Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[MAHOCKEY FAN]

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

 

[Trillium]

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/rick-seeley-court-documents-date-abuse-since-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.

 

[Skate79]

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.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

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.

 

[ShootDePuckNo]

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.

 

[HockeyDad2023]

Well I do think this is going to be a similar situation to Mazzoleni...Whole staff gone as well...Too bad because I do think based on the teams recent success they turned some things around to get back to the good old days of Chu and Ruggerio....Coaches to consider (Carpentino, Coomey, Cromwell, Keade, Lachapelle, Maci)...Do women's Hockey search committees call potential replacements like the men's side?

 

[Trillium]

Well I do think this is going to be a similar situation to Mazzoleni...Whole staff gone as well...Too bad because I do think based on the teams recent success they turned some things around to get back to the good old days of Chu and Ruggerio

What exactly made it "the good old days"? That Harvard dominated in the W column? That there was no shortage on the roster of numerous Olympians who were head and shoulders above the rest talent-wise, that the team was focused around?

Stone's playbook was created and reinforced based on that original model where the gap between the top and the rest of the D1 talent pool was huge. My mother (who can't skate) could have coached that team to championships with the disproportionate excess of talent they had! A star system where certain players could do no wrong, and have all the toddler tantrums they could muster, without consequence. Where a few players got all the minutes they could possibly play to the point of exhaustion, while the rest froze on the bench. Where a person's character or respect of their teammates for the way they were a good TEAMMATE to their peers meant nothing--only their statistics and how they made the COACH and themselves look good. And Stone never adjusted when the talent pool changed, when other programs changed the way they ran their programs, or as times changed--because she believed her own mythology. Other than the titles, how was that truly the good old days? And how was that good for college hockey?

Those may have looked like the good old days from the outside, but they were anything but that for those who experienced it. Many Olympians unfortunately happen to be me-first narcissists just as the "legendary" coaches are prone to be: too much glory for their statistical records ultimately can go to their heads at the expense of developing the personal character attributes that make one an effective and respected team leader in the dressing room, the boardroom, or beyond. Like it or not, it is the reality in today's society that respect must be earned, not merely a function of status as it may have been 30 years ago; for the way you treat others, not just for accomplishments. It shouldn't just be about what you do, but how you do it.

The recent death of Bobby Hull and commentary around him, is an prime example of someone who has been lionized for their on-ice persona, while the truth is that he was a crappy human and a failure off the ice that no one should actually ever aspire to emulate. Unfortunately we live in a society that rewards and glorifies the former, while too often totally ignoring the rest.

 

[hab]

I have little direct acquaintance with the Harvard program, other than knowing a very talented player from a number of years ago who, inexplicably, got very little ice time with the Crimson. She was better than a lot of players who saw more ice time with teams as good as or better than Harvard. It made no sense at the time. That is my only comment here, except to also say that Trillium has always been a voice on this forum that is grounded in knowledge of the game....and should be listened to.

 

[Skate79]

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.

Suggest you read Trillium's post on Coach Stone's playbook to see what I meant by that choice of phrasing. And I certainly do not begrudge the players after learning about what has transpired all these years. I can only comment on what I see on the ice and not having the information provided by Hohler's article, I leaned more on my hockey experience to tell me what I believe is working and what it isn't.

 

[Skate79]

Well I do think this is going to be a similar situation to Mazzoleni...Whole staff gone as well...Too bad because I do think based on the teams recent success they turned some things around to get back to the good old days of Chu and Ruggerio....Coaches to consider (Carpentino, Coomey, Cromwell, Keade, Lachapelle, Maci)...Do women's Hockey search committees call potential replacements like the men's side?

Great question about the search committee. I have no inside information on how this will be conducted. I'm hoping that the committee will be made up of different 'voices' to ensure that what we have learned recently about the program does not repeat itself with a new staff.

 

[Skate79]

And Stone never adjusted when the talent pool changed, when other programs changed the way they ran their programs, or as times changed--because she believed her own mythology. Other than the titles, how was that truly the good old days? And how was that good for college hockey?

