Brown - Oops! They did it again.

[BTW67]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Really on MAA? It's okay for outsiders to come in to this forum and make comments that are anti-coach? Really? When did your epiphany arrive? You've done nothing but bash anyone - anyone - who took a negative stance against the current coaches. You ought to be in politics.

notfromaroundhere hit the nail on the head. Rather than going after OnMAA, let’s hear it, what would you do differently? Shorten the bench more/less? Change the forecheck? Recruit more kids from NJ?

 

[ccookie79]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

I told myself I wasn't going to post anything on this thread again but I lied. I also know FOR A FACT that some kids use hockey to get into Brown knowing full well that they "probably" will not compete for the full 4 years because they do not really care about whether they play hockey or don't play hockey. Regarding players who are not there the full 4 years, maybe the coaches realize this after the fact and decide that they don't want the players on this team with that attitude. (I've spoken to parents who over the years have told me their kids did use hockey as a tool to get in). Not saying that's every kid that's not there, however it has and does happen.

Kids have been using hockey (sports in general) to get into good schools everywhere, starting in grammar school. If your point is that Brown is the only school where this might happen, you are mistaken. Heck, I've got nephews starting out in the system now and they're already doing that; they'd be crazy not to. If they can get a free ride or an almost free ride at some prestigious exam school because of their hockey (sports) talent, then that frees up the parents' purses for Ivy League colleges. Nothing new here; it's called "creative financing".

 

[ccookie79]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

notfromaroundhere hit the nail on the head. Rather than going after OnMAA, let’s hear it, what would you do differently? Shorten the bench more/less? Change the forecheck? Recruit more kids from NJ?

Let's just say I'd start with showing some respect for the kids I already recruited. After all, it's a testament to my own bad choices if I continuously recruit kids who fall short of my expectations.

 

[Hux]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Kids have been using hockey (sports in general) to get into good schools everywhere, starting in grammar school. If your point is that Brown is the only school where this might happen, you are mistaken. Heck, I've got nephews starting out in the system now and they're already doing that; they'd be crazy not to. If they can get a free ride or an almost free ride at some prestigious exam school because of their hockey (sports) talent, then that frees up the parents' purses for Ivy League colleges. Nothing new here; it's called "creative financing".

The point Rinkrat was making is that it is a known fact that marginal players use the "hockey card" as a way of getting into Brown, with little intent of actually staying on the team more than a season or two.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Let's just say I'd start with showing some respect for the kids I already recruited. After all, it's a testament to my own bad choices if I continuously recruit kids who fall short of my expectations.

Recruiting gets you admission, not respect. Respect is earned on the ice, in the weight room, and in the classroom where you put in extraodinary effort and achieve extraordinary results.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Kids have been using hockey (sports in general) to get into good schools everywhere, starting in grammar school. If your point is that Brown is the only school where this might happen, you are mistaken. Heck, I've got nephews starting out in the system now and they're already doing that; they'd be crazy not to. If they can get a free ride or an almost free ride at some prestigious exam school because of their hockey (sports) talent, then that frees up the parents' purses for Ivy League colleges. Nothing new here; it's called "creative financing".

I don't care to much for money...cause money can't buy you love.....Cookie.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

I don't care to much for money...cause money can't buy you love.....Cookie.

Funny....I was thinking the same thing.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Actually, you are spreading false information. My original question was related to already-established team players being required to try out for their positions this year. I was told that it was a first-time-occurrence and I wondered (aloud on this board) whether that was typical for a D-1 team. I have NEVER misrepresented a person's absence on the team. The one you claim to be "injury" goes well beyond your cursory glance. For the record, I have a difficult time making "intellegent" argument with anyone who can't even spell the word, especially one who's spewing venom like they're the almighty. Digit's results are cogent enough argument for me as the team's win/loss record is certainly illustrative.
Finally, Mr/Ms know-it-all, I reviewed the earlier posts of Irishbridie49 and BlackWidow and neither of them mention having talented/competitive daughters and so it must be the coaches' fault. Frankly, notfromaroundhere, you need to go back where you came from and regroup.

False information?

On tryouts - One would be a total idiot to think that returning players get a Mulligan at tryouts at any level, much less college. And who would they be trying out against, might you ask? The new incoming class, of course. You seem to be rather misinformed about how hockey teams work universally. If you somehow got the idea that tryouts weren't universal, you must be incredibly gullible. What part of this is false?

Injury - Uh, YOU were the one who was insinuating that the player in question who left the team was doing it for negative reasons, as you didn't even mention the injury (which may be part or the whole of the reason) but left it to others to point out your glaring omission. So who was giving the false information (or lacking critical parts of the truth)?

Any poster who needs to point out spelling errors (I was kind enough to go back and correct my error for your entertainment), truly lacks anything else better to argue.

Do you understand the meaning of the word cogent? Please spend some of your money on a dictionary. I've never seen it used to described the results of an action. You don't seem like you belong at Brown.

And be careful how you describe the daughters of blackwidow and irishbirdie. If you read carefully, those words could be insinuating that their daughters lack talent. Of course, you could use this as a valid argument for calling for Digits dismissal, if they truly are not talented.

