Luke Beaverson

[alum05]

It appears UND has dropped Beaverson.

http://www.greenbaynewschron.com/sports/sp...?article=125168

[redwing77]

It's a sad thing to see and I really don't understand why we just didn't put him on hold until 2005.

One thing was said in the article that wasn't true. Beaverson will not be a first round pick.

I really don't know what else to say... I agree he wouldn't have fit in this next season, but 2005?

[lawkota]

The article doesn't answer all my questions. Obviously, Beaverson is not coming to UND for next year. But look, there is no room for the guy next year....none (even if Greene leaves). Osiecki speculates that UND will never bring Beaverson in but there is nothing definitive in the article that says UND doesn't want him for the following year. How many years was Fabian deferred - 2? No sense bringing in a guy to sit when he's got another year of USHL eligibility.

Now, as to what's been communicated to Beaverson in the past, we don't know and the article doesn't say. Maybe the Sioux have been stringing him along and that would be unfortunate, but maybe they were being honest with him but he was holding on to a dream of playing for UND. Also, Osiecki states that UND may pull his scholarship but this can't happen because there is no scholarship to pull. To my recollection, Beaverson has never signed an LOI.

We will see more of this, from the Sioux and others as well, a result of recruiting players not yet ready for college hockey. We will also start to see alot more players backing out of the verbals.

This is not a good deal for either side - it makes the program look bad - but better now than the end of next year for Luke. His options are much better now than had he spent a year at UND.

what's the time over/under on a troll in this thread?

[dagies]

It's a sad thing to see and I really don't understand why we just didn't put him on hold until 2005.

One thing was said in the article that wasn't true.  Beaverson will not be a first round pick.

I really don't know what else to say...  I agree he wouldn't have fit in this next season, but 2005?

It's all about development. Like the article says, some kids are real young when they are offered and when they want to make a commitment. Could be they don't develop the way they are expected to.

lawkota makes a good point also. We don't know what communication took place between the parties (if any) in the past that may bear on this story.

[The Sicatoka]

It's clear there is a log-jam at defense in 2004-2005.

Assuming no early departures:

Seniors: Schneider, Jones, Fuher

Juniors: Greene, Marvin

Sophomores: Smaby, Bina, Foyt

Freshman: Radke

Based on what I see there, and losing four forwards (Parise, Lundbohm, Hale, Palmiscno) this year and with only three coming in (Zajac and Kaip have signed letters, Spirko was reported as a verbal), I wouldn't be surprised to see Lee Marvin or Scott Foyt become a full-time forward.

But that also shows what's ahead for 2005-2006:

No Schneider, Jones, and Fuher, and maybe no Greene.

There are reported verbals for 2005 from Taylor Chorney and Brian Lee. There still appears to be space available for a defenseman or two in 2005. I wonder what the plan is.

[Fanfromafar]

I'm definitely torn on this one. On one hand, I have seen Beaverson play several games each of the past two years and don't think he would have much of an impact (but I am no expert); however, I don't want to see a trend of UND not honoring verbals where someone has planned on attending the school for almost 2 years.

[Basil]

I don't want to see a trend of UND not honoring verbals where someone has planned on attending the school for almost 2 years

or any school for that matter - there is bound to be more of this with schools like MN and UND signing kids that are WAY too young to be committing.

[Northcountry]

This is almost exactly the same thing that happened to Josh Olson when he went to Juniors after high school. It is not the first time that UND has backed out of a committment to a player and probably not the last. Josh by the way, was called up for 5 games by the Panthers recently and according to reports, played very well.

[DAR]

Wow, I actually agree with Rosemary (I mean Basil) on something. There is no doubt that colleges recruiting such young players is going to result in some cases like this. It is unfortunate, but that is how competitive the recruiting game has become. None of the big programs want to miss out on the next star recruit and that is leading the coaches to go after these guys at a younger age to try and get a competitive advantage on a rival school. Looking at the stats it would seem clear that Beaverson is not developing as UND had hoped. He is not offensive at all and has one of the worst +- ratings on the team. That is not good, especially if you are a defensive defenseman as he is. I think this is performance related more so than the fact that UND has a log jam of d-men for next year.

[ScottM]

I don't see what the big deal is. Players go to the USHL to develop, not regress. If Luke wasn't able to push his game to a level where he would be an asset, rather than a liability, to the team then he's learned a valuable life lesson. Players can back out of verbals and LOIs for whatever reason(s), schools should have the same right if a player isn't going to contribute without insipid whining. Certain morons will use this as another excuse to bash Blais' recruiting methods, but screw 'em. Most kids would give their kidney to have the chance Beaverson had, and then lost. Moreover, the extra scholarship dollars now available can be used on D-men (Hardwick, Ammerman, ZJones?) who can step in as needed.

[JMB]

Players can back out of verbals and LOIs for whatever reason(s), schools should have the same right if a player isn't going to contribute without insipid whining.

