PDA

View Full Version : Union College Dutchwomen 2015-16 thread



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

shelfit
12-12-2015, 10:05 PM
Didn't RIT go to the NCAA tournament last year? And, aren't they in a similar position as Union...good school academically, NO athletic scholarships. So, we can make all the excuses we want for Union Women's Hockey we want and find reasons why they continue to not win games. But, RIT wins games against good programs and they are in the same position. I would have to say that the problem is coaching and recruiting. Nobody said it was easy to win there or get good players, but I'd be willing to bet if they got somebody who worked tirelessly to land a few impact players things would start to turn around.

Very bad example / comparison. Everyone that is familiar with the game understands that RIT won their (weak) conference in a fluke last year to get the NCAA tournament. RIT no longer wins games against good programs. They barely beat Union this year. Poor coaching and recruiting is now showing up in the RIT program as well.

Flarrow
12-13-2015, 08:45 PM
Back on 2 Dec, HockeyEast33 made critically important points:
“Union (and really any school) can be successful at the D1 level with the right recipe of coach, resources, facilities, and players. Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level. What has happened there is proof that she cannot be successful in that environment, not that Union can't be successful at the D1 level. Until I see at least two more respected coaches take a shot and fail at Union on the women's side, I wouldn't give up on D1 yet. But they do need to make the change after this season just to purge the air and start over - Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level.”

“Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level”—Tim Gerrish had the potential to succeed as a D1 coach, and Union was courageous in giving him the chance, but the Athletic Director chose to fire him, for whatever reasons he had. Gerrish knew, and the players he recruited knew, that the program was going to have to struggle to move from D-III to D-I, and that it would take several years to get there. The AD never gave him that chance.

Since then “Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level”. Now you’re getting to the real problem. The AD replaced Gerrish with Barcomb, and since then McLaughlin has refused to see any problems. She has never shown she can coach (in games or in practice), recruit, manage players, fund-raise, or plan strategically. These players came/come to Union for a variety of reasons. Most benefit greatly from a Union education. Many of them would perhaps be bench warmers or practice players at other schools; the sad thing is that at Union that is what Barcomb sees them as, even though they could become the players the program needs to lift itself from the cellar.

What does Union women’s hockey need? A new coach…an alumni/fan support system like the men’s team has, … and a new AD. No single thing will fix the problem, which is not lack of scholarships. Good smart athletes come to Union to get an education and play the sport they love. They choose Union in large part because it is not part of a huge university system, or in a big city. If the team was well run, it could win. But like Gerrish said years ago, any new coach needs to be confident in having at least a few years to make the transition. Jim McLaughlin has proven that any coach that comes in can have as many as nine years without having to account for W/L or standings accountability. Unfortunately, according to HE33, it could be 2033 before we see ‘SUCCESS’. That’s quite a few Union women graduates…and many more lost games. Go U!

PuckRush
12-13-2015, 08:54 PM
Back on 2 Dec, HockeyEast33 made critically important points:
“Union (and really any school) can be successful at the D1 level with the right recipe of coach, resources, facilities, and players. Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level. What has happened there is proof that she cannot be successful in that environment, not that Union can't be successful at the D1 level. Until I see at least two more respected coaches take a shot and fail at Union on the women's side, I wouldn't give up on D1 yet. But they do need to make the change after this season just to purge the air and start over - Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level.”

“Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level”—Tim Gerrish had the potential to succeed as a D1 coach, and Union was courageous in giving him the chance, but the Athletic Director chose to fire him, for whatever reasons he had. Gerrish knew, and the players he recruited knew, that the program was going to have to struggle to move from D-III to D-I, and that it would take several years to get there. The AD never gave him that chance.

Since then “Union has effectively had only one coach at the D1 level”. Now you’re getting to the real problem. The AD replaced Gerrish with Barcomb, and since then McLaughlin has refused to see any problems. She has never shown she can coach (in games or in practice), recruit, manage players, fund-raise, or plan strategically. These players came/come to Union for a variety of reasons. Most benefit greatly from a Union education. Many of them would perhaps be bench warmers or practice players at other schools; the sad thing is that at Union that is what Barcomb sees them as, even though they could become the players the program needs to lift itself from the cellar.

