ChampsRankSOS (with Decay Rate): DI Women’s College Hockey
as of December 14, 2025
GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent
SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent
Rank
Team
Rating
GD
SOS
Games Played
1
Wisconsin
20.00
3.8
16.2
20
2
Ohio State
19.23
2.3
16.9
18
3
Minnesota
18.45
1.9
16.5
18
4
Penn State
17.93
3.6
14.4
18
5
Minnesota Duluth
17.51
0.9
16.6
18
6
St. Cloud State
16.47
-0.2
16.7
20
7
Princeton
16.47
1.3
15.1
15
8
Northeastern
16.36
1.5
14.9
19
9
Minnesota State
16.29
0.0
16.3
20
10
Quinnipiac
16.27
1.4
14.9
20
11
UConn
16.25
1.1
15.2
18
12
St. Thomas
15.75
-1.0
16.7
20
13
Cornell
15.73
1.1
14.6
16
14
Clarkson
15.71
0.6
15.1
19
15
Mercyhurst
15.40
0.8
14.6
22
16
Colgate
15.28
-0.3
15.6
20
17
Yale
15.13
0.5
14.6
16
18
Boston College
14.89
-0.1
15.0
20
19
RIT
14.69
0.5
14.2
22
20
St. Lawrence
14.68
-0.5
15.1
21
21
Boston University
14.67
-0.6
15.3
18
22
New Hampshire
14.63
0.4
14.2
21
23
Harvard
14.53
0.5
14.0
14
24
Brown
14.52
0.1
14.4
16
25
Holy Cross
14.47
0.9
13.6
21
26
Maine
14.33
-0.8
15.2
20
27
Union
14.21
0.2
14.0
20
28
Vermont
14.15
-1.1
15.2
20
29
Bemidji State
14.12
-2.5
16.6
18
30
Providence
14.04
-0.8
14.9
19
31
Robert Morris
13.80
0.2
13.6
24
32
Syracuse
13.62
-1.0
14.6
22
33
Lindenwood
13.58
-0.9
14.5
22
34
Dartmouth
13.12
-0.8
13.9
16
35
RPI
13.06
-1.4
14.5
21
36
Merrimack
12.87
-1.6
14.5
18
37
Saint Anselm
12.12
0.4
11.8
20
38
Franklin Pierce
11.99
0.9
11.1
19
39
Stonehill
11.55
-0.1
11.7
19
40
Assumption
11.50
0.0
11.5
20
41
Delaware
11.36
-3.0
14.3
20
42
Sacred Heart
10.92
-0.7
11.6
18
43
Post
10.34
-1.2
11.6
20
44
LIU
10.33
-1.1
11.5
18
45
Saint Michaels
7.13
-4.5
11.7
16
ChampsRankSOS Rankings Comparison: December 7 vs December 14, 2025
The ChampsRankSOS rankings were stable at the top, with the top five teams holding their positions and showing slight rating improvements. Wisconsin remains #1 at 20.00, followed by Ohio State (19.21 → 19.23), Minnesota (18.42 → 18.45), Penn State (17.89 → 17.93), and Minnesota Duluth (17.49 → 17.51). The limited movement reflects only five completed games between December 7–14. Those games involved lower-ranked teams (Dartmouth, Robert Morris, LIU, Saint Anselm, Saint Michaels, Brown, and Yale), so they had minimal impact on the top teams’ strength of schedule. The most notable change was in the 6–10 range, where St. Cloud State moved from #7 to #6 (16.44 → 16.47), while Princeton dropped from #6 to #7 (16.46 → 16.47), separated by 0.0008 rating points. Minnesota State entered the top 10, climbing from #11 to #9 (16.29), while UConn fell out of the top 10, dropping from #10 to likely #11 or lower. The time-decay model’s emphasis on recent results, combined with the sparse schedule, explains why the rankings stayed largely stable with only minor adjustments in the middle tier. The lack of games involving top-ranked teams meant their ratings were primarily affected by the gradual decay of older results rather than new competitive outcomes.
Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here
Given Wisconsin’s sweep this weekend, we have decided to only focus on the time-decay version of our Strength-of-Schedule model (using a 45-day decay rate).
