HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

For the record Teddy had nothing to do with the OT winner in 1989; Ed Krayer.

Frankly the notion that Donato's primary function is to educate the boys is nonsense. There several thousand members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences who handle that task... pretty well. Donato's was hired for one purpose; to return Harvard to a Tier 1 level . Of course the University needed to replace Mazzolini and Teddy seemed a perfect replacement at the time. Early on there was evidence that the kids loved him and would skate through brick walls for him. But he has not turned out to be that perfect fit and the kids are now just lost, the lowest scoring team in D1.

Remember though, they are hockey players and, all else understood, they came to Harvard to play the game as hard as they can every night. And like all true hockey players they HATE losing. When they put on that sweater before each game they want more than anything to win this for themselves, for Harvard and for all those who wore the sweater before them. Education is the last thing on their minds.

I wish Teddy could have formed this young group of very good players into a winning team; bet Billy still could. However clearly the past seven years has shown us that Teddy is just not up to the job. He is a wonderful man, but we need a change.

Hey Bothman, why don't you lambaste this guy... he disagrees with you as well! LOL.

I am not miserable, but I do watch a miserable coach lead a storied hockey program down the toilet and discuss my obersations, feelings and pontificate - just like everyone else here.

I have sent a letter to Scalise, so what have you done besides post on a site that no one in power will read?

Seems to me The College kids want their cake and to eat it too... only thing is Donato is in the way.

 

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

This isn't BC where the chuckleheads walk right past admissions and never study. Those guys only care about hockey, not school.

It isn't hard to sell a program that offers a full ride and less than challenging academics. BC and BU are hockey factories that aren't interested in graduating their players. Hell, they only hope their players can remember how to spell their names correctly on the application form.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You two bozos need to watch yourself. That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with and pretty far from the truth too.

CMKnight, why don't you google Vinny Saponari and I'll let you figure out the rest as far as BC admissions is concerned.

 

[Skate79]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Good article in the Globe on incoming recruit Colin Blackwell (2012):

http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/hockey/articles/2011/01/13/at_st_johns_fire_on_the_ice/

If his hockey skills are as good as his attitude and commitment to win, then he looks like a winner. We need more like him to turn things around.

 

[Skate79]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

There was a time in the late seventies when Billy was the HC where the program started to fall to the bottom of the conference. We won only 7 games during my senior year. It wasn't a great time for him or for the program but starting with the Class of '83, the Crimson turned around and became a national contender. I'm not saying that Teddy deserves a free pass here; I'm just saying he isn't the first and won't be the last coach to experience some bumps in the road. Especially when you consider the demands of attending an Ivy school and playing a D-1 sport. Billy always said that he wanted players who would strive to win on the ice and in the classroom. It can be done but finding those players who 'fit' your system and can excel both on and off the ice can be a challenge. And before people start saying "Well what about Yale, Brown and Dartmouth", how were those schools doing in the eighties? Did they routinely make Frozen Four appearances? I think not.

 

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Hey Bothman, why don't you lambaste this guy... he disagrees with you as well! LOL.

I am not miserable, but I do watch a miserable coach lead a storied hockey program down the toilet and discuss my obersations, feelings and pontificate - just like everyone else here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours frequently crosses the line. When you start calling Harvard a laughing stock and start saying that a Pee Wee team could have their way with Harvard...well then you start to resemble the village idiot who needs to be called out.

I'm happy to engage you or anyone else and have a spirited and thoughtful discussion about Harvard hockey...in fact, I encourage it. But don't just come on here and consistently call for a coach's head and start throwing around insults and disparaging remarks like someone dolls out obsenities at a Red Sox game.

 

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

It isn't hard to sell a program that offers a full ride and less than challenging academics. BC and BU are hockey factories that aren't interested in graduating their players. Hell, they only hope their players can remember how to spell their names correctly on the application form.

Are you kidding me with this crap??

 

[yaledoc]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours frequently crosses the line. When you start calling Harvard a laughing stock and start saying that a Pee Wee team could have their way with Harvard...well then you start to resemble the village idiot who needs to be called out.

I'm happy to engage you or anyone else and have a spirited and thoughtful discussion about Harvard hockey...in fact, I encourage it. But don't just come on here and consistently call for a coach's head and start throwing around insults and disparaging remarks like someone dolls out obsenities at a Red Sox game.

