coach’s info, school and your personal information from your Champs App profile. Pick the Upcoming Events template and the Messaging tool with magically insert your upcoming games at Nationals into the message.
This analysis look at the teams selected for the Girls Tier I U19 playoffs. Given the importance of being seen at Nationals from recruiting perspective, I examined the at-large team selections and the seedings.
As a reminder: If you are heading to the Tier 2 girls playoffs, you can still be scouted by DI coaches. This week I spoke with a DI coach who will be in East Lansing and will be looking for the top players from smaller regions that can’t easily play for a Tier I team.
Girls 19U Selections
Below you can see the ranking of the 16 teams who will be playing at the 19U Tier I Nationals. The 4 highlighted teams (East Coast Wizards, NAHA, Team Wisconsin and the Connecticut Polar Bears) are the at-large invitations. Unlike other age groups, there is no U19 team from the Northern Plains district – thus the 4th at-large team. Then there is the host team (Florida Alliance) and the other 11 are the district champions.
The USA Hockey 2024 National Guidebook provides the following description for how they decide on the at-large teams and seedings:
Similar to the the U14 Tier 1 at-large Selections, it is unclear why the Minnesota Empowers and Tradition teams are not at-large teams. Maybe they opted out due to the higher priority of the Minnesota High School hockey playoffs. There is a lack of consistency of Minnesota Elite League teams accepting at-large invitations.
As far as the last team to miss the playoffs, the Pittsburgh Pens Elite has a 95.20 rating which is only 0.24 below the last at-large team, the Connecticut Polar Bears. But it seems this is large enough to make the Polar Bears the at-large selection.
Girls 19U Seedings
For the U19 age groups, the seedings do not match the rankings. Shattuck St Mary’s is ranked #1, but seeded #2 behind Bishop Kearney Selects. East Coast Wizards are ranked higher, but seeded lower than the Boston Jr Eagles. And NAHA is ranked higher than the Mid Fairfield Stars, but seeded lower. As described in the USA Hockey Guide above, it is likely a combination of head-to-head and Last 10 Games that were factors in these seedings.
Specifically, BK Selects beat Shattuck in their only game back in October, and but Shattuck still had a much higher rank in their last 10 games (see below). In addition, S-SM has a 0.65 higher rating than BK, which is quite large. So it seems the head-to-head was the primary factor in the flipping of positions. I suspect this will have impact the motivations of both teams should they meet in the playoff round.
The Boston Jr Eagles won the Massachusetts district, so it seems to make sense that they would be higher than the Boston Jr Eagles.
For NAHA and Mid Fairfield, being seeded #8 vs #9 doesn’t really make a material difference, since they will be in the same division. It just impacts the order of games and who is the home team when they play each other. The two teams never played each other during the season, but Mid Fairfield has the higher rating over the last 10 games.
Want to be scouted at Nationals? Use Champs App Messaging to quickly & easily let coaches know your game schedule
Let NCAA coaches know you’ll be at Nationals and your game schedule. The Champs App Messaging tool is the fast, easy way to send error-free messages to coaches before and during the event.
You can easily select a coach & email template and the message automatically populates the coach’s info, school and your personal information from your Champs App profile. Pick the Upcoming Events template and the Messaging tool with magically insert your upcoming games at Nationals into the message.
Being selected to go to Tier I Nationals is a big deal beyond just competing in the national playoffs to win a championship. Almost every NCAA DI women’s hockey program sends at least one coach to scout players and watch the best teams compete against each other. It gives U.S. players another great opportunity to be seen. While there are many elite players that play for teams that don’t end up qualifying for Nationals – it isn’t the end of the world for them, there are still many other opportunities to be seen (e.g. showcases, USA Hockey camps etc.). However, playing at Nationals is an excellent opportunity and timing to get seen. While the process to make Nationals for District winners and the host team is clear, the at-large selection process is a little murkier. This analysis looks at the at-large selections and how the teams were seeded.
