Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
He must have spelled his name wrong on his SAT
He must have spelled his name wrong on his SAT
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
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.
HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
- Thread starter ALONZO
- Start date
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Yet you state how talented Merrimack is? Give me a break. I bet there that most teams nationally would like to have the "dearth" of talent that Harvard has every year, this year included. Sure, I bet none of their Shattuck or USNDPT kids could make a team as 'great' as the South Shore Kings, but hey, they gotta start somewhere.
Yet you state how talented Merrimack is? Give me a break. I bet there that most teams nationally would like to have the "dearth" of talent that Harvard has every year, this year included. Sure, I bet none of their Shattuck or USNDPT kids could make a team as 'great' as the South Shore Kings, but hey, they gotta start somewhere.
eaglehockeyrules
BC '84, HES '97
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
LeBlanc would have won a National Championship... that's for sure!
But uz bc kidz cants spill our own namez so we'd not make into hahvahd. LOL.
LeBlanc would have won a National Championship... that's for sure!
But uz bc kidz cants spill our own namez so we'd not make into hahvahd. LOL.
Last edited:
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
If Donato's doing a good job with the talent he's got -- a dubious claim in my opinion, I just think he can't coach -- then whose fault is the lack of talent? Ivy schools can compete with the best programs in college hockey; we'll see how deep into the NCAA's Yale gets this year. Whether they can go all the way is beside the point here, as I don't think anyone on this board is feeling deprived of a Harvard national championship. How about an Ivy League championship? Or winning an Ivy League game? Seems like the only suspense left is whether they can pull one out against Brown, Yale, Cornel or Princeton. Harvard has plunged in its peer group and that's what matters most from a competitive standpoint.
I don't agree that a hockey coach is first and foremost an educator, especially at a place like Harvard, but even if that's the case, Donato has not educated his recent teams and the players he's recruited a CRITICAL life skill: Winning! Business is all about how to work together in teams and win. This team has more talent than 3-15, but they don't have that skill. And winning is a skill, just like skating and shooting and stickhandling. Success helps people gain confidence and having such a disappointing hockey experience at Harvard is a lost opportunity. Not to mention the deprivation of an opportunity for a broader group of fans to be drawn to Harvard hockey, which desperately needs fans. A half-filled Bright Center with half-interested fans is a touch sell for a recruit also considering Cornell/Lynah, where the players are rock stars (and presumably good students as well). Fewer and fewer local kids are being inspired to play hockey, as I was as a kid attending Harvard hockey games. And playing hockey taught me a lot.
CMKnight, you speak as if the coaching spot is an entitlement for Donato, that he's "earned his glide" and given so much to the Harvard program. This is a job; it's not a reward. The Harvard hockey prorgam is about more than one great guy and ex-Harvard star being granted work/life balance. Harvard hockey coach is not a tenured position. Just ask his two predecessors.
There are PLENTY of potential coaches out there who can be both educators and winners, like Bill Clearly. It's time to go find one. Fast.
If Donato's doing a good job with the talent he's got -- a dubious claim in my opinion, I just think he can't coach -- then whose fault is the lack of talent? Ivy schools can compete with the best programs in college hockey; we'll see how deep into the NCAA's Yale gets this year. Whether they can go all the way is beside the point here, as I don't think anyone on this board is feeling deprived of a Harvard national championship. How about an Ivy League championship? Or winning an Ivy League game? Seems like the only suspense left is whether they can pull one out against Brown, Yale, Cornel or Princeton. Harvard has plunged in its peer group and that's what matters most from a competitive standpoint.
I don't agree that a hockey coach is first and foremost an educator, especially at a place like Harvard, but even if that's the case, Donato has not educated his recent teams and the players he's recruited a CRITICAL life skill: Winning! Business is all about how to work together in teams and win. This team has more talent than 3-15, but they don't have that skill. And winning is a skill, just like skating and shooting and stickhandling. Success helps people gain confidence and having such a disappointing hockey experience at Harvard is a lost opportunity. Not to mention the deprivation of an opportunity for a broader group of fans to be drawn to Harvard hockey, which desperately needs fans. A half-filled Bright Center with half-interested fans is a touch sell for a recruit also considering Cornell/Lynah, where the players are rock stars (and presumably good students as well). Fewer and fewer local kids are being inspired to play hockey, as I was as a kid attending Harvard hockey games. And playing hockey taught me a lot.