Actually, player's can't back out of a Letter of Intent. The school can (I think) release them, but a player cannot back out.

National Letter of Intent - FAQ

The relevant sections appear to be under "Transferring."

Specifically, question #3 (What happens if I change my mind and do not want to attend the institution with which I sign and want to attend another National Letter of Intent Institution) and question #4 (Can the Basic Penalty, which calls for the loss of two years of eligibility and requires that I serve two years in residence at the next National Letter of Intent Institution, be reduced?).

[CoteauRinkRat]

I don't see what the big deal is. Players go to the USHL to develop, not regress. If Luke wasn't able to push his game to a level where he would be an asset, rather than a liability, to the team then he's learned a valuable life lesson. Players can back out of verbals and LOIs for whatever reason(s), schools should have the same right if a player isn't going to contribute without insipid whining. Certain morons will use this as another excuse to bash Blais' recruiting methods, but screw 'em. Most kids would give their kidney to have the chance Beaverson had, and then lost. Moreover, the extra scholarship dollars now available can be used on D-men (Hardwick, Ammerman, ZJones?) who can step in as needed.

I agree, just because a kid gives a verbal doesn't mean they can sit back and enjoy the rest of their time until coming to UND. They still have to put in the time and effort to develop as a hockey player. If the coaching staff doesn't feel they are developing the way they would like to see them develop, then its their choice to let the kid go.

[ScottM]

Actually, player's can't back out of a Letter of Intent. The school can (I think) release them, but a player cannot back out.

National Letter of Intent - FAQ

The relevant sections appear to be under "Transferring."

So, would an LOI prevent Beaverson, or any other player, from going MJ, NHL or shucking hockey altogether? Moreover, I believe that a player can back out of an LOI entirely if he/she goes through the NC$$ appeals process and the original school doesn't object. I believe that is what happened when Humphries went from Duke to Minnie prior to the season.

[Warthog]

DB is at it again. why is it , that DB waits till the end of the year to release these kids(Sedevie 03). DB could a least give the kid a chance to hook up with a team in 04. DB is a great coach, but does not show any repect to the kids once he signs them.

[dagies]

...........there is bound to be more of this with schools like MN and UND signing kids that are WAY too young to be committing.

Here's a quote from the article linked above

Osiecki and Nicholson noted this seems to be a trend developing throughout the league, where players are being exposed in the USHL's junior ranks and passed up by the schools that may prematurely sign them.

(obviously PCM didn't write this article. oof)

[JMB]

So, would an LOI prevent Beaverson, or any other player, from going MJ, NHL or shucking hockey altogether? Moreover, I believe that a player can back out of an LOI entirely if he/she goes through the NC$$ appeals process and the original school doesn't object. I believe that is what happened when Humphries went from Duke to Minnie prior to the season.

No - an LOI wouldn't prevent them from going to MJ or the NHL. It does prevent them from going to another LOI school. The LOI is not administered by the NCAA - it's administered by the Collegiate Commissioners Association.

And yes, you are correct - a player can go through an appeals process and receive a "Qualified Release Agreement" from the AD at the school. This is all up to the school - if they don't want to give a release, then the student-athlete is basically screwed.

Basically, it's the same as the NCAA making a boatload of dough off of college athletes and not compensating them. Sure, they get a free education - but the NCAA makes $6 billion off the NCAA Basketball Tourney. Then, the students get a scholarship - that has to be renewed every year. So, if they have a bad year, a coach could (in theory) decline to renew the scholarship, and effectively screw the player over. But, if a player wants to leave, then they have to sit out an entire year.

In the end, I'm guessing that Beaverson didn't sign an LOI, otherwise UND would be obligated to have him on campus for at least one season (see question #1 on the LOI FAQ).

1. When I sign a National Letter of Intent what do I agree to do?

When you sign the National Letter of Intent you agree to attend for one academic year the institution listed on the Letter in exchange for that institution awarding athletics financial aid for one academic year.

[The Sicatoka]

This release should have been a clue. Notice that the three fall 2003 signings (Zajac, Radke, Kaip) are mentioned directly as is the fall 2002 signing of Phil Lamoureux, but no one else for fall of 2004.

Before someone asks, the next signing period begins on April 14.

[sagard]

This is a sad situation for all parties.

To me it all comes down to what was promised by each side which few people outside the principles will likely ever know. If Blais promised this kid a scholarship position for '04-'05, in return for a verbal commitment to play hockey at UND, Blais should honor that commitment. He can certainly advise the kid to play another year of juniors, and/or make it clear to him that scholarships are on a year-to-year basis and give other hints that he really needs to work harder.

But in the end if Blais promised the kid a 50% scholarship for a year, he should live with it.

Now if what was really on the table was an offer to play at UND in '04-'05 if some early departures occur, and '05-'06 if everyone returns and no scholarship details discussed, then certainly UND has some leeway.