And so the best argument you can come up with for Digit's dismissal is that the teams win/loss record is illustrative. Geez, it took a long time of studying the game to come up with that one. Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the game of hockey, as your observations about win/loss can be made by any drunken sophomore in the stands.

As to going back to where I came from, I certainly sense some frustration on your part. Sorry, as long as you keep bringing on the uninformed bluster, I'll be here to critique.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

I don't care to much for money...cause money can't buy you love.....Cookie.

Ok how about this one...

Money can't buy you D-pairings, you'll never be satisfied...no I don't care to much for money cause money can't buy you love....Cookie.

 

[notfromaroundhere]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Let's just say I'd start with showing some respect for the kids I already recruited. After all, it's a testament to my own bad choices if I continuously recruit kids who fall short of my expectations.

And don't talk about your daughter that way. You should say this to her in person, not on a public forum.

Kind of reminds me about the old Groucho Marx (IIRC) line about not wanting to join a club that would have me as a member.

 

[scrambledlegs]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

My original question was related to already-established team players being required to try out for their positions this year. I was told that it was a first-time-occurrence and I wondered (aloud on this board) whether that was typical for a D-1 team.

What we are objecting to (or at least I am) is the "d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't" mentality applied by so many of you Brown/BC detractors. If the team lacks chemistry, you say fire the coach. If the coach tries to improve chemistry, you say fire the coach. (Interestingly enough, I have noticed that while there have been several underperforming teams this year (UND, Dartmouth, Mankota, Brown, BC, etc), the coaches whose heads have been called for are women coaches. Is sexism alive and well??)

I seriously doubt that Digit just instituted tryouts without grounds. I would imagine that this was done because she was faced with a group of players who took their positions for granted and did not put in the necessary work. I would also imagine, that knowing the short term pain that this action would bring, that this was done as a last resort. However, given her longevity in the sport, I think she was able to take a long-term view and was smart enough to say that the short term pain was necessary to make the team better in the long term.

While you may not agree with her methods, I think that you should still recognize that she hasn't given up on the team. She is trying new things, which will sometimes be successful and sometimes not, but you don't know until you try.

I think your failure is in recognizing that this is a job, just like your own. You don't always have the right answers or you are met with unexpected roadblocks that you have to overcome. If coaching was just a simple formula, you and your buddies could do it.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

What we are objecting to (or at least I am) is the "d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't" mentality applied by so many of you Brown/BC detractors. If the team lacks chemistry, you say fire the coach. If the coach tries to improve chemistry, you say fire the coach. (Interestingly enough, I have noticed that while there have been several underperforming teams this year (UND, Dartmouth, Mankota, Brown, BC, etc), the coaches whose heads have been called for are women coaches. Is sexism alive and well??)

I seriously doubt that Digit just instituted tryouts without grounds. I would imagine that this was done because she was faced with a group of players who took their positions for granted and did not put in the necessary work. I would also imagine, that knowing the short term pain that this action would bring, that this was done as a last resort. However, given her longevity in the sport, I think she was able to take a long-term view and was smart enough to say that the short term pain was necessary to make the team better in the long term.

While you may not agree with her methods, I think that you should still recognize that she hasn't given up on the team. She is trying new things, which will sometimes be successful and sometimes not, but you don't know until you try.

I think your failure is in recognizing that this is a job, just like your own. You don't always have the right answers or you are met with unexpected roadblocks that you have to overcome. If coaching was just a simple formula, you and your buddies could do it.

A very nice post, very good points.

To extract the last quote:

If coaching was just a simple formula, you and your buddies could do it.

Coaching is not as simple as using a Cookie Cutter.

 

[CanHockGuy]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

A very nice post, very good points.

To extract the last quote:


Coaching is not as simple as using a Cookie Cutter.

Nice one there lucky.....

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

A very nice post, very good points.

To extract the last quote:


Coaching is not as simple as using a Cookie Cutter.

I was once lucky enough to spend twenty minutes talking hockey with Coach Murphy while my daughter was at one of her camps. When I asked her what the biggest changes in coaching were in recent years, her response was "the number of players who show up with a sense of entitlement." She said that she just cannot accept that and would not hesitate to tell players with that sense of entitlement, "don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out." Maybe a liitle of that in this year's story? I don't know but I'm sure that the game itself has not changed so much that it's simply over the heads of the coaches.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Actually, this thread (and the other related ones) isn't about coddling Digit. It all started with ccookie79 complaining that her "recruited" daughter had to suffer the indignity of a tryout to make the team. Obviously she thought her daughter's spot on the team was guaranteed. NOT! And she continued on complaining about the returning players who didn't make the cut at the tryout. She felt robbed that her precious daughter's weight wouldn't be carried by these perceived all-stars. And she continued on to mis-represent the situations of players whose seasons were ending (injuries were not mentioned) to support an argument that Digit is destroying the team.

I've been a frequent critic of this activity along the way - and quite frankly it is the only reason I'm in this thread - I just don't like bad hockey parents with an axe to grind (I don't think her daughter sees much ice, as she never mentions her own daughter's performance for good or bad) badmouthing any coach for uninformed reasons.