CMKnight, you speak as if the coaching spot is an entitlement for Donato, that he's "earned his glide" and given so much to the Harvard program. This is a job; it's not a reward. The Harvard hockey prorgam is about more than one great guy and ex-Harvard star being granted work/life balance. Harvard hockey coach is not a tenured position. Just ask his two predecessors.
There are PLENTY of potential coaches out there who can be both educators and winners, like Bill Clearly. It's time to go find one. Fast.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Never thought I would do this but I partially agree w/hokydad.Watched Harvard play RPI over the weekend (for matters of full disclosure Im a RPI fan)and contrary to there record they are not a horrible team.They have some high end talent Huxley/Biegas/Grimshaw and especially Kilorn the problem seems to be it ends there.Speaking for our team we are much improved over previous years even losing 2 top end players to the pro's.....but top to bottom we have really good hockey players and run out 4 competitive lines every night.Appert has brought in a lot of players both scholorship and non and it is really hard to crack the line up we have good players in the stands watching every week.We still have some work to do but we are save a few in every game.It looked to me like once you get into your bench things get ugly.Who's fault is that I don't know several factors go into depth issues.RPI is much improved and in my opinion Union is as hard a team to play against in the country.both are nationally ranked and Harvard gave them all they could handle over the weekend.Its hard for me to believe Ted Danato forgot how to coach He's had some good teams.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Faz:
Yes, I agreed with your recommendation a year ago and I agree with you now. Like you I have refrained from mudslinging but something has to be done. I don't know Ted Donato and have not seen enough Harvard games to critique his coaching, nor am I qualified to pass judgment, but I can read the record. Very simply he took over a team which was 1-2 in the Ivy League and guided it into the cellar. I thought Bob Scalise would make a move after last season. He didn't and now the pressure is mounting.
Some posters point out that Bill Cleary and John Wooden had some lean years before making their marks as coaches. True, but their programs did not deteriorate during those years...they just didn't progress. Donato, on the other hand, has been at the helm for seven years and it has been virtually all downhill. Ironicly the mens hockey decline has come about during an era of unprecedented success for Harvard teams, both men and women, across the board. Other Harvard coaches for the most part have been able to recruit successfully and build winning programs. Mens hockey, a flagship sport at Harvard, stands out in contrast like a sore thumb.
Aside from the team performance I think the recruiting leaves something to be desired. There are a number of guys Donato and his staff were well aware of but chose not to pursue presumedly because the coaches felt these guys were not good enough to play for Harvard. The Devin brothers from a nearby Boston suburb are now at Cornell. Not good enough? Joe Devin is second in points and goals for the Big Red and Mike, a defenseman, is second in assists. Then there is George Hughes, son of a Harvard hockey legend, who plays for SLU. Not good enough? George only made the ECAC All-Rookie team last year and was a pre-season pick as a defenseman for the 2010-2011 all ECAC team. And how about Andrew Miller at Yale? Not good enough? Andrew merely leads the nationally #1 ranked Elis in assists, +/-, gwg's and trails Yale points leader, Broc Little, by just one point....besides being rated one of the best defensive forwards in the ECAC. He would probably be the Yale MVP if he were not just a sophomore. And there are others.
To sum up it is time for a change. The team is struggling, the players don't seem to develop once they reach Cambridge, there are many empty seats at Bright and there is nothing to suggest things will improve. It is time to bring Nate Leaman back to Harvard. He has done an unbelievable job at Union, taking over a team in disarray and elevating it into the national spotlight. Yes, Union no less. His tenure at Union exactly parallels Donato's at Harvard but the the programs have moved in precisely opposite directions.
Having said all this I still think the Crimson can win six or seven games this season. Perhaps the best chance to start is this weekend when the weakest opposing tandem, Colgate and Cornell, visits Bright. Better late than never.
GO CRIMSON!
