Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

A quick question to dave1381 and/or other statistically sophisticated posters: while the final H-Y game will be meaningless in terms of ECAC placement, could a loss to Yale have any significant effect on Harvard's RPI and therefore its Pairwise? Or does just one unpredictable "bad" loss in a whole season amount to nothing more than a rounding error?

I don't have time to run the numbers, but Harvard's lead over Mercyhurst in RPI would become precarious with a loss to Yale or a series loss to Dartmouth. I think it would take a fairly catastrophic scenario to miss NCAAs.

I agree one-and-done at BC is the most likely scenario at this point, but I don't think a NCAA QF win is totally out of the question either. That's still a big improvement from the last two years, and the program should be pleased given the context. Just pull out the slu win at home (and Yale win) and Harvard would've been no 1 seed, regardless of Clarkson!!! (Maybe the goalie should've been pulled Friday!) But it still sucks to be close. And it sucks to have to be satisfied with lowered expectations compared to 1998-2008.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

First off, congrats to the team and Coach Stone on winning the Ivy League championship. I'm going to take some grief from the Cornell folks but since they had their opportunity in the sun, tonight we have ours and I have no problem declaring us Ivy League champs even if we are technically sharing it with Cornell.

As for tonight's game, it resembled more of a scrimmage than a game. Yale did play hard so give them credit for that since they had nothing to play for. As for the Crimson, some of the same bugaboos showed up again tonight and it doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling for this weekend. They are in no particular order:

1. Lack of finish and the inability to create scoring chances. The Crimson have too much talent to get over 35 shots on goal and only score three times against one of the worst teams in the league. At home no less. With one of the goals into an empty net. Crimson players are trying to do too much individually instead of trying to set up plays. No one is driving consistently to the net. Dempsey and Fry have been invisible these past few games and to make matters worse, Dempsey is taking really dumb penalties like tonight's boarding penalty with 2+ minutes to go in the game and Harvard clinging to a 2-1 lead. She is a captain and senior and should know better. Her play has been less than stellar and the team follows her lead.

2. Goaltending. Bellamy started tonight and gave up a goal on Yale's second shot on net. The first she kicked out straight into the slot to a waiting Yale player who banged it home five hole. As I mentioned previously, I fear that neither goalie has the confidence of the coaching staff at the moment. It seems like every defensive mistake made by the Crimson winds up in the back of the net. If Yale had any kind of offensive talent, they could have won this game. Even with only a few scoring chances.

3. Line combinations - they are changing period to period and I believe it is killing this team at the moment. There is no opportunity to create any flow when you aren't familiar with the person manning the wing or playing center. Yes, not having Kalley Armstrong (although she did dress tonight so that has to be a good sign) is hurting the forward lines but Coach should just stick with one set of combinations and run with it. This is not the time to be experimenting, injuries aside.

The two even strength goals by the Crimson illustrate another flaw in their offensive game. Mary Parker scored the game's first goal on a beauty of a wrist shot, top shelf. Kaitlin Spurling scored the game winner early in the third off the left wing from the top of the face-off circle when her wrist shot ticked off the goalie's glove and fell into the net. Both were shots where the player picked a spot. Too often Harvard is just shooting at the body of the goalie. Not hard to make a save when the puck hits you.

Oh well, bring on the Green. I really want to have a good feeling about this weekend and despite Watson's great review of the team's strengths and ranking, I just don't like the way we are playing at the moment. That plus Holdcroft is playing well and we aren't creating enough offensive chances. In the playoffs, you need to bury those few chances that come to you. Here's hoping Harvard has some good fortune and a positive turnaround in their offensive philosophy.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I don't have time to run the numbers, but Harvard's lead over Mercyhurst in RPI would become precarious with a loss to Yale or a series loss to Dartmouth. I think it would take a fairly catastrophic scenario to miss NCAAs.

I agree one-and-done at BC is the most likely scenario at this point, but I don't think a NCAA QF win is totally out of the question either. That's still a big improvement from the last two years, and the program should be pleased given the context. Just pull out the slu win at home (and Yale win) and Harvard would've been no 1 seed, regardless of Clarkson!!! (Maybe the goalie should've been pulled Friday!) But it still sucks to be close. And it sucks to have to be satisfied with lowered expectations compared to 1998-2008.