I recently wrote about the selections for the NCAA Women’s Ice Hockey playoffs and how the selections and seedings compared to their MyHockeyRankings ratings. Unlike the NCAA, the USA Hockey National Playoffs actually uses MyHockeyRankings to help select the at-large teams for both youth and girls divisions. On the youth side, in addition to the 12 district winners, there are typically 4 at-large teams selected for Tier I (AAA). On the girl’s side, they also have 12 district winners. However, this is the final year where the girls host team gets an automatic spot in addition to that districts winner. So there are two teams from the Southeast district this year. Next year there will also be 4 at-large teams for Tier I girls.
Candidly, I haven’t taken the time to learn how the Tier II selections are made for Nationals. And I certainly don’t understand how the High School Girls teams are selected – because the last couple of winners have not really played high school hockey teams for their regular schedule, but mostly against other Tier I (AAA) classified teams. So this 3-part analysis will focus solely on the 14U, 16U and 19U Girls Tier I selection and seeds for next week’s USA Hockey 2024 Nationals taking place in Wesley Chapel, Florida.
Note: If you are heading to the Tier 2 girls playoffs, you can still be scouted by DI coaches. This week I spoke with a DI coach who will be in East Lansing and will be looking for the top players from smaller regions that can’t easily play for a Tier I team.
Girls 14U Selections
Below you can see the ranking of the 16 teams who will be playing at the 14U Tier I Nationals. The 3 highlighted teams (Minnestota Walleye, Assabet Valley and Chicago Mission) are the at-large invitations, then there is the host team (Florida Alliance) and the other 12 are the district champions.
The USA Hockey 2024 National Guidebook provides the following description for how they decide on the at-large teams and seedings:
From a selection standpoint, the only team which is not clear is the Minnesota Lakers not being selected for an at-large spot. The two reasons I can think of are a) the first at-large spot already went to a Minnesota district team (Walleye) so maybe the committee didn’t want to take two at-large teams from the same district. The other might be that I have heard Minnesota players care more about their High School playoffs than USA Nationals, therefore getting re-organized (after their High School season ends_ and the cost to play in Florida may not be appealing to some teams. If someone has more information on these decisions, please feel free to provide more information.
As far as the last team to miss the playoffs (excluding the Lakers), the Bay State Breakers were had a 95.48 which was 0.77 below the last at-large team, Chicago Mission. In my experience, that is a pretty large difference in ratings (in other age groups I’ve seen a rating difference of only 0.01 or 0.02 between bubble teams) and thus there shouldn’t be much concern about the Breakers not being selected based on their rating.
Girls 14U Seedings
Pretty much all the seedings make sense with 2 exceptions:
Minnesota Walleye were ranked #1 according to MHR, but Lovell Academy was given the #1 seed. The two teams never played each other during the season, so that could not be a factor. However, when looking at just the last 10 games for each team, it seems Lovell Academy had a higher rating by 0.3 goals – so that may have been the determining factor in giving Lovell Academy the #1 seed.
2. The Minnesota Green Giants and Philadelphia Jr Flyers were ranked #5 and #6 respectively according to MHR. But the Jr Flyers were given the higher seed. But looking closer, both teams had an identical 95.81 rating. And the Jr Flyers had a 0.3 higher rating over their last 10 games – so this could likely be the determining factor for promoting the Jr Flyers.
The next posts will discuss the USA Hockey Nationals Girls U16 and U19 selections and seedings.
Want to be scouted at Nationals? Use Champs App Messaging to quickly & easily let coaches know your game schedule
Let NCAA coaches know you’ll be at Nationals and your game schedule. The Champs App Messaging tool is the fast, easy way to send error-free messages to coaches before and during the event.
You can easily select a coach & email template and the message automatically populates the coach’s info, school and your personal information from your Champs App profile. Pick the Upcoming Events template and the Messaging tool with magically insert your upcoming games at Nationals into the message.
With the announcement of the 11 teams participating in the 2024 NCAA Women’s DI Hockey Championship, I decided to take a look to see if the at-large team bids made sense. In the past, there seemed to be at least one or two teams that got snubbed. This year, it looks as though the committee pretty much got it right with the 6 teams added beyond the 5 conference champions.
At the same I was also curious about how different the level of competition was between conferences. While I know the WCHA is known as being the best conference in the country, I wondered how big a difference the level of play was between conferences this past season. There were a couple of surprises. And I believe they could have implications for a player’s recruiting process.
