4 pst this weekend and H could be looking at home ice in the first round!
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 2013-2014
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
- Status
4 pst this weekend and H could be looking at home ice in the first round!
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Not happening. Really disappointing game last night. We came out and played a very good first period, then disappeared in the second when Yale took control. The third period was too little, too late. It was like Yale knew they were going to win and had zero problems setting plays and head manning the puck. We had two breakaways and missed on both - couldn't believe Hart completely missed the net. Again, there were poor fundamentals and very weak D coverage. The second and third Yale goals were a direct result of breakdowns and lack of awareness and positioning. That's coaching as much as players' responsibility.
I don't want to take anything away from Yale because they are a good team - not as good as last year but still a good team. But it is beyond me how we can go to North Country and take three of four points and come home and submit such a poor effort against Yale. This program needs an overall; question is, does anyone in the administration care?
Not happening. Really disappointing game last night. We came out and played a very good first period, then disappeared in the second when Yale took control. The third period was too little, too late. It was like Yale knew they were going to win and had zero problems setting plays and head manning the puck. We had two breakaways and missed on both - couldn't believe Hart completely missed the net. Again, there were poor fundamentals and very weak D coverage. The second and third Yale goals were a direct result of breakdowns and lack of awareness and positioning. That's coaching as much as players' responsibility.
I don't want to take anything away from Yale because they are a good team - not as good as last year but still a good team. But it is beyond me how we can go to North Country and take three of four points and come home and submit such a poor effort against Yale. This program needs an overall; question is, does anyone in the administration care?
Skate79: You put your finger on it- Does anybody in the AD, the Administration, the student body, the HAA care? Our hockey program was the franchise for H athletics for years. Now undergrads don't go to games, band goes to BASKETBALL, we've been well below 500 for years. Question: is there anyone out there with the clout to see that this MUST be turned around and can push that? It is a HARVARD product that is broken, that has to change soon.
ghostofwatson
New member
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
What's broken, H60? Things are pretty much the same as they've been for decades: Harvard gets players who have interests besides hockey. Big deal. Harvard isn't a hockey factory. If our players wanted that atmosphere they'd head to Hockey East. The kids who really, really want to win games and develop their games are at BC and Michigan, not Harvard. Our players are no different from the rest of the student body for whom sports aren't that important. Our players -- current players-- are concerned about internships, start-up bizzes, getting punched for clubs, and getting laid. Same as it ever was. As a fan coyly calling for Ted's head, H60, you're a voice in the wilderness. Most fans like that they can get good seats at the last minute, park easily and not have to be packed in like sardines to a crowded, loud arena. Ted's earned his glide, he's put in his time and he shouldn't have to put up with a crybaby fan base whining to win games. Kids have more of a sense of entitlement than they did 25 yrs ago, and so do their parents. Ask Mark Mazz. ( Poor bastard, he wanted to win a national title! He actually once said that....with a straight face! ) It's largely a generational thing. Ted has brought in talent but they're not at Harvard on his terms. These kids aren't on athletic scollys, they can do as they please largely. If they want to play hockey, fine, they can play some; if they don't, there's nobody holding a gun to their head. Ted gets the most out these kids and his teams often give a fair effort every night, and most practices, but get real, these kids aren't all in for hockey. They're at Harvard for the full experience and if that means that hockey sometimes takes a backseat to life, so be it. Ted is an outstanding recruiter and a **** good coach. Ted got by in the NHL for as long as he did on his savvy and grasp of the game. There's not a coach in game who understands the game better-- so what if he has trouble communicating that to his players. Everybody has a weakness. But if you're looking for him to win more than half of his games you're living in a fantasy. Ted can't make these kids try, he can only coach them as best he can. It's all on the kids if they want to win, but that's a price that many simply aren't willing to pay. This is not 1989, it's 2014. The kids and their over-involved parents no longer accept that a coach has the last word. Poor Ted shouldn't be judged on wins-losses at a place like Harvard; it should be about keeping these kids out of trouble and graduating, which he has mostly done. Ted has done an outstanding job given the hand he's been dealt, and we should look forward to him coaching the Crimson for years and years to come. We don't need wins and a full capacity, loud Bright. Plus, I love my easy-in- easy-out parking space, and who doesn't
Last edited:
northeastern
Registered User
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
thanks Ted.. I mean, Coach.