What does Union women’s hockey need? A new coach…an alumni/fan support system like the men’s team has, … and a new AD. No single thing will fix the problem, which is not lack of scholarships. Good smart athletes come to Union to get an education and play the sport they love. They choose Union in large part because it is not part of a huge university system, or in a big city. If the team was well run, it could win. But like Gerrish said years ago, any new coach needs to be confident in having at least a few years to make the transition. Jim McLaughlin has proven that any coach that comes in can have as many as nine years without having to account for W/L or standings accountability. Unfortunately, according to HE33, it could be 2033 before we see ‘SUCCESS’. That’s quite a few Union women graduates…and many more lost games. Go U!

The point here is correct. Anyone that has dealt with Barcomb on some level during her tenure at Union knows it too.

Puckdrop14
12-14-2015, 06:40 AM
The point here is correct. Anyone that has dealt with Barcomb on some level during her tenure at Union knows it too.

Coaching maybe, but line up a few goal scorers and you will be ok as you seem to have a goaltender that is stopping 95% of anything sent her way!

FanofGoodHockey
12-14-2015, 10:10 AM
Agree with Flarrow on all accounts to this. Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that the AD is the bigger problem here in not making any changes. So, we can complain about the coaching all we want, but her boss is continuing to give her the shovel to keep digging the hole. Probably another contract extension in her future.

rdf8585
12-14-2015, 11:35 AM
With a 1-0 loss at Maine on Friday, Union's winless streak reached 34 games. That set a new NCAA D1 women's hockey record for the longest winless streak. The next day, the streak was extended to 35 games with a 2-2 tie at Maine.

Union is 0-24-11 during the streak. The Dutchwomen haven't won a game since a 2-0 win vs Maine on Dec. 12, 2014.

I thought they might have gotten a win this past weekend, considering Maine had lost 9 of 10 coming in.

Union also owned the old winless streak mark of 33, set between Nov. 2006 and Nov. 2007.

Skate79
12-19-2015, 11:16 AM
Many of them would perhaps be bench warmers or practice players at other schools; the sad thing is that at Union that is what Barcomb sees them as, even though they could become the players the program needs to lift itself from the cellar.

If I understand your post, you are saying that Barcomb sees these players as nothing more than bench or practice players? Then why in the world would she recruit them if she was at all interested in winning? That doesn't make sense. Do you really believe that Barcomb doesn't care about wins and losses? I have a hard time believing that given that she came from a winning program and a culture that expects to compete for a national championship year in and year out. Maybe another coach could get more from these players. Maybe not. If it is the AD, okay that's another matter. If admissions isn't giving her a break with admits to some borderline players, that also could contribute. There may be a number of factors at play here that have nothing to do with Barcomb. I'm not a Union insider so I don't know but Claudia doesn't strike me as someone who isn't competitive and accepts losing regularly as a fact of life. This has to be hard on her as well.