ChampsRankSOS (with Decay Rate): DI Women’s College Hockey
as of December 7, 2025
GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent
SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent
Rank
Team
Rating
GD
SOS
Games Played
1
Wisconsin
20.00
3.8
16.2
20
2
Ohio State
19.21
2.3
16.9
18
3
Minnesota
18.42
1.9
16.5
18
4
Penn State
17.89
3.6
14.3
18
5
Minnesota Duluth
17.49
0.9
16.5
18
6
Princeton
16.46
1.3
15.1
15
7
St. Cloud State
16.44
-0.2
16.6
20
8
Northeastern
16.36
1.5
14.9
19
9
Quinnipiac
16.28
1.4
14.9
20
10
UConn
16.25
1.1
15.2
18
11
Minnesota State
16.23
0.0
16.3
20
12
St. Thomas
15.74
-1.0
16.7
20
13
Cornell
15.71
1.1
14.6
16
14
Clarkson
15.69
0.6
15.1
19
15
Mercyhurst
15.37
0.8
14.6
22
16
Colgate
15.26
-0.3
15.5
20
17
Yale
15.13
0.5
14.6
16
18
Boston College
14.91
-0.1
15.1
20
19
Boston University
14.68
-0.6
15.3
18
20
St. Lawrence
14.65
-0.5
15.1
21
21
New Hampshire
14.65
0.4
14.3
21
22
RIT
14.65
0.5
14.2
22
23
Harvard
14.51
0.5
14.0
14
24
Brown
14.50
0.1
14.4
16
25
Holy Cross
14.50
0.9
13.6
21
26
Maine
14.35
-0.8
15.2
20
27
Union
14.21
0.2
14.0
20
28
Vermont
14.19
-1.1
15.3
20
29
Bemidji State
14.08
-2.5
16.5
18
30
Providence
14.04
-0.8
14.9
19
31
Robert Morris
13.60
-0.5
14.1
22
32
Syracuse
13.59
-1.0
14.6
22
33
Lindenwood
13.53
-0.9
14.5
22
34
RPI
13.02
-1.4
14.4
21
35
Merrimack
12.89
-1.6
14.5
18
36
Dartmouth
12.87
-2.0
14.9
14
37
Saint Anselm
12.46
0.6
11.9
19
38
Franklin Pierce
12.27
0.9
11.4
19
39
Stonehill
11.81
-0.1
11.9
19
40
Assumption
11.73
0.0
11.7
20
41
Delaware
11.35
-3.0
14.3
20
42
Sacred Heart
11.17
-0.7
11.9
18
43
LIU
10.83
-0.4
11.2
16
44
Post
10.61
-1.2
11.8
20
45
Saint Michaels
7.52
-4.2
11.7
15
The main change is a flip at the top.
On Nov 30, Ohio State was #1 (20.00) and Wisconsin #2 (19.78). On Dec 7, Wisconsin is #1 (20.00) and Ohio State #2 (19.21). Wisconsin’s 6-1 win over Ohio State on Dec 6, weighted heavily by the decay model, likely drove the change. Wisconsin beat Ohio State in both their meetings this past weekend.
Other Dec 5–6 results affected the rankings. In ECAC, Princeton beat Colgate 6-1, Quinnipiac won 3-0 at Cornell, RPI won 3-1 at Dartmouth, Harvard beat Union 4-2, and Yale won 3-2 at Brown. In Hockey East, Northeastern won 3-1 at Boston College, Maine won 4-3 in OT at New Hampshire, and Holy Cross won 2-0 at Vermont. These outcomes, especially the Wisconsin–Ohio State result, shifted ratings in the decay model.
Rating adjustments in the top 5
Minnesota remains #3 but dropped from 18.71 to 18.42. Penn State stays #4, down from 18.15 to 17.89. Minnesota Duluth remains #5, up from 17.76 to 17.49. The decay model’s emphasis on recent results, combined with Wisconsin’s strong recent form, explains the shift at the top.
Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here
We initially planned to publish only the time-decay version of our Strength-of-Schedule model (using a 45-day decay rate). However, the differences between the decay and no-decay versions were significant enough that it made sense to release both. This allows a clear comparison between a full-season evaluation and a ranking system that emphasizes recent performance — something both subjective polls and postseason selection committees tend to value. This weekend’s upcoming games between Wisconsin and Ohio State, might tell us which methodology makes more sense.
ChampsRankSOS with Decay Rate: DI Women’s College Hockey
as of November 30, 2025
GD = Goal Differential vs. Opponent
SOS = Strength of Schedule Rating of Opponent
Rank
Team
Rating
GD
SOS
Games Played
1
Ohio State
20.00
3.46
16.54
16
2
Wisconsin
19.78
3.96
15.82
18
3
Minnesota
18.71
1.82
16.89
16
4
Penn State
18.15
3.56
14.58
18
5
Minnesota Duluth
17.76
0.33
17.44
16
6
Minnesota State
16.77
0.24
16.53
18
7
UConn
16.73
1.21
15.52
16
8
Northeastern
16.66
1.58
15.08
16
9
St. Cloud State
16.48
-0.53
17.01
18
10
Quinnipiac
16.41
1.50
14.91
18
11
Cornell
16.35
1.74
14.61
14
12
Princeton
16.21
0.94
15.27
13
13
Clarkson
16.04
0.60
15.44
17
14
St. Thomas
15.94
-0.64
16.58
18
15
Colgate
15.74
0.04
15.71
18
16
Yale
15.67
0.74
14.93
14
17
Mercyhurst
15.52
0.54
14.99
20
18
Boston College
15.22
0.21
15.01
18
19
Harvard
15.04
0.68
14.37
12
20
RIT
15.04
0.10
14.93
20
21
St. Lawrence
14.83
-0.45
15.27
19
22
New Hampshire
14.75
0.52
14.23
18
23
Holy Cross
14.73
1.14
13.59
18
24
Vermont
14.72
-1.02
15.74
18
25
Union
14.64
0.41
14.23
18
26
Brown
14.46
-0.01
14.47
14
27
Maine
14.39
-1.07
15.46
18
28
Bemidji State
14.36
-2.24
16.60
16
29
Boston University
14.34
-1.02
15.36
15
30
Providence
14.08
-1.21
15.30
17
31
Syracuse
13.85
-1.06
14.91
20
32
Lindenwood
13.77
-0.75
14.53
20
33
Robert Morris
13.72
-0.71
14.44
20
34
Dartmouth
13.33
-2.27
15.61
12
35
Merrimack
13.08
-1.71
14.80
16
36
Saint Anselm
13.01
0.99
12.02
17
37
RPI
12.84
-2.01
14.85
19
38
Franklin Pierce
12.38
0.92
11.46
17
39
Assumption
11.74
-0.34
12.09
18
40
Stonehill
11.67
-1.25
12.92
17
41
Sacred Heart
11.65
-0.61
12.26
15
42
Delaware
11.38
-3.07
14.46
18
43
Post
11.12
-1.29
12.41
17
44
LIU
10.66
-0.98
11.64
14
45
Saint Michaels
8.24
-3.74
11.97
13
ChampsRankSOS without Decay Rate (Full Season Rating): DI Women’s College Hockey
as of November 30, 2025
Rank
Team
Rating
GD
SOS
Games Played
1
Wisconsin
20.00
4.06
15.94
18
2
Ohio State
19.81
3.25
16.56
16
3
Minnesota
19.14
2.25
16.89
16
4
Penn State
18.10
3.72
14.37
18
5
Minnesota Duluth
17.80
0.63
17.18
16
6
St. Cloud State
16.73
-0.33
17.06
18
7
Northeastern
16.69
1.69
15.00
16
8
Cornell
16.66
2.00
14.66
14
9
Quinnipiac
16.65
1.83
14.82
18
10
UConn
16.62
1.00
15.62
16
11
Minnesota State
16.49
0.11
16.38
18
12
Princeton
16.05
0.77
15.29
13
13
St. Thomas
15.97
-0.06
16.02
18
14
Clarkson
15.93
0.76
15.17
17
15
Colgate
15.79
0.06
15.74
18
16
Yale
15.71
0.79
14.92
14
17
Mercyhurst
15.53
0.35
15.18
20
18
Boston College
15.17
-0.11
15.28
18
19
RIT
15.02
0.35
14.67
20
20
Harvard
14.98
0.58
14.40
12
21
St. Lawrence
14.89
-0.47
15.37
19
22
Vermont
14.79
-0.94
15.74
18
23
New Hampshire
14.78
0.61
14.16
18
24
Bemidji State
14.68
