Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

The US and Canada National (or Select, whichever is being used today) Teams are centralized, and any players with remaining college eligibility will miss their college season entirely (redshirting to preserve a year if allowed by their respective institution)

You needn't worry about Bellamy, Drazan, or Marvin, as all three completed their NCAA eligibility in 2008 - 2009.

BC, UNH, and Minny have some very potent rookies with recent Select team experience in their age group coming in to shore up the absences created by graduation (and centalization) though, so you needn't not worry either

Well, that of course, helps. And I'm rolling my eyes at myself and at USA Hockey for the way that roster was put out making me believe that these players were indeed still current college athletes and not recent graduates, not at you. Won't make that mistake for Canada at least.

Plus I wasn't worried. I just wanted to make this post somewhat relevant to the 09-10 season. I honestly could have stopped after the Harvard alumnae (I think that's the proper plural here) named to the team. But I wanted to get a perspective on how different Harvard opponents were likely to shape up as compared to last year. Like how, barring a shock, I'm sure Cornell's top player will be gone next year due to centralization (which I now found out how it works- side benefit), and what that means for a both Cornell and Harvard.

(as an fyi- I think half my posts are things I wanted to easily be able to find later in the year either for predictions or for broadcast games- like the Lamoureux twins transfer, or the centralization of opponents, etc. etc., but that also serve as semi-useful to useful info on the season for the folks that follow the team.)

And I'd still rather see BC without Schaus and Stack at the Bright Center regardless of what rookies are coming into their program. Simply put, Harvard now enters the Beanpot with far and away the best goaltending (unless Kessler does so well with the U-23s that they add her, which at this point I'm assuming is unlikely), as I'm relatively certain that Northeastern's best goalie will be playing for her national team as well.

 

[ARM]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Simply put, Harvard now enters the Beanpot with far and away the best goaltending ...

The validity of that statement may depend on what you mean "by far and away". Granted, Kessler is the Beanpot goalie most likely to receive Patty Kaz consideration and post the best stats for the season, but I'd guess that Sulyma of Northeastern or Boyles of BC are quite capable of stealing a game from most teams, Harvard included.

 

[Hux]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Well, that of course, helps. And I'm rolling my eyes at myself and at USA Hockey for the way that roster was put out making me believe that these players were indeed still current college athletes and not recent graduates, not at you. Won't make that mistake for Canada at least.

Plus I wasn't worried. I just wanted to make this post somewhat relevant to the 09-10 season. I honestly could have stopped after the Harvard alumnae (I think that's the proper plural here) named to the team. But I wanted to get a perspective on how different Harvard opponents were likely to shape up as compared to last year. Like how, barring a shock, I'm sure Cornell's top player will be gone next year due to centralization (which I now found out how it works- side benefit), and what that means for a both Cornell and Harvard.

(as an fyi- I think half my posts are things I wanted to easily be able to find later in the year either for predictions or for broadcast games- like the Lamoureux twins transfer, or the centralization of opponents, etc. etc., but that also serve as semi-useful to useful info on the season for the folks that follow the team.)

And I'd still rather see BC without Schaus and Stack at the Bright Center regardless of what rookies are coming into their program. Simply put, Harvard now enters the Beanpot with far and away the best goaltending (unless Kessler does so well with the U-23s that they add her, which at this point I'm assuming is unlikely), as I'm relatively certain that Northeastern's best goalie will be playing for her national team as well.

Me thinks you need to do a little more research on the opposition, and women's hockey in general.

 

[Title_IX_Player]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

I'm sure Cornell's top player will be gone next year due to centralization (which I now found out how it works- side benefit), and what that means for a both Cornell and Harvard.QUOTE]

Cornell is a situation where their outstanding recruiting class will have a major impact and the collective impact will offset the loss of RJ for the upcoming season.

 

[rinkrat890890]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

And I'd still rather see BC without Schaus and Stack at the Bright Center regardless of what rookies are coming into their program. Simply put, Harvard now enters the Beanpot with far and away the best goaltending (unless Kessler does so well with the U-23s that they add her, which at this point I'm assuming is unlikely), as I'm relatively certain that Northeastern's best goalie will be playing for her national team as well.

I like how you underestimate BC. It's always good to be the underdog!

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Me thinks you need to do a little more research on the opposition, and women's hockey in general.