NICE, Bothman. Thanks for doing something I've wanted to do for a LONG time! I am once again reminded of what Noah Welch's dad said to Joe Zappala's dad: If you play for Harvard or Yale and you lose on Friday night, you wake up Saturday morning........ and you're STILL at Harvard or Yale!!!!!!!

 

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

There is no reason on Earth why Harvard shouldn't be a top five team every year. Kids who come from prep schools, etc are generally academics who can deal with Harvard's admissions, etc. Some can't but many can. The problem is its not like Harvard doesn't have or hasn't had talent to win. The problem up there in Cambridge is coaching, without a doubt. If there's a more disappointing program in the country year in and year out than Harvard I'd like to know what it is.

 

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

There is no reason on Earth why Harvard shouldn't be a top five team every year. Kids who come from prep schools, etc are generally academics who can deal with Harvard's admissions, etc. Some can't but many can. The problem is its not like Harvard doesn't have or hasn't had talent to win. The problem up there in Cambridge is coaching, without a doubt. If there's a more disappointing program in the country year in and year out than Harvard I'd like to know what it is.

I think this is a prevalent sentiment that while logical on the surface, misses on many levels. Let's break it down:
1) Not all kids who go to Prep Schools can get into Harvard --> Fact! When we talk about an addressable market (the upper-echelon kids that Harvard can choose from, compared to those of BC & BU, I would guess that BU & BC have a 5:1 advantage. If you were selling a product, which addressable market would you prefer to pursue?
2) The best prep school kids have been choosing BC over Harvard, which didn't used to happen as consistently --> Chris Kreider is a perfect example of this. Kreider would have gone to Harvard 15 yrs ago. Not now!
3) Harvard has talent, but doesn't compare to Minnesota for example (Depth is a big issue at Harvard) --> I'd say Minny is a more consistent underachiever given their lack of recent success coupled with the talent they copnsistently display and the # of players they send to the show

What does this mean?

Harvard in the 1980s got its fair share of the best prep school kids and local kids on a consistent basis (Drury, Donato, Young, Bourbeau, Fuscos, Matins, etc). I'm not sure that these caliber players would choose Harvard today (This is a big issue I'd love to get deeper insight into).

The Prep School ranks are not what they once were. Kids go to the USNDT & USHL at an earlier age and they leave the protective nest of New England and the Boston-based schools. Playing in Sioux Falls and Ann Arbor gives the WCHA & CCHA heavyweights a much better avenue than there used to be.

Harvard has responded to this waning local talent, by matriculating many more Canadiens than I can ever remember over the last 30 yrs. Why? Because they have had to in order survive

Lastly, coaching. This is a very obvious issue, but it is not the only issue as many others indicate. The fact that Yale has been able to overcome the same challenges speaks to that. I believe where Yale has been very successful is that they have been able to find some overage Canadiens who also have the grades to get through admissions - this combo doesn't happen as much for the Ivies.

Slasher - I would love to believe that Harvard could be a Top 5 team every year. But the sun never used to set on the British Empire either. Times have changed, and Harvard needs to reassess how it can expect to compete given the shift in landscape.

 

[alslammerz]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours frequently crosses the line. When you start calling Harvard a laughing stock and start saying that a Pee Wee team could have their way with Harvard...well then you start to resemble the village idiot who needs to be called out.

I'm happy to engage you or anyone else and have a spirited and thoughtful discussion about Harvard hockey...in fact, I encourage it. But don't just come on here and consistently call for a coach's head and start throwing around insults and disparaging remarks like someone dolls out obsenities at a Red Sox game.

I'm going to tell you the same thing you said earlier in the thread...stop quoting that guy, you are rendering my ignore list obsolete.

 

[CMKnight]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

The Harvard players I knew in the 80s and early 90s were intensely competitive people who wanted to win NCAA titles and do well in school. Fun was a third priority, and playing in the NHL was icing on the cake, rather than a developmental stepping stone. Are you really suggesting today's Harvard players have different priorities?

I think Harvard can be relevant nationally with the right coaching staff. If RIT can be a Frozen Four team, so can Harvard.

You raise a great point. The college game has changed a lot since the 80's. Here's a link to a good article that discusses that and Harvard today in particular:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/sports/hockey/11harvard.html?emc=eta1



I don't think Harvard gets the same type of players they did in the 80's. Some of the kids they get today are as talented are the calibre of the Fuscos and CJ Young but they do not get the depth of talent that they used to get as Bothman pointed out. Also, the kids they get today are not as committed to their hockey as those kids were back in the 80's.. The kids back in the 80's worked harder in the weight room and during the summers. Some players on the present Harvard team work at their hockey year round but not nearly enough of them do. Instead they are internships on Wall Street and Disney during the summer and never skate all summer.