For this analysis I used the MyHockeyRanking algorithm for the team rankings. The NCAA’s methodology is completely different and explained here. Neither the NCAA’s methodology nor MHR’s algorithm is perfect. I have discussed in detail the pros and cons of MHR in the past, but I personally believe it is the most accurate view of the full-season performance of a team. Especially since I am sure that every NCAA DI team plays to win and not to ‘the score’ (i.e. goal differential) like what happens occasionally in youth hockey.
When you exclude the conference champions, pretty much the next 6 best teams were selected for the tournament. There could be an argument made for St Cloud State. Given that there were already 4 WCHA teams selected, statistically they were essentially tied with Clarkson, and the NCAA uses the pairwise ranking (which is difficult to calculate, so I don’t fully understand it), I am okay with their decision. While pairwise ranking might reward wins, in my opinion it doesn’t weight strength-of-schedule sufficiently.
Analyzing the Seedings
Note: Bold = Conference Champion
Looking at the seeding, the most-obvious disconnect was with Minnesota-Duluth being given an 8th seed but having a #5 ranking. Once again, it would not surprise me if the NCAA did not want 4 of the 5 top seeds to be from the WCHA. Unfortunately, this means UMD will likely play Ohio State in the 2nd round instead of a Clarkson or a Colgate if they were seeded higher.
From a recruiting perspective, it was interesting to see the large variability in the average ratings for each conference.
Comparing Conference Competition
As you can see, the competition in the WCHA is >1 goal more than the next best conference, the ECAC. In other words, on average a WCHA will beat and ECAC team by ~1.32 goals.
In addition, for this past season, the NEWHA conference performed at a significantly lower level of play than all the other conference by 3+ goals. In fact, all 8 NEWHA teams were ranked as the bottom 37-44 teams in DI NCAA Women’s Hockey according to MyHockeyRankings. In an upcoming post, I will compare playing in the NEWHA at the DI level to playing at a top DIII school from a recruiting perspective. I do think there are some nuances that are important to consider when choosing a school and making the right choice for your personal situation.
As a parent, I have now gone through multiple “hockey recruiting” processes. Beyond just club team tryouts, we have been through hockey academy recruiting, college hockey recruiting and even the beginnings of junior hockey tryouts. No matter how things worked out with each team/school being considered, I have repeatedly been pleased with the life skills my kids have learned from the experience. When I look back when I was their age, it would be several years into my college days before I would get exposure to many of these important life events.
I thought I would codify my Top 5 life skills kids can learn from the recruiting process.
1. Sales & Marketing
Even if you are a top talent player, you still need to let teams and coaches know you are interested in their program. Sending “cold emails” is a great skill to learn at any age – but getting this experience as a teenager is a pretty amazing opportunity. Learning how to introduce and promote yourself is not easy, especially in writing. Then to also persuade the audience/coach with a “call-to-action” (e.g. set-up a call, come watch me play, look at my video) is about as real-life as it gets in the sales and marketing world.
Furthermore, taking some swings when you know you will likely strike out is another great lesson. I know of a few players who reached out to coaches when they thought the teams wouldn’t be interested, only to find out they were interested and there were other reasons for them not contacting the player. You never know if you don’t ask!
2. The recruiting process is imperfect
The last company I worked at focused on the corporate recruiting process. Very few companies are great at delivering a great candidate experience. Most organizations have flaws because of the complexity and coordination challenges in organizations that are considering dozens of potential employees. The same holds true for hockey recruiting. It is unfortunate the number of times I have heard from parents and seen first-hand a bad candidate experience. Everything from never getting a response from a team, a coach ghosting a player after having a call and agreeing to next steps or just not being transparent/candid happens all the time. The college recruiting process isn’t perfect because coaches aren’t perfect. Many have not had regular company experience, so they may not be well-trained in hiring best practices unless someone taught them how. Not all of them care about closing the loop with players they won’t be making offers to. Good thing to learn for a teenager to learn at this age, because it reflects the real world.