That's kind of what I've been doing here Hux. Not that I need to be anymore, unless I get a couple of women's games for play by play, I'll be focused on the men's side of things. But I am interested, which is why I post these things and try to get, you know, helpful reactions.

For Northeastern, for me, Schelling is the better of the two goalies, but she will be gone playing for the Swiss (unless they aren't in the Olympics. I honestly have no idea.)

For Boston U., well, the goaltending was good in the Hockey East campaign, but neither goalie I saw impressed me in their two Beanpot outings.

And For BC, well, I think with Schaus, they probably have the best goalie in the Beanpot. But they don't have Schaus.

Which leaves Harvard, who has a goalie that has excelled both with the Crimson despite a subpar (for her) year last year as well as the Canadian U-23 team, who she'll be playing for this summer. Does that mean they will win the Beanpot? No, to quote the cliche, that's why they play the game. Does that and the home ice make them the favorites for winning the Beanpot? Yes, I believe so.

On the flip side of things, I don't know or even really care about Minnesota's talent. Honestly, we could lose both of those games 12-1 and it wouldn't matter to me, because an ECAC championship still sends you to the NCAA tournament. But with that game being one that is a possibility for being broadcast, I would of course want to know that the Lamoureux twins were no longer with Minnesota. Doesn't mean Harvard will win those games, but I know enough that it certainly helps.

Moving on to ECAC play, I'll admit here, I don't know or really care about incoming freshmen for any of the teams in the ECAC, with a limited exception toward Harvard. Now your thread does a good job of keeping track of them all, but I'm still not going to dig through high school stats or NAHA tournaments for the incoming players, because, for one, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, and for two, in the grand scheme of things for a student radio broadcast, it doesn't matter a whole lot (because the only people listening are either casual fans who have no idea and won't even if I say it, or people on the USCHO boards that know it all anyway). Even the players that are being lost to the Olympics are more interesting things to bring up in a broadcast type stuff then they are things I'm going to use to justify what I'm going to say as my preseason prediction, if I even make one.

Of course, now I've learned Cornell is supposed to have a good incoming class that can make up for the loss of their one player. Which means that if I handicap the ECAC, I could say something like, "Cornell loses their best player to the Canadian National Team this year, but are rumored to have a good class of incoming freshmen. Still, without knowing what to expect from them, I'd say that they'll probably place fifth in the ECAC, although I wouldn't be shocked if they pushed higher than that on the strength of their new players." And I sound kind of smart without having or saying a list of stats for the incoming players, and I give myself leeway for not actually knowing how they will do.

So yes, I am trying to research the game a bit on the women's side. Having played the game, I can diagnose forechecks, backchecks, power plays, penalty kills, line matching, etc. Having followed the men's game for years now (I've tracked the men's Beanpot since I was about five), plus with the wealth of information since many of these players are NHL prospects, I know the men's game. But I've only followed women's hockey since last year and have seen, in action, the four Beanpot teams, RPI, Union, Dartmouth, Cornell, and Minnesota (and that was on tv). I know next to nothing about who the star players are, how the game works, who the prospects are, etc, or about other teams. So maybe instead of an eye rolling, I can get a hat tip toward where I can find that info (besides the fact that I do go through and read some of the USCHO threads for the other teams, and sometimes even ask questions of their fans about them).

PS- And keep in mind I'm a Harvard student and fan first, well before broadcaster or anything of that sort, so I will of course paint anything in a good light for Harvard and will always be a complete homer for them in my heart and on the boards (although I'll try not to be in the broadcast booth). So of course BC and Northeastern losing their goalie makes me think Harvard is winning the Beanpot. I would have said that they were anyway even if all of Harvard's team was centralized and they had the club team filling in for the year.

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

I like how you underestimate BC. It's always good to be the underdog!

I wouldn't say I underestimate them at all. All I said was it's a weaker team without those two. It doesn't mean they are in anyway a bad team- losing the Lamoureuxs makes Minnesota weaker, but they are still probably going to finish top 3 in the WCHA and are obviously a contender for the National Championship- weaker does not mean underdogs or guaranteed losers, just easier to face. (And as far as me saying Schaus and Stack beat the Crimson last year, well, Schaus shut the door completely on every Harvard opportunity, and Stack took advantage with a great individual effort to get the only goal.)