Faz:
Yes, I agreed with your recommendation a year ago and I agree with you now. Like you I have refrained from mudslinging but something has to be done. I don't know Ted Donato and have not seen enough Harvard games to critique his coaching, nor am I qualified to pass judgment, but I can read the record. Very simply he took over a team which was 1-2 in the Ivy League and guided it into the cellar. I thought Bob Scalise would make a move after last season. He didn't and now the pressure is mounting.
Some posters point out that Bill Cleary and John Wooden had some lean years before making their marks as coaches. True, but their programs did not deteriorate during those years...they just didn't progress. Donato, on the other hand, has been at the helm for seven years and it has been virtually all downhill. Ironicly the mens hockey decline has come about during an era of unprecedented success for Harvard teams, both men and women, across the board. Other Harvard coaches for the most part have been able to recruit successfully and build winning programs. Mens hockey, a flagship sport at Harvard, stands out in contrast like a sore thumb.
Aside from the team performance I think the recruiting leaves something to be desired. There are a number of guys Donato and his staff were well aware of but chose not to pursue presumedly because the coaches felt these guys were not good enough to play for Harvard. The Devin brothers from a nearby Boston suburb are now at Cornell. Not good enough? Joe Devin is second in points and goals for the Big Red and Mike, a defenseman, is second in assists. Then there is George Hughes, son of a Harvard hockey legend, who plays for SLU. Not good enough? George only made the ECAC All-Rookie team last year and was a pre-season pick as a defenseman for the 2010-2011 all ECAC team. And how about Andrew Miller at Yale? Not good enough? Andrew merely leads the nationally #1 ranked Elis in assists, +/-, gwg's and trails Yale points leader, Broc Little, by just one point....besides being rated one of the best defensive forwards in the ECAC. He would probably be the Yale MVP if he were not just a sophomore. And there are others.
To sum up it is time for a change. The team is struggling, the players don't seem to develop once they reach Cambridge, there are many empty seats at Bright and there is nothing to suggest things will improve. It is time to bring Nate Leaman back to Harvard. He has done an unbelievable job at Union, taking over a team in disarray and elevating it into the national spotlight. Yes, Union no less. His tenure at Union exactly parallels Donato's at Harvard but the the programs have moved in precisely opposite directions.
Having said all this I still think the Crimson can win six or seven games this season. Perhaps the best chance to start is this weekend when the weakest opposing tandem, Colgate and Cornell, visits Bright. Better late than never.
GO CRIMSON!
Greg Ambrose
Registered User
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
I'm putting my two cents strictly as an observer, mostly from afar, of Harvard Hockey for over 40 years. Bill Cleary, and Cooney Weiland before him, were great coaches. Sure it was a different time, the rosters were filled with local kids who obviously jumped at the chance to play college hockey and get a Harvard degree to boot. But even when recruiting became more competitive in the '80's, Harvard continued to be a national power. The players they had, you all know who they are, were equal to anything that BU, North Dakota or Wisconsin were producing.
What has happened over the last few years is beyond puzzling to me. While Cornell, Yale, Dartmouth and even Brown are representing the Ivies well, Harvard is now like a poor stepchild. I hardly ever see them play, but their performance in the opening round of the Beanpot last year was shocking. Despite the 5 PM start, I made a point to get there as early as I could, just so I could see Louis LeBlanc play. I was not impressed, either with him specifically or the team in general. Of course I had no reason to believe that they could beat BC, but they didn't even put up a fight. You would have thought a local guy like Donato, who has been going to the Beanpot since he was kid, would be able to instill in them the will to battle even in the late stages of a below average season. To see a Harvard team just lay down should be embarrassing to the team, its fans, and the school. It was no wonder that Montreal suggested that LeBlanc go back to Major Juniors.
Something is wrong at Harvard. While Yale, which for most of the last 30 years has been a patsy, is rejuvenated under Allain. I had a Yale grad, who played for them in the late '70's, tell me that Allain's focus was to recruit kids who in an earlier time would have gone to Harvard. He said that, at first it was a difficult sell, but not anymore. My team, UNH, played Brown earlier this year. They were lucky to tie. Then Brown tied at BU, then smoked them, 6-1, in a holiday tournament in Chicago. UNH then lost to Dartmouth a couple of weeks ago. Anybody think that Harvard could do any of that right now.