Interesting take on Coach Stone not adjusting to the changes in women's hockey after the NCAA took over. More programs came online, the ECAC and HE split and more men with hockey backgrounds took over as coaches. As you said in your original post, she played favorites and overplayed them to the point of exhaustion which sometimes led to late-game losses. It certainly hurt them at tournament time, especially against teams that developed their benches and could lean on that depth. She also never adjusted her coaching style, and it became easier and easier to defend her teams unless they were playing teams with less talent.

 

[Trillium]

Interesting take on Coach Stone not adjusting to the changes in women's hockey after the NCAA took over. More programs came online, the ECAC and HE split and more men with hockey backgrounds took over as coaches. As you said in your original post, she played favorites and overplayed them to the point of exhaustion which sometimes led to late-game losses. It certainly hurt them at tournament time, especially against teams that developed their benches and could lean on that depth. She also never adjusted her coaching style, and it became easier and easier to defend her teams unless they were playing teams with less talent.

It has not been "just" that she wore out the best players to the point they became ineffective, nor that talented depth players never got the opportunity to develop and gain confidence to contribute in key moments down the stretch. Of course, both of those things were bad enough failures. Her refusal to often uphold any code of conduct on her few favourites, while belittling and emotionally abusing others for imagined slights and shortcomings to prop up her own ego, invariably resulted in a perennially divided and toxic dressing room by season end. The mark of a top team is supposed to be that it is far greater than the sum of its parts. She never figured out the value and importance of good chemistry in achieving team performance beyond that expected by individuals' incoming raw talent inputs alone. So her teams generally underperformed come playoff time, for which she would never accept any personal accountability. It astounds me that anyone could coach for 25 years and still never understand that, or find a way to develop and adjust in those areas she was lacking as a coach. The strong bonds among players that were developed often revolved around their mutual hate for her and the fact they somehow managed to survive the traumatic experience together that they'd often wished they could forget.

Had she not had the weight of the Harvard brand behind her as a huge educational draw to more than compensate for her own failures as a leader, she would have struggled to field successful teams long ago. Increasingly, far more national team players have chosen to go to other Ivies or D1 schools instead over the last 10- 15 or so years, as her poor reputation within the elite hockey community has become better known. Among Massachusetts players of course, the power of the Harvard name still often transcends all else, so as a key US hockey hotbed, that fact alone has been a huge boon to the program regardless of her continued presence.

By far her biggest strength over her career has been her prioritization on political manipulations in convincing the administration and donors that Harvard's long term successes are her doing. Sadly while she has always been extremely effective at achieving that objective, it has been accomplished at the expense of the long term emotional well-being of hundreds of athletes under her control nor the creation of any fond memories of their time at Harvard. Would she have been able to have achieved anywhere near the kind of winning record she did if she had coached at UNH, or Clarkson, or Penn State to name a few at random? Or if brought in to turn around a struggling program anywhere? Not on your life.

 

[reggiedunlap9]

It is really disturbing to read all of this. I would bet that the decision has already been made that Coach Stone will retire at the end of the season. There is simply no way that she can come back.

 

[Prowler]

