Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by ShootDePuckNo View Post
    Do you think that this story plays out differently at a scholarship school as opposed to a private university where aid is based on need? I would think that the biggest fear of a non-scholarship school coach is not losing, but rather that some of these recruited players decide after 1-2 seasons that they just want to be regular students. That seems like potentially wasted time and effort. For the scholarship schools, this is not an issue. If you chose to just be a student, you now must pay your own way. If the coach doesn't like you, they can just take away your scholarship and send you to the transfer portal.

    If this story has any validity, away from what was deemed as insulting terminology, why would any coach want to drive away players after working so hard to recruit and retain them?
    Someone had mentioned that Quinnipiac went through something like this in 2015 and I believe they offer athletic scholarships to their D-1 women's and men's hockey teams. The coach who was the subject of complaints from Bobcat players was either fired or stepped down.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Trillium View Post
      By the way, this isn't finished being explored in more depth in the media. There are other noted media outlets contacting other former players beyond the sources in the Boston Globe article to get their stories.
      If the NY Times does a piece on this travesty, then it will get Harvard's attention. But I can tell you that this happened in the men's program with Mark Mazzoleni and that despite numerous complaints and letters from alumni, parents, and players, the athletic department ignored it until they couldn't. Then Mazz 'quietly' stepped down and Teddy took over. I expect the same will happen in this case only sooner given the media attention and the intervention of the indigenous tribes in Canada. I learned during a cross-country trip I took by train from eastern to western Canada that you don't mess with the Canadian indigenous tribes under any circumstances. They mean business as Harvard is about to find out.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Trillium View Post

        I don't know squat about Bob Holher or his history. What I do know is that there are several women's hockey programs in addition to this one, where inappropriate and/or abusive behaviours by long time "well-respected" winning Head Coaches were enabled and swept under the carpet for many years by their administrations, to the long-term detriment of their student-athletes. Thank god for media outlets and reporters like Bob Hohler who eventually shine a light on this. It's sadly the only way to force schools to take action. Without exposure in the media, the mistreatment would never stop.

        In the past 10 classes of freshman who have now graduated from Harvard, 36% of the student-athletes were not rostered 4 years. In the past 5 classes, that rises to 47%! These figures are way beyond the average of other D1 and Ivy programs, and should be unacceptable to the administration. Even athletes who did graduate, including Peper found the experience and environment toxic. One's university years are supposed to be a highlight in life, not a nightmare to be endured.

        This high level of attrition, as well as the lowest student satisfaction level among 42 Harvard teams, is a huge red flag to a coaching problem within, as it was with McCloskey et al. Why don't athletes want to continue to play for her? If it's that the student athletes were just "too soft" or "not talented enough", why is she still such an awful recruiter after 25+ years experience?! It's also telling that very few athletes in her program proportionately who do stay, ever improve their stats significantly over their 4 years with her. Why has that never seem ed odd to HH supporters? She does not develop the talent she recruits, but in a high proportion of cases, she actually manages to destroy the confidence and thus denigrates the inherent talent of the players she brings in.

        So you can villainize Bob Hohler, and question his motives, but I don't understand how or why you would wish to defend a coach whose behaviour has been appalling, and who, by objective metrics over the past 10 years (as noted above, and by her playoff performance) is no longer deserving of her position.
        I for one think Hohler is terrific and I'm glad he did this piece. I don't think anyone except her most ardent admirers is defending Coach Stone at this point. The evidence is damning, and I am supremely disappointed in my alma mater for allowing this to fester for so long and doing nothing about it. The university comes across as hypocritical when it emails alumni like me trumpeting values such as diversity and inclusion and then turning a blind eye to Coach Stone's behavior. It's time to clean house and bring in a new staff.

        Comment


        • #94
          Not that different is the story of legendary Olympic and Cal swim coach Teri McKeever. She was fired on Feb 1 after an investigation….the stories have so many parallels if you dig in. Emotional abuse, favoritism, forcing athletes to play through injuries. I read most of this last summer …but here is a link on the firing

          https://www.foxnews.com/sports/cal-f...nt-allegations

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Skate79 View Post

            Someone had mentioned that Quinnipiac went through something like this in 2015 and I believe they offer athletic scholarships to their D-1 women's and men's hockey teams. The coach who was the subject of complaints from Bobcat players was either fired or stepped down.
            He was fired.

            https://theqbsn.com/2015/10/former-w...0abuse%20arose.

            His assistant Cas Turner (in the picture of the article) took over and has done one great job at the Q.

            I think former assistant Maura Crowell would jump at the chance of taking over for Katie. Any other thoughts.
            Last edited by vicb; 02-04-2023, 08:05 AM.
            Fan of CLARKSON: 2014, 2017 & 2018 NC$$ WOMEN'S DIV 1 HOCKEY NATIONAL CHAMPIONS *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********
            And of 3 Patty Kaz recepients: Jamie Lee Rattray, Loren Gabel and Elizabeth Giguere
            WHOOOOOOOOO WHOOOOOOOOO
            If Union Can Do It So Can CCT (One of These Years) *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by vicb View Post
              I think former assistant Maura Crowell would jump at the chance of taking over for Katie. Any other thoughts.
              Why would she leave a program that she revitalized?