What's broken, H60? Things are pretty much the same as they've been for decades: Harvard gets players who have interests besides hockey. Big deal. Harvard isn't a hockey factory. If our players wanted that atmosphere they'd head to Hockey East. The kids who really, really want to win games and develop their games are at BC and Michigan, not Harvard. Our players are no different from the rest of the student body for whom sports aren't that important. Our players -- current players-- are concerned about internships, start-up bizzes, getting punched for clubs, and getting laid. Same as it ever was. As a fan coyly calling for Ted's head, H60, you're a voice in the wilderness. Most fans like that they can get good seats at the last minute, park easily and not have to be packed in like sardines to a crowded, loud arena. Ted's earned his glide, he's put in his time and he shouldn't have to put up with a crybaby fan base whining to win games. Kids have more of a sense of entitlement than they did 25 yrs ago, and so do their parents. Ask Mark Mazz. ( Poor bastard, he wanted to win a national title! He actually once said that....with a straight face! ) It's largely a generational thing. Ted has brought in talent but they're not at Harvard on his terms. These kids aren't on athletic scollys, they can do as they please largely. If they want to play hockey, fine, they can play some; if they don't, there's nobody holding a gun to their head. Ted gets the most out these kids and his teams often give a fair effort every night, and most practices, but get real, these kids aren't all in for hockey. They're at Harvard for the full experience and if that means that hockey sometimes takes a backseat to life, so be it. Ted is an outstanding recruiter and a **** good coach. Ted got by in the NHL for as long as he did on his savvy and grasp of the game. There's not a coach in game who understands the game better-- so what if he has trouble communicating that to his players. Everybody has a weakness. But if you're looking for him to win more than half of his games you're living in a fantasy. Ted can't make these kids try, he can only coach them as best he can. It's all on the kids if they want to win, but that's a price that many simply aren't willing to pay. This is not 1989, it's 2014. The kids and their over-involved parents no longer accept that a coach has the last word. Poor Ted shouldn't be judged on wins-losses at a place like Harvard; it should be about keeping these kids out of trouble and graduating, which he has mostly done. Ted has done an outstanding job given the hand he's been dealt, and we should look forward to him coaching the Crimson for years and years to come. We don't need wins and a full capacity, loud Bright. Plus, I love my easy-in- easy-out parking space, and who doesn't
thanks Ted.. I mean, Coach.
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Yo ghostofwatson: I can only guess that you post was an elaborate attempt at humor or you never laced up. What ever, I look to New Haven. Keith has the same talent to work with; he took a perennial sub 500 club and turned them into winners. You can't buy a ticket. Same is true of Cornell. For me I'm really tired of watching single rushes, hail marys from the blue line and 9-15-4 with 2 to go. Teddy's record? 300 games- 126 139 35 0.478 and the 21 wins each of the first two seasons were with Mazz's kids. If my fire department put out 0.478% of the fires in my town we'd be looking for a new chief.
Yo ghostofwatson: I can only guess that you post was an elaborate attempt at humor or you never laced up. What ever, I look to New Haven. Keith has the same talent to work with; he took a perennial sub 500 club and turned them into winners. You can't buy a ticket. Same is true of Cornell. For me I'm really tired of watching single rushes, hail marys from the blue line and 9-15-4 with 2 to go. Teddy's record? 300 games- 126 139 35 0.478 and the 21 wins each of the first two seasons were with Mazz's kids. If my fire department put out 0.478% of the fires in my town we'd be looking for a new chief.
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Not to mention the lawsuits which would put the town on the road to bankruptcy.
It might interest the fan base including ghostofwatson to know that last summer, the athletic department sent out a questionnaire asking how they could improve the fan experience at Bright-Landry. The overwhelming response? Dump the men's hockey coach. I'm not kidding. The responses were sent to AD Scalise. If there are more season ticket cancellations, this might prompt the powers that be to take action. This weekend certainly didn't help Teddy's cause.
Not to mention the lawsuits which would put the town on the road to bankruptcy.
It might interest the fan base including ghostofwatson to know that last summer, the athletic department sent out a questionnaire asking how they could improve the fan experience at Bright-Landry. The overwhelming response? Dump the men's hockey coach. I'm not kidding. The responses were sent to AD Scalise. If there are more season ticket cancellations, this might prompt the powers that be to take action. This weekend certainly didn't help Teddy's cause.
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
From time to time on Friday, I glanced over at some of the '89 team members who stuck around for the game. The looks on their faces said it all. Shock, disgust, disbelief, you name it, you saw it in their expressions. What must be tough for those guys is that Teddy was their teammate and friend. I'm sure they want to support him. As hockey players though, it must be tough for them to watch what we saw this weekend.
If you want someone with clout, ask Scotty or Laney to have a sit down with Scalise and other athletic and administration officials. Will they listen? Doubtful. And I'm not sure either Scott or Lane would do it because in Lane's case, he played with Teddy and I don't see him as someone who would turn around and stab Teddy in the back by calling for his head. Just can't see it. Nope, this is something that has to be done by the administration or Scalise. We'll see if they really care about the program in the next few weeks when the season is done.
From time to time on Friday, I glanced over at some of the '89 team members who stuck around for the game. The looks on their faces said it all. Shock, disgust, disbelief, you name it, you saw it in their expressions. What must be tough for those guys is that Teddy was their teammate and friend. I'm sure they want to support him. As hockey players though, it must be tough for them to watch what we saw this weekend.
If you want someone with clout, ask Scotty or Laney to have a sit down with Scalise and other athletic and administration officials. Will they listen? Doubtful. And I'm not sure either Scott or Lane would do it because in Lane's case, he played with Teddy and I don't see him as someone who would turn around and stab Teddy in the back by calling for his head. Just can't see it. Nope, this is something that has to be done by the administration or Scalise. We'll see if they really care about the program in the next few weeks when the season is done.
yes
mazz was outside. remember his great Beanpot comments
whats up with kid getting excused from team during practice for having alcohol on breath. that would be front page at BU
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Great Article in the Harvard Crimson "The Other Field of Study"
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/other-field-study/
“I don’t think it ever occurred to me that we’d be recruiting so many people in so many different sports,” says John P. Reardon ’60, Executive Director of the Harvard Alumni Association and a former Harvard Athletic Director. In his capacity as athletic director from 1978 to 1990, Reardon spearheaded a University push toward a more competitive athletics program. Yet even Reardon expresses surprise at the rapid growth of the program during and after his tenure.