-2.25
16.93
16
25
Brown
14.61
0.07
14.53
14
26
Holy Cross
14.57
1.11
13.46
18
27
Union
14.49
0.17
14.32
18
28
Maine
14.43
-1.22
15.65
18
29
Boston University
14.40
-1.27
15.66
15
30
Providence
13.99
-1.47
15.46
17
31
Syracuse
13.78
-1.15
14.93
20
32
Lindenwood
13.69
-1.20
14.89
20
33
Robert Morris
13.62
-0.75
14.37
20
34
Dartmouth
13.47
-2.00
15.47
12
35
Merrimack
13.18
-1.63
14.81
16
36
RPI
12.85
-2.00
14.85
19
37
Saint Anselm
12.81
0.71
12.10
17
38
Franklin Pierce
12.32
0.47
11.85
17
39
Sacred Heart
11.77
-0.33
12.10
15
40
Assumption
11.72
-0.44
12.16
18
41
Stonehill
11.66
-1.06
12.72
17
42
Delaware
11.35
-3.00
14.36
18
43
Post
11.01
-1.76
12.77
17
44
LIU
10.82
-0.64
11.46
14
45
Saint Michaels
8.60
-3.38
11.99
13
#1 Ranking Flip
When recent games are weighted more heavily, Ohio State takes over the top spot. Over the full season, Wisconsin remains #1.
• Without decay: Wisconsin #1 (20.00), Ohio State #2 (19.81) • With decay: Ohio State #1 (20.00), Wisconsin #2 (19.78)
Why the flip occurs
• Wisconsin: Goal differential drops from 4.06 → 3.96 due to early-season blowouts being de-weighted (e.g., 17–2 vs. Stonehill, 8–0 vs. Minnesota State). • Ohio State: Goal differential rises from 3.25 → 3.46, reflecting stronger recent games. • Game volume: Wisconsin has 18 games — more older results get discounted. Ohio State has 16 — more of their games retain full weight. • Decay math: Games older than ~60 days count at roughly 35% weight, boosting teams with stronger recent form.
Other Notable Shifts
• Minnesota State: +5 spots (11 → 6) — largest improvement • Bemidji State: –4 spots (24 → 28) — largest decline • 24 teams experienced movement between the two models
Got feedback on the ChampsRankSOS model? Submit feedback here
ChampsEyeQ combines objective data and expert insight to give players a clear development roadmap — showing not just what their rating is, but why and how to improve.
As more athletes are evaluated, ChampsEyeQ continually updates its benchmarks, giving families an evolving, data-backed view of what it takes to reach the NCAA Division I level.
🚀 Ready to See Where You Stand?
Submit your game footage today and receive your personalized ChampsEyeQ Player Evaluation Report. 👉 Start your submission at www.ChampsEyeQ.com
Aspiring to play NCAA women’s hockey? Your recruitment video is a key piece of the puzzle, but what exactly are college coaches looking for? We recently surveyed both D1 and DIII women’s hockey coaches for their specific video-submission preferences to give you the inside scoop. Forget the guesswork – here’s what you need to know to make your video stand out.
Keep It Concise: Less Than 6 Minutes is Key
First and foremost, keep your video submission under 6 minutes. Coaches are busy, and a succinct, impactful video is far more likely to be watched in its entirety. This isn’t the time for a lengthy highlight reel; focus on quality over quantity.
Video: Helpful, But Not the Only Factor
While your video is “somewhat important,” coaches emphasized that it’s helpful but not critical for their initial evaluation. Think of it as a strong supporting document that complements your athletic profile and academic achievements. It’s a tool to get you noticed, not the sole determinant of your recruitment.