              Comment


              • #97
                Yes I am a Coach Stone fan but I think I have been pretty clear that she needs to go and she needs to go now. The fact that she is still on the bench is shocking to everyone. I hear there is more disturbing stuff that is currently being investigated by the school including very serious recent hazing allegations. Really disturbing stuff and supposedly Coach Stone was aware. I know they recently kicked a player off the team for bullying but not sure if these 2 issues are related. Harvard need to address this now before they end up losing more players. Just a terrible season for HWH

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Steamboat View Post

                  Why would she leave a program that she revitalized?
                  I had the same thought. Unless she is a Mass native and wants to come home.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by reggiedunlap9 View Post
                    Yes I am a Coach Stone fan but I think I have been pretty clear that she needs to go and she needs to go now. The fact that she is still on the bench is shocking to everyone. I hear there is more disturbing stuff that is currently being investigated by the school including very serious recent hazing allegations. Really disturbing stuff and supposedly Coach Stone was aware. I know they recently kicked a player off the team for bullying but not sure if these 2 issues are related. Harvard need to address this now before they end up losing more players. Just a terrible season for HWH
                    With two weeks to go in the regular season and possibly one more week if they make the playoffs, I'm guessing that Harvard won't make a decision until early March. Unless of course Coach Stone steps down voluntarily. I don't see that happening but you never know.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vicb View Post

                      He was fired.

                      https://theqbsn.com/2015/10/former-w...0abuse%20arose.

                      His assistant Cas Turner (in the picture of the article) took over and has done one great job at the Q.

                      I think former assistant Maura Crowell would jump at the chance of taking over for Katie. Any other thoughts.
                      Thanks for providing the link. Crowell would be a great 'get' but as I posted in response to Steamboat, I don't see why she would leave M-D. I don't know the women's coaching landscape so I have no insight into who would be a sure-fire candidate to replace Coach Stone.

                      Comment


                      • I would love for Lee-J Mirasolo to get chance …I loved her at Princeton too….but I think this maybe a case of cleaning out the whole staff

                        Comment


                        • Here's more details for reference on the Seeley case. It documents verbal and emotional abuse for more than a decade across two universities that were reported and ignored by both schools administrations despite negative player feedback. His behaviour was not all that dissimilar to Stone over a very long time period--the use of fear, manipulation, loss of playing time/threats of being cut, belittling, causing long-term mental health issues of former players. It's no wonder athletes don't see the point in reporting mistreatment when the administrations just don't care. All that counts is winning, and bringing in donations, and trying to save face. And coaches never being held accountable for their abuses due to cozy relationships with the administration further emboldens them.

                          Seeley's lawsuit against QU was eventually dismissed, and there appears to be no record of his lawsuit against a former Clarkson parent for libel ever going to trial either.

                          https://quchronicle.com/57702/sports...nce-2009-2010/

                          Said a recent HH Senior in her Senior Perspectives article, in discussing how her experience at Harvard was not what she expected--and now haunting in light of recent public revelations about Stone-- "I began to associate my value as a person to who I was as a hockey player. Or, even worse, what others thought of me as a hockey player. It became difficult for me to separate hockey from other aspects of my life." Those who have not been in shoes of varsity athletes cannot understand how being told you are worthless and inadequate as a player/person, becoming terrified of making a mistake in a game that will raise the coach's ire, having ice time suddenly withheld as retribution for petty grievances, not only impacts your playing ability and perceived talent, but it negatively impacts every aspect of your life and has long-term consequences on self-concept and emotional well-being that extend far beyond the game.

                          It's been infuriating to hear criticisms that most players at Harvard for the past couple of decades lacked talent, when those who were familiar with their play pre-Harvard know full-well that was not at all the case. The soul-crushing mind games and over-reliance on two lines Stone has always been noted for, hardly bring out the best in any players--especially those who didn't indulge in undeserved constant fawning adoration and praise of Stone generally required to become a coach-fav, nor were willing to spy/rat out their classmates in return for special favours, nor had the luck to have an affiliation with major program donors. The myth of a meritocracy at Harvard has always been just that. Being one of the precious few who could inexplicably do no wrong in her eyes year after year (despite much evidence to the contrary) led to a very different experience on the team than the overall negative experience of most, and the traumatic experience of the few she undeservingly chose to scapegoat as examples for others to keep everyone afraid of her. Generally there has been little to no difference in the talent, work-ethic, off attitude or off-ice behaviour of those who found themselves in the first (coaches pets) and last (scapegoats) categories over the years. Often the scapegoats became those with natural leadership qualities that Stone saw as a threat.

                          How do I know this to be true? In addition to intimate inside knowledge, I also know well more than a dozen players and/or other families who have played in her programs across many different years since the mid 00s through to current. As I previously said, her reputation has been an open secret in hockey circles for a really long time. People have just been willing to overlook it because of the draw of a Harvard education, presumably hoping they will be one of the lucky few, or because they place inordinate focus on being part of a "winning program".