Indeed, in recent years Harvard varsity athletics have grown to contain larger numbers of student-athletes than ever before. Football calls more than 100 players its own, while women’s rugby, which recently became Harvard’s 42nd varsity team, has added 42 varsity athletes to the ranks of the Harvard Department of Athletics.
Harvard supports these varsity programs financially, in the forms of funding team travel, hiring coaches, and maintaining the facilities that are largely housed across the Charles River. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard’s Department of Athletics’s expenses totaled more than $21 million in 2012-2013 for all varsity teams. Recruiting costs alone amount to nearly $1 million, roughly triple the Undergraduate Council’s discretionary funding for all recognized College extracurricular groups.
Even athletics’ place in Harvard’s administrative hierarchy speaks to its importance institutionally: Robert Scalise, Harvard’s athletic director, reports directly to Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith, as do multiple other deans, including the Dean of the College and the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid. That’s a higher place in the University’s bureaucratic chain-of-command than the Dean of Undergraduate Education, who reports not to Smith but to the College Dean.
This is all a testament to the large role varsity athletes play at Harvard in the student body, in the budget, and in the administration."
Your average Harvard Athlete today is probably min SAT 2100 min 3.8/4.0 unweighted, Valdictorian or top 5 in class, with 5 AP's with 5. I wonder if you plotted admission scores vs team success since 1980, you would see that the coaches all across the Ivy league are handicapped by recruiting from a small pool of very high academic kids? Just a hunch.
Great Article in the Harvard Crimson "The Other Field of Study"
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/other-field-study/
“I don’t think it ever occurred to me that we’d be recruiting so many people in so many different sports,” says John P. Reardon ’60, Executive Director of the Harvard Alumni Association and a former Harvard Athletic Director. In his capacity as athletic director from 1978 to 1990, Reardon spearheaded a University push toward a more competitive athletics program. Yet even Reardon expresses surprise at the rapid growth of the program during and after his tenure.
Indeed, in recent years Harvard varsity athletics have grown to contain larger numbers of student-athletes than ever before. Football calls more than 100 players its own, while women’s rugby, which recently became Harvard’s 42nd varsity team, has added 42 varsity athletes to the ranks of the Harvard Department of Athletics.
Harvard supports these varsity programs financially, in the forms of funding team travel, hiring coaches, and maintaining the facilities that are largely housed across the Charles River. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Harvard’s Department of Athletics’s expenses totaled more than $21 million in 2012-2013 for all varsity teams. Recruiting costs alone amount to nearly $1 million, roughly triple the Undergraduate Council’s discretionary funding for all recognized College extracurricular groups.
Even athletics’ place in Harvard’s administrative hierarchy speaks to its importance institutionally: Robert Scalise, Harvard’s athletic director, reports directly to Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith, as do multiple other deans, including the Dean of the College and the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid. That’s a higher place in the University’s bureaucratic chain-of-command than the Dean of Undergraduate Education, who reports not to Smith but to the College Dean.
This is all a testament to the large role varsity athletes play at Harvard in the student body, in the budget, and in the administration."
Your average Harvard Athlete today is probably min SAT 2100 min 3.8/4.0 unweighted, Valdictorian or top 5 in class, with 5 AP's with 5. I wonder if you plotted admission scores vs team success since 1980, you would see that the coaches all across the Ivy league are handicapped by recruiting from a small pool of very high academic kids? Just a hunch.
Last edited:
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
The kid getting excused is news to me. And just plain stupid. Where was this publicized or is this something that you discovered from an 'inside source'?
The kid getting excused is news to me. And just plain stupid. Where was this publicized or is this something that you discovered from an 'inside source'?
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Maybe so but that hasn't stopped the football, basketball and women's hockey teams from enjoying success. So I'm not buying it. Yes, our AI is high as compared to other Ivies. And it makes no sense to compare it to HE schools' admission standards because they have none when it comes to athletes. I just don't think you can use it as an excuse for the program falling off the deep end.
Maybe so but that hasn't stopped the football, basketball and women's hockey teams from enjoying success. So I'm not buying it. Yes, our AI is high as compared to other Ivies. And it makes no sense to compare it to HE schools' admission standards because they have none when it comes to athletes. I just don't think you can use it as an excuse for the program falling off the deep end.
ghostofwatson
New member
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Re: Ted: Why does it always have to be about winning? That's never been the Ivy League approach anyway. Aside from not winning games, and a couple academic dust-ups, Ted has run a fairly clean program over his 10 yrs. He's managed to win some games with his own players, but he can't win them all. Why would we want to get rid of Ted. Really? His hands are tied and he's done the best he can in a tough situation. Ted recruits against top programs and wins many battles. A coach like Allain may or may not communicate better with his players, understand the game better on a macro level, be more fiery, and instill more discipline in his players, but it's hard to say flat out that he's a better coach than Ted. Ted brings other things to the table. Ted is likable, recruits well, and he represents the university well. Trust me, there are not a lot of people complaining about Ted as coach. It's nearly impossible to find the full-package as a coach. How many Red Berensens are out there, and even he stumbles at times. But the grass is always greener....
