Re: Brown Women's hockey coaching problems
Trillium.
My goal with all of my posts is to provide hard data in an effort to reduce hyperbole and provide context. As such, here is the breakdown of player turnover beginning with the ’07 incoming class. One may notice that in my earlier post, I stated 25 players have left the program but only 23 are listed below. Two underclassman from ’06 left the program during the ’04-05 season.
Class......Incoming..............# of Players that
Year.......Class Size.............Left Prematurely
‘07............6..........................3
‘08............7..........................3
‘09............8..........................5
‘10............9..........................5
‘11............8..........................4
‘12............9..........................3
Total 47.........................23
Source:
www.brownbears.com and
www.collegehockeystats.net
I do not have the time to glean how Player turnover at other Ivies compares for the same time period. I did compile this data a few years ago and Brown was much higher than any other Ivy at that time.
I will post the Assistant Coach Turnover among Ivies as well as Conference records in another post.
Unlike its offspring, at least the original Brown thread and posts like this started off trying to objectively support a cause based on a calm presentation of facts, rather than coaching character assassinations, whining about game losses, et al. So I'm reviving that thread and hoping the other two that subsequently spawned like cancerous cells run amok might die.
I agree wholeheartedly with the eloquent statements made in those other threads by notfromaroundhere and Hux, among others, in response to further negative comments in those threads from disgruntled Brown parents. You need to deal with your issues in an adult fashion, not acting like spoiled children, and you can't fight your daughter's battles for her either. Emotional diatribes and mudslinging will not gather further support for your cause either on this forum, or within Brown, and will only make the situation worse for the girls in the program. I suspect the atmosphere in the dressing room isn't the best at the moment, and only the girls can fix it. This isn't helping.
I expect you believe such comments as have been made by various outsiders sanctimonious and uncaring...because none of us are in your shoes and just don't understand. You feel like the issues are being further trivialized with talk of childhood TV shows. I don't think that was ever anyone's intention, though it feels that way to you.
Let me assure you that I for one do believe there are significant problems at Brown that need solutions (and I'm not talking win-loss records). There is no doubt lots of blame to go around, and I think everyone involved needs to be part of that solution. The administration needs to step up to provide a competitive level of resources and support for the program. The coaching staff needs to provide an environment which will be more successful in retaining and inspiring players to achieve to their potential. The players need to work harder to bond strongly together as one unit to support one another in enduring the inevitable bumps in the road along the way. And the parents need to resist the need to interfere, but be there for their daughters behind the scenes to help maintain a positive outlook when things look particularly dark. And if everyone does commit to doing all that, and the situation doesn't improve in the next couple of years....then the staff needs to move on.
I originally asked the question, "how does Brown's premature player departures compare to other schools?"
Apparently despite all the hand-wringing, none of the Brown parents cared enough to find that out, in order to rally more support for their cause. The administration doesn't care that you hate Digit (so why'd you go there?), and/or Coady, or that you daughters were stars in high school. They might care to find out Brown athletes are not nearly as successful at committing to athletics for 4 years as compared to other schools. Would all of these athletes still have been admitted to Brown regardless?
So over the past while I've been compiling it out of curiousity, using the last 6 grad classes (07-12) as Brown Parent did using rosters as posted on USCHO
note a minor variation in his/her #s vs mine perhaps due to differences in source data.
Here's what it shows:
1) Indeed, Brown has the highest level of premature departures from their team among the Ivies by a significant margin, at a rate of 44.7% versus the Ivy Average of 26.0%
(Cornell 34.1%, Harvard 23.7%, Princeton 19.4%, Dartmouth 15.6%, Yale 9.1%)
2) Brown's early departure rate is second only to Quinnipiac at 52.1% in the ECAC over the last 6 seasons, However, the problems in the previous regime at QU were well-publicized, and changes in the entire coaching staff were made to address those issues for 08-09.
3) Brown is one of 5 schools with early departures above the ECAC average rate of 30.2%
(Union 43.6%, Cornell 34.1%, Clarkson 33.3% are the others) . However, unlike at Brown, at all of these other schools, coaching changes were made during the period. In some cases addressing issues leading to turnover as well as explaining why rates may also have temporarily spiked due to the change. Does the Brown staff/admin even see it as an issue to be addressed? What is the staff now doing to resolve this issue, and what is the timetable they have to turn it around?
4) Brown achieved a new record over the last 6 years among ECAC teams of 10 departures to start the 09/10 season. Other unusually high spikes were achieved by Quinnipiac (9 for 09/10), Union (8 for 08/09) and Cornell (8 for 07/08) coincident with roster changes made by new staffs in "turnaround" mode. Is this similarly a turnaround attempt for Brown inspired by Coady's new influence, or merely an acceleration of existing internal malaise? In any case, as anyone whose endured management changes at work can attest, the impact of change is painful when you're asked to leave or staying but expected to adapt. What can be done to help team chemistry over the hump?
5) The high departure rates for Brown, Quinnipiac, and Union might suggest a clear relationship between a team's successsful winning record and player satisfaction/ willingness to continue to play 4 years, given their low placements in the standings the past few years. It can be hard to stay positive when you lose. However, this alone does not explain high departures, as Yale's player retention rate is actually the highest in the ECAC by a significant margin, despite a mediocre win-loss record.
6) Schools, including Brown, with the highest early departure rates also have the highest levels of annual recruitment. Although it is no doubt partly a chicken/egg situation (you must replace the losses), with particularly high rates of loss after freshman year versus other schools it is also suggestive of over-recruitment at many of these schools as a causative factor, and/or other ongoing internal issues. Brown recruits an average of 7.8 per year...the other Ivies only 6.0 on average. The non-Ivy ECAC schools recruit an average of 7.4...RPI, Colgate and St. Lawrence all less than 6.5. If the bucket is leaky, you can't just keep opening the faucet wider. Is anyone fixing the bucket?
7) Am I the only one who was surprised that the ECAC early departure rate was as high as 30.2%, and that the Ivies are actually lower than Non-Ivies (26.0 vs 33.8%)? I would have guessed maybe 15-20%. For those curious about such things, or wanting to find schools with the best chance of playing all 4 years, lowest early departure rates in the ECAC are #1 Yale 9.1%, #2 Dartmouth 15.6%, #3 Colgate 16.7%, #4 Princeton 19.4%, #5 St. Lawrence 20.5%. Maybe someone should look into what their staffs might be doing differently to keep more players in their programs.
) here seem to be Coach Murphy and Brown hockey. Oh, and maybe Hux, but I'll doubt he'll care as long as he is well fed.