I've received word that Doc DelCastillo is no longer the head coach at Alaska, and it looks like USHR is also reporting it as well.
It sounds like the reason for the coaching change wasn't hockey-related, but some sort of Human Resources issue.
That said, it was a tumultuous year in Fairbanks for DelCastillo, and while he is a very smart coach, and excellent recruiter, I don't think he ever really gained the respect of the players he inherited, or got the support of the local community, which is probably more important in Fairbanks than in most places(If you'll recall, part of the interview process in Fairbanks last summer involved meeting and fielding questions from the community). Even if that wasn't the reason for his downfall, it certainly didn't help his cause.
As far as a potential replacement, the short list shouldn't be too hard for the school to figure out, since they interviewed some excellent candidates less than 12 months ago. The only problem is that the job probably looks a little less attractive now, with a number of the team's better players leaving the program, and over 20 recruits already promised a spot on the team.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Obviously we have to wait and see what UAF and Yoda have to say about this but this sure sounds like a player revolt.
And quite frankly, with the number of recruits he's added you can't really blame existing players for seeing the writing on the wall and saying, "What the hell?"
This would also seem to cast a shadow over the depth of the commitment (from both ends) of some of the projected players. Are all these kids going to want to go to a school where the guy that recruited them has been shown the door? Is the new coach and his own philosophy going to be content with players that are committed? I'd have my doubts for a positive outcome from either perspective ... especially concerning the 09 and 10 recruits.
It sure harkens back to some Talafous-like issues at UAA. Perhaps UAF learned a lesson from their sister schools near downfall under Talafous.
I have to wonder now how many recruits are going to renig on their commitments now.
It's not easy to get players to want to play up there but Doc seemed to be able to do it. Yes it would have created competition but there isn't anything wrong with that IMO.
If it was a community thing, well how about you give the guy more than one year to show you he can get it done.
Something just smells funny to me about this.
The community was pretty much oblivious to what was going on internal to the team or the primary reason for his leaving. Think of it as a straw and camel thing.
UAF making official announcement today
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/apr/10/all-silent-hill/
Yes, competition is good, but there are more players for next year than colleges can carry per NCAA regulations. Some are going to have to be cut, or some offers pulled.
http://alaskananooks.cstv.com/sports/m-hockey/spec-rel/041008aab.html
It's official. And as expected to real reason for him resigning.
So is UA(F) going to fall back on one of their 3 other finalist from last year (http://westerncollegehockey.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-on-alaska-coaching-candidates.html), or are they going to conduct another full search?
Just on a side note: Out of curiosity I read Del Castillo's Bio on the UA website. It said he majored in "elective studies" at St. Cloud. What the #%@& is that?
Beg Kevin Patrick for forgiveness for not hiring him in the first place and pray he will consider coming this time.
Beg Wade Klippenstein for forgiveness for not hiring him in the first place and pray he will consider coming this time.
Klippenstein as an assistant wasn't liked as well by the players. Although I'd imagine they'd of liked him better as a head coach than Doc.
It's not all about being liked. It's about being able to get players to produce. And in the ncaa recruiting is very important and Klippenstein has proven his ability to do that.
Doc was prove positive that being a good recruiter has nothing to do with being a good head coach. Respect your players and the rest will follow.
If pulling of scholarships and lack of commitment to players in place was at heart of problem then this might lead to positives with NCAA rules. If one coach was let go to protect student athletes who committed to a program, were trying to get an education promised them, and were put at risk by a coaching change so be it. Until the NCAA truly focuses on the student athlete coaches will continue to punish student athletes by pulling scholarships at will, and then making them sit a year if they "choose" to leave one D1 program for another. College sports is about STUDENT/Athletes and if this change was made to protect students it is the right decision. Does this coach have to sit out from coaching for a year, give up his salary for at least a year if not more, and loose credits toward a degree when changing jobs. Coaches are accountable to Student/athletes at the NCAA level this is not only about winning but about athletes working toward degrees.
And that's exactly why the NCAA is going to punish schools who don't have a certain percentage of players graduate. Or maintain a certain GPA.
Post a Comment