Now if someone said "The defensemen clearly didn't know where the forwards were on the new breakout - looks like Digit didn't drill them enough here." - THAT would be legit criticism. Or "She's got small players trying to tough it out in front of the net and losing the battles, what is she thinking?" - I can buy that. Haven't heard that stuff. All I'm hearing from ccookie and the rest of the bunch (irishbirdie, blackwidow, etc.) are about how talented their daughters are (let's hear the resume's to back that up) and that it must be the coach's fault that they aren't competitive. No analysis of the game, oh, that's right, you might have to understand the game to do that.

I'll agree that by a win and loss standard, Digit has seen better years much further in the past. However, besides talking about turnover, they really don't get into why the program hasn't moved forward in a much more competitive environment. All they say is "coach's fault". It is easy to complain about Digit's antics on the bench. Unless she's taking a bunch of bench minors for it, I'd say the players need to deal with it and play hockey. If they'd done their homework, the antics have been there forever. No, this whole pile of stuff ccookie and the others throw up clearly shows that they don't understand enough about the game to make an intelligent argument about hockey. They are just whining because their daughters aren't winning.

I'm still waiting for one cogent argument from the bunch about how Digit prepares her players for the game and why it is ineffective or what errors Digit makes in identifying talent in recruiting. This is why you fire a coach.

THIS!!!

 

[Trillium]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

A very nice post, very good points.

To extract the last quote:


Coaching is not as simple as using a Cookie Cutter.

A Cookie Cutter? My, what an excellent idea!

 

[IceIsNice]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

My original question was related to already-established team players being required to try out for their positions this year.

I guess I still don't get why this is an issue? Sense of entitlement is the FIRST giant step toward a complacent and ultimately a losing performance.

Don't just hold tryouts at the beginning of the year, suspend/cut players mid year if they are mailing it in. If you're managing anyone anywhere, and they are not performing as you want them to, fire the ******** and hire those who will. If your boss doesn't fire you, it probably means you're handling it right.

Sticking to the original point, I don't believe any of us have any right to feel any sense of security anytime, anywhere. Despite my own career success, if I don't perform at an optimal level tomorrow, I risk being fired. Why shouldn't this happen to all adults, and yes, even adult players on a sports team which is what these young ladies are.

 

[mattj711]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

On tryouts - One would be a total idiot to think that returning players get a Mulligan at tryouts at any level, much less college. And who would they be trying out against, might you ask? The new incoming class, of course. You seem to be rather misinformed about how hockey teams work universally. If you somehow got the idea that tryouts weren't universal, you must be incredibly gullible. What part of this is false?

100% true. It's a player’s job to work hard to remain a relevant and contributing member of the team both in terms of skill development and attitude. There isn't a team in D1 or likely D3 hockey where a player doesn't have to earn his/her membership. Playing D1 hockey is a privilege not a right.

Digit has always been one of the more colorful coaches in the game. While it might not be for everyone, there is certainly no excuse for not knowing it long before one arrives on campus, and it is ludicrous to complain, demand or expect it to change once you are there.

 

[OTH]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Digit has always been one of the more colorful coaches in the game. While it might not be for everyone, there is certainly no excuse for not knowing it long before one arrives on campus, and it is ludicrous to complain, demand or expect it to change once you are there.

This is one of the better if not the best point being made here.

This is not an invitation to a debate on or taking a stance either way on coddling but rather an observation about the advisability of knowing the coach's style before you join a program. Digit's rep for how she treats her players on the bench etc is well known and has been for years. For want of a better term call it coaching culture. Some players do OK under the coaching culture at Brown, some don't. And by my direct observation it is not always 'deadwood' (mentioned in a post above) that has opted out of the program. Not even usually 'deadwood'. Some top-notch players have ended their careers early because they have not been able to thrive under or perform well for Murphy. On the other hand, some top-notch players that you see no overt differences when comparing them to the first group have thrived under and performed very well for Murphy.

All that being said, there has been no lack of talent interested in Brown in the last several years. There has been some gap between the talent interested and the talent recruited though. There has been an obvious gap between the talent recruited and available prior to each of the last few seasons and the makeup and performance of the team during the season. I don't accept that Brown hasn't been able to recruit willing, capable, and coachable players to that extent. The problem lies elsewhere.

Hux - with all due respect, you're from Mass and should be well aware of the capabilities of some of the names of the players that left the program in the last couple of years. Players who have opted out in the last few years can in no way be called 'marginal' at a D1 level. Certainly not as a group anyway.

 

[hcky85]

Re: Brown - Oops! They did it again.

Clearly, you would make a better coach. There seem to be plenty of them in the stands in Providence these days.

And you wonder why other posters leave ugly negative rep behind... I think you'd get more constructive criticism if you actually made a better argument.

Realistically, I would say yes. And I'd probably be a terrible coach since I've never coached before. But anyone could be the coach and they'd have the same record.

And I wasn't looking for constructive criticism. The point I was trying to make is who ever said that sounds dumb not that my feelings were hurt in any way.