Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[ARM]

This article tells me all I need to know about the Harvard Athletic department. Mcdermott has no comments about these serious allegations regarding Coach Stone but instead wants to talk about Harvard Athletics policy on Diversity and Inclusion ? Just remarkable.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...k-initiatives/

One would think that the lessons from Penn State and Michigan State would enlighten administrations to the fact that talking about attendance and fundraising won't save you if there has been abuse in your program and you failed to take action. Not saying anything here is close to that level, but the takeaway has to be that programs must investigate in good faith sooner, because problems are compounded when it is left for later. Or more naively, you look objectively into these claims because it's the right thing to do.

[Nobody98]

This article tells me all I need to know about the Harvard Athletic department. Mcdermott has no comments about these serious allegations regarding Coach Stone but instead wants to talk about Harvard Athletics policy on Diversity and Inclusion ? Just remarkable.


https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...k-initiatives/

McDermott was reportedly at the recent Harvard Women’s Hockey alumni event where she gave a speech to the room praising Stone as a heroic trailblazer of women’s sports. This was AFTER Hohler alerted her and Stone about the allegations in the article. Meanwhile, Stone was there behaving like the celebrity and hero her and McDermott believe her to be, literally ripping shots and dancing on tables. You would have thought she had just been inducted into the hockey hall of fame instead of losing 3-1 to Union and facing complaints that she left former players feeling psychologically scarred and even suicidal.

Both McDermott and Stone need to go.

[Skate79]

One would think that the lessons from Penn State and Michigan State would enlighten administrations to the fact that talking about attendance and fundraising won't save you if there has been abuse in your program and you failed to take action. Not saying anything here is close to that level, but the takeaway has to be that programs must investigate in good faith sooner, because problems are compounded when it is left for later. Or more naively, you look objectively into these claims because it's the right thing to do.

That's the problem, isn't it? The lack of accountability and a refusal to investigate. It's like McDermott and Stone are mocking the abused players while pandering to donors and making themselves look like God's gift to Harvard. It's a flat-out disgrace.

[thirdtime's . . .]

No coach in their right mind, not even Stone, would say what you said here. This is the ultimate slap in the face to Boynton and while I presume you were kidding with this quote, it's unseemly. I too was surprised when Pellicci came out to start the third period. It was a bad move all around. Still, I'm not letting the players off the hook here. Pellicci is their teammate and deserved to have them at least try to put up some resistance on her behalf.

Two things:


1. I apparently wasn’t clear that the words I had Stone “saying” were ones she should have been thinking. Although we do now know that given her reported drill sergeant nature this could indeed have been a verbal command to her back-up goalie on the bench, what I simply meant is that it would have been common sense to think and act along these lines.


2. Numerous teams get blown out in the course of a season, from the inevitable (Post/Hurst), to the predictable (Bemidji/Wisco), to the disappointing (Union/Colgate), to the surprising (QU/PU). Examples abound. Blowouts happen. But none of these cases, as far as I know, is cited as an instance of wholesale abandonment of a teammate. The goalies are certainly shelled in these games, but hung out to dry? The only thing that sets the Harvard/Yale blowout apart is the fact that the blown-out has been a uniquely stressed team this year, and at this point you have to allow for a certain degree of emotional as well as physical exhaustion. I know you’re one to never let players off the hook, but this seems a bit like piling on. I don’t get it.

[Skate79]

Two things:


1. I apparently wasn’t clear that the words I had Stone “saying” were ones she should have been thinking. Although we do now know that given her reported drill sergeant nature this could indeed have been a verbal command to her back-up goalie on the bench, what I simply meant is that it would have been common sense to think and act along these lines.


2. Numerous teams get blown out in the course of a season, from the inevitable (Post/Hurst), to the predictable (Bemidji/Wisco), to the disappointing (Union/Colgate), to the surprising (QU/PU). Examples abound. Blowouts happen. But none of these cases, as far as I know, is cited as an instance of wholesale abandonment of a teammate. The goalies are certainly shelled in these games, but hung out to dry? The only thing that sets the Harvard/Yale blowout apart is the fact that the blown-out has been a uniquely stressed team this year, and at this point you have to allow for a certain degree of emotional as well as physical exhaustion. I know you’re one to never let players off the hook, but this seems a bit like piling on. I don’t get it.

