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.
USCHO Fan Forum
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?
- Thread starter thirdtime's . . .
- Start date
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: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).
- 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.
- 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 ***.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, I'll take your points which are very reasonable one by one.
1. I'm a senior... and I'm devastated. Yes, I can see where Bloomer and Della Rovere would feel that way. They may also not care one whit about what's happening at this point although they played their hearts out yesterday. Tough to tell.
2. I'm not a senior... I normally dedicate to hockey. This to me is the most plausible scenario going on right now. There have to be a number of players considering the transfer portal or perhaps leaving the program entirely to regain some semblance of mental well-being. Especially if the program is shut down which I don't think will happen if Stone steps down and they clean house.
3. I want Stone fired ... decrease the chances of her removal. This is a dangerous attitude that according to what has been written on this thread would put any player thinking like this in harm's way. But I get the premise and certainly there are teams in any sport where the players want the coach fired. My nephew told me as much about his D-1 basketball team that may be looking for their third coach in the last ten years.
4. I want Stone to keep her job ... but the majority of my teammates are against me. This happens all the time in sports and in life. I was with a company where a senior leader had the loyalty of those, she hired but was despised by her colleagues. When she was replaced, those who wanted her gone were happy. Those who were loyal to her, left the company. My guess is that if there are any players who are currently loyal to Stone, they are either graduating or will leave if she steps down.
This is fact is a very long tradition at Harvard spanning 2 decades.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying here but if this is in fact true, the administration needs to be held accountable. Making these girls skate naked after a road trip is disgusting on so many levels. And that Stone allowed it to happen is even worse.
I have no reason to doubt what you are saying here but if this is in fact true, the administration needs to be held accountable. Making these girls skate naked after a road trip is disgusting on so many levels. And that Stone allowed it to happen is even worse.
It is a fact, and it’s honestly not even high on the list of problematic team traditions (I include both my personal list based on what I have heard and the lists of players I’ve spoken to). My perception is that most players found it to be a funny way to blow off steam after a long road trip, akin to skinny dipping with your friends. The whole team participates, not only freshmen. However, if a player refused to do it with enthusiasm, it would be entirely consistent with the team culture for her to be bullied for being individualistic and not “team first”. Stone would find out, and it would impact her opportunities on the ice in addition to her relationships with her teammates.
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.
This is the first surprising thing I’ve read on this thread. Reliable sources say that after Hohler’s article was published, she personally took the lead on behalf of the alumni network to pen a letter to the current and incoming presidents of Harvard to advocate for Stone and the positive culture of the team. She solicited signatures from as many alumni as possible. If she isn’t a Stone fan, she’s pulling a hell of a fake out on her own teammates.
My question would be why? Assuming we are both correct, the timeline would be informative. One theory: Maybe she started on Team Stone, but after not getting as much support as she expected for the letter and learning more about why younger alumni where withholding support, she is backpedaling to protect herself. However, if you have reliable intel that she had a more complex view on Stone since before the Hohler article, then I am at a loss as to what game she is playing.
Watson Rink
Registered User
One of our daughters, at a different college and in a different sport, had a coach who was not abusive, just incompetent and eccentric (for example, until the administration intervened, she tried to insist on driving a 15 seat van over the length of the Mohawk Trail during a blizzard).
After their final practice one year, someone from the AD's department showed up in the locker room and informed them that the coach's contract was due to expire and, as the college always did in such situations, invited the players' written opinions as to whether she should be rehired.
Everybody on the team stayed in the locker room for over an hour, writing and writing...and smiling. It was the best team bonding experience they ever had. (The coach was not rehired).
Hope the questionnaire at Harvard proves to be as valuable.
After their final practice one year, someone from the AD's department showed up in the locker room and informed them that the coach's contract was due to expire and, as the college always did in such situations, invited the players' written opinions as to whether she should be rehired.
Everybody on the team stayed in the locker room for over an hour, writing and writing...and smiling. It was the best team bonding experience they ever had. (The coach was not rehired).
Hope the questionnaire at Harvard proves to be as valuable.
Reddington
Well-known member
Hard to believe KDR is already done with her college career.
