NCAA DI Commits Archives

(Updated June 29, 2024)

Since the end of this past season, at the NCAA DI women’s hockey level, there have been nine head coaching changes, along with the announcement of Allison Coomey as the first Head Coach at Delaware.

School	Old Coach	New Coach
Assumption	Jack Sweeney	Joe Grossman
Bemidji State	Jim Scanlan	Amber Frykland
Colgate	Greg Fargo	Stefan Decosse
Dartmouth	Liz Keady Norton	Maura Crowell
Delaware	N/A	Allison Coomey
Minnesota-Duluth	Maura Crowell	Laura Schuler
Minnesota State	John Harrington	Shari Dickerman
Post	Gretchen Silverman	Pat Bingham
St Michael’s	Chris Donovan	Meghan Sweezey
Union	Josh Sciba	TBD

Coaching changes can occur for various reasons—positive, neutral, or negative. These may include retirement (e.g., Bemidji State, Minnesota State), a coach moving on to a new opportunity (e.g., Colgate, UMD), or a coach’s contract not being renewed due to on-ice performance or program dynamics. Often, it may be a combination of these reasons. When there is a change at the top, it can have multiple implications for potential recruits, current commits, and existing players.

Potential Scenarios from a Recruiting Perspective

Status Quo – A planned succession process is in place. Generally, the same principles or cultural philosophies will be maintained with minimal changes, aside from the new coach adding their personal touch to the team.
New Sheriff in Town – The new head coach brings in their own assistants, changing the entire leadership of the coaching staff.
Best of Both Worlds – A hybrid approach that combines the best of the old with new ideas and personnel.

Impact on Potential Recruits

If you are a player interested in a school undergoing a head coaching change, you could be directly affected. You might have built a relationship with the previous coaching staff over several years at showcases or camps, which influenced your interest in the school. With a new coach, you may need to establish new relationships and reassess your interest.

For players from the Class of 2026 who are now eligible to speak with the school, conversations might be delayed or paused due to the transition. Currently, there are a few top schools without head coaches (e.g., Colgate, Minnesota Duluth, Union), and it’s unlikely that players will commit until a new head coach is appointed.

Additionally, a “New Sheriff in Town” head coach may have their own list of potential recruits, which could exclude you. Thus, having backup options is advisable.

Impact on Incoming Recruits

Data from recent years suggests that most of the time, incoming and future commits remain unaffected by a new head coach; both the coaching staff and the recruits stay committed to each other. However, there have been instances where a new head coach implements a different recruiting strategy, resulting in commits being told they no longer have a spot. Depending on the situation, a de-committed player may have limited options for the 2024 or 2025 seasons.

Conversely, NCAA rules allow players to de-commit and seek another school if they do not favor the new coach. Essentially, both parties have the opportunity to re-evaluate the relationship and decide if they want to stay together or move one from each other.

Impact on Existing Players

When a coaching change occurs, existing players have the option, under NCAA rules, to enter the transfer portal and find a different school. The NCAA grants a 30-day immediate portal window for players whose head coach departs. Recently, I spoke with a parent of a first-year player at a top DI women’s team who expressed concerns about uncertainty. The player loved the previous coaching staff and culture, and there is nervousness about whether the same philosophies will continue under the new staff.

Similar to minor hockey, any time a player gets a new coach, they must adjust. Most players will need to re-establish their role on the team, which could affect their ice time. Each student-athlete should evaluate their situation and decide whether to stay or explore options in the transfer portal. Ideally, new coaches will take the time to get to know their team and communicate their plans for each player, allowing players to make informed decisions.

One final point to consider is that assistant coaches are also affected by a change in head coaches. They too can experience positive or negative impacts under new leadership. In some situations, most of the staff is retained, while in others, the incumbent assistants do not return, and the new head coach assembles their own team.

An analysis breaking down commits from the U.S., Canada and Europe. It also provides insight into relatively how good a player needs to be within their country at their position.

What percent of players of DI women’s college commits come from Canada vs. the U.S. and why does it matter? Well, if you are a female player who aspires to play at the highest level of college hockey, it is important to recognize that you aren’t only competing with the top players who play for a USA Hockey National Championship. You are also being compared to the top Canadian and European players.

In analyzing our new and improved database of women’s college hockey commits, we have been tracking where every publicly announced commit is from and where they play. As you can see below, almost 40% of all Division I players are from Canada.

Source: Elite Prospects, College Commits, Champs App analysis (as of May 21, 2024)

So, how good do you need to be to play Division I women’s college hockey?

There are 45 Division I college women’s hockey teams. Assuming 25 players on each team, with 25% graduating every year (once the Covid extra year expires after this year), then there should be about 280 openings each year (assuming no DIII transfers to DI).

USA

With 54% of players coming from the U.S., that means an American player needs to be one of the best 150 players in the U.S. for their graduation year. And if your goal is to play for a Top 25 team it means you basically need to be one of the best 80 players in the U.S.

Thus to be a DI player, you would need to be one of the:
• Top 18 goalies in the US.
• Top 42 D in the U.S.
• Top 90 forwards in the U.S.

Canada

With ~40% percent of players coming from Canada, that means a Canadian player needs to be one of the best 112 players in the Canada for their graduation year.

Drilling down a little more, at the position level, it means:
• Top 14 goalies in the Canada
• Top 31 D in the Canada
• Top 67 forwards in the Canada

It is also important to note that a large majority of Canadian players primarily go to the top 25 DI U.S. schools, otherwise they could easily stay in Canada and be closer to home. For example they could play for Julie Chu or Caroline Ouellette at Concordia University. So the competition for these top schools is probably a little higher from Canadian players, thus lower the number spots for U.S. players at these high-ranking schools.