I'm guessing and have no statistical reference to back this up but if Harvard were to lose to Dartmouth this weekend, it would spell the end of their season. I don't see them going to the NCAAs in that scenario. Their play in the past couple of weeks doesn't lend itself to an NCAA berth. Unless the teams behind them also collapse. Again, no numbers or Pairwise reference here but the fact they have lost to Clarkson twice doesn't help them.

Dave, you've piqued my interest with your comment about lowered expectations since the 1998-2008 timeframe. When I have time, I want to run some numbers and do a comparative analysis on Harvard's performance using the past four years vis-a-vis that timeframe. It's been on my mind the past few days and I want to take a run at it. Just for my own edificationif nothing else.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

It's noteworthy how closely Harvard's game-by-game results this season correspond to the overall strength of its opponents. They haven't lost to anybody outside the top 5 nationally. Yes, they haven't yet deserved a place in the top 5, losing 5 of their 7 games against those teams (swept by Clarkson, lost to BC, split with Cornell and BU). But their goal differential in those 7 games was a respectable 11-to-15. And neither are they out of the top 8: they have 4 wins and a tie against the lower-ranked TUC. Their #6 or so ranking right now is what it is, and we await further results. But it's certainly something to be proud of. (Against all other teams, their only blemishes are ties with SLU and UNH; otherwise, they've swept the board).

In addition to these consistent won-loss results, the goals-against statistics are also very revealing. Against all opponents, they have a 1.13 GA average. Of the 33 goals allowed, 15 came in the 7 games against top-5 opponents (2.14) and 18 came in the other 21 games (0.86), including doubleheaders with Quinnipiac, Dartmouth and SLU and single games against Northeastern, Providence and UNH. And their PK percentage is 92.4%.

All these results, I think, define the team's reaction to the loss of Pucci and Gedman. More later.

There is no question that these are great numbers. But look at it from January 15th on. The picture isn't quite as rosy. The team struggled to score more than two or three goals a game. They barely beat Union 1-0 on home ice. Prior to Christmas, they were firing on all cylinders. Something happened after Christmas and they have not been the same team since then. I agree that the loss of Pucci and Gedman was huge and I think that the minutes that the D, especially Edney and Picard, have had to play is taking a toll on them. At times, Romatoski, Picard and Edney are the only ones playing with Haysson taking occasional shifts and Elizabeth Parker maybe seeing the ice three or four times. Early in the season, I worried that this would eventually catch up to them. I think that it is happening now and we're seeing the effects. Probably the only criticism I have of Katey Stone is her inability or unwillingness to build depth by giving minutes to the back end of her roster. This would have been the season to do it yet she refused to do so. And the team may pay for it this weekend. Just sayin'.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Ok, well I considered getting swept at home against Dartmouth to be a "catastrophic" outcome. Yes, Harvard is in trouble for NCAA selections if that happens.

I expect taking one game vs Dartmouth will probably be enough to lock things up though. In the case of getting swept by Dartmouth, Harvard almost certainly falls behind Mercyhurst and then whoever is the WCHA tournament runner-up (assuming Wisconsin or North Dakota). Harvard probably still manages to finish ahead of whichever of those teams ends up being No. 3 in the WCHA. But then that leaves Harvard as No. 8 in the rankings, in position to be knocked out if there's a surprise winner in any of the three autobid leagues.

Harvard did still beat Cornell and BU and Northeastern and went 2-0-2 against Dartmouth and SLU and 2-0 Quinnipiac, while no WCHA team could beat Minnesota. That in nutshell is why Harvard could still edge out the third-place WCHA team even with a Dartmouth series loss. It might not be fair to the third-place WCHA team, but that's the selection system we have.

Re: trends this season, I thought Harvard kind of overachieved in the first half, as there was a nice win over Cornell and then everyone did their job against a fairly soft schedule. The second half was surely worse but it did include the win over BU which was obviously huge.

Re: my comment about lowered expectations, it's just venting after a frustrating outcome. I don't really want to engage in any long-term retrospectives during the season. Obviously this team has still accomplished a lot. Getting past BU and Cornell is huge, as is the Ivy title share.