Many of those kids who were going to Harvard in the 80's now are going to Michigan, Notre Dame etc. More games, against better competition, but more importantly they parctice against better talent every day. If a kid today wants to max out his potential solely as a hockey player he will not go to Harvard. The gap between tution payments has skyrocketed and if a kid comes to Harvard now it's first and foremeost about education, not winning a national championship. The fact that some kids are leaving so much money on the table by going to Harvard over some major scholarship program etc says that he's in it for the education and hockey will not be a priority. In the 80's there was not as much money ( in today's dollars ) being left on the table. Today a scholarship can be worth $50K a year.



I don't doubt that Harvard players hate losing, but they are not willing to put in the time on and off the ice to beat teams that wormore comitted than they are. I agree that these Harvard kids are competors and they hate losing but the work ethic and priorities are not there.They are perhaps realizing that wanting to win and being able to win are no longer the same as thing as it was in high school.

Teddy was hired not as a coach but as an educator, to fulfill the same role that Bill Cleary filled. To say otherwise is an insult to Billy's who was Teddy's chief proponent in the selection process. A college hockey coach is an educator above all else, especially at a place like Harvard. Ask any of Cleary's former players what his main role was and they will tell you that he was an educator first. Teddy is just that. He's a great guy and is a marvelous anbassador for Harvard hockey. He has endured a bit of a rough patch recently after setting the record for most wins of any Harvard hockey coach in his first three years. Yes, more wins than even Billy. Hes' recruited some top kids that other teams backed off because they realized that they were prima donnas. There are a few prima donnas on the way. Today takes what he can get and often what he pulls in surprises some people. He has done an outstanding job recruiting talent but often that talent comes with strings attached ( bad attitudes or players who are retiring from competitive hockey).

The ECAC is now a league of widened parity. Admiitedly Teddy had to learn how to fill out forms better, study game films and learn how to game plan for oponents, something he doesn't have the biggest apetitite for. But he has come around and has made strides in all those areas. He's learned to deal with some spoiled children and their parents and instead of telling them that they can stuff it ( Mazzolini ) he has learned to make accommodations. He has the patience of a saint and without his wonderful sense of humor he I doubt he would still have his sanity.

I feel it's really shameful for a bunch of guys themselves fans jump on Teddy's back after a couple rough seasons. It just like high school parents today who wantr the coach fired after not performming mircacles. As Skate79 said Cleary had some brutal seasons back when. I doubt any fans said a word about it. Billy was growing his insurance biz on the side and nobody ever dared say anything to him about making a choice or resigning. Teddy has a family but he still works hard most of the time. He's still learning about coachihng on the fly but that doesn't always show in the win coulumn. He shoudl never have been thrust into te head coaching without some mentoring but what's done is done. He now is mostly up to speed and he knows the game as well as anyone. If he had more commited talent I think Teddy would have Harvard in the top 3 of the league every year, even in this recently much-improved league.

 

[Skate79]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Are you kidding me with this crap??

No I'm not kidding because I've spoken to the parents of kids who were recruited by Harvard, BC and BU and I can tell you with every confidence that BC and BU do not hold academics in the same regard as Harvard. To say otherwise is being naive or stupid or both. BC and BU coaches make it very clear from the outset what their expectations are from the recruit and it isn't to study biology or history. They are there to play hockey and that's all they want the kids to think about 24/7. They want that level of commitment; if the kid isn't willing or has ideas about majoring in a particular subject, he can go elsewhere.

 

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

I can tell you with every confidence that BC and BU do not hold academics in the same regard as Harvard.

Gee, you don't say? Freaking brilliant.

That is a long jump from this quote: "BC and BU are hockey factories that aren't interested in graduating their players. Hell, they only hope their players can remember how to spell their names correctly on the application form."

BC and BU coaches make it very clear from the outset what their expectations are from the recruit and it isn't to study biology or history. They are there to play hockey and that's all they want the kids to think about 24/7. They want that level of commitment; if the kid isn't willing or has ideas about majoring in a particular subject, he can go elsewhere.

I'll let BU people comment on BU.

But it's pretty obvious how wrong you are about BC to anyone that has any clue about BC. You think Jerry York doesn't care about academics? Do you have a chromosomal deficiency? Ever hear of AJ Walker (psychology and economics major, valedictorian at Shattuck St. Marys)? How about Ben Smith while we are talking about history majors (history major; minored in economics and philosophy)? Yea he's a pretty good hockey player too and one of the best student-athletes to come through any Boston school in a long, long time... he also did a lot of community service for the record. Those are just two off the top of my head.