No one disagrees with the fact that the players are stressed and emotionally drained. But this blowout was different in that Yale seemed like they were on the power play the entire game. Harvard offered little resistance and that left Pellicci to hold down the fort while Yale stormed the castle. I understand blowouts happen; Harvard used to toy with Union back in the day. The difference being that this was a rivalry game and Harvard should have come out determined to send a message in advance of this weekend's playoffs. That we are not going quietly. Instead, they turtled, and Pellicci paid the price. As tough as it has been on the players, they can't be absolved entirely for what happened in New Haven. Sorry but that's just the way I feel.

[Nobody98]

As tough as it has been on the players, they can't be absolved entirely for what happened in New Haven. Sorry but that's just the way I feel.

This is a valid viewpoint, but to me it feels like a petty thing to argue about. If you think about where current players are mentally, it includes a mix of:

- I’m a senior and my hockey career is ending in shame and scandal. I’m devastated.
- I’m not a senior, and knowing what I know, our team could be suspended next year and I need to either transfer or find a new identity slash something else to occupy the ~40 hours per week I normally dedicate to hockey. I’m lost.
- I want Stone to be fired and while I want to support my goaltender, I also don’t want to
make Stone look good and thereby decrease the chances of her removal. I’m torn.
- I want Stone to keep her job (I don’t know that anyone has this view, but it’s possible there are holdouts on the team), but the majority of my teammates are against me. I’m alone.

Personally I can’t criticize them for losing the will to compete. They are running out the clock because there’s nothing else to do. It’s sad and understandable.

[Prowler]

This is a valid viewpoint, but to me it feels like a petty thing to argue about. If you think about where current players are mentally, it includes a mix of:

- I’m a senior and my hockey career is ending in shame and scandal. I’m devastated.
- I’m not a senior, and knowing what I know, our team could be suspended next year and I need to either transfer or find a new identity slash something else to occupy the ~40 hours per week I normally dedicate to hockey. I’m lost.
- I want Stone to be fired and while I want to support my goaltender, I also don’t want to
make Stone look good and thereby decrease the chances of her removal. I’m torn.
- I want Stone to keep her job (I don’t know that anyone has this view, but it’s possible there are holdouts on the team), but the majority of my teammates are against me. I’m alone.

Personally I can’t criticize them for losing the will to compete. They are running out the clock because there’s nothing else to do. It’s sad and understandable.

All great points, but for better or worse, there are several players still on "Team Stone" It is a tough way to end the season no matter what side you take as a player. I am holding out hope for a fresh start for all the returning players next season.

['gatealum]

Harvard up early. Some fight left?

[D2D]

Harvard up early. Some fight left?

Yale scores twice to tie it at 2-2 going into the 3rd. I bet nobody posting in this conversation predicted it would be tied after two periods.

[vicb]

Yale scores twice to tie it at 2-2 going into the 3rd. I bet nobody posting in this conversation predicted it would be tied after two periods.

I certainly did not. :-0

[vicb]

Yale 4 Harvard 2 Final. Yale's Lee gets her 2nd goal of the season and then Welch with the ENG to seal the win. Yale once again dominated shots 76 to 41 and SOG 45 to 22. Harvard's goalie played very well once again. Bloomer and Della Rovere really were outstanding all game for the Crimson. Harvard lost Willoughby on D late in the 1st due to any injury and she did not return.

[Trillium]

Trillium's recent posts are on point! I'm adding my 2 cents as somewhat of an insider:

Stone's pets continue to defend her legacy for two main reasons:

1. Most victimized players refuse to talk about their experience to anyone who isn't in their circle of trust, including their favoured teammates, so in many cases the pets genuinely don't know about the negative experiences. Many players went through their college career knowing that some favoured player(s) had bad-mouthed them to Stone, resulting in irreparable damage to their Harvard experience and their hockey career, but they could never know exactly who said what, leading to paranoia towards their teammates which remains to this day. This is a major hurdle for reporters who continue to investigate the program.
2. As Trillium touched on, Stone tended to favour players with narcissistic traits, and those players will never consider that perhaps they didn't deserve Stone's favouritism any more her victims deserved to be punished. The myth of meritocracy is seductive when you are one of the haves. On top of their hockey experience, keep in mind that these recruited athletes just waltzed into the most prestigious academic institution in the world despite mediocre or sub-par academic credentials, where they joined a network of over-privileged young adults who understand that the key to protecting their privilege is to be loyal to the institution and protect the illusion that they've earned it. This is a recipe for having your head WAY up your own ***.