 

[UCONN FAN]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

There is no question that these are great numbers. But look at it from January 15th on. The picture isn't quite as rosy. The team struggled to score more than two or three goals a game. They barely beat Union 1-0 on home ice. Prior to Christmas, they were firing on all cylinders. Something happened after Christmas and they have not been the same team since then. I agree that the loss of Pucci and Gedman was huge and I think that the minutes that the D, especially Edney and Picard, have had to play is taking a toll on them. At times, Romatoski, Picard and Edney are the only ones playing with Haysson taking occasional shifts and Elizabeth Parker maybe seeing the ice three or four times. Early in the season, I worried that this would eventually catch up to them. I think that it is happening now and we're seeing the effects. Probably the only criticism I have of Katey Stone is her inability or unwillingness to build depth by giving minutes to the back end of her roster. This would have been the season to do it yet she refused to do so. And the team may pay for it this weekend. Just sayin'.

This has always been a criticism of Stones. I was at the Beanpot final triple OT game against BC and she was skating 2 lines almost until the end.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

This has always been a criticism of Stones. I was at the Beanpot final triple OT game against BC and she was skating 2 lines almost until the end.

She did the same thing this past weekend and it is mystifying to me why she continues to do it when she has enough talent to skate three lines. She will also sit players like Miye D'Oench or Dylan Crugnale for long stretches in favor of Margaret Chute who has barely played this season. Crugnale took a penalty last night and we never saw her again. This reliance on only a few players I believe is one reason we haven't gone very far in the ECAC tournament the past four years.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Re: my comment about lowered expectations, it's just venting after a frustrating outcome. I don't really want to engage in any long-term retrospectives during the season. Obviously this team has still accomplished a lot. Getting past BU and Cornell is huge, as is the Ivy title share.

Never considered it venting Dave. I think Crimson fans are frustrated by how the season has played out even though as you and Watson have pointed out, they have accomplished a lot given the injuries. If we can somehow get to the ECAC tournament final and an NCAA qf game, then I would consider it a very good year.

 

[Veritas]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Skate79 -

I concur with your post #202. Too many shots seem to be centered on the goalies chest. We seem to have fewer players who can pick their corners.

As to line combos, lately there seem to be far too many passes not connecting and going to the wrong team. Maybe more regular line combinations would lead to better results in having passes connect with the intended team.

Also, a non=performance related question: Does anyone know why they wore the crimson/black sweaters yesterday rather than the usual home white/crimson sweaters? I like the darker uniforms but it did seem odd.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Skate79 -

I concur with your post #202. Too many shots seem to be centered on the goalies chest. We seem to have fewer players who can pick their corners.

As to line combos, lately there seem to be far too many passes not connecting and going to the wrong team. Maybe more regular line combinations would lead to better results in having passes connect with the intended team.

Also, a non=performance related question: Does anyone know why they wore the crimson/black sweaters yesterday rather than the usual home white/crimson sweaters? I like the darker uniforms but it did seem odd.

I don't have an answer for you about the black sweaters but I too was curious as to why they chose to do so. Maybe to give them an advanced 'feel' for being on the road for the semis and finals should they make it that far?? I'm reaching here I know but I can't come up with a plausible explanation. Maybe they used the wrong bleach on their regular home uniforms and they came up blue instead??

 

[Watson Rink]

uniforms

uniforms

Casting about for reasons for the different sweaters, could they have a retro significance? Will have to look more closely at the apparel in the "The Tradition Continues" scoreboard video. Also have a vague recollection of the Local Line so clad in the early 'Seventies. Or is my mind playing tricks....they do look a bit like EMass high school sweaters of the 'Fifties, back when you could watch all five Bay State League games at the Boston Arena (next to Crusher Casey's) in a single evening (10 minute periods! 15 games a season! practices out on the pond!).

Two reasons for hating these particular uniforms are (1) it seems harder to read the numbers, either in person or on the internet and (2) the diagonal lettering is reminiscent of the NY Rangers.

If you want a really distinctive third uniform, there's always the Bruin's canary yellow sweater with the snarling bear. Speaking of which, you all know who gave the Bruins' grizzly mascot, Blades, his name, right? (Hint: this is a Harvard women's hockey forum, and that question ain't off-topic!)