This is the first surprising thing I've read on this thread. Reliable sources say that after Hohler's article was published, she personally took the lead on behalf of the alumni network to pen a letter to the current and incoming presidents of Harvard to advocate for Stone and the positive culture of the team. She solicited signatures from as many alumni as possible. If she isn't a Stone fan, she's pulling a hell of a fake out on her own teammates.
My question would be why? Assuming we are both correct, the timeline would be informative. One theory: Maybe she started on Team Stone, but after not getting as much support as she expected for the letter and learning more about why younger alumni where withholding support, she is backpedaling to protect herself. However, if you have reliable intel that she had a more complex view on Stone since before the Hohler article, then I am at a loss as to what game she is playing.
Well that IS interesting. I don't think your theory and timeline make sense though.
Like I said, lawyers are often adept at talking out of both sides of their mouth: She did participate some years ago in an alumni get together which devolved into what might be characterized as mutual "bitch session" among a group of Harvard hockey grads of various years. They all shared their personal negative stories of Stone and their less than fond memories of their Harvard Hockey experiences. Based on that, it had certainly appeared to the others that her own feelings toward Stone were similar to theirs.
However, actions speak louder than words. If as you say, she actually spearheaded a letter campaign in support of Stone some years later, (and I have no reason to doubt you) it would suggest that she was conning her fellow alums at that get-together rather than offering up a different, more positive account of her own experiences. Perhaps she may have done so to gather more information to be reported back to Stone, just like in the "good old days".
What is most disappointing, is that not only does it appear she has played both sides at times to suit her own purposes, she most certainly knew full well--based not only on her own time at Harvard, but in attending at least that one event years later in which many other grads after her shared and bonded over their very negative and abusive experiences with Stone--that she still chose to support a cover-up and pretend there was a positive culture.
Who knows? Perhaps her business has somehow benefitted from her relationship with Stone.
Last edited:
Well that IS interesting. I don't think your theory and timeline make sense though.
Like I said, lawyers are often adept at talking out of both sides of their mouth: She did participate some years ago in an alumni get together which devolved into what might be characterized as mutual "***** session" among a group of Harvard hockey grads of various years. They all shared their personal negative stories of Stone and their less than fond memories of their Harvard Hockey experiences. Based on that, it had certainly appeared to the others that her own feelings toward Stone were similar to theirs.
However, actions speak louder than words. If as you say, she actually spearheaded a letter campaign in support of Stone some years later, (and I have no reason to doubt you) it would suggest that she was conning her fellow alums at that get-together rather than offering up a different, more positive account of her own experiences. Perhaps she may have done so to gather more information to be reported back to Stone, just like in the "good old days".
What is most disappointing, is that not only does it appear she has played both sides at times to suit her own purposes, she most certainly knew full well--based not only on her own time at Harvard, but in attending at least that one event years later in which many other grads after her shared and bonded over their very negative and abusive experiences with Stone--that she still chose to support a cover-up and pretend there was a positive culture.
Who knows? Perhaps her business has somehow benefitted from her relationship with Stone.
Wow. Well, it’s hard to imagine there is any connection between Stone and Corriero’s legal career, but Corriero was recently elected as the Executive Director of the Player’s Association of the PHF (particularly concerning given her apparent double-crossing and lack of concern for players in her alma mater). It seems more likely that Corriero’s involvement in the elite women’s game is bolstered by her connection with Stone, or at the very least, crossing Stone and her supporters could be harmful.
The fact that Digit Murphy also has found a home in the PHF doesn’t reflect well on their commitment to creating a non-toxic space for women’s hockey to grow. Really disappointing to see the league backing bullies like this.
Former PHF Staff Raise Concerns About Digit Murphy’s Professional Conduct: https://victorypress.org/2022/07/19/...l-conduct/amp/
Maybe if Stone is pushed out of Harvard, she too will find a home in the PHF…
One of our daughters, at a different college and in a different sport, had a coach who was not abusive, just incompetent and eccentric (for example, until the administration intervened, she tried to insist on driving a 15 seat van over the length of the Mohawk Trail during a blizzard).
After their final practice one year, someone from the AD's department showed up in the locker room and informed them that the coach's contract was due to expire and, as the college always did in such situations, invited the players' written opinions as to whether she should be rehired.