3. Rejection
Every player gets rejected at some point. Whether it is not making a team or not getting an offer from a school. All the best companies (Google, Apple, Amazon etc.) attract the best people and reject the significant majority of folks who want to work at these companies. So even if your dream was to play at Wisconsin, or if you set very realistic goals as your top choice school, sometime there isn’t a match. However, things almost always work out in the end. You end up where you were supposed to be. Dealing with a major “hockey career” rejection in your teen years is not only something you will recover from, it will also make you stronger.
4. The importance of references and a good reputation
In the real world corporate recruiting process, hiring teams do reference checks. This is even more important in a team sport like hockey. Coaches will find folks they trust who really know the players they are considering. Once again, I can think of multiple examples where a connection to the coach (former coach or teammate, parent etc.) helped create opportunities or finalize an offer. As a player, having a good character and ensuring people of influence at every level can vouch for you, is a big deal.
5. Decision making – Having lots of good options
Finally, if things go well on both the hockey development and recruiting side, you will have options. Sometimes it will be easy to pick where you want to go. But sometimes, you will be in the fortunate position to have many great options. Figuring out all the different factors and prioritizing them across multiple opportunities can be both difficult and stressful. You may be afraid to make a life-impacting mistake. Learning how to make these types of decisions is probably the most important skill to develop. These types of situations come up all the time and figuring out which one-way door to choose is a phenomenal experience to learn at such a young age.
Over the past couple of years of tracking women’s DI hockey, I had a hypothesis that team success was highly correlated with the total experience (i.e. the numbers of years playing college hockey) of the players. I thought of it like an equation:
Team Skills x Team Experience x Coaching = Team Success
Note: This definition of Coaching includes all the resources and coaches (like strength & conditioning or video) associated with a program, not just the 3 or 4 primary team coaches.
While Team Skills seemed intuitively the most important attribute, I hypothesized that Team Experience would be close behind. However, the analysis I conducted shows that Team Experience is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for being a ranked team. So, scoring high in all 3 attributes creates a powerhouse team. But, having a huge amount of Skills could still make up for a lack of Team Experience.
First let’s look at the data. To normalize for the different roster sizes (since there is a range of 20 to 33 players across all 44 DI teams), only the oldest 21 players were included in the Team Experience calculation. This number was based on how many players typically dress for any single game. And then assumes if any first-year players are on a large roster team, they must be playing like they have at least 1 year of experience. Since it is too time consuming to calculate the actual team experience by game, this seemed like a reasonable proxy.
From the analysis, the teams seem to be segmented into 5 categories:
1. Doing well as expected
Clearly Ohio State has all the key ingredients needed for success. The #2 most experienced team, lots of skill and one of the best coaching staffs in the country.
2. Doing well with an experienced roster
There are a few teams that appear to be peaking with experienced rosters. They also have some highly skilled players, but not as deep as the powerhouse teams. These include St Cloud State, Quinnipiac and Clarkson.
3. Doing well with an inexperienced roster
The most skilled teams tend to do well year-after-year. These include Wisconsin, UMD and Minnesota.
4. Not doing well with an inexperienced roster
Some teams that have done well in the past, are not doing as well this year – likely due to having such a young set of players. These include: Harvard, Vermont and Bemidji State.
5. Not doing well with an experienced roster
Without a deeper dive into the individual skill-level for each player on these teams, it’s hard to know exactly why they aren’t higher in the rankings. But the following teams have a ton of experience, but haven’t been able to translate them into a Top 15 ranking: RPI, Syracuse and Merrimack
Estimating the Team Success Equation
The original hypothesis that Team Experience would contribute more than 1/3rd of the weighting to team success now seems too generous. Without doing a more rigorous statistical correlation (r-squared) analysis , it seems be more in the 1/5th range (plus or minus). This in turn implies the disproportionate importance of Team Skills regardless of experience.
Implications for Recruiting
If you are not going to a perennial powerhouse team (e.g. the top WCHA teams), incoming recruits should be aware of where the program they are joining. Which years are the current most-skilled players on the roster? If those top players will be graduating as you will be an incoming recruit joining the program, you should expect that it may take some time to rebuild the team. At the same time, if the highly skilled players are in their first or second year, then a recruit could be part of the immediate success of the team. Recruits should be aware of the risk that a team could peak then regress as they join the program.