I get it that there are some who are still going to be team Stone. Maybe some players or parents that had a good experience during their time there, but that does not negate the fact that there are players that suffered under her coaching for years, and I would wager to say that even the favored players were aware, but chose to turn a blind eye because it wasn't directed at them.. The fact that almost every person to come to her defense is an Alum from the early 2000s or earlier, around the same time she won the national title is no surprise, but I would suggest that they ask themselves, do they really believe that the Coach Stone who took over the team at age 26 and may have been a joy to be around at this stage of her career, and won a title at around age 30 could not possibly have changed in the last 27 years since ? There was a supporter early in the comments before they were taken down who questioned the motives of these "Kids" saying "It seems petty and vindictive" ARE YOU SERIOUS ? One of these players contemplated suicide after being torn apart by Coach Stone in front of team captains and the coaching staff for almost an hour because she was late returning after Xmas break for a practice THAT SHE WASNT CLEARED TO PARTICIPATE IN, IN THE FIRST PLACE because of a concussion in last game before break !!! What would she possibly have to gain by telling her truth in public other than ridicule and distain from the likes of the commentor?
Also, All this talk of the "Hundreds" of players she's coached over the years doesn't add up. First year, starting with lets say 25 players. now add an average of 7 new recruits every year until now. That's 214 players she has coached at the college level. now lets just look at the time frame in question. 2016 to now. using the same formula, she has coached 74 players at Harvard since 2016, Bob was able to find 16 players on short notice all with similar stories of shocking mental abuse! And not just middle of the road players that were disgruntled at lack of ice time. Top line players including past captains. Some of the strongest players on the team! That's over 21% of players in the past 7 years !! And these are the brave few who came forward to tell their story. Of coarse she has a long resume of wins. She is a dinosaur and has been coaching at Harvard for 27 years!! is she the NCAA leader? NO! Coaches with far fewer years behind the bench surpassed her in the win category years ago! One NCAA championship that she garnered near the beginning of her career, and has been milking it ever since to the detriment of players who have the misfortune of being on her roster. The Original Globe story barley scratched the surface on the nightmare that is Katey Stone. Its time for Harvard to dump this cancer and move on before something really tragic happens under her watch...

 

['gatealum]

Prowler has an axe to grind. This is the same playbook being used to get women's head coaches fired across the country across so many sports. Write an exaggerated article that makes the coach look terrible, get headlines, make it spiral to other news sources. There are two sides to every story and the truth often lies in the middle. I find it unfortunate and unfair that this one article has the power to upend the career of a very successful longstanding coach. Is it harder for Harvard to be a contender in women's ice hockey when the power 5 teams keep adding? Ohio State, Penn State etc. and they have full scholarships. It seems like the allegations in the article have already been reviewed by the AD last year. Pressure to make knee jerk decisions have gotten too many coaches fired. Please keep in mind the women's coaches do not ride off into the sunset with millions in their bank accounts.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Please keep in mind the women's coaches do not ride off into the sunset with millions in their bank accounts.

Meh...The one with a sequined jacket did pretty well for herself when it was all said and done.

 

[Skate79]

Prowler has an axe to grind. This is the same playbook being used to get women's head coaches fired across the country across so many sports. Write an exaggerated article that makes the coach look terrible, get headlines, make it spiral to other news sources. There are two sides to every story and the truth often lies in the middle. I find it unfortunate and unfair that this one article has the power to upend the career of a very successful longstanding coach. Is it harder for Harvard to be a contender in women's ice hockey when the power 5 teams keep adding? Ohio State, Penn State etc. and they have full scholarships. It seems like the allegations in the article have already been reviewed by the AD last year. Pressure to make knee jerk decisions have gotten too many coaches fired. Please keep in mind the women's coaches do not ride off into the sunset with millions in their bank accounts.

Right and this would be the first time an AD swept allegations under the rug. You've got to be kidding. The abuse has been going on for years and as Trillium has shared, there were many more instances that were not reported in the article. Not to mention the number of players who either quit the program, transferred, or switched their commitments in the past 7 years. This will not be a knee-jerk reaction. It will most likely be a mutual parting of the ways with some form of settlement to ensure that Harvard avoids any legal issues beyond Syd Daniels's lawsuit.

 

[ShootDePuckNo]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...new-mexico-state-men-basketball-resume-season

Incredible similarities, yet total hypocrisy coming out of the Harvard athletic administration. Apparently some "protected classes" play by a different set of rules.

Remember, its usually not the crime that gets people fired, but the cover-up.

 

[reggiedunlap9]

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.

 

[Skate79]

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.

From bad to worse. Ridiculous. If it was my daughter in that situation, I would strongly advise her to leave the program and transfer if she wanted to continue playing hockey. The administration has to answer for this.