Everybody on the team stayed in the locker room for over an hour, writing and writing...and smiling. It was the best team bonding experience they ever had. (The coach was not rehired).
Hope the questionnaire at Harvard proves to be as valuable.
I've been to the Mohawk Trail and you're right, it's nuts to try to navigate in a blizzard.
I'm wondering if any of the non-Harvard Olympians from 2014 were contacted for Hohler's article on Coach Stone for their input. Coming from other programs, it would be insightful to hear if they picked up on anything that has been discussed in this thread. Given that the women's hockey community seems to be very tight knit, I would imagine more than a few of the players from that squad had to know something about Stone's demeanor and behavior prior to the tryout camps.
I'm wondering if any of the non-Harvard Olympians from 2014 were contacted for Hohler's article on Coach Stone for their input. Coming from other programs, it would be insightful to hear if they picked up on anything that has been discussed in this thread. Given that the women's hockey community seems to be very tight knit, I would imagine more than a few of the players from that squad had to know something about Stone's demeanor and behavior prior to the tryout camps.
My best guess is that no non-Harvard players were contacted by Hohler, who conducted very limited pro-active outreach in general. However, more than a few USWNT players were frustrated by Stone’s style and treatment of certain players. I am aware of one non-Harvard Olympian who spoke to reporters as part of the more thorough investigations which are still ongoing, and I doubt she is the only one.
thirdtime's . . .
Active member
Now that the season is over it’s time to look at the team itself, for a change, before things revert to All Stone, All The Time. We need to see what it is that made them special, very special I think, apart from their almost certainly being Stone’s last group of Crimson skaters. To begin with, keep in mind that this team ended the season just where the pre-season conference poll had them placed, long before there was any public knowledge of the dark side of the program. That is, they ended up where we thought they would, but only after navigating the troubling course that we had no clue lay in front of them.
What the Globe article showed us was that this team’s pre-season more or less started before last year’s season ended, with the explosive comments in the locker room during the Princeton series in March 2022. In April came word of the FAS survey placing HWH dead last in the varsity athletes’ satisfaction category, followed by the AD’s investigation of “conflict” that in July resulted in her dismissively curt announcement that Stone “is our head coach and will remain our head coach.” Stone’s own wan statement, issued just before the Globe story, about having had to “make a concerted effort to better support my players’ experiences" (itself a striking confession after 27 years) made it clear that her failings, rather than her accomplishments, had been front and center all season long. This means that the team didn’t have to play under the burden of intimidation and fear that reportedly characterized so many previous seasons. The cat was out of the bag. But what replaced that fear had to have been at least as intractable: shock, confusion, anxiety, anger — an emotional cauldron. Imagine, if you can, what it must have been like for these players to have to relate to a fallen mentor on an almost daily basis. What does one do with such bewilderment? Well, this team laced 'em up, hopped over the boards and played the game as best they could. There were not a lot of points put up on the score sheet this season, but there must been many motivational points put up in the locker room in order to hold this team together. One would like to think that it was the captains of this small, very green group who led the way here, but, in this environment, who can say? Different players must have stood up at different times before a serially disheartened group. There was just one individual standout on the ice this season (in goal, fittingly, where a record number of saves had to be made), but collectively the team stood out in a way we could not have foreseen, and in a way that needs to be acknowledged as special.
What the Globe article showed us was that this team’s pre-season more or less started before last year’s season ended, with the explosive comments in the locker room during the Princeton series in March 2022. In April came word of the FAS survey placing HWH dead last in the varsity athletes’ satisfaction category, followed by the AD’s investigation of “conflict” that in July resulted in her dismissively curt announcement that Stone “is our head coach and will remain our head coach.” Stone’s own wan statement, issued just before the Globe story, about having had to “make a concerted effort to better support my players’ experiences" (itself a striking confession after 27 years) made it clear that her failings, rather than her accomplishments, had been front and center all season long. This means that the team didn’t have to play under the burden of intimidation and fear that reportedly characterized so many previous seasons. The cat was out of the bag. But what replaced that fear had to have been at least as intractable: shock, confusion, anxiety, anger — an emotional cauldron. Imagine, if you can, what it must have been like for these players to have to relate to a fallen mentor on an almost daily basis. What does one do with such bewilderment? Well, this team laced 'em up, hopped over the boards and played the game as best they could. There were not a lot of points put up on the score sheet this season, but there must been many motivational points put up in the locker room in order to hold this team together. One would like to think that it was the captains of this small, very green group who led the way here, but, in this environment, who can say? Different players must have stood up at different times before a serially disheartened group. There was just one individual standout on the ice this season (in goal, fittingly, where a record number of saves had to be made), but collectively the team stood out in a way we could not have foreseen, and in a way that needs to be acknowledged as special.