In talking to past, and even some present players, most love Ted as a person. They say he's likable, funny and knowledgeable about the little things. He keeps things light. If a kid makes a mistake he's not in his face embarrassing him like Cleary or Mark Mazz. Ted deals with things in a more low key manner, much in the way that Tomassoni, a real gentleman, did. Nothing wrong with that; it's just his approach. Given kids these days and their parents it might be the right one. You yell at a kid these days and you hurt him AND his parents' feelings. Then you have a problem. Ted has tried to develop kids but not everybody is Alex Killorn, putting their all into the game. Many kids he recruits are burned out on hockey and are not looking to attend a hockey factory. They are not all in for hockey. They want the full Harvard Experience and so hockey becomes less of a priority. What's, wrong with that? It happens at all the Ivies, not just Harvard. In recent years I know guys who went to Harvard not to play hockey but for basically everything else. They are enjoying themselves immensely but hockey is no longer central to their lives as it was in high school.
Given the ebb and flow of admissions office smiling/crapping on programs an Ivy is tough place to build a sustainable program in hockey. Allain got breaks in that area in recent years and managed to do well last year but I'll bet it'll be another 25 yrs before he wins the next national title. Cleary, the same thing in '89. It was the end of his coaching career and he called in favors and they were largely granted. Guys like Red Berensen, Jack Parker ( before retiring ) and Jerry York won multiple titles not just because they're good coaches, but because they coach at hockey factories. The admissions office is different in those places and so is the scolly situation. The only current coach who has managed to build a sustainable model of success in the Ivies has been Schafer. He doesn't need top end talent to make his system work. He just needs kids who can skate and buy into his system. It's defensive-oriented and not as exciting as Harvard's, but it does win more games. ( Kids are willing to go there because Cornell wins, has crowds, and Schafer develops his talent very well, getting a fair number of kids to the NHL. ) In my mind he's found the answer to success in the Ivies much the same way that Peter Carril coached basketball at Princeton and did well with his system. But fans at Harvard don't want boring hockey. Ted largely gives us old-school Harvard hockey, wide open and free wheeling. We love low % home run passes at Harvard and our attacking style. It's OUR style. It's fun to watch, even when it breaks down. We are willing to put up with it because we like Ted and we like our style of hockey. We don't want to see boring hockey, even if it wins. Nothing wrong with that.
Put Ted in a hockey factory and I bet he'd be above .500 almost every season. But he's at Harvard and it's 2014. Times have changed. As for recruiting the top end talent, there are simply too many programs who can offer athletic scholarships and are focused only on winning. In 1989 a full hockey scolly was maybe 20K ( a guess ), now it's 50K. Too many hockey recruits can't turn down a full scolly today. It's a business decision. Even if they are interested in Harvard a full scolly is too big a difference. ( How Allain surmounted that obstacle I don't know, maybe he just got lucky. Good for him. I know Ted refused to recruit some of those Yale kids. Not sure why but he did, and I trust his reasons.) Despite this Ted has still managed to get some top end talent at Harvard. He's been an amazing recruiter given the scolly situation. That said, if a top end player comes to Harvard he's probably not just there to develop his game. If a recruit comes to Harvard now there's a strong chance that he's not going to spend as much time on hockey as his counterpart at BC or wherever. Some kids will, but the team as a whole, never.
Ted understands the pressures his players are under and the whole Harvard experience. That's another thing that makes him so valuable. If kids want to go pro, or win national titles, these kids should try their luck in other places. There are very few fans out there demanding we compete for a national title. Very few. Most fans just want to be able to see the team compete on occasion and put on a good show. If they win some home games that's a bonus. Nobody follows them on the road so it matters to few fans if they win those games. Ticket prices are reasonable and the tix are readily available. Ted has a good group of young talent and we'll no doubt see a .500 season in the next couple years. Again, most people are happy just seeing a fun game, win or lose, and then being able to get out of the parking lot in under 10 mins. To those who think I'm being perverse: I'm not. Success is defined differently by many folks, but most people love Ted and want to see him as our coach for years and years to come. Ted deserves our thanks and support for the job he's done.
Re: Ted: Why does it always have to be about winning? That's never been the Ivy League approach anyway. Aside from not winning games, and a couple academic dust-ups, Ted has run a fairly clean program over his 10 yrs. He's managed to win some games with his own players, but he can't win them all. Why would we want to get rid of Ted. Really? His hands are tied and he's done the best he can in a tough situation. Ted recruits against top programs and wins many battles. A coach like Allain may or may not communicate better with his players, understand the game better on a macro level, be more fiery, and instill more discipline in his players, but it's hard to say flat out that he's a better coach than Ted. Ted brings other things to the table. Ted is likable, recruits well, and he represents the university well. Trust me, there are not a lot of people complaining about Ted as coach. It's nearly impossible to find the full-package as a coach. How many Red Berensens are out there, and even he stumbles at times. But the grass is always greener....