I'm in no position to say who should be the Harvard coach but it is obvious that it should be someone other than the guy who is behind the bench now.
I'm putting my two cents strictly as an observer, mostly from afar, of Harvard Hockey for over 40 years. Bill Cleary, and Cooney Weiland before him, were great coaches. Sure it was a different time, the rosters were filled with local kids who obviously jumped at the chance to play college hockey and get a Harvard degree to boot. But even when recruiting became more competitive in the '80's, Harvard continued to be a national power. The players they had, you all know who they are, were equal to anything that BU, North Dakota or Wisconsin were producing.
What has happened over the last few years is beyond puzzling to me. While Cornell, Yale, Dartmouth and even Brown are representing the Ivies well, Harvard is now like a poor stepchild. I hardly ever see them play, but their performance in the opening round of the Beanpot last year was shocking. Despite the 5 PM start, I made a point to get there as early as I could, just so I could see Louis LeBlanc play. I was not impressed, either with him specifically or the team in general. Of course I had no reason to believe that they could beat BC, but they didn't even put up a fight. You would have thought a local guy like Donato, who has been going to the Beanpot since he was kid, would be able to instill in them the will to battle even in the late stages of a below average season. To see a Harvard team just lay down should be embarrassing to the team, its fans, and the school. It was no wonder that Montreal suggested that LeBlanc go back to Major Juniors.
Something is wrong at Harvard. While Yale, which for most of the last 30 years has been a patsy, is rejuvenated under Allain. I had a Yale grad, who played for them in the late '70's, tell me that Allain's focus was to recruit kids who in an earlier time would have gone to Harvard. He said that, at first it was a difficult sell, but not anymore. My team, UNH, played Brown earlier this year. They were lucky to tie. Then Brown tied at BU, then smoked them, 6-1, in a holiday tournament in Chicago. UNH then lost to Dartmouth a couple of weeks ago. Anybody think that Harvard could do any of that right now.
I'm in no position to say who should be the Harvard coach but it is obvious that it should be someone other than the guy who is behind the bench now.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Harvard, with the right coach, could challenge for a Frozen Four spot every year. They have underachieved for decades now.
Harvard, with the right coach, could challenge for a Frozen Four spot every year. They have underachieved for decades now.
Nick Papagiorgio
Holding court
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Hmmm... Not sure I could agree with that. I really could never say that about any ECAC team. Throw in the tough academic requirement for admission and that's something I'm just not buying.
Regardless, I think Greg's post is pretty spot on (for once). At the end of the day, Donato has brought in a good amount of talent and he's a disaster behind that bench (like I said a few months ago).
Hmmm... Not sure I could agree with that. I really could never say that about any ECAC team. Throw in the tough academic requirement for admission and that's something I'm just not buying.
Regardless, I think Greg's post is pretty spot on (for once). At the end of the day, Donato has brought in a good amount of talent and he's a disaster behind that bench (like I said a few months ago).
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
There has been some great discussion and I am glad that folks outside of Harvard are chiming in. We are lucky to have some of the best posters on this board (TimU & Puck Swami) chiming in from time to time.
4faz & Greag Ambrose - Thanks for stating your POVs and doing so in a way that is constructive and not filled with petty insults and disparaging remarks. Your points are valid and well-taken.
There has been some great discussion and I am glad that folks outside of Harvard are chiming in. We are lucky to have some of the best posters on this board (TimU & Puck Swami) chiming in from time to time.
4faz & Greag Ambrose - Thanks for stating your POVs and doing so in a way that is constructive and not filled with petty insults and disparaging remarks. Your points are valid and well-taken.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Looking at the PWR I think I see 32 teams that are more than happy without all of the talent that Harvard supposedly has right now. One of those teams is #11 Merrimack, who beat Harvard at home this season. I'm honestly not sure why you bring that up.