Flarrow
12-19-2015, 04:32 PM
OK, so beat me up now because I've written another long post...
Skate79 --- you’ve been on this site even longer than I have. We read and write about teams we watch: home teams, visiting teams, year in, year out...
Barcomb has been coaching Union women’s hockey for NINE YEARS… I have no clue what or how she believes, or what or how you believe. But yes, she “came from a winning program and a culture that expects to compete for a national championship year in and year out” --- a winning program where she was a player, not a coach. She came to Union, hired by the current AD, without any D1 coaching experience.
Over these 9 years, I’ve witnessed her coaching and her recruiting. Where she goes to recruit, who she selects; they are usually talented players, who have room to grow, but she has appeared to only recruit players that other schools may not want. (May not want, not do not want) But even when they arrive, she cannot get them to play her systems, if she has any. I have come to feel that it’s because she doesn’t have a clue how to coach individual players to become teammates on a Union team that plays a ‘Union system’. That’s why I believe she is an unsuccessful coach.
She inherited a great goalie when she arrived, and since then she has learned that there are very good goalies to recruit who can stop D1 shots. But after one year or nine years, she can’t get the defense to clear pucks out to attacking forwards: look at how many games have the opposing team comes in, shoots, is blocked by the goalie, regains the puck, shoots, is blocked, regains the puck, shoots and scores. I have not seen her get one defensive line to play consistent defense, let alone two lines —even though as a player she played both ways. She recruits players who have demonstrated that they can do that, and a quality coach, a D1 coach, should be able to remind the players of what they already know to do—these are not untrained 12U players. They are young women who have been playing winning hockey for years. They have more right to be frustrated than you or I do, or the coaches.
The Union players come in with the skills to play competitive hockey, perhaps not dominating hockey, but competitive hockey, but she can’t get two lines to play for her, even if they want to play for Union. She tends to play one line until they are exhausted, and then blame them. It’s not necessarily the players, but we will never really know this unless another coach can come in and succeed with the three years of players that the new coach will inherit. So the first big unanswerable question: Could they play differently for a different coach?
“There may be a number of factors at play here that have nothing to do with Barcomb”. Sorry, the first layer of responsibility is hers. I’ve watched a decade of Union women who have the skills to play in D1 and should not spend their entire college career losing. And I’ve seen many of them move on, and keep playing amateur women’s hockey ---and be winners! Over the years these players should have been able to play under a coaching staff that leads a competitive team. Not a college team that has a “winless streak reach 34 games[, setting] a new NCAA D1 women's hockey record for the longest winless streak. The next day, the streak was extended to 35 games with a 2-2 tie at Maine.”
“I'm not a Union insider.” Neither am I. I am a fan, an observer, someone who loves the sport of hockey and has seen how it can contribute to the personal development of the majority of young women and men who have played it. But what’s happened at Union is an aberration. Barcomb holds much of the responsibility, but so does the AD and the administration. It does not appear that there is any pressure on McLaughlin to make changes; as long as he fields a women’s team, a long history gives evidence that neither he nor the Union administration cares if it wins. It appears that Union’s administration and alumni want its men’s teams to win, and to maintain a winning men's D1 hockey program, but to do that it must have a women’s team. However Title IX requires only that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. It does not require that both D1 teams be competitive or winning teams. And I think that’s where the real problem at Union lies. Unanswerable question #2: [I]Why does Union not want a winning women's team?

Skate79
12-19-2015, 05:23 PM
Flarrow, I'm not beating up on you. Don't take it so personally. I appreciate the fact that you love college hockey and are a Union fan. It's a great school and certainly the men have brought national attention which of course leads to better recruiting. For them.

I actually think Union is more competitive than nine years ago. Not a lot obviously but more competitive. In those days, Harvard routinely turned those games into shooting galleries and Union could not manage to get the puck out of harm's way. Shot totals were often 55-6. When they played Harvard earlier this season, the team at least looked like a D-1 school, had a breakout pattern and a semblance of a system. And from my vantage point, everyone played, some more than others but no one looked 'exhausted' as you put it.

I'm not saying that Claudia is a great coach by any stretch. But to intimate that she is looking for practice or bench players just doesn't make sense to me. And if you are not a Union insider, how do you have so much knowledge about the school's athletic department and AD? Have you sat down and spoken with Claudia about the program? What about the AD? Had any convos with him or her? If you are going to rail against a program or specific individuals, you might want to investigate and ask hard questions. You may not get answers or the ones you are looking for but at least you can make them aware of your dissatisfaction. When Mark Mazzoleni was coaching the men's program at Harvard, I wrote to the AD to express my dissatisfaction with the program based on feedback and conversations with parents, players and alums including former players. I offered concrete suggestions for improvement. If you want Union to become a force in the ECAC, make the case to those who will listen. If it's not the AD, then look for someone else. Just a suggestion since you seem passionate about the team and the school.

FanofGoodHockey
12-20-2015, 05:30 PM
I agree with all of your points Flarrow. Though, I will say...Claudia does have D1 coaching experience. She was an assistant coach under Stone at Harvard....though that's probably where some of her problems (lack of recruiting and coaching) lie. A) you don't have to work too hard to recruit at Harvard, besides determining if a prospect has high enough grades to get in. Harvard sells itself; unless a top prospect is getting offered a full scholarship to play at Wisconsin or Minnesota. B) I am not sure Coach Stone is a coach who has the ability to develop her assistants, nor do I believe she is a top level coach. Take the Olympics for example: team USA ahead at the end of the game. Huge face off in the Defensive zone and she looked completely clueless on the bench and her assistant had to jump in and draw up the strategy at the end of the game. As the Head Coach of the Olympic team, one would think at the end of the game where it's a crucial last few minutes that you would want to be in charge during that time out. So, it's not like she served under some great coach before she came to Union. So therein lies your issues....no work ethic in recruiting and lack of development prior to becoming a Head Coach. I'm sure I'm going to get eaten up for pointing out the flaws of the "All Mighty Katey Stone."