In talking to past, and even some present players, most love Ted as a person. They say he's likable, funny and knowledgeable about the little things. He keeps things light. If a kid makes a mistake he's not in his face embarrassing him like Cleary or Mark Mazz. Ted deals with things in a more low key manner, much in the way that Tomassoni, a real gentleman, did. Nothing wrong with that; it's just his approach. Given kids these days and their parents it might be the right one. You yell at a kid these days and you hurt him AND his parents' feelings. Then you have a problem. Ted has tried to develop kids but not everybody is Alex Killorn, putting their all into the game. Many kids he recruits are burned out on hockey and are not looking to attend a hockey factory. They are not all in for hockey. They want the full Harvard Experience and so hockey becomes less of a priority. What's, wrong with that? It happens at all the Ivies, not just Harvard. In recent years I know guys who went to Harvard not to play hockey but for basically everything else. They are enjoying themselves immensely but hockey is no longer central to their lives as it was in high school.
Given the ebb and flow of admissions office smiling/crapping on programs an Ivy is tough place to build a sustainable program in hockey. Allain got breaks in that area in recent years and managed to do well last year but I'll bet it'll be another 25 yrs before he wins the next national title. Cleary, the same thing in '89. It was the end of his coaching career and he called in favors and they were largely granted. Guys like Red Berensen, Jack Parker ( before retiring ) and Jerry York won multiple titles not just because they're good coaches, but because they coach at hockey factories. The admissions office is different in those places and so is the scolly situation. The only current coach who has managed to build a sustainable model of success in the Ivies has been Schafer. He doesn't need top end talent to make his system work. He just needs kids who can skate and buy into his system. It's defensive-oriented and not as exciting as Harvard's, but it does win more games. ( Kids are willing to go there because Cornell wins, has crowds, and Schafer develops his talent very well, getting a fair number of kids to the NHL. ) In my mind he's found the answer to success in the Ivies much the same way that Peter Carril coached basketball at Princeton and did well with his system. But fans at Harvard don't want boring hockey. Ted largely gives us old-school Harvard hockey, wide open and free wheeling. We love low % home run passes at Harvard and our attacking style. It's OUR style. It's fun to watch, even when it breaks down. We are willing to put up with it because we like Ted and we like our style of hockey. We don't want to see boring hockey, even if it wins. Nothing wrong with that.
Put Ted in a hockey factory and I bet he'd be above .500 almost every season. But he's at Harvard and it's 2014. Times have changed. As for recruiting the top end talent, there are simply too many programs who can offer athletic scholarships and are focused only on winning. In 1989 a full hockey scolly was maybe 20K ( a guess ), now it's 50K. Too many hockey recruits can't turn down a full scolly today. It's a business decision. Even if they are interested in Harvard a full scolly is too big a difference. ( How Allain surmounted that obstacle I don't know, maybe he just got lucky. Good for him. I know Ted refused to recruit some of those Yale kids. Not sure why but he did, and I trust his reasons.) Despite this Ted has still managed to get some top end talent at Harvard. He's been an amazing recruiter given the scolly situation. That said, if a top end player comes to Harvard he's probably not just there to develop his game. If a recruit comes to Harvard now there's a strong chance that he's not going to spend as much time on hockey as his counterpart at BC or wherever. Some kids will, but the team as a whole, never.
Ted understands the pressures his players are under and the whole Harvard experience. That's another thing that makes him so valuable. If kids want to go pro, or win national titles, these kids should try their luck in other places. There are very few fans out there demanding we compete for a national title. Very few. Most fans just want to be able to see the team compete on occasion and put on a good show. If they win some home games that's a bonus. Nobody follows them on the road so it matters to few fans if they win those games. Ticket prices are reasonable and the tix are readily available. Ted has a good group of young talent and we'll no doubt see a .500 season in the next couple years. Again, most people are happy just seeing a fun game, win or lose, and then being able to get out of the parking lot in under 10 mins. To those who think I'm being perverse: I'm not. Success is defined differently by many folks, but most people love Ted and want to see him as our coach for years and years to come. Ted deserves our thanks and support for the job he's done.
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Where TED stands on the all time top 100 Coaches. Remember, there are a lot of active coaches that are no where near making this list and never will. Isn't this a plus for Ted that he has made this list at all?
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct
All-Time Coaching Records
Records are for Division I only.
(Active coaches in CAPS. Records do not include season in progress.)
Sorting by: by Win Percentage (min. 100 wins).