I don't and won't really know what the offer was or is, but if Blais starts doing this other coaches will follow if they haven't already. I really wish NCAA hockey would move away from verbal commitments, let the kid make his decision with two or three LOIs in hand.

[jloos]

The article seems to put all of the blame on the college coaches. DB has said before he doesn't like signing kids that are 16 or 17, but the NCAA allows it, so the coaches are forced to do it or risk losing the recruit. I agree it is easy for the coach to back out leaving the player SOL, but what are they supposed to do? I don't think anyone can say DB treats the players poorly without knowing more. I still think Pat O'Leary was given the run around when he was told he would get a scholorship after the 00/01 season and was then cut the next fall. It looks like a shady deal, but I've seen Pat at several Sioux games the last couple of years, so I don't think he is all that bitter. There is most likely something going on the public doesn't know about, nor do they need to know.

As far as Olson, I never believed the rumors about his grades, he wanted to play DB wanted him to head to juniors, so he left for majors. Fylling was asked to play in the USHL, after playing for a year, he did and it would be hard to argue it wasn't good for him.

[ScottM]

DB is at it again. why is it , that DB waits till the end of the year to release these kids(Sedevie 03). DB could a least give the kid a chance to hook up with a team in 04. DB is a great coach, but does not show any repect to the kids once he signs them.

Blais expects his players to excel, and the same with recruits. This isn't an f'ing welfare program for snot-nosed prima donnas who think Blais owes them a ride, even if they can't carry their own weight. A few other programs to the east, and their fans, maintain that attitude, and it shows. If the kid had improved to the point where he should have been at this stage of his development, I'm pretty sure he'd be on campus next fall. As it is, he has only himself to blame for not moving to the next level.

[Superman0099]

Blais expects his players to excel, and the same with recruits. This isn't an f'ing welfare program for snot-nosed prima donnas who think Blais owes them a ride, even if they can't carry their own weight. A few other programs to the east, and their fans, maintain that attitude, and it shows. If the kid had improved to the point where he should have been at this stage of his development, I'm pretty sure he'd be on campus next fall. As it is, he has only himself to blame for not moving to the next level.

I agree with ScottM on this. Blais runs the most competetive hockey program in the country for a reason. If Beaverson couldn't cut it and didn't develop the way they wanted him to then there is no reason Blais needs to bring him in. A commitment is a two way agreement and if Beaverson didn't hold up his end then neither should Blais.

[schmidtdoggydog]

DB is at it again. why is it , that DB waits till the end of the year to release these kids(Sedevie 03). DB could a least give the kid a chance to hook up with a team in 04. DB is a great coach, but does not show any repect to the kids once he signs them.

Let's see:

Sedevie has injury problems that cause concern for the coaches and Beaverson appears to have not progressed as expected OR there is a lack of room because (knock on wood) all the d-men are coming back.

I don't see a problem, and without knowing the facts don't have an issue with the coaches decision. If DB doesn't think a player is right for the program who am I to say differently.

All I know is DB knows what he is doing and I, for one, enjoy the "product" he puts on the ice year after year after year.

[jk]

This is unfortunate for all involved.

Sagard, you did an outstanding job of addressing a sensitive subject on a rival's board. I find that I don't disagree with much that you wrote. Most of all, I think that we don't know all of the facts, and it's hard to know exactly what to think of it in the absence of them. I acknowledge that on its face it doesn't look good, but it's tough to pass judgement without knowing the commitments made by each party.

This is just one more example of why I don't like to point fingers when a player splits with a program. The reasons for a departure (or failure to arrive, in this case) vary from player to player and school to school (and include leaving to the pros because you don't like the coach, failing to qualify academically, not putting forth the developmental effort, being choked by the coach, burn out, family illness, not liking the demands of a big-time college program, being forced to be on a four-year academic timetable instead of the five-year plan you were recruited under, being lured to major juniors, getting a million dollar signing bonus, etc.), and those of us on the outside are almost never privy to the whole story.

So in these cases I recommend trusting the good faith of the coaching staff, wishing the player well in their future hockey and non-hockey endeavors, and not casting stones as we all are in glass houses.

[cavedurtis]

AMEN. But then again it's a long offseason with not much to rant about...

[sagard]

I agree with ScottM on this. Blais runs the most competetive hockey program in the country for a reason. If Beaverson couldn't cut it and didn't develop the way they wanted him to then there is no reason Blais needs to bring him in. A commitment is a two way agreement and if Beaverson didn't hold up his end then neither should Blais.

I think you guys are over simplifying the situation. If Blais/Lucia/Red/Eaves or anyone makes an unconditional verbal offer of a scholarship to a player for a season, it should be honored.

In this case, I highly doubt the offer was completely unconditional. I suspect that the Sioux are basically full with or without Greene next year and that we have only heard and will only hear one side of the story due to restrictions on talking about recruits.

My fellow Gopher fans would be wise to hold their toungues as the Gophers are recruiting more and more young players and things may not always work out with all of them.