Are you saying that Harvard is more talented than Merrimack this season? If so, what was the reason for the loss-- dumb luck? Lack of effort? Harvard is more talented than Merrimack, but we don't work as hard? Is that something to be proud of?
I've been a fan of Harvard hockey since the late 80s leading up to their '89 championship, and I'm sort of glad Harvard and Merrimack don't play in the same league, so I can root for both. It's a shame Harvard's program is struggling, but I honestly don't see how defending the current talent level is productive, unless the idea is that a new coach will somehow magically turn everything around in less than a single recruiting cycle. It's hard as a fan-- and even harder as a student-- to realize that sometimes the only way for a team to be better is for it to be composed of an almost entirely different group of people. It's unpleasant, but sometimes true.
Merrimack's last coaching change I think is a big part of this year's positive results for that program, but it took a whole recruiting cycle before things started to move forward. I doubt it would be any different for Harvard.
Looking at the PWR I think I see 32 teams that are more than happy without all of the talent that Harvard supposedly has right now. One of those teams is #11 Merrimack, who beat Harvard at home this season. I'm honestly not sure why you bring that up.
Are you saying that Harvard is more talented than Merrimack this season? If so, what was the reason for the loss-- dumb luck? Lack of effort? Harvard is more talented than Merrimack, but we don't work as hard? Is that something to be proud of?
I've been a fan of Harvard hockey since the late 80s leading up to their '89 championship, and I'm sort of glad Harvard and Merrimack don't play in the same league, so I can root for both. It's a shame Harvard's program is struggling, but I honestly don't see how defending the current talent level is productive, unless the idea is that a new coach will somehow magically turn everything around in less than a single recruiting cycle. It's hard as a fan-- and even harder as a student-- to realize that sometimes the only way for a team to be better is for it to be composed of an almost entirely different group of people. It's unpleasant, but sometimes true.
Merrimack's last coaching change I think is a big part of this year's positive results for that program, but it took a whole recruiting cycle before things started to move forward. I doubt it would be any different for Harvard.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Finally won a game tonight and scored more than two goals to boot. Had to be one of the most boring games I've seen in a long time. I guess that happens when you have the bottom of the barrel playing each other.
Some bright notes from the game. Alex Killorn flashed some serious speed all night the most exciting of which came near the end of the second period when he blew past the Colgate D and flipped a wrister past the goalie. He had a few other chances and set up his linemates for good scoring opportunities. Danny Biega also continues to impress. Danny's instincts are better than his two brothers and he just seems to have a knack for putting the puck through a pinhole. Great that he got the hat trick tonight but his motor was really going strong all night.
Ryan Carroll played well in net. Colgate has a nice breakout but they aren't very good at finishing not counting their two goals tonight which were a result of egregious breakdowns by Harvard. Someone has to coach Marshall Everson and Alex Fallstrom in the D zone. They seem incapable of knowing where the hell they are supposed to be at any given time.
Hey, we can't complain. A win is a win is a win. Bring on the Big Red for a White Out tomorrow at Bright.
Finally won a game tonight and scored more than two goals to boot. Had to be one of the most boring games I've seen in a long time. I guess that happens when you have the bottom of the barrel playing each other.
Some bright notes from the game. Alex Killorn flashed some serious speed all night the most exciting of which came near the end of the second period when he blew past the Colgate D and flipped a wrister past the goalie. He had a few other chances and set up his linemates for good scoring opportunities. Danny Biega also continues to impress. Danny's instincts are better than his two brothers and he just seems to have a knack for putting the puck through a pinhole. Great that he got the hat trick tonight but his motor was really going strong all night.
Ryan Carroll played well in net. Colgate has a nice breakout but they aren't very good at finishing not counting their two goals tonight which were a result of egregious breakdowns by Harvard. Someone has to coach Marshall Everson and Alex Fallstrom in the D zone. They seem incapable of knowing where the hell they are supposed to be at any given time.