shelfit
12-20-2015, 10:14 PM
I agree with all of your points Flarrow. Though, I will say...Claudia does have D1 coaching experience. She was an assistant coach under Stone at Harvard....though that's probably where some of her problems (lack of recruiting and coaching) lie. A) you don't have to work too hard to recruit at Harvard, besides determining if a prospect has high enough grades to get in. Harvard sells itself; unless a top prospect is getting offered a full scholarship to play at Wisconsin or Minnesota. B) I am not sure Coach Stone is a coach who has the ability to develop her assistants, nor do I believe she is a top level coach. Take the Olympics for example: team USA ahead at the end of the game. Huge face off in the Defensive zone and she looked completely clueless on the bench and her assistant had to jump in and draw up the strategy at the end of the game. As the Head Coach of the Olympic team, one would think at the end of the game where it's a crucial last few minutes that you would want to be in charge during that time out. So, it's not like she served under some great coach before she came to Union. So therein lies your issues....no work ethic in recruiting and lack of development prior to becoming a Head Coach. I'm sure I'm going to get eaten up for pointing out the flaws of the "All Mighty Katey Stone."

Most coaching staffs have certain in-game roles and responsibilities divided between them well in advance and throughout the season so if it's a late game faceoff or a PP or whatever the coach (head or assistant) in charge of that responsibility will take charge of that moment during a timeout. You see it all the time all the way up to the NHL. It shows you have certain set plays already designed and practiced so when that moment comes up in a game the coach in charge is simply reminding everyone of their individual roles and tasks for that set play. If that is an assistant's area of responsibility then there's no reason for the head coach to take over that moment since it's not necessary. You don't need to panic or potentially undermine your assistant coaches. If they have a job to do in that particular situation then you let them do it showing full trust and support. Besides you've already directed the assistant coaches by showing them what you want behind closed doors when it's just the coaching staff by themselves so you've already controlled that moment well in advance. What we all see on TV is the end result of all that behind the scenes preparation but make no mistake about it the head coach makes those decisions. To think otherwise is incorrect.

PuckRush
12-21-2015, 07:03 PM
I agree with all of your points Flarrow. Though, I will say...Claudia does have D1 coaching experience. She was an assistant coach under Stone at Harvard....though that's probably where some of her problems (lack of recruiting and coaching) lie. A) you don't have to work too hard to recruit at Harvard, besides determining if a prospect has high enough grades to get in. Harvard sells itself; unless a top prospect is getting offered a full scholarship to play at Wisconsin or Minnesota. B) I am not sure Coach Stone is a coach who has the ability to develop her assistants, nor do I believe she is a top level coach. Take the Olympics for example: team USA ahead at the end of the game. Huge face off in the Defensive zone and she looked completely clueless on the bench and her assistant had to jump in and draw up the strategy at the end of the game. As the Head Coach of the Olympic team, one would think at the end of the game where it's a crucial last few minutes that you would want to be in charge during that time out. So, it's not like she served under some great coach before she came to Union. So therein lies your issues....no work ethic in recruiting and lack of development prior to becoming a Head Coach. I'm sure I'm going to get eaten up for pointing out the flaws of the "All Mighty Katey Stone."

Shelfit is right. At college and pro level (and some high school), there is a coach on the bench responsible for defensive zone face-offs. In the case of Team USA, it was an assistant coach.

Skate79
12-22-2015, 01:46 PM
"Prior to her time in Sochi, she led the USA to gold at the 2013 IIHF Women's World Championships, where the United States upended Canada, 3-2. Before that, Stone led the Red, White and Blue to silver at the 2012 IIHF Women's World Championship in Burlington, Vt., and gold at the 2011 IIHF Women's World Championship in Zurich, Switzerland. Aside from the success on the World Championships stage, Stone has guided the Americans in five Four Nations Cups in total, including leading the U.S. to gold in 2008, 2011 and 2012.

While in Cambridge, Stone has led the Crimson to an incredible 429-177-38 (.697) record in her tenure following the 2014-15 campaign, including the 1999 AWCHA national championship, four appearances in the NCAA championship game (2003, 2004, 2005, 2015), 11 NCAA tournament appearances in the event’s 15-year history, seven ECAC regular-season titles, six ECAC tournament championships, eight Ivy League titles and 11 Beanpots. Stone is just the fourth coach in women’s college hockey history to win 300 games and became the first to reach the 400-win plateau during the 2012-13 campaign."

