Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

[charlieconway]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Good point. I wasn't aware of that fact. Still doesn't explain why Picard was chosen over Gedman. Not that anyone assumes that a junior captain will automatically be elected her senior season. Just seems strange.

Us outsiders only know that Gedman served as a team captain during the same Olympic year Picard spent with Team USA. Maybe it seems strange to have an entirely new group of captains, but returning a handful of experienced players who weren't with the team the previous winter doesn't happen every year.

It's safe to assume Picard's absence from the 2013-14 Harvard squad was anticipated well in advance, and she probably wasn't up for consideration as a captain because of it. So a year and change later, the Crimson bring back three Olympians and their former elected captain to a club that massively overachieved. Any way you cut it, somebody was bound to feel left out of the leadership group on such a stacked roster. Again, this is pretty clearly a "good problem to have" kind of situation. Seven months from now (when a trip to the Frozen Four looks attainable) nobody will have anything to say about who has an extra letter on the front of her sweater.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Not true. Yes, we've done it in the past but we don't make it a regular practice.

FYI...while you disagree that it's been "relatively common" at Harvard as I seemed to recall, out of curiosity I went back and checked the prevalance of 3 (or more) captains at each of the ECAC schools over the last 10 years. The records show naming 3 (or more) captains is actually more frequent at Harvard than anywhere else, and more frequent at Harvard than having either 1 or 2 captains.

This is the 6th time since 04-05 (i.e. more often than not) that 3 captains were named at Harvard, though in one case one of the nominees was unable to fulfill the role due to injury. That's more than half the time, and more any other team in the league....which by my definition anyways makes it relatively common. Besides Harvard, incidence of 3 or more captains is limited to Colgate which had 4 captains(!!!) twice, SLU had 3 captains 3 times, Cornell named 4 captains(!!) twice, and Dartmouth and Brown named 3 captains once each. Based on history, it seems to be typical at both Harvard and Colgate especially to name multiple captains, as they have been least likely to name a solo captain (twice and once respectively).

Conversely, Clarkson, Quinnipiac and Yale have never named more than 1 captain, while RPI has had only 1 captain half the time, with Dartmouth, Princeton, and Union doing so 4x in the past decade.

Co-captains are actually the most typical scenario among ECAC teams, occurring at Brown 6x, Princeton 7x, Union 6x, and 5x at Cornell, Colgate, Dartmouth and RPI.

Obviously, with such different outcomes, different schools must use a different process to name its captains, and traditions are clearly different between the various teams.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

FYI...while you disagree that it's been "relatively common" at Harvard as I seemed to recall, out of curiosity I went back and checked the prevalance of 3 (or more) captains at each of the ECAC schools over the last 10 years. The records show naming 3 (or more) captains is actually more frequent at Harvard than anywhere else, and more frequent at Harvard than having either 1 or 2 captains.

This is the 6th time since 04-05 (i.e. more often than not) that 3 captains were named at Harvard, though in one case one of the nominees was unable to fulfill the role due to injury. That's more than half the time, and more any other team in the league....which by my definition anyways makes it relatively common. Besides Harvard, incidence of 3 or more captains is limited to Colgate which had 4 captains(!!!) twice, SLU had 3 captains 3 times, Cornell named 4 captains(!!) twice, and Dartmouth and Brown named 3 captains once each. Based on history, it seems to be typical at both Harvard and Colgate especially to name multiple captains, as they have been least likely to name a solo captain (twice and once respectively).

Conversely, Clarkson, Quinnipiac and Yale have never named more than 1 captain, while RPI has had only 1 captain half the time, with Dartmouth, Princeton, and Union doing so 4x in the past decade.

Co-captains are actually the most typical scenario among ECAC teams, occurring at Brown 6x, Princeton 7x, Union 6x, and 5x at Cornell, Colgate, Dartmouth and RPI.

Obviously, with such different outcomes, different schools must use a different process to name its captains, and traditions are clearly different between the various teams.

I actually went back to when they started the program in '79 and with the exception of the '84-85 season running to the '02-03 season when they had four captains, there was only one other instance of three captains. So yes, I would say that lately, it has been the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Us outsiders only know that Gedman served as a team captain during the same Olympic year Picard spent with Team USA. Maybe it seems strange to have an entirely new group of captains, but returning a handful of experienced players who weren't with the team the previous winter doesn't happen every year.

It's safe to assume Picard's absence from the 2013-14 Harvard squad was anticipated well in advance, and she probably wasn't up for consideration as a captain because of it. So a year and change later, the Crimson bring back three Olympians and their former elected captain to a club that massively overachieved. Any way you cut it, somebody was bound to feel left out of the leadership group on such a stacked roster. Again, this is pretty clearly a "good problem to have" kind of situation. Seven months from now (when a trip to the Frozen Four looks attainable) nobody will have anything to say about who has an extra letter on the front of her sweater.