Hey, we can't complain. A win is a win is a win. Bring on the Big Red for a White Out tomorrow at Bright.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
The Harvard teams in the 80's worked extremely hard on and off the ice, and, yes much harder than the present Harvard players. Technology is nothing if you don't use it. This Harvard team is one of the softest in the ECAC. They are weak on the puck, and lack the muscle to bang with most teams in the corners despite often having significant size advantages over opponents. Although a (real ) strength coach was finally hired this season many players still do not work hard enough on their strength training. Harvard made the NCAA's 7 times in the 80's, played in the Final Four 4 times, played for the national title twice, and won it once. They produced 3 Hobey Baker winners in the process. They didn't acomplish those feats without a ton of hard work. Players like the Fuscos, Bourbeau, CJ Young, Teddy, Don Sweeney, Neil Sheehy did came to Harvard as good local players but often not regarded as top of the heap recruits. Teddy was the highest draft pick and he was only a 5th round draft pick who was considered undersized. These were the star players at Harvard; the others were often even lesser known. Those guys had total comitment to developing their games, increasing their strength and ourworking opponents on the ice. Many guys came to Harvard as realtive unknowns and acheived great success because they pushed themselves and each other to max out their potential. The results of these efforts were tangible and hard work was a point of pride among the Crimson those Harvard teams. I don't see that with the present Harvard team. I see plenty of guys who do little or nothing to increase their strength and individual skills, and do not push themselves enough even in games compared to to Harvrad players from the 80's. The comparative results speak for themselves.
I don't think anyone disagrees that Yale has more talent than Harvard in the last couple years, and it's no surprise that they are ahead of us in the standings. Keep in mind though that Harvard had more talent than Yale in Teddy's first 3 years and they finished ahead of Yale over that stretch.
There has ostensibily been talent coming to Harvard over the last couple years but I not feel many of those "talented" players were really self-motivated to play to at their highest levels. Things have been a little rough over the last 2 years with poor senior leadership ( captains ). Team effort and focus remains a concern that didn't really exist in Teddy's first 3 years. It's been tough for Teddy but people need to back-off and realized that things will get better once we see more talented and, more importantly, more motivated players coming to Harvard.
The Harvard teams in the 80's worked extremely hard on and off the ice, and, yes much harder than the present Harvard players. Technology is nothing if you don't use it. This Harvard team is one of the softest in the ECAC. They are weak on the puck, and lack the muscle to bang with most teams in the corners despite often having significant size advantages over opponents. Although a (real ) strength coach was finally hired this season many players still do not work hard enough on their strength training. Harvard made the NCAA's 7 times in the 80's, played in the Final Four 4 times, played for the national title twice, and won it once. They produced 3 Hobey Baker winners in the process. They didn't acomplish those feats without a ton of hard work. Players like the Fuscos, Bourbeau, CJ Young, Teddy, Don Sweeney, Neil Sheehy did came to Harvard as good local players but often not regarded as top of the heap recruits. Teddy was the highest draft pick and he was only a 5th round draft pick who was considered undersized. These were the star players at Harvard; the others were often even lesser known. Those guys had total comitment to developing their games, increasing their strength and ourworking opponents on the ice. Many guys came to Harvard as realtive unknowns and acheived great success because they pushed themselves and each other to max out their potential. The results of these efforts were tangible and hard work was a point of pride among the Crimson those Harvard teams. I don't see that with the present Harvard team. I see plenty of guys who do little or nothing to increase their strength and individual skills, and do not push themselves enough even in games compared to to Harvrad players from the 80's. The comparative results speak for themselves.
I don't think anyone disagrees that Yale has more talent than Harvard in the last couple years, and it's no surprise that they are ahead of us in the standings. Keep in mind though that Harvard had more talent than Yale in Teddy's first 3 years and they finished ahead of Yale over that stretch.
There has ostensibily been talent coming to Harvard over the last couple years but I not feel many of those "talented" players were really self-motivated to play to at their highest levels. Things have been a little rough over the last 2 years with poor senior leadership ( captains ). Team effort and focus remains a concern that didn't really exist in Teddy's first 3 years. It's been tough for Teddy but people need to back-off and realized that things will get better once we see more talented and, more importantly, more motivated players coming to Harvard.
eaglehockeyrules
BC '84, HES '97
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Ahh, the battle of the ECAC Three Win Teams. I am glad H won it, 4-15 seems more respectable now; especially when the team "should of, could of, would of" been playing like that all season long. Donato is a coaching genious,right?! RIGHT!?