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct
1 Harkness, Ned 339 123 9 .729
2 Harrison, Bill 127 47 6 .722
? RICK BENNETT 68 27 17 .716
3 Kelley, Jack 208 80 8 .716
4 Mason, Ron 924 380 83 .696
5 Armstrong, Larry 123 53 10 .688
6 Heyliger, Vic 352 157 19 .685
7 O'Flaherty, Bill 134 59 12 .683
8 Armstrong, Murray 463 215 31 .675
9 JACKSON, JEFF 367 162 58 .675
10 Kelley, John "Snooks" 501 245 15 .668
11 Thompson, Cheddy 150 73 6 .668
12 Woog, Doug 390 188 40 .663
13 BERENSON, RED 770 371 80 .663
14 Ceglarski, Len 672 339 37 .659
15 Morris, Mark 306 156 42 .649
16 HAKSTOL, DAVE 235 119 37 .648
17 MacInnes, John 555 295 39 .646
18 Parker, Jack 897 472 115 .643
19 Weiland, Ralph 316 172 17 .643
20 Walsh, Shawn 399 215 44 .640
21 UMILE, DICK 519 276 94 .637
22 BLAIS, DEAN 336 183 49 .635
23 Johnson, Bob 394 224 27 .632
24 LUCIA, DON 595 343 84 .623
25 SCHAFER, MIKE 347 198 66 .622
26 Brooks, Herb 167 98 18 .622
27 Roos, Jack 128 77 7 .620
28 Kollevoll, Olav 151 92 4 .619
29 Cleary, Bill 325 200 22 .614
30 YORK, JERRY 935 569 98 .614
31 Bertrand, Dick 286 177 18 .613
32 ALLAIN, KEITH 138 84 19 .612
33 Gasparini, John "Gino" 392 248 25 .608
34 BLASI, ENRICO 311 196 53 .603
35 Addesa, Mike 236 155 9 .601
36 OWENS, SCOTT 317 204 48 .599
37 Riley, Jack 311 208 12 .597
38 Holt, Charlie 347 232 18 .596
39 PECKNOLD, RAND 292 190 56 .595
40 Menard, George 204 137 14 .594
41 Cleverly, Harry 211 144 10 .592
42 Gwozdecky, George 526 361 83 .585
43 Mariucci, John 197 138 18 .584
44 Lamoriello, Lou 248 179 13 .578
45 Slater, Terry 263 190 23 .577
46 Selman, Bill 268 198 19 .572
47 WILSON, WAYNE 152 111 32 .569
48 EAVES, MIKE 231 169 51 .569
49 MOTZKO, BOB 162 125 35 .557
50 Comley, Rick 783 615 110 .556
51 Buetow, Brad 296 235 20 .555
52 Jeremiah, Edward 308 247 12 .554
53 Christiansen, Brush 303 241 33 .554
54 Kane, Bill 125 102 2 .550
55 Sauer, Jeff 655 532 57 .549
56 Whitehead, Tim 326 264 65 .547
57 Tomassoni, Ronn 140 115 26 .544
58 BURKHOLDER, DAVE 214 175 50 .544
59 GOTKIN, RICK 243 203 46 .541
60 Marsh, Joe 468 399 72 .537
61 Murdoch, Murray 271 234 20 .535
62 Van Buskirk, Peter 167 146 8 .533
63 McShane, Mike 244 218 31 .526
64 KYLE, WALT 208 186 49 .525
65 Ross, Doug 219 199 31 .522
66 Salfi, Jim 103 94 7 .522
67 Dahl, Craig 338 309 52 .521
68 Turner, William 128 118 4 .520
69 Anzalone, Frank 223 205 41 .519
70 Fridgen, Dan 210 194 38 .518
71 Powers, Buddy 229 212 39 .518
72 SERRATORE, TOM 201 186 49 .517
73 Mazzoleni, Mark 167 155 33 .517
74 Anderson, Ron 242 230 24 .512
75 Fullerton, James 176 168 9 .511
76 Farrell, Dan 135 129 6 .511
77 Backstrom, Ralph 182 174 14 .511
78 Markell, John 280 267 56 .511
79 LEAMAN, NATE 169 161 46 .511
80 PEARL, PAUL 282 272 66 .508
81 McCutcheon, Brian 108 105 21 .506
82 MacDonald, Blaise 241 236 59 .505
83 SANDELIN, SCOTT 231 229 63 .502
84 Renfrew, Al 288 286 13 .502
85 VAUGHAN, DON 328 331 75 .498
86 Pooley, Paul 185 187 40 .498
87 Cady, Steve 122 126 11 .492
88 Gilligan, Mike 291 302 47 .491
89 Bjorkman, Rube 224 234 11 .489
90 Kemp, Mike 171 181 54 .488
91 Sertich, Mike 375 397 53 .487
92 Hannah, Shaun 191 204 38 .485
93 Wilkinson, Bill 437 469 81 .484
94 DANIELS, BOB 350 378 84 .483
95 Cronin, Greg 108 117 31 .482
96 Roll, George 130 142 33 .480
97 Lowrey, Ed 124 136 21 .479
98 DONATO, TED 126 139 35 .478
99 SERRATORE, FRANK 321 355 67 .477
100 Smith, Lefty
.
.
? SETH APPERT 112 148 36 .431
Last edited by Dutchman; Yesterday at 08:12 PM.[/I]
Where TED stands on the all time top 100 Coaches. Remember, there are a lot of active coaches that are no where near making this list and never will. Isn't this a plus for Ted that he has made this list at all?
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct
All-Time Coaching Records
Records are for Division I only.
(Active coaches in CAPS. Records do not include season in progress.)
Sorting by: by Win Percentage (min. 100 wins).