During November and December, I spent a lot of time reviewing the current rosters of all the NCAA DI women’s hockey teams for goalies, forwards and defense. In addition, I re-booted the Champs App process for tracking commits to those schools. While analyzing all of this data, I had several different observations about the recruiting process that I thought were worth sharing.
1. What are the Pros and Cons to Large Roster Sizes?
One of the key insights was the big standard deviation in roster sizes. There are 9 teams with 28 or more players listed. Based on my conversations with multiple coaches, this likely is due to the 5th year Covid eligibility for many players. And there are 6 teams with 23 or less players on their roster. Keep in mind that teams can only dress 20 or 21 (incl. 3 goalies) players for a game. This raises certain points…
From a coach’s perspective this gives them more players to choose from and thus the ability to field the best team available for any given game
My hypothesis, for which an analysis is coming soon, is that age & experience is highly correlated to success (in addition to talent, of course). By being able to play the most experienced and talented players from a large roster likely shows up in the standings.
This also means coaches having to conduct multiple tough conversations each week to explain why a player will be healthy scratched
With only a maximum of 16 scholarships available to schools, many student-athletes are paying their own way to be on the team (and probably not getting much ice time, since schools tend to give the biggest scholarships to the best players). This is where the academics of a school become more important than your place on the roster.
Given the above, I wasn’t too surprised to see several highly-touted first-year recruits at top programs that have been scratched for multiple games so far this season
2. Several 2022-23 Top 15 Teams are no Longer Top 15 Teams
Northeastern had been in the Top 15 since 2015, but did not break into the Top 15 ranking until this week. This is almost entirely due to them having lost their top players who contributed over 50% of their goal production from last season. Note: Northeastern still has 29 players on their roster
There are a couple of other schools who also have dropped out of the rankings this season. As an incoming recruit, you might need to adjust your expectations if you committed to a team that you expect to be competing for the Frozen Four every year, but now that school may not even make the NCAA playoffs.
3. Small Roster Analysis
It seemed odd that Penn State only has 21 players on their roster this season. So I took a deeper look. Last year they had 23 student-athletes. 5 seniors graduated and 2 highly-talented juniors transferred (one to Ohio State and the other to Minnesota Duluth). There are 2 first-year players and 3 seniors/grad students who transferred into PSU (from Colgate, New Hampshire and Long Island). I can’t confirm, but I also think one player deferred to start in 2024 vs 2023. I suspect the Penn State coaching staff didn’t expect two of their top players to transfer out of the school and that is why the roster is so small. This example shows the fluidity of which coaching staffs must manage their rosters going into the last year of 5th year Covid players and the transfer portal. It also shows that there could be late openings at the odd school come springtime.
Ohio State only has 6 D (but 24 rostered players). Similar to Penn State, I took a deeper look into the OSU roster when I saw only 6 defenders listed. If there is an injury or two to Ohio State blue line this season they will be in trouble. They would likely have to move someone back from forward to play defense. Last season there were 9 blueliners. 3 players graduated (including Patty Kazmaier winner Sophie Jacques), and 2 underclass players transferred to other schools (Colgate and Maine). Coming in, two grad students transferred to the Buckeyes – Olympian Cayla Barnes (Boston College) and Stephanie Markowski (Clarkson) , both grad students. There are no freshman defenders in the 2023-24 class. Once again I suspect the OSU coaching staff did not expect to lose 2 players to the transfer portal. What is interesting is that Sydney Morrow who did not get much ice time in the Frozen Four for the Buckeyes last season, is well over a point-per-game player at Colgate this season. Based on our commit analysis, OSU is back to being focused on recruiting the top incoming players, with 13 commits in total for 2024 and 2025.
4. NEWHA Schools are the Last to Fill up Rosters
The New England Women’s Hockey Association (NEWHA) conference includes St Anselm, Long Island, Assumption, Stonehill, Post, Sacred Heart and St Michaels. It is pretty clear that the timeline for most of these schools to complete their rosters is later than most other conferences. I know of at least two schools that were still trying to fill their 2024 rosters before the end of December 2023. Only a few spots from NEWHA schools have been announced for 2025, while most of the top schools from other conferences are already filled.
