View Single Post
Old
12-04-2012, 04:47 PM
  #17
Oilers Chick
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Oilers Chick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Philly in April 2014
Country: United States
Posts: 5,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutchemist42 View Post
But why do they have to go D1? D2 schools are already in D1 hockey. Am I missing something?
Technically speaking, D-II no longer exists in ice hockey. So teams either go DI or DIII or are simply left at the club level depending on the support (financial and otherwise) of each institution. You are correct that that some schools, such as Colorado College and Clarkson for example, have hockey as their sole D-I sport. Some schools play at either the DII or DIII levels in all other sports that they have.

SFU doesn't necessarily have to go DI, but if they want a shot at the best recruits available and gain the most exposure to NHL teams, then DI is the only option. But it also takes a huge financial commitment as well. Should they opt to go only as far as a DIII level, that could also provide a few benefits such as not needing to set aside scholarship funding (some DI non- Ivy and Service Academy schools such as Union College do not give out scholarships), still getting some pro exposure (although it's almost exclusively by the minor pro ranks) and generally not having to budget out so much money to support the program. But the down side to DIII is the recruiting level overall is not at the level of DI nor is the NHL exposure there.

Club level isn't where SFU wants to be. If they want to go club level, they might as well stay in the CIS. The quality of both players and teams are so much better in the CIS. And before you all start jumping down my throat, I'm NOT implying that the CIS is a lesser quality league than either DI or DIII, just different.

Anyway, I hope this answers your question.

Oilers Chick is offline   Reply With Quote