What Kind of Footage Do They Prefer?
This is where many players go wrong. Coaches overwhelmingly prefer full game shift-by-shift footage with selected shifts from multiple games (e.g., 10-15 shifts). They want to see you in real-game scenarios, demonstrating your hockey sense and decision-making under pressure.
What to avoid? Tightly edited highlight reels with just goals or flashy plays. Coaches want to see the full sequence of play, not just the spectacular finish. This provides a much more accurate representation of your abilities.
How to Submit Your Video
The preferred methods for submission are straightforward: YouTube, Hudl, or Instat. Providing a profile/channel link or a direct email attachment (e.g., an .mp4 file) are both acceptable. Note: Coaches made it clear that they will almost always watch your videos via another service if you’re already in that system.
When to Submit
Consistency is important. Aim to submit new video during recruiting season every 1-3 months. This keeps coaches updated on your progress and reminds them of your interest.
Special Considerations for Goalies
Goalies, pay close attention! Coaches want to see a mix of both full games and a highlight reel. Critically, they prefer gameplay highlights over practice sessions. When it comes to the content, they’re looking for a breadth of skills, including:
Rebound control
Puck handling
Odd Man Rushes
Net Front Scrambles
High Danger Shots
Perhaps the most surprising insight for goalies: coaches find it helpful to show clips where you let in a goal but demonstrate strong fundamentals. This shows resilience, good technique even in challenging situations, and provides a more realistic assessment of your abilities than only showing perfect saves.
In Summary:
Length: Under 4 minutes.
Importance: Helpful, but not critical for initial evaluation.
Content: Full game shift-by-shift with selected shifts from multiple games (20-30 shifts). Full sequence clips, not just highlights.
Method: YouTube/Hudl/Instat link or direct email attachment. But know that coaches will review their own subscriptions service like Hudl/Instat to watch your footage.
Frequency: Every 1-3 months during recruiting season.
Goalies: Mix of full games & highlight reel, game play preferred, include clips demonstrating strong fundamentals even if a goal is scored.
By following these guidelines, you can create a recruitment video that truly resonates with Division 1 women’s hockey coaches and helps you take the next step in your athletic journey. Good luck!
We’re excited to introduce Champs App Profile 2.0 – a major upgrade to your already BEAUTIFUL and FREE profile on Champs App.
Whether you’re a player, parent, team coach, development coach, advisor, or agent, your profile just got more powerful.
Here’s what’s new:
🎥 Upload Videos Directly
No need to upload to YouTube first! Just drag and drop video files straight into your profile. You can now also add Vimeo links in addition to YouTube.
🤝 Add Trusted References
You can now list coaches, advisors, or other contacts as references—with their permission. You control who sees them with new privacy settings.
📅 Smarter Scheduling
Add event times and locations separately, and mark events as TBD when plans aren’t finalized yet.
📊 Elite Prospects Integration
Got an EP profile? Just paste your URL to import your stats. You can also add your EP profile to your social links section.
The recently approved NCAA House settlement is poised to fundamentally reshape collegiate athletics, and its impact on Division I men’s and women’s ice hockey programs will be significant. While many details are still emerging, the core changes revolve around athlete compensation, scholarship flexibility, and roster limits.
Understanding Scholarship Flexibility
For schools that opted into the NCAA House settlement, a critical change is the newfound flexibility in offering athletic scholarships. Previously, strict scholarship caps limited teams. Now, if a Division I hockey team cannot afford to offer the maximum of 26 full athletic scholarships, they have the discretion to offer fewer.
This flexibility stems from several key aspects of the settlement:
Roster Limit as a Maximum: The 26-player roster limit for Division I ice hockey is an absolute maximum. It dictates the highest number of players a team can have on its active roster, not a minimum or a mandated number of scholarships. Teams are not required to fill all 26 spots, nor are they required to offer full scholarships to all players on their roster.
Equivalency Scholarships: Under the new system, all athletic scholarships are “equivaency scholarships.” This grants schools the ability to:
Offer Partial Scholarships: For instance, instead of two full scholarships, a school might offer four half-scholarships.