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/alm....php?sort=wpct
1 Harkness, Ned 339 123 9 .729
2 Harrison, Bill 127 47 6 .722
? RICK BENNETT 68 27 17 .716
3 Kelley, Jack 208 80 8 .716
4 Mason, Ron 924 380 83 .696
5 Armstrong, Larry 123 53 10 .688
6 Heyliger, Vic 352 157 19 .685
7 O'Flaherty, Bill 134 59 12 .683
8 Armstrong, Murray 463 215 31 .675
9 JACKSON, JEFF 367 162 58 .675
10 Kelley, John "Snooks" 501 245 15 .668
11 Thompson, Cheddy 150 73 6 .668
12 Woog, Doug 390 188 40 .663
13 BERENSON, RED 770 371 80 .663
14 Ceglarski, Len 672 339 37 .659
15 Morris, Mark 306 156 42 .649
16 HAKSTOL, DAVE 235 119 37 .648
17 MacInnes, John 555 295 39 .646
18 Parker, Jack 897 472 115 .643
19 Weiland, Ralph 316 172 17 .643
20 Walsh, Shawn 399 215 44 .640
21 UMILE, DICK 519 276 94 .637
22 BLAIS, DEAN 336 183 49 .635
23 Johnson, Bob 394 224 27 .632
24 LUCIA, DON 595 343 84 .623
25 SCHAFER, MIKE 347 198 66 .622
26 Brooks, Herb 167 98 18 .622
27 Roos, Jack 128 77 7 .620
28 Kollevoll, Olav 151 92 4 .619
29 Cleary, Bill 325 200 22 .614
30 YORK, JERRY 935 569 98 .614
31 Bertrand, Dick 286 177 18 .613
32 ALLAIN, KEITH 138 84 19 .612
33 Gasparini, John "Gino" 392 248 25 .608
34 BLASI, ENRICO 311 196 53 .603
35 Addesa, Mike 236 155 9 .601
36 OWENS, SCOTT 317 204 48 .599
37 Riley, Jack 311 208 12 .597
38 Holt, Charlie 347 232 18 .596
39 PECKNOLD, RAND 292 190 56 .595
40 Menard, George 204 137 14 .594
41 Cleverly, Harry 211 144 10 .592
42 Gwozdecky, George 526 361 83 .585
43 Mariucci, John 197 138 18 .584
44 Lamoriello, Lou 248 179 13 .578
45 Slater, Terry 263 190 23 .577
46 Selman, Bill 268 198 19 .572
47 WILSON, WAYNE 152 111 32 .569
48 EAVES, MIKE 231 169 51 .569
49 MOTZKO, BOB 162 125 35 .557
50 Comley, Rick 783 615 110 .556
51 Buetow, Brad 296 235 20 .555
52 Jeremiah, Edward 308 247 12 .554
53 Christiansen, Brush 303 241 33 .554
54 Kane, Bill 125 102 2 .550
55 Sauer, Jeff 655 532 57 .549
56 Whitehead, Tim 326 264 65 .547
57 Tomassoni, Ronn 140 115 26 .544
58 BURKHOLDER, DAVE 214 175 50 .544
59 GOTKIN, RICK 243 203 46 .541
60 Marsh, Joe 468 399 72 .537
61 Murdoch, Murray 271 234 20 .535
62 Van Buskirk, Peter 167 146 8 .533
63 McShane, Mike 244 218 31 .526
64 KYLE, WALT 208 186 49 .525
65 Ross, Doug 219 199 31 .522
66 Salfi, Jim 103 94 7 .522
67 Dahl, Craig 338 309 52 .521
68 Turner, William 128 118 4 .520
69 Anzalone, Frank 223 205 41 .519
70 Fridgen, Dan 210 194 38 .518
71 Powers, Buddy 229 212 39 .518
72 SERRATORE, TOM 201 186 49 .517
73 Mazzoleni, Mark 167 155 33 .517
74 Anderson, Ron 242 230 24 .512
75 Fullerton, James 176 168 9 .511
76 Farrell, Dan 135 129 6 .511
77 Backstrom, Ralph 182 174 14 .511
78 Markell, John 280 267 56 .511
79 LEAMAN, NATE 169 161 46 .511
80 PEARL, PAUL 282 272 66 .508
81 McCutcheon, Brian 108 105 21 .506
82 MacDonald, Blaise 241 236 59 .505
83 SANDELIN, SCOTT 231 229 63 .502
84 Renfrew, Al 288 286 13 .502
85 VAUGHAN, DON 328 331 75 .498
86 Pooley, Paul 185 187 40 .498
87 Cady, Steve 122 126 11 .492
88 Gilligan, Mike 291 302 47 .491
89 Bjorkman, Rube 224 234 11 .489
90 Kemp, Mike 171 181 54 .488
91 Sertich, Mike 375 397 53 .487
92 Hannah, Shaun 191 204 38 .485
93 Wilkinson, Bill 437 469 81 .484
94 DANIELS, BOB 350 378 84 .483
95 Cronin, Greg 108 117 31 .482
96 Roll, George 130 142 33 .480
97 Lowrey, Ed 124 136 21 .479
98 DONATO, TED 126 139 35 .478
99 SERRATORE, FRANK 321 355 67 .477
100 Smith, Lefty
.
.