I'm not sure I get your point. I wasn't focusing on Pucci or Armstrong. Granted, they were being eyed as captains until injury or the Olympics intervened. My question was around why Picard was chosen when Gedman still has a year left and was captain last year. We don't know if Picard was a lock to make the Olympic team; that was up in the air until the final cuts were announced. So considering her for captain made no sense last season. To frame this question, I'll go back to the '01-02 season when Jamie Hagerman, as a junior, was named captain of a very young Crimson squad. The following season, she was one of four captains that included returning Olympian Jennifer Botterill. So if Hagerman served two terms as it were, why not Gedman? That's my question. It has nothing to do with the depth or strength of the squad. This is a leadership question pure and simple and something is amiss here.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I actually went back to when they started the program in '79 and with the exception of the '84-85 season running to the '02-03 season when they had four captains, there was only one other instance of three captains. So yes, I would say that lately, it has been the exception rather than the rule.

Just so I get it straight, by your definition how long does it take for a 10 year trend to stop being an exception to ancient history lol?

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Just so I get it straight, by your definition how long does it take for a 10 year trend to stop being an exception to ancient history lol?

Your original statement: "What is with the naming of 3 captains for one team anyway? I've never understood this at all. It seems to be relatively common for Harvard..." Nowhere in that statement do you give a time reference. You then decided to respond to my statement that it isn't common by going back to '04-05. That is arbitrary any way you look at it. And since you chose that timeframe, I chose to go back to the program's inception. Mine is as legit as yours, like it or not.

 

[charlieconway]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I'm not sure I get your point. I wasn't focusing on Pucci or Armstrong. Granted, they were being eyed as captains until injury or the Olympics intervened. My question was around why Picard was chosen when Gedman still has a year left and was captain last year. We don't know if Picard was a lock to make the Olympic team; that was up in the air until the final cuts were announced. So considering her for captain made no sense last season. To frame this question, I'll go back to the '01-02 season when Jamie Hagerman, as a junior, was named captain of a very young Crimson squad. The following season, she was one of four captains that included returning Olympian Jennifer Botterill. So if Hagerman served two terms as it were, why not Gedman? That's my question. It has nothing to do with the depth or strength of the squad. This is a leadership question pure and simple and something is amiss here.

My point is that Gedman served as a captain only after a few players (including Picard) spent a year away from Harvard to play for Team USA. I was saying if they were set on going with three, essentially one spot was open with Pucci and Armstrong already being former elected captains. I just pointed out this was the first time Picard and Gedman would have both been up for consideration. The fact that one is a returning captain really shouldn't matter.

So Gedman was a captain last year, and now they're going in a different direction. Assumptions can be made and people hear things, but what good is speculating on this board going to do? Nobody involved with Harvard Hockey cares what forum trolls think about the team's leadership group and how it was chosen. I'd rather talk about how exciting it is to think about next year's roster boasting true depth, a skilled defensive corps and one of the best goalies in the country.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Seven months from now (when a trip to the Frozen Four looks attainable) nobody will have anything to say about who has an extra letter on the front of her sweater.

This point can not be underestimated. Like with any team in any sport, if the team lives up to or exceeds expectations, no one will question the leadership on the team (coaches/Captains etc), however if a team grossly under-achieves the second guessing discussions will be endless. That is just the nature of the beast.

Unless you are in the "room", you have no idea who brings what type of leadership. I would say, give the team and the captains the chance to do the talking on the ice next season and reserve judgment until then. JMO.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Unfortunately off-topic, but BOY have I been curious over the years as to why the H football team has never had more than a single captain; two-platoon football was phased in 50 years ago, yet you see the lone H captain shaking hands during the coin toss with an opposing cast of thousands (well, usually three I suppose, one O, one D and one special teams).

 

[Call It]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Hey Harvard, TT Cianfirano couldn't get into Wisco, I bet Stone could get her into Harvard though. Just a thought.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Hey Harvard, TT Cianfirano couldn't get into Wisco, I bet Stone could get her into Harvard though. Just a thought.

Haven't the posters on this thread managed to embarrass this girl and her family enough already?

We could give examples of star players who wanted to attend Harvard but were turned down....but do we want to further vilify them as well?

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Unfortunately off-topic, but BOY have I been curious over the years as to why the H football team has never had more than a single captain; two-platoon football was phased in 50 years ago, yet you see the lone H captain shaking hands during the coin toss with an opposing cast of thousands (well, usually three I suppose, one O, one D and one special teams).

There's only room for one captain per team on the Harvard-Yale program?