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

look at it from January 15th on. The picture isn't quite as rosy. The team struggled to score more than two or three goals a game. They barely beat Union 1-0 on home ice. Prior to Christmas, they were firing on all cylinders. Something happened after Christmas and they have not been the same team since then. I agree that the loss of Pucci and Gedman was huge and I think that the minutes that the D, especially Edney and Picard, have had to play is taking a toll on them. At times, Romatoski, Picard and Edney are the only ones playing with Haysson taking occasional shifts and Elizabeth Parker maybe seeing the ice three or four times. Early in the season, I worried that this would eventually catch up to them. I think that it is happening now and we're seeing the effects. Probably the only criticism I have of Katey Stone is her inability or unwillingness to build depth by giving minutes to the back end of her roster. This would have been the season to do it yet she refused to do so. And the team may pay for it this weekend. Just sayin'.

Since you bring it up.....
Stone stubbornly clings to her old ways despite history repeating itself over and over again in the past 5-6 years at least and the team falling short in the playoffs aftera strong early season start. It's typical for her to blame the goalies, her top players not coming through in the stretch/playoffs, lack of depth to work with, injuries etc...anything but herself. Frankly nothing changes but the names of the players involved. The only commonality is the coaching. I don't care who it is, when your coaching philosophy consists of over-reliance on 2 lines regardless of the situation, it doesn't take an Ivy Leaguer to predict the probable outcomes:

1) Your top players will be experiencing exhaustion towards the end of games, and certainly more burnout than on most other teams by the end of season. Because they are exhausted and under extraordinary pressure to perform in this system they score less, make more mistakes, and take more bad penalties (as you note in the above example with Dempsey.). The more you over-rely on your best players, the worse they will do. Even in games with 5+ goal leads, back as far as Botterill, through Vaillancourt, later Buesser/Ryabkina, and now Dempsey, they STILL wouldn't get rested in favour of players with little playing time to be given the opportunity for a regular shift. Did they really need that 5th point in the game? I am actually aware of several top national team level players who declined to play for Stone in part because even though they would get tons of ice, their skill development would thus be negatively affected...one rejecting Harvard for Cornell actually had an older sister who experienced firsthand the "too much ice" syndrome. The family worried it would impede her potential as an Olympian.
2) The corollary is that most players not deemed superstars or acolytes typically get little opportunity to develop or demonstrate their potential value to the team. Ask any player: its tough to play to your potential when you are not seeing a regular shift...especially problematic if there is much special teams action. This applies to anyone not on the first two lines at Harvard. You tend to stiffen up sitting on the bench, and are more likely to make a mistake as the coach shows no confidence in your ability to make a contribution. One is even less likely to play well when, compounding that, if you are not a top player and do make a mistake, you know you are not likely to see the ice again. (as you noted with Crugnale) And obviously significantly different rules in this regard depending on your status does nothing for team chemistry either. Once player confidence is lost, you will never perform anywhere near your true ability.
3) It is no surprise Harvard's post-season performance for many seasons now has not matched its earlier ranking. A team that overachieves late in the season generally is one where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts: you are finally get the best out of everybody, everyone works together and usually team chemistry is great. Typically, teams which over perform down the stretch make decisions along the way based on the ultimate goal of championship or long play-off run, rather than the best possible score in a specific game early on. Even when the roles may be very different, everyone sees their value on the team. Confidence is high. Sometimes this might mean resting top players and give other players lots of opportunities to develop and gain experience in different situations...especially when the team has a comfortable lead. As noted by Skate, if you refuse to give many of your players minutes, you don't build depth. You lose it. A growth environment is one where mistakes are seen as an opportunity to learn and improve, in order to peak at playoff time, instead of being so afraid you might make one that you are bound to do so. A track record of blaming goalies, even National team ones, for the teams' performance; blaming top players for not having anything left to score late; or top D's for costly mistakes, or a lack of sufficient depth (read 3-4 lines of Olympians) instead of taking personal ownership as a leader and decision-maker contributes to an unsupportive environment unconducive to strong chemistry and strong stretch run performance.
4) This of course all has a longer term effect both on current players in their long-term development and ability to perform in future seasons, but also beyond even that. It's much, much harder to retain and recruit players when history shows there is a very good chance you will fall into the "spare parts" camp outside her top two lines. It has happened to several players with National team experience in recent seasons, as well as many others who were top blue chip players pre-Harvard. Not exactly a strong recruiter personally to begin with, she has been extremely fortunate to not only have the enormously helpful Team USA and Harvard cards to help compensate, but an extremely generous admissions department as well.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

...one rejecting Harvard for Cornell actually had an older sister who experienced firsthand the "too much ice" syndrome. The family worried it would impede her potential as an Olympian.