Mix Full and Partial Scholarships: Teams can create a blended approach, with some players receiving full scholarships and others partial aid.
Offer Fewer Overall Scholarships: A school might decide that its budget allows for only 15 full scholarships, even if it carries 22 players on the roster. The remaining players would either be true walk-ons (receiving no athletic aid) or receive very small partial scholarships if financial resources permit.
Budgetary Constraints: The settlement introduces an annual cap on the total amount of revenue a school can share directly with athletes, starting at approximately $20.5 million for the first year. This cap includes scholarship costs that exceed previous limits. For many institutions, particularly those outside the major revenue-generating conferences, fully funding 26 scholarships for a hockey team in addition to other sports, while remaining within this overall cap, will present a significant financial challenge. Strategic decisions on fund allocation across all sports will be essential.
Strategic Roster Management: Coaches and athletic departments will need to balance their desired roster size for competitive reasons with their financial realities. Some may opt for a smaller, more highly funded roster, while others might spread aid among more players if their budget allows for a greater number of partial scholarships.
In summary, while the settlement removes the old scholarship caps and permits up to 26 scholarships for hockey, it does not mandate that a school must provide 26. Each institution will make its own decisions based on its financial capacity and athletic priorities.
The “Grandfather Rule” Exception
An important caveat to the strict roster limits is the “grandfathering” provision. Current or incoming 2025-26 student-athletes who were already on a roster or had a promised spot and would otherwise be cut due to the new limits are designated as “Designated Student-Athletes.” These individuals do not count against the 26-player limit for their remaining eligibility at their original institution or any transfer institution. However, once these players complete their eligibility, the strict 26-player cap will apply, reinforcing that the new system streamlines roster management: the number of players a team can carry is now the number they can offer aid (including scholarships and direct payments) to, up to that specific sport’s roster cap.
Schools Not Opting In
While the vast majority of Division I schools opted into the settlement (approximately 319 out of 389), some notable exceptions relevant to hockey exist:
The Ivy League: All eight Ivy League institutions, including their six hockey schools, have opted out. This decision aligns with their longstanding model of not awarding athletic scholarships or providing direct athletic compensation.
Military Academies: Institutions like Air Force and Army have opted out due to military rules that prevent their cadets from receiving Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation.
Other Hockey Programs: Certain other Division I hockey programs, such as Nebraska-Omaha, also chose not to opt in, often citing financial considerations or a desire to observe how the new system unfolds before committing.
Impact on Women’s Ice Hockey
The new rules could be beneficial for women’s hockey. Traditionally, women’s hockey teams have averaged around 25 roster spots. The new 26-player cap is very close to this average, suggesting less drastic changes in immediate roster size. This consistency may alleviate concerns about increasing roster sizes potentially forcing players into unhealthy competition for ice time or risking being healthy scratched.
However, schools like Sacred Heart, which have historically maintained larger women’s hockey rosters (sometimes exceeding 30 players), will face a significant adjustment. While the grandfather rule will mitigate immediate impacts for current players, these programs will see a necessary decrease in their roster size for future recruiting classes as the grandfathered players cycle out.
Impact on Men’s Ice Hockey
The new rules are expected to have a more pronounced impact on decreasing roster sizes in men’s hockey. On average, men’s teams have historically carried around 29 players. Given that men’s hockey tends to have more injuries than women’s hockey, larger rosters were often maintained to provide depth.
Now, these rosters will shrink to the 26-player maximum. While the grandfather rule will offer a short-term buffer, this ultimately means the overall number of players participating in Division I men’s hockey will decrease, potentially from approximately 1,800 players to 1,600 players across the country.
This reduction in available spots is further compounded by the recent change allowing Canadian junior players, who were previously ineligible due to stipends, to now play college hockey. This new pool of eligible talent will intensify competition for the fewer available roster spots in Division I men’s programs.
Last week, the hockey world turned its attention to the highly anticipated 2025 Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL) Draft, held on June 24th. As the league continues to solidify its place as the premier destination for elite female talent, the draft provided a fascinating snapshot of where the next generation of stars are coming from. Unsurprisingly, NCAA Division I programs once again proved to be the powerhouse pipeline, alongside a strong showing from European leagues.