5. Only U18 Players Need Apply
It was interesting to discover, but not a complete surprise, that multiple ranked schools only have commits that were U18 Girls National Camp players (Canada, USA or international) or better. I will go into more detail on the data and the implications on recruiting in an upcoming post.
This is an update to our quarterly posts which track the number of publicly announced commitments in DI women’s college hockey.
We’ve Changed our Commit Tracking Methodology
For this update, we have significantly changed our data collection methodology on tracking women’s college hockey commits. In previous quarterly updates, we primarily relied on data from the Women’s College Commitments (WCC) tracking page. Using their data we were able to track announcements on a monthly bases and show trends month-over-month and year-over-year:
However, we always knew that their data only represented a percentage of all commits for a given year (and relied on the data to be “consistently incomplete” year over year). For example, for the 2023-24 NCAA DI women’s college hockey season, there are 284 first-year players. While WCC only recorded 185 of those commits – so, only about 65% of all commits. While it is almost impossible to track every commit, since many players don’t make public announcements & it is much harder to track European commits, we have endeavored to be more holistic in data collection.
Our new method includes not just WCC, but also information from Elite Prospects, social media posts by players and teams, youth team website rosters and any other public information we can find. As a result, we have redesigned how we present the data and will only present the data from a quarterly perspective going forward.
As a result, we believe we are closer to tracking ~90% of all commits which is much higher than our previous tracking of ~65%.
Q4 Commitment Details
We recently published the status of women’s college hockey DI commits by position and discussed our analysis on “where and why” about the numbers:
Below is how the overall data is trending for commits & by position. As discussed in the previous posts, the incoming class of 2024 is almost full, but there seems to be many spots still open (especially at NEWHA schools) for 2025.
However, it appears that the total size of the incoming 2024 class will be smaller than previous years – mostly due to 5th year Covid eligibility for many student-athletes reducing the number of available spots. For 2025, it is a little too early to tell, but it looks like it will be a regular sized class with over 280 commits – especially with the addition of new DI women’s hockey team, the Delware Blue Hens.
By-Position Year-Over-Year Commit Rate Comparison
Here is the same data as above, but broken out by position in comparison to previous years.
Comparing Q4 to Q3 2023 Total Commits for the Class of 2025
While not apples-to-apples, below is a table comparing the number of commits for the Class of 2025 from Q3 2023 to Q4 2023. As you can see about 125 commits have been announced during the last 3 months.
Women’s DI College Hockey Total Defensive Players & Commits by Year
as of December, 2023
With 44 DI women’s ice hockey teams now in the NCAA, having 88 first-year D is pretty much exactly what you would expect if each team carries an average of 8 defenders on their roster. While there are some puts and takes (e.g. Assumption adding 7 freshmen D and 35 5th year/grad students) the 2023-24 season seemed to be an above-average recruiting class on defense. With the large number of current players with a 5th year of eligibility still available to them, it is likely that the incoming 2024 class will be small than this year’s group of D recruits.
Our current analysis shows that the Class of 2024 already has at least 74 commits – and we are likely missing a few European players from our list. Therefore, there are likely a small handful of spots still open or become available because of the transfer portal, but pretty much it seems the recruiting door for 2024 defenders has pretty much closed.
For the Class of 2025, only ~50 spots have been filled. With Delaware announcing their new DI team starting in the 2025-26 season there should be several spots available for that team. In addition, there are certainly some openings on several other teams and certainly most of the NEWHA schools – with only 4 roster spots publicly announced across those 8 teams.
Women’s DI College Hockey Defense and Commits by School & Year
as of December, 2023
A few quick thoughts:
Ohio State and Bemidji State only have 6 defenders listed on their roster. Would be interesting to see how they would handle not having 1 or 2 of them for a period of time (injury, playing on national teams). Clearly a F would need to move back to help out, but that would still likely have the team at a disadvantage.
11 teams have 9 or more D on their rosters. For players being recruited to schools with such large rosters, they need to seriously consider the implications of being healthy scratched if they aren’t clearly in the top 6.
The next post will analyze the overall rosters of DI teams – including showing how many players each school has. There is a pretty big range in roster sizes (from 20 – 33 players).