What a great post thirdtime's! Throughout all of the controversy surrounding Harvard this year I kept thinking about the players and what they must be going through. I did not see the series with Yale, but given the box score, and knowing the strength of the Yale team, I just have to assume that some real character players donned the Harvard jerseys for that series and played with pride.
Now that the season is over it’s time to look at the team itself, for a change, before things revert to All Stone, All The Time. We need to see what it is that made them special, very special I think, apart from their almost certainly being Stone’s last group of Crimson skaters. To begin with, keep in mind that this team ended the season just where the pre-season conference poll had them placed, long before there was any public knowledge of the dark side of the program. That is, they ended up where we thought they would, but only after navigating the troubling course that we had no clue lay in front of them.
What the Globe article showed us was that this team’s pre-season more or less started before last year’s season ended, with the explosive comments in the locker room during the Princeton series in March 2022. In April came word of the FAS survey placing HWH dead last in the varsity athletes’ satisfaction category, followed by the AD’s investigation of “conflict” that in July resulted in her dismissively curt announcement that Stone “is our head coach and will remain our head coach.” Stone’s own wan statement, issued just before the Globe story, about having had to “make a concerted effort to better support my players’ experiences" (itself a striking confession after 27 years) made it clear that her failings, rather than her accomplishments, had been front and center all season long. This means that the team didn’t have to play under the burden of intimidation and fear that reportedly characterized so many previous seasons. The cat was out of the bag. But what replaced that fear had to have been at least as intractable: shock, confusion, anxiety, anger — an emotional cauldron. Imagine, if you can, what it must have been like for these players to have to relate to a fallen mentor on an almost daily basis. What does one do with such bewilderment? Well, this team laced 'em up, hopped over the boards and played the game as best they could. There were not a lot of points put up on the score sheet this season, but there must been many motivational points put up in the locker room in order to hold this team together. One would like to think that it was the captains of this small, very green group who led the way here, but, in this environment, who can say? Different players must have stood up at different times before a serially disheartened group. There was just one individual standout on the ice this season (in goal, fittingly, where a record number of saves had to be made), but collectively the team stood out in a way we could not have foreseen, and in a way that needs to be acknowledged as special.
Agreed, although I don't believe the pre season scouting report and overall placement prediction was anything more than luck. Had this team been able to ice a full roster including the likes of Lindsay Reed, Maryna Macdonald, and Taze Thompson, I believe the outcome would have been vastly different. we are talking about a goal tender who was in the Patty Kaz talks in her freshman year and had the highest save percentage in the ECAC. I think she got robbed by being sat for several games in her Junior year and that killed her confidence. Maybe this had something to do with her decision to leave the team? She was most definitely a starting goal tender even if she wasn't treated like one. In Macdonald, you have a solid offensive defenseman, who even after missing an entire season, still leads all Defensemen in points/goals. In Thompson, you are talking about a true first line top 3 forward who was voted rookie of the year and managed to put up 20 points on somewhat limited ice time. Last years demise came on the heals of one of the best seasons the Crimson has seen in recent years. The break down can most definitely be attributed to the moral in the locker room. Not the way you treat a team that just won ECAC regular season champions. Ivy league champions. Bean Pot champions. Their playoff run was cut short by a coach causing a huge rift in the locker room where one didn't exist a couple of weeks earlier. I feel bad for the seniors having to finish out their college careers on such a sour note, as well as the freshman that were looking forward to joining such a storied and dominant team only to land in this dumpster fire. Hopefully, under new leadership, this team can turn things around and get back to the top of the heap...