Leading the charge in player development was Ohio State University, which saw an impressive six of its athletes selected, showcasing the strength and depth of their program. Close behind, the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) celebrated five of its own making the leap to professional ranks, reinforcing their consistent high-level output.
Quinnipiac University had a phenomenal draft, with four players hearing their names called, a testament to their growing influence in women’s hockey. Following them with three draftees each were Clarkson University, the University of Minnesota, and St. Cloud State University, highlighting the continued excellence across multiple conferences.
The draft also recognized talent emerging from beyond North American collegiate play, with three players selected directly from European leagues, emphasizing the global reach of the PWHL.
Further contributing to the NCAA’s robust representation, a strong contingent of programs each had two players drafted: Boston University, Colgate, Cornell, Penn State, Providence, St. Lawrence, UConn, and Wisconsin. Rounding out the selections were Boston College, Mercyhurst, Northeastern, and Yale, each celebrating one draftee.
Please note: The numbers above reflect the last college or university the drafted player attended. Schools like Wisconsin, Penn State, New Hampshire and Brown had drafted players transfer out prior to this past season.
With the surprise announcement that Brian Idalski will be leaving St. Cloud State to become the inaugural head coach of PWHL Vancouver, the Huskies face a critical decision. Idalski helped elevate the program’s competitiveness in the WCHA during his tenure, and his successor will be tasked with maintaining that upward trajectory. Here’s a breakdown of the leading candidates to take the reins—and how their credentials stack up in 2025.
Current Role: Associate Head Coach, St. Cloud State (2019–present)
Why She’s a Top Choice: A silver medalist with Team USA (2010) and two-time NCAA champion at Wisconsin, Zaugg‑Siergiej has been a steady hand behind the bench for the past six seasons. She knows the program inside and out, has strong relationships with current players and recruits, and would provide continuity at a time of transition. She has never been a head coach, but she’s well-positioned to step up.
Mira Jalosuo
Current Role: Assistant Coach, PWHL Minnesota (2023–present)
Why She’s a Top Choice: After spending the 2022–23 season as an assistant at St. Cloud, the Finnish Olympian joined Ken Klee’s staff in the PWHL and helped guide Minnesota to back-to-back Walter Cup championships. Known for her defensive acumen and elite playing background, Jalosuo brings both credibility and a championship mentality. Her return would inject high-level tactical knowledge and energy into the program.
Molly Engstrom
Current Role: Head Coach, University of Maine (since 2022)
Why She’s a Top Choice: A former assistant at St. Cloud State (2018–2022) and two-time U.S. Olympian, Engstrom has transformed Maine into a defensively responsible team. She was one of three finalists for the St. Cloud State job in 2022 before Idalski was ultimately hired. Her success at Maine and familiarity with SCSU make her a very attractive candidate—if she’s interested in returning.
Erik Strand
Current Role: Assistant Coach, University of Vermont (since May 2025)
Why He’s a Top Choice: Strand was also a finalist for the SCSU head coach role in 2022. Prior to joining Vermont, he spent 10 years as head coach at UW–Eau Claire, guiding the DIII program to consistent success, including multiple NCAA tournament appearances and conference championships. A veteran of player development and known for his high-character leadership, Strand is ready for the Division I spotlight.
🔁 Long-Shot Options
Jeff Giesen
Current Role: Associate Head Coach, Minnesota State
Why He’s Notable: Giesen was St. Cloud State’s head coach from 2006 to 2014, leading the team through eight seasons. While he’s been at Minnesota State for nearly a decade, his familiarity with the Huskies’ program and the WCHA landscape gives him a theoretical path back—though it’s unclear whether he’s looking for a return to head coaching.
Britni Smith
Current Role: Head Coach, Syracuse (since 2022)
Why She’s Notable: A former Clarkson assistant and Hockey Canada coach, Smith has turned around Syracuse’s program in the CHA. While she’s respected as a rising leader, her current commitment at Syracuse may keep her focused out east.