                          It's no surprise that Harvard is now calling on its loyal donors to come to her/its defence against those who have had to suffer for so long, rather than facing the truth and engaging ethically in the appropriate next steps. So predictable. And so disappointing.



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trillium View Post
                            Said a recent HH Senior in her Senior Perspectives article, in discussing how her experience at Harvard was not what she expected--and now haunting in light of recent public revelations about Stone-- "I began to associate my value as a person to who I was as a hockey player. Or, even worse, what others thought of me as a hockey player. It became difficult for me to separate hockey from other aspects of my life." Those who have not been in shoes of varsity athletes cannot understand how being told you are worthless and inadequate as a player/person, becoming terrified of making a mistake in a game that will raise the coach's ire, having ice time suddenly withheld as retribution for petty grievances, not only impacts your playing ability and perceived talent, but it negatively impacts every aspect of your life and has long-term consequences on self-concept and emotional well-being that extend far beyond the game.

                            It's been infuriating to hear criticisms that most players at Harvard for the past couple of decades lacked talent, when those who were familiar with their play pre-Harvard know full-well that was not at all the case. The soul-crushing mind games and over-reliance on two lines Stone has always been noted for, hardly bring out the best in any players--especially those who didn't indulge in undeserved constant fawning adoration and praise of Stone generally required to become a coach-fav, nor were willing to spy/rat out their classmates in return for special favours, nor had the luck to have an affiliation with major program donors. The myth of a meritocracy at Harvard has always been just that. Being one of the precious few who could inexplicably do no wrong in her eyes year after year (despite much evidence to the contrary) led to a very different experience on the team than the overall negative experience of most, and the traumatic experience of the few she undeservingly chose to scapegoat as examples for others to keep everyone afraid of her. Generally there has been little to no difference in the talent, work-ethic, off attitude or off-ice behaviour of those who found themselves in the first (coaches pets) and last (scapegoats) categories over the years. Often the scapegoats became those with natural leadership qualities that Stone saw as a threat.

                            How do I know this to be true? In addition to intimate inside knowledge, I also know well more than a dozen players and/or other families who have played in her programs across many different years since the mid 00s through to current. As I previously said, her reputation has been an open secret in hockey circles for a really long time. People have just been willing to overlook it because of the draw of a Harvard education, presumably hoping they will be one of the lucky few, or because they place inordinate focus on being part of a "winning program".

                            It's no surprise that Harvard is now calling on its loyal donors to come to her/its defence against those who have had to suffer for so long, rather than facing the truth and engaging ethically in the appropriate next steps. So predictable. And so disappointing.
                            It is beyond sad that a Harvard Senior has to admit that her value was tied to the sport she played rather than who she is as a person. What is infuriating is that the administration has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to this problem and allowed it to continue for all these years. As an alum and a donor, this really steams me. Harvard will not get another cent from me until this is resolved by cleaning house. Harvard owes these student/athletes a ginormous apology in writing and a sizable donation to charities that support indigenous people, and mental health issues including verbal and physical abuse. If Harvard can fund a study to examine the effects of slavery, they sure as heck can do right by these young women.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Skate79 View Post
                              You said a couple of weeks ago that Harvard was a hot mess and did not agree with me when i laid the blame on the coaching playbook. Now you want to change the narrative? Okay, no problem but I don’t appreciate the sanctimonious tone of your post accusing me of flogging a dead horse. You’re off base there

                              While this thread is racing along it’s important to re-visit where we’ve been, while the body is still warm.

                              If you look at the header of this thread and its very first post you will see that it was clear from day one that something was seriously amiss with this team (Reed’s absence included). It wasn’t until the Globe story broke that we had any insight into the hot mess that had been forthcoming. The story made it even clearer to me that Stone’s playbook had little to do with crippling the season, unless the word “playbook” is understood in the most expansive sense possible —— crisis management on and off the ice. The narrative wasn’t flipped, it was filled in, making clear just how commendable were the efforts of these players, under these circumstances. (Where are the players in your world?) So this was not a good season, pre- or post-Globe, to read your chronically sour comments about the team’s play. Granted, this view may or may not be coming from an occasionally sanctimonious fan, but there it is.





                              Comment


                              • A quick stroll past the Boynton Lounge on Friday afternoon tells you everything you need to know about the state of HWH. There weren't a lot of craft brews and chardonnays being taken down between periods - lots of angry faces, parents refusing to speak with other families, former players incapable of looking you in the face due to complete embarrassment......trailing 3-0 to Princeton after 20 minutes didn't help either.

                                I think when the book is written on Stone, it will no longer be a tribute to this vocal champion of Title IX and LGBTQ empowerment, but rather a compilation of how a bully used her position, her staff and a manipulative AD to torment and discriminate against those who didn't buy in to her mandate. No "legend" ever wants to go out like this, but I wonder if Bobby Knight, Joe Paterno/Jerry Sandusky or Teri McKeever exhibited the same arrogance in thinking that it was actually up to them and on their terms.

                                This needs to end now. I can't believe the administration is still allowing her on the bench....especially with the added attention brought on by the Beanpot. The NESN spin on Tuesday night should be interesting to say the least.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X