Yup, she is a total zero when it comes to coaching. Can see that from a mile away. I've seen some truly dumb comments posted on USCHO but to say that Katey isn't a top flight coach is simply stupid. She has her flaws like everyone else but you can't argue her record, player development and recruiting. Claudia learned from one of the best in the game; it doesn't necessarily follow that she herself will be a great coach or turn Union into a powerhouse. If you don't believe me, look at the Belichick coaching tree. Not much to choose from there.

KTDC
12-22-2015, 02:21 PM
She has her flaws like everyone else but you can't argue her record, player development and recruiting. .

It's easy to overlook the good and only see what you perceive as the flaws (see: Leveille). Friends of mine who are Gopher basketball fans recently told a story of while on vacation in Hawaii they met A Michigan State fan who then proceeded to regale them with complaints about the coaching of Tom Izzo :p

HockeyEast33
12-22-2015, 09:34 PM
You guys can go on forever about Barcomb's coaching history, her tutelage (or lack thereof) under Stone, and Stone's greatness or lack thereof - none of it really matters. Barcomb has had 9 years at Union, hasn't found a way to success for whatever reason, and it's time to see if anyone else can do better. This is clearly on track to be their worst season in many (which is definitely saying something) and they are pretty much the laughingstock of D1 women's hockey. Regardless of why Barcomb has failed (and she has failed without a doubt as a coach at Union), it's time to try something else. Doesn't mean she is a bad person, there are lots of good people who have failed at things.

EastFan1
12-23-2015, 11:43 AM
You guys can go on forever about Barcomb's coaching history, her tutelage (or lack thereof) under Stone, and Stone's greatness or lack thereof - none of it really matters. Barcomb has had 9 years at Union, hasn't found a way to success for whatever reason, and it's time to see if anyone else can do better. This is clearly on track to be their worst season in many (which is definitely saying something) and they are pretty much the laughingstock of D1 women's hockey. Regardless of why Barcomb has failed (and she has failed without a doubt as a coach at Union), it's time to try something else. Doesn't mean she is a bad person, there are lots of good people who have failed at things.

Through the half way point of the season, she arguably recruited the most valuable freshman in the country at any position. Either she saw something no one else did, or she convinced the player to go to Union with no athletic money. Either way awesome for Union.

hab
12-23-2015, 08:16 PM
Through the half way point of the season, she arguably recruited the most valuable freshman in the country at any position. Either she saw something no one else did, or she convinced the player to go to Union with no athletic money. Either way awesome for Union.

Does this super recruit have a name?

HockeyEast33
12-24-2015, 08:42 PM
Does this super recruit have a name?

Assume this is referencing Melissa Black. She is doing very well. The team is still winless in 35 (?) games. Getting a good goalie recruit every 4 years doesn't make a coach a good one. Way past time for a change.

hab
12-26-2015, 09:20 AM
Assume this is referencing Melissa Black. She is doing very well. The team is still winless in 35 (?) games. Getting a good goalie recruit every 4 years doesn't make a coach a good one. Way past time for a change.

Yes, I thought that the reference was probably to Black, but just checking. Another reading of the post could be a reference to a new recruit for future years, signed during the first half of this year, but I couldn't see anyone in their list of recruits that would fit the description.

hockeydad09
01-21-2016, 01:14 PM
[QUOTE=HockeyEast33;6244166]You guys can go on forever about Barcomb's coaching history, her tutelage (or lack thereof) under Stone, and Stone's greatness or lack thereof - none of it really matters. Barcomb has had 9 years at Union, hasn't found a way to success for whatever reason, and it's time to see if anyone else can do better. This is clearly on track to be their worst season in many (which is definitely saying something) and they are pretty much the laughingstock of D1 women's hockey. Regardless of why Barcomb has failed (and she has failed without a doubt as a coach at Union), it's time to try something else. Doesn't mean she is a bad person, there are lots of good people who have failed at things.[/QUOTE

Barcomb must go! She has the worst coaching record and this year the team has zero wins. It is quite pathetic and it is unbelievable that the AD hasn't let her go. The AD should get fired also for letting this go on for so long. He obviously isn't doing his job. Hopefully, for the team's sake her contract will not be extended again. The team needs a fresh start---it can't possibly get any worse--unless of course Barcomb gets her contract extended.