? SETH APPERT 112 148 36 .431
Last edited by Dutchman; Yesterday at 08:12 PM.[/I]
ghostofwatson
New member
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
For sure, D. It's especially telling given that many of the guys ahead of Ted on this list coached at a time when programs were on more of a level playing field than they are today. Plus, if there were a nice guy list Ted would be in the Top 10
For sure, D. It's especially telling given that many of the guys ahead of Ted on this list coached at a time when programs were on more of a level playing field than they are today. Plus, if there were a nice guy list Ted would be in the Top 10
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
As a college hockey fan and a rational person in general, there is no debate that Donato should go. He might be a really nicest guy, but it's not good for the league, the players, or college hockey. Of course I would rather see more Cornell beat downs over Harvard, but if these games are not competitive and do not make our players better, it's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
ghostofwatson - I'm not sure if you're trolling or actually serious, but if what you said is why Donato is still coaching, then as a Cornell fan I'm completely in support of keeping him as long as possible.For sure, D. It's especially telling given that many of the guys ahead of Ted on this list coached at a time when programs were on more of a level playing field than they are today. Plus, if there were a nice guy list Ted would be in the Top 10
As a college hockey fan and a rational person in general, there is no debate that Donato should go. He might be a really nicest guy, but it's not good for the league, the players, or college hockey. Of course I would rather see more Cornell beat downs over Harvard, but if these games are not competitive and do not make our players better, it's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
You couldn't be more wrong and the proof is in the drop in season ticket renewals. I posted about this earlier today. There are more than a few fans who want to see the team win. Look what happened when they brought in Tommy Amaker. Basketball now sells out and I guarantee you that those fans want to see Harvard playing on national TV in March Madness. Those are now the expectations. Amaker is able to recruit kids who study, play, commit to winning and still enjoy the benefits of a Harvard education. The Harvard 'experience' may not be something these athletes can enjoy fully but they don't entirely miss out during their four years on campus. The scholarship argument holds no weight because of the above mentioned basketball example. Harvard has been dealing with that for years including the 80's when we enjoyed our greatest success. We lost players to BC and BU but convinced others to attend (Don Sweeney chose us over Michigan State even though Ron Mason had the inside track).
As far as fun games, what aspect of this weekend's games were fun to you? Missing on two breakaways? Giving up a breakaway to someone who scored only his fourth goal of the season? We aren't even competitive in the Ivy League anymore so your thesis doesn't hold up. I don't expect a national title every ten years. But I do expect us to compete for first in the ECAC and to win the tournament as often as we can with appearances in the NCAAs. Regularly. I don't consider that to be unreasonable.
As far as parking, it's cheaper to park at the B-School parking lot and I get out plenty fast, sellout or no sellout. I can't tell if you are messing with us Ghost or if you really are drinking your Kool Aid. It doesn't matter. We all like Teddy as a person. He is a great guy. No one is questioning his knowledge of the game. But constructing and imparting a system that can win today and getting the talent to buy into that system is what is lacking at the moment. And that won't change as long as he is at the helm.
You couldn't be more wrong and the proof is in the drop in season ticket renewals. I posted about this earlier today. There are more than a few fans who want to see the team win. Look what happened when they brought in Tommy Amaker. Basketball now sells out and I guarantee you that those fans want to see Harvard playing on national TV in March Madness. Those are now the expectations. Amaker is able to recruit kids who study, play, commit to winning and still enjoy the benefits of a Harvard education. The Harvard 'experience' may not be something these athletes can enjoy fully but they don't entirely miss out during their four years on campus. The scholarship argument holds no weight because of the above mentioned basketball example. Harvard has been dealing with that for years including the 80's when we enjoyed our greatest success. We lost players to BC and BU but convinced others to attend (Don Sweeney chose us over Michigan State even though Ron Mason had the inside track).
As far as fun games, what aspect of this weekend's games were fun to you? Missing on two breakaways? Giving up a breakaway to someone who scored only his fourth goal of the season? We aren't even competitive in the Ivy League anymore so your thesis doesn't hold up. I don't expect a national title every ten years. But I do expect us to compete for first in the ECAC and to win the tournament as often as we can with appearances in the NCAAs. Regularly. I don't consider that to be unreasonable.
As far as parking, it's cheaper to park at the B-School parking lot and I get out plenty fast, sellout or no sellout. I can't tell if you are messing with us Ghost or if you really are drinking your Kool Aid. It doesn't matter. We all like Teddy as a person. He is a great guy. No one is questioning his knowledge of the game. But constructing and imparting a system that can win today and getting the talent to buy into that system is what is lacking at the moment. And that won't change as long as he is at the helm.
# 10 went to Disneyland?
Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014
Holy cow, dude. Anyway, as someone else said, you have to be trolling. I would agree that at Ivies, it's not win at all costs. It's not everything. But his performance as HOCKEY coach to date is flat out embarrassing. Harvard should expect better and should do better. Nobody is expecting Ted to compete for a national title every year, but there's a big gape in between that and what he's been producing.
Holy cow, dude. Anyway, as someone else said, you have to be trolling. I would agree that at Ivies, it's not win at all costs. It's not everything. But his performance as HOCKEY coach to date is flat out embarrassing. Harvard should expect better and should do better. Nobody is expecting Ted to compete for a national title every year, but there's a big gape in between that and what he's been producing.
- Status