Nick Carpenito
Current Role: Associate Head Coach, Northeastern
Why He’s Notable: A key architect of Northeastern’s success over the past decade, Carpenito is highly respected in NCAA circles. A jump to head coach in the WCHA would be a bold but potentially rewarding move—for both sides.
Greg May
Current Role: Associate Head Coach, Minnesota (joined July 2023)
Former Augsburg University DIII Head Coach (Sept 2021–July 2023), where he led the team to back-to-back NCAA Division III appearances and MIAC titles with a 41–15–2 record
Named an assistant coach for the 2026 U.S. Women’s U18 National Team
Why He’s Notable: Proven leadership at DIII and college program building. Now adding national-team experience. A fresh, well-rounded external hire.
Dan Koch
Current Role: Assistant Coach, University of Wisconsin
Why He’s Notable: Koch has spent years in the powerhouse Wisconsin program, developing elite players. Like others on this list, he’d represent a fresh external hire with deep knowledge of what winning programs look like.
🏁 Final Thoughts: Familiarity or Fresh Blood?
St. Cloud State has no shortage of qualified candidates, and their decision may ultimately come down to priorities:
If the goal is continuity, promoting Zaugg‑Siergiej or recruiting Jalosuo back from the pros makes the most sense.
If the program seeks a proven leader, Engstrom or Strand—both past finalists—are strong, familiar names with NCAA and program-building experience.
For a bold shake-up, external hires like Carpenito, Smith, or Koch could introduce a new culture and broader recruiting reach.
Whoever takes over will inherit a program on the rise and a passionate fanbase eager for sustained WCHA and NCAA success.
The next head coach of the Tigers will almost certainly have deep ties to the Ivy League — if not Princeton itself. With the unique demands of balancing elite athletics and academics, experience within this system is not just preferred; it’s practically essential.
A number of qualified candidates already stand out as possible hires, and several have previously been part of the Princeton program.
Shelly Picard is a prominent contender. Currently an assistant coach at Long Island University, Picard served as a Princeton assistant coach from 2021 to 2023. A former U.S. National Team player, Picard combines elite playing experience with Ivy familiarity, and her recent time with Princeton gives her valuable insight into the current roster and culture.
Jamie Lundmark, Princeton’s current Director of Player Development and Assistant Coach since the 2023-24 season, could be an internal hire. A former NHL forward, Lundmark has already earned the trust of the current team and staff. While his Ivy League experience is limited, his presence in the program could provide needed continuity after Morey’s departure.
Another compelling candidate is Kelly Nash, currently the Head Coach at Long Island University. Nash was an assistant at Princeton from 2017 to 2019, playing a key role in the program’s growth during that period. With recent head coaching experience and a past connection to the university, she checks many of the right boxes.
Mel Ruzzi, now the Head Coach at Brown University, also brings a strong resume. She served as an assistant at Princeton from 2019 to 2021 before taking the helm at Brown, where she’s made steady progress. Her current Ivy League head coaching experience could be a significant asset in the selection process.
Lee-J Mirasolo, the current Head Coach at Stonehill College, has a long history with Princeton as an assistant from 2011 to 2015. She also spent nearly a decade at Harvard. Mirasolo’s combination of head coaching experience and extensive Ivy knowledge could make her a strong fit.
Edith Racine, Associate Head Coach at Cornell since 2009, brings over 18 years of Ivy League coaching experience. Though she has never coached at Princeton, her long tenure at Cornell — and previous time at Brown — demonstrates her deep understanding of the Ivy hockey landscape.
Among the longer shots, two names stand out. Courtney Kessel, who recently took over as Head Coach of the PWHL Boston franchise, was Princeton’s assistant coach from 2019 to 2023. While her new pro role might make her unavailable, she’d be a dream hire if interested. Jeff Kampersal, now at Penn State and formerly Princeton’s head coach for over two decades (1996–2017), also fits the mold — but a return seems unlikely.
With such a strong pool of candidates who know the Ivy League inside and out, Princeton is well-positioned to find a leader who can build on Morey’s legacy and continue to elevate the Tigers on and off the ice.