As the old saw goes, "... even a blind squirrel find a nut."
Ahh, the battle of the ECAC Three Win Teams. I am glad H won it, 4-15 seems more respectable now; especially when the team "should of, could of, would of" been playing like that all season long. Donato is a coaching genious,right?! RIGHT!?
As the old saw goes, "... even a blind squirrel find a nut."
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Those Harvard teams that were great in the late 80s and early 90s had some players who could put up some serious points- typically the skill and speed kids that BC seems to monopolize these days, and which, significantly, it gets to commit to its program years in advance. I believe at least four 1995 birth year players have committed to BC within the last 6-9 months- early commits being the norm in DI hockey because of the competition from Major Junior.
Can Harvard get players like that anymore? Doubtful, because I can't see how its admissions department can play the early commit game with kids who haven't even recorded a grade on their high school transcripts, let alone how its coaches could dissuade a family from taking a scholarship offer worth more than $200,000 for the chance of Harvard admission (and the potential of paying the full freight). So with the skill off the board, what's left for Harvard is what's left for all the other DI schools who can't land the precocious talent: grinders and pluggers, and a couple of late maturers who weren't Peewee and Bantam standouts, who really have to be melded into a winning team with a lot of hard work and determination. Looks like Yale, Brown, and Princeton are doing pretty well with what's out there, and that has to be attributable to the zeal of its players and coaches. Harvard? The record speaks for itself.
Those Harvard teams that were great in the late 80s and early 90s had some players who could put up some serious points- typically the skill and speed kids that BC seems to monopolize these days, and which, significantly, it gets to commit to its program years in advance. I believe at least four 1995 birth year players have committed to BC within the last 6-9 months- early commits being the norm in DI hockey because of the competition from Major Junior.
Can Harvard get players like that anymore? Doubtful, because I can't see how its admissions department can play the early commit game with kids who haven't even recorded a grade on their high school transcripts, let alone how its coaches could dissuade a family from taking a scholarship offer worth more than $200,000 for the chance of Harvard admission (and the potential of paying the full freight). So with the skill off the board, what's left for Harvard is what's left for all the other DI schools who can't land the precocious talent: grinders and pluggers, and a couple of late maturers who weren't Peewee and Bantam standouts, who really have to be melded into a winning team with a lot of hard work and determination. Looks like Yale, Brown, and Princeton are doing pretty well with what's out there, and that has to be attributable to the zeal of its players and coaches. Harvard? The record speaks for itself.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Right. He is a coaching "genious". Kan u reed this?
Right. He is a coaching "genious". Kan u reed this?
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
We can't play the early commit game. Plain and simple and all the coaches at Harvard know it and have to deal with it. I'm not necessarily sure however that Harvard can't attract talented players with skill. Not saying they can do it from the same pool as BC and BU because they can't. But other sports programs at Harvard are attracting those skill players. Look at the basketball team. They regularly knock off BC these days. That would never have happened in the eighties.
I think it has more to do with learning how to sell these kids and what they are after. Major Junior is what it is and Harvard can't compete against that level of competition. But there should be no question that Harvard can sell itself as a way to go pro given the players who currently play on NHL rosters (including Dom Moore)
We can't play the early commit game. Plain and simple and all the coaches at Harvard know it and have to deal with it. I'm not necessarily sure however that Harvard can't attract talented players with skill. Not saying they can do it from the same pool as BC and BU because they can't. But other sports programs at Harvard are attracting those skill players. Look at the basketball team. They regularly knock off BC these days. That would never have happened in the eighties.