Plus, I think I'm giving Schaus and Stack a lot of respect by saying I'd rather not see them on the ice against Harvard. Probably too much for the Crimson girls' liking- if they found out about this, they might be mad that I'm implying they couldn't beat BC if those two were around (which I'm not). I'm sure they'd rather face the top competition and go out and beat them anyway.

But as a fan, which is what I count as, I'm allowed to say that's nonsense and that I'd rather see them with better chances for winning. And as a potential broadcaster, I'm allowed to say exactly what I've said before. It makes it easier for the Crimson to win, but they still have to go out and actually win. And considering who they've lost to graduation, they could very well be in the same boat as a lot of these teams anyway.

 

[rinkrat890890]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

(And as far as me saying Schaus and Stack beat the Crimson last year, well, Schaus shut the door completely on every Harvard opportunity, and Stack took advantage with a great individual effort to get the only goal.)

I agree that Stack and Schaus were huge in that Beanpot game against Harvard but were you there? The great individual effort was from Thunstrom who made a "two point" assist for Stack to score! It was a goal that was scored because of the phenomenal assist that Thunstrom made. They should have had co-MVP's. Thunstrom was severely overlooked in that game.

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

(And as far as me saying Schaus and Stack beat the Crimson last year, well, Schaus shut the door completely on every Harvard opportunity, and Stack took advantage with a great individual effort to get the only goal.)

I agree that Stack and Schaus were huge in that Beanpot game against Harvard but were you there? The great individual effort was from Thunstrom who made a "two point" assist for Stack to score! It was a goal that was scored because of the phenomenal assist that Thunstrom made. They should have had co-MVP's. Thunstrom was severely overlooked in that game.

unfortunately, yes, I was.

and I knew someone had made the pass to Stack (forgot who), but I thought Schaus was easily the star. BC did a good job of playing defensively and limiting opportunities, but when Harvard got through (and they did enough times to win the game) Schaus shut the door. Except for maybe one crossbar, Schaus stopped everything.

As for the goal, there was the turnover at the blue line, and then Sarah V committed to the wrong player, making the pass actually easier than it looked (not easy. easier). And then Stack finished a goal she needed to finish. But without someone of her speed, the defense doesn't get stretched like that and there's no goal.

If you want to argue it was three players, I can accept that. But honestly, BC's gameplan was to play a bit of a trap style defense and then score goals on the counter- and the two players that keep that effective are the brick wall goalie and the speedy goalscoring forward. The rest of the team needs to be effective as well, but that gameplan is a non-starter without those two elements.

And in all honestly, the winner of the Harvard/BC game is most likely going to be the winner of the Beanpot. It'll be interesting how both deal with their respective talent losses when it comes to a longer competition, ie, their conference schedule.

 

[DC78-82]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

My .02 is watch out for BU on those Tuesdays in February.

 

[mattj711]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Is this the first time since women's hockey became a sanctioned Olympic sport that Harvard has
not lost a current (non-graduating) or Incoming player to either canadian or U.S. Centralization?

 

[rinkrat890890]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

My .02 is watch out for BU on those Tuesdays in February.

Agreed!

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Is this the first time since women's hockey became a sanctioned Olympic sport that Harvard has
not lost a current (non-graduating) or Incoming player to either canadian or U.S. Centralization?

certainly possible.

 

[Hux]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

Agreed!

I concur, and raise you Northeastern! Sulyma is the better of the two Husky goalies, IMHO.

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

I concur, and raise you Northeastern! Sulyma is the better of the two Husky goalies, IMHO.

well, okay then.

but as the resident Harvard student, and being in the Harvard thread, I retain my right to be a homer. That right is limited if posting in a Beanpot thread, and revoked if I decide to go to a Northeastern, BC, or BU thread.

(And I don't really get how the goalie who's been playing on her national team since 14 or whatever it was can be the weaker of the two goalies. But I guess I need to "do more research" for women's hockey )

So all of that said, if you feel so strongly about this, go post in your own threads. This is a Harvard thread where we're discussing why Harvard has a good chance of winning various games/tournaments/competitions. (joking, sort of)

 

[ARM]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

... but you did first raise the topic of goalies playing for Boston D-I teams not named Harvard. Don't read too much into one goalie playing for a national team and another not, because the talent pool for goalies in Canada is much deeper than in European countries. And for an off-season discussion, it has stayed on topic rather well, as I don't remember ice cream being discussed.