Your posts about this subject are monumentally stupid and you are making yourself look like an absolute donkey. I would ask you to refrain from talking about things you have no idea about, especially if it is dragging the name of another school through the mud. If you know about Harvard's situation (or even BU's), stick with that. But you clearly have no idea what Jerry York is all about if you think he doesn't care about graduating players (my God what a stupid idea!).

 

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

No I'm not kidding because I've spoken to the parents of kids who were recruited by Harvard, BC and BU and I can tell you with every confidence that BC and BU do not hold academics in the same regard as Harvard. To say otherwise is being naive or stupid or both. BC and BU coaches make it very clear from the outset what their expectations are from the recruit and it isn't to study biology or history. They are there to play hockey and that's all they want the kids to think about 24/7. They want that level of commitment; if the kid isn't willing or has ideas about majoring in a particular subject, he can go elsewhere.

Of course the academics at BC/BU aren't the same as Harvard, but you're making it sound like BC especially lets everyone in who can skate which is not the case. You couldnt be more wrong about the program's commitment to academics, too. You are making yourself look foolish and this is probably why you got rejected by Stanford.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does not have the talent, period. they take to many kids who have solid reps built on past successes. 4th liners from natl team dont cut it, just because they played on natl team.

They do not have the horses, period.

They ignore kids like Wayne Simpson etc and go after others who were real good at 14/15 and than live off their reps.

They dont have the talent, period....

 

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does not have the talent, period. they take to many kids who have solid reps built on past successes. 4th liners from natl team dont cut it, just because they played on natl team.

They do not have the horses, period.

They ignore kids like Wayne Simpson etc and go after others who were real good at 14/15 and than live off their reps.

They dont have the talent, period....

So the Biegas, Dominic Moore, Dylan Reese, Louie LeBlanc, Alex Kilorn, etc have no talent? Seriously, do you think before you post your nonsense? I wonder how a guy like Killorn or LeBlanc would have performed under a guy like York.

 

[northeastern]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does have talent from time to time & successful seasons will come and go.

D1 Hockey has very little fan support nationally except for a few schools. Harvard is no exception. Players go to Harvard to play & graduate from the U. This is true for several sports programs at the University.


You make long lasting friendships.. great connections.. go work at or start your own gig. Locally, you play men's league with the guys you forged friendships with until your 60s or beyond.. Lead a good life.. leave a nice nest egg for your families.. do some good for society & spend less time (if any).. on forums such as this (guilty ).

That's why you go to Harvard. Ask Teddy G'luck H fans.. it'll come around.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

talking about current team.

it is as stated...

 

[sam12]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

You raise a great point. The college game has changed a lot since the 80's. Here's a link to a good article that discusses that and Harvard today in particular:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/sports/hockey/11harvard.html?emc=eta1



I don't think Harvard gets the same type of players they did in the 80's. Some of the kids they get today are as talented are the calibre of the Fuscos and CJ Young but they do not get the depth of talent that they used to get as Bothman pointed out. Also, the kids they get today are not as committed to their hockey as those kids were back in the 80's.. The kids back in the 80's worked harder in the weight room and during the summers. Some players on the present Harvard team work at their hockey year round but not nearly enough of them do. Instead they are internships on Wall Street and Disney during the summer and never skate all summer.

Many of those kids who were going to Harvard in the 80's now are going to Michigan, Notre Dame etc. More games, against better competition, but more importantly they parctice against better talent every day. If a kid today wants to max out his potential solely as a hockey player he will not go to Harvard. The gap between tution payments has skyrocketed and if a kid comes to Harvard now it's first and foremeost about education, not winning a national championship. The fact that some kids are leaving so much money on the table by going to Harvard over some major scholarship program etc says that he's in it for the education and hockey will not be a priority. In the 80's there was not as much money ( in today's dollars ) being left on the table. Today a scholarship can be worth $50K a year.



I don't doubt that Harvard players hate losing, but they are not willing to put in the time on and off the ice to beat teams that wormore comitted than they are. I agree that these Harvard kids are competors and they hate losing but the work ethic and priorities are not there.They are perhaps realizing that wanting to win and being able to win are no longer the same as thing as it was in high school.