I think it has more to do with learning how to sell these kids and what they are after. Major Junior is what it is and Harvard can't compete against that level of competition. But there should be no question that Harvard can sell itself as a way to go pro given the players who currently play on NHL rosters (including Dom Moore)
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
CMKnight,
I'm not talking about technology, Im talking about the mindset in hockey. Since the 80's, it has been more and more important for hockey players to train all year round. Do you think the fuscos were stronger than any player on the team now? Those guys are tiny. But puck protection is not just about strength, to me it has always been about attitude as well as a skill that is practiced. Maybe the team doesn't have those 2 neccessities, but as far as strength goes, Ive seen enough of the players to know we have enough of that. I'm not sure what inside info you have to paint all of the team with your statement that they are all weak and out of shape, but I really couldn't disagree more. I also couldn't disagree more with the players in 89 being in "better shape" or more committed players. Lets face it, college hockey is a lot better than it was back then. We have to admit that this is a different environment for Harvard. The kids these days don;t make it to this level without serious commitment on and off the ice. It's that simple.
Saw a comment above on the Devin twins on Cornell( and how Harvard could have recruited them), and since they are coming into town tonight, I looked into their past stats. They seemed to do ok in the Mass high school system, but they both went to play in the British Columbia Hockey League, and by using their stats as a metric, they both did quite poorly. However, at Cornell, they have developed nicely and fit into the team well there. So maybe it isn't so much about missing players in recruiting, its developing them and putting them in an environment to succeed. It is also very easy to sit here with a 4-15 record and look at all the teams doing better than us and say " if we had those players that we could have gotten things would be better", when in fact the situation would probably be the same if we had recruited those players, since they would have come into Harvard's environment.
CMKnight,
I'm not talking about technology, Im talking about the mindset in hockey. Since the 80's, it has been more and more important for hockey players to train all year round. Do you think the fuscos were stronger than any player on the team now? Those guys are tiny. But puck protection is not just about strength, to me it has always been about attitude as well as a skill that is practiced. Maybe the team doesn't have those 2 neccessities, but as far as strength goes, Ive seen enough of the players to know we have enough of that. I'm not sure what inside info you have to paint all of the team with your statement that they are all weak and out of shape, but I really couldn't disagree more. I also couldn't disagree more with the players in 89 being in "better shape" or more committed players. Lets face it, college hockey is a lot better than it was back then. We have to admit that this is a different environment for Harvard. The kids these days don;t make it to this level without serious commitment on and off the ice. It's that simple.
Saw a comment above on the Devin twins on Cornell( and how Harvard could have recruited them), and since they are coming into town tonight, I looked into their past stats. They seemed to do ok in the Mass high school system, but they both went to play in the British Columbia Hockey League, and by using their stats as a metric, they both did quite poorly. However, at Cornell, they have developed nicely and fit into the team well there. So maybe it isn't so much about missing players in recruiting, its developing them and putting them in an environment to succeed. It is also very easy to sit here with a 4-15 record and look at all the teams doing better than us and say " if we had those players that we could have gotten things would be better", when in fact the situation would probably be the same if we had recruited those players, since they would have come into Harvard's environment.
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Not true.
We can play the early commit game, it's just a little different. We can say "Yes" to a kid, but it's a half-baked yes. So long as you can deliver X on your SATs and Y on your grades, we can take you.
Some players are comfortable taking ownership and accountability for delivering their end of that bargain. Others aren't.
Harvard has "signed" sophmores who have yet to take the SATs. So while Harvard's commit is a little different than one from a BC or BU, they can "sign" kids early.
Not true.
We can play the early commit game, it's just a little different. We can say "Yes" to a kid, but it's a half-baked yes. So long as you can deliver X on your SATs and Y on your grades, we can take you.
Some players are comfortable taking ownership and accountability for delivering their end of that bargain. Others aren't.
Harvard has "signed" sophmores who have yet to take the SATs. So while Harvard's commit is a little different than one from a BC or BU, they can "sign" kids early.
Last edited:
Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning
Harvard's announcement a few years back that they would provide a full ride to anyone that got in whose parents fell below a certain income threshold (Does anyone know what it is?) has largely eroded this issue. I know of one very high end recruit who would have gone to BU had it not been for the free ride granted as a result of this decision.
Harvard's announcement a few years back that they would provide a full ride to anyone that got in whose parents fell below a certain income threshold (Does anyone know what it is?) has largely eroded this issue. I know of one very high end recruit who would have gone to BU had it not been for the free ride granted as a result of this decision.