 

[Hux]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

... but you did first raise the topic of goalies playing for Boston D-I teams not named Harvard. Don't read too much into one goalie playing for a national team and another not, because the talent pool for goalies in Canada is much deeper than in European countries. And for an off-season discussion, it has stayed on topic rather well, as I don't remember ice cream being discussed.

Funny you should mention that, as I was having a nice bowl of chocolate chip when I posted my thoughts on Northeastern and Miss Sulyma. (It isn't Whoopie Pie season yet)

 

[alslammerz]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

... but you did first raise the topic of goalies playing for Boston D-I teams not named Harvard. Don't read too much into one goalie playing for a national team and another not, because the talent pool for goalies in Canada is much deeper than in European countries. And for an off-season discussion, it has stayed on topic rather well, as I don't remember ice cream being discussed.

I raised it in context of "this is why Harvard has a better shot of winning." Expecting folks like Skate and other Harvard fans to come in and say something.

And instead I got jumped on by fans of every school who I didn't even think deigned to read Harvard threads. When I thought I was making a rather innocuous statement- that Harvard and BC were the favorites for the Beanpot (besides those two being in the finals last year, Northeastern's senior class has yet to win a Beanpot game and I don't think highly of BU for the competition- not just from the 6-1 loss but really the shoddy win over Northeastern in the consolation game and just from seeing them skate for warmups.) - and that because of the fact that BC lost their top scorer and their starting goalie, Harvard had to be considered the early favorite.

Now if Harvard starts the season 0-5 and it's clear they can't function without Sarah V (something I don't think is happening), then I'll change my opinion as to who the favorite is based on form. but give me a break, I'm talking about a tournament in February and am going off preseason news and notes- because I'm bored. Honestly, if I had done anything in the month of August not hockey related, this entire conversation doesn't happen.

I intended nothing I said as a knock against other teams in one way or the other. I'm confident Harvard can, on most nights, beat BU and Northeastern, but having played the game, I am well aware that on any given night, the outcome is always 50-50. I feel Harvard has a better chance this year against BC and Minnesota, two teams they lost too, because the teams they are facing are on paper, weaker, but that doesn't mean they will win any of those three games. And I mentioned all of this because, combined with the fact that every non-conference game is at home, Harvard has a good chance to be able to make the NCAA tourny without winning the ECAC auto-bid if they take advantage of what at this point, is the most favorable schedule they are going to get in a good long while. That's all I meant by it. I didn't think I was making radical statements that was going to cause fans of the other three schools to find me with pitchforks and torches.

(and while I realize Canada has a deeper pool than the Swiss, I still think Northeastern is losing the better goalie. It's not just a matter of playing for the Swiss team, but playing against the other internationals and improving to get to a level where you can compete with them.)

 

[ARM]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

I raised it in context of "this is why Harvard has a better shot of winning." Expecting folks like Skate and other Harvard fans to come in and say something...but give me a break, I'm talking about a tournament in February and am going off preseason news and notes- because I'm bored.

Fans of other teams get bored in the offseason as well. This is a discussion, nothing more. You made some points, others raised counter arguments.

I didn't think I was making radical statements that was going to cause fans of the other three schools to find me with pitchforks and torches.

And unless a lot has happened to you outside of this thread, they haven't. Most fans have just said that some players for other teams are better than you think. Hardly the stuff of lynch mobs.

But if this forum has changed to the point that we are constrained to speaking only of our own team, then I agree that a Harvard/Minnesota series this season will look drastically different from what we saw last winter, because so many of the impact players for both sides are gone. The Gophers lost so much firepower that I wouldn't be surprised if they emphasize D this year and try to play more 2-1, 3-2 games. We'll know more once the teams start playing games, but I expect the Crimson to match up better against them this time.

 

[Ikaria]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 09-10

I know the official ECAC pre-season predictions haven't come out yet. But since some of you seem to have done some pre season research of your own, how do you think things will go down in the ECAC this year?

Does Harvard take the regular season title again? Will Dartmouth? Or maybe there is a sleeper team this year? Do we see any teams surprise us in the final standings?

Just curious as to what you guys think, cause it seems there are some knowledgeable fans in this thread