Teddy was hired not as a coach but as an educator, to fulfill the same role that Bill Cleary filled. To say otherwise is an insult to Billy's who was Teddy's chief proponent in the selection process. A college hockey coach is an educator above all else, especially at a place like Harvard. Ask any of Cleary's former players what his main role was and they will tell you that he was an educator first. Teddy is just that. He's a great guy and is a marvelous anbassador for Harvard hockey. He has endured a bit of a rough patch recently after setting the record for most wins of any Harvard hockey coach in his first three years. Yes, more wins than even Billy. Hes' recruited some top kids that other teams backed off because they realized that they were prima donnas. There are a few prima donnas on the way. Today takes what he can get and often what he pulls in surprises some people. He has done an outstanding job recruiting talent but often that talent comes with strings attached ( bad attitudes or players who are retiring from competitive hockey).

The ECAC is now a league of widened parity. Admiitedly Teddy had to learn how to fill out forms better, study game films and learn how to game plan for oponents, something he doesn't have the biggest apetitite for. But he has come around and has made strides in all those areas. He's learned to deal with some spoiled children and their parents and instead of telling them that they can stuff it ( Mazzolini ) he has learned to make accommodations. He has the patience of a saint and without his wonderful sense of humor he I doubt he would still have his sanity.

I feel it's really shameful for a bunch of guys themselves fans jump on Teddy's back after a couple rough seasons. It just like high school parents today who wantr the coach fired after not performming mircacles. As Skate79 said Cleary had some brutal seasons back when. I doubt any fans said a word about it. Billy was growing his insurance biz on the side and nobody ever dared say anything to him about making a choice or resigning. Teddy has a family but he still works hard most of the time. He's still learning about coachihng on the fly but that doesn't always show in the win coulumn. He shoudl never have been thrust into te head coaching without some mentoring but what's done is done. He now is mostly up to speed and he knows the game as well as anyone. If he had more commited talent I think Teddy would have Harvard in the top 3 of the league every year, even in this recently much-improved league.

This post shows a complete lack of knowledge about a) the college game and b) ivy league hockey

I don't like to be critical on this forum because I'm not an insider and there is a ton I don't know and I misunderstand and get things wrong all of the time. However, when a post is blatantly false I have to respond. TO say that the players back in the 80's worked harder in the weight room is false. The off ice training and weight lifting in hockey is a very recent phenomena, and while those 80's teams were tremendously talented(no argument there), I have no doubt in my mind that Ivy players now are in better physical condition (in the weight room). No doubt. Almost every kid spends the entire summer training and lifting weights and conditioning. Those who don't are left behind. Also, I would also say that this era of Ivy Leaguers skates much more in the summers now as well. Div 1 hockey is so good now that you don't make it near this level unless you are skating almost full time since you are young. There are just way too many good players and people that want to be at this level. To me, this is almost indisputable as well. I would say in the 80's the players were more likely to be at Disney or NYC for an internships, especially given the fact that admissions standards for hockey players are at or near an all time low. Also, further evidence is the fact that Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Cornell (seemingly every year except this year) are prominent in the national picture recently. Players at all these schools and harvard were most likely recruited by all the Ivies, or at least looked at. So this is not endemic across the Ivy league, which by itself would lead me to believe that that is not the problem at alll.


What could it be then? I am interested in your comment about Teddy bringing in primma donnas etc. Could it be a thing where the team has talent, but not the right character or not the right mix of players? Too many bad attitudes with talent that are hurting the team system and dynamic? Unfortunately I don't know any of the players at a level to determine that myself, but from what Ive heard from others, you might be on to something.

 

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does not have the talent, period. they take to many kids who have solid reps built on past successes. 4th liners from natl team dont cut it, just because they played on natl team.

They do not have the horses, period.

They ignore kids like Wayne Simpson etc and go after others who were real good at 14/15 and than live off their reps.

They dont have the talent, period....

Talent is a funny thing and is as just as much art as it is science. One of things that helps one's talent appraisal / hit rate is knowing what to recruit for (ie, knowing the system you want to play and recruiting guys that fit that system. I think this is primarily where Harvard has fallen short. Do they want to play a fast, up-tempo, skill game? Do they want to play a big and physical, along the boards game? Harvard doesn't have much of an identity when you watch them on the ice.

As far as Harvard & talent, I would break it down like this:

1) You Win some - Grimshaw, Killorn, Leblanc,
2) You Lose Some - Barnes, Kreider
3) You Didn't Assess Well - I'm not going to list names, but clearly there are some guys on Harvard's team that haven't delivered.