Trillium provided a compelling analysis of how Stone's career depended on early success owing to a small number of star players, but she failed to adjust to the changing landscape of the game. That analysis helped me to notice a remarkable parallel between Stone's career and her friend Digit Murphy, another coach who rode on the coat tails of Olympians in the years when having one or two superstars on the ice for half of the game was all it took to be successful. I'm not sure which is more surprising: that Stone lasted this long or that Brown listened to the athletes and pushed Digit out in 2011. Factors contributing to Digit's quicker downfall may have included her flamboyant volatility in contrast to Stone's more reserved demeanor, her difficulty recruiting top players to a less alluring academic institution, and dismal team performance in her final years at Brown (although Stone is following in Digit's footsteps on the last point).

Stone has an additional protective factor which Trillium touched on: her incredible success at garnering donations. An under-recognized aspect of Stone's favouritism is that some of it is linked to financial contributions of wealthy parents. Some kids likely would not have been recruited at all if it wasn't for their parents' donations. Presently, some of Stone's most vocal supporters are major donors, and it isn't lost on me that they have children who already have or soon will be on Stone's recruiting list if she isn't removed from her position. Hohler's article quotes one such supporter, Holly Johnson, as saying she hopes her child will play for Stone one day. One way to read that is "Stone is so great I would entrust her with my child". Another way to read that is "Stone is my child's ticket to Harvard and I'll do anything to keep her there". Recently, this same alumnus went to the trouble of writing a letter to the Globe, leaning hard into the meritocracy myth:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/...me-under-fire/

Prowler Breath!!! The first 16 will embolden more. Aside from the culture of bullying, Stone's lack of concern for players' mental and physical wellbeing, and her losing approach to team building, there are a number of serious incidents which haven't surfaced yet. Some of these are being actively investigated by the university and by reporters.
Stone bears ultimate responsibility for the culture because she is aware of everything (her pets make sure of it), but the players also bear responsibility as the ones who invent and propagate the details of their offensive and outdated hazing practices and inside jokes. I expect the program defenders will come to regret it.

Exactly! What you have also articulated more specifically is Stone's tactic of promising her pets extra benefits for spying on and reporting negatively on their teammates for behaviours that had no direct bearing on their hockey. It is appalling that she would actually encourage young women every year to target their own teammates for further abuse by Stone for their own selfish reasons. We saw this happen many times

[Trillium]

Yes. I heard all about the hazing incident and I am so disappointed that nothing has been done about it. From what I had heard, the Harvard Women's Hockey team have a long tradition of making the freshman skate laps around the ice NAKED when they return to the rink late at night from a road trip. Coach Stone is well aware of this "tradition" When 1 of the players refused to do it (good for her) this year, she was bullied. I realize that a player has already been kicked off the team this year by Coach Stone for bullying, but I am not sure if these 2 incidents are related. If the school refuses to get involved after this type of behavior comes to light I hope that lawyers get involved because this stuff makes my blood boil. Just terrible. I just cant imagine if it was my daughter in that situation.

This is fact is a very long tradition at Harvard spanning 2 decades.

[Trillium]

By process of elimination, it’s easy to guess the non-favoured Olympian you referred to…

Chu is well meaning but naive.

Vaillencourt supports Stone and was a bully, but her identity was never wrapped up with Harvard the way it is for many players and I wouldn’t expect more than a “thumbs up” from Canada from her.

Corriero is an active ringleader for defending Stone, but she is also a lawyer and I expect her to approach this cautiously and strategically.

The others are presumed supporters but keeping a low profile, I’d say wisely.

Lawyers are often very adept at talking out of both sides of their mouth. Reliable sources suggest she may not actually be the fan of Stone you might imagine.

[Trillium]

I agree. It's been my experience that the bonds between the players on a team are much stronger than those formed between others in sports (e.g. player/coach), similar to how the bonds within a nucleus are stronger than those between a nucleus and electrons. It seems strange to me that any coach would attempt to intentionally drive a wedge between the players, as Stone has reportedly done. The most powerful driving force in team sports is to do it for the person next to you. Why would a coach intentionally compromise that.

That is Stone's biggest legacy. She has always intentionally driven a wedge between her players, solely because it gives her more power and control. As a narcissist, that's the only thing she cares about--more power and adulation to feed her massive ego. Four of my daughter's closest friends are former Harvard teammates, 3 in the same graduating class. Despite living in different cities, they still keep in touch and arrange to get together often. However, they are no longer on even speaking terms with others in the same class, due to their actions. I guess the favours received from Stone were more important that their personal relationships and reputations with their contemporaries.