Would this be Katie Johnston and her sister Rebecca who went to Cornell? Just wondering. You can also add Chelsea Karpenko who was supposed to go to Harvard but changed her mind and went to Cornell. I'm wondering how many other recruits did the same when they realized what they were in for.

I wasn't aware of Stone's complaints about her team. That doesn't build a whole lot of confidence especially in tight games. The over reliance on the top lines and top D leave them not only exhausted but frustrated at their lack of production against quality competition and the ability to play at a high level against said competition. You can see it in Dempsey and Fry. They just don't look like the same players from early in the season.

I took a quick look at one goal losses from 08-09 through last season. Surprisingly, they have an overall winning record in one goal games (27-20) but upon closer inspection, against teams either ranked or in the top four of the conference, they have a losing record. And of course, they have not advanced past the ECAC semis in the past four years. Their road record against those ranked or top teams isn't good either. Again, it may have to do with lack of depth at the back end of the roster.

It's hard to argue against Coach Stone's record when compared to other coaches. But if you look at the rise of programs such as BU and Clarkson in such a short period of time, it does make you wonder how we will continue to compete against top competition given these circumstances.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

One additional thought about building depth. Claude Julien, the coach of the Bruins, came in for some criticism two years ago during the Stanley Cup run for playing the fourth line too much. But when it came to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals against Vancouver, it was the fourth line that changed the tenor of the game in the first period when the Canucks were pressing the issue. Thornton and Campbell in particular were huge in turning around the pressure and forcing the Canucks to play more in their own zone. The rest is history.

 

[Veritas]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Trillium -

An excellent, thoughtful and thought provoking post. Thanks for posting that.

I concur in most respects but do question your:
"Not exactly a strong recruiter personally to begin with, she has been extremely fortunate to not only have the enormously helpful Team USA and Harvard cards to help compensate, but an extremely generous admissions department as well. "

That may have been true several years ago but I am not certain that it is true now. My understanding is that the Ivy League rules provide that the mean Academic Index (AI) of all varsity athletes entering must fall within one standard deviation of the mean AI of the class they enter with. Several years ago, in response to pressure from major donors, Harvard decided to place much more emphasis on basketball than any time in Harvard history. They hired a nationally known men's basketball coach and I am certain that when they did they were forced to make a commitment to him about recruiting support. If men's basketball is recruiting more players from the lower AI bands it follows that in order to keep the mean AI of athletes within one standard deviation of the extremely high AI of each entering class then all other teams will be forced to recruit from the higher AI bands, resulting in a significantly smaller pool for a coach to recruit from and it will be more difficult for a coach to obtain the talents she wants. I am convinced that this is a significant factor in the problems of both men's and women's hockey at Harvard in recent years.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Trillium -

An excellent, thoughtful and thought provoking post. Thanks for posting that.

I concur in most respects but do question your:
"Not exactly a strong recruiter personally to begin with, she has been extremely fortunate to not only have the enormously helpful Team USA and Harvard cards to help compensate, but an extremely generous admissions department as well. "

That may have been true several years ago but I am not certain that it is true now. My understanding is that the Ivy League rules provide that the mean Academic Index (AI) of all varsity athletes entering must fall within one standard deviation of the mean AI of the class they enter with. Several years ago, in response to pressure from major donors, Harvard decided to place much more emphasis on basketball than any time in Harvard history. They hired a nationally known men's basketball coach and I am certain that when they did they were forced to make a commitment to him about recruiting support. If men's basketball is recruiting more players from the lower AI bands it follows that in order to keep the mean AI of athletes within one standard deviation of the extremely high AI of each entering class then all other teams will be forced to recruit from the higher AI bands, resulting in a significantly smaller pool for a coach to recruit from and it will be more difficult for a coach to obtain the talents she wants. I am convinced that this is a significant factor in the problems of both men's and women's hockey at Harvard in recent years.

It does not appear to the casual observer such as myself that there has been a significant dropoff in support for the women's ice hockey team from the admissions department. This year's freshamn class were all highly sought after players by Ivy and non-Ivies alike - it's not like Harvard had to take lesser players to satisfy the admission department. Any D1 program in the country would have been happy to have any one of these kids. I think you'll have to look elsewhere to determine why the team had a sub-par performance - if you believe that they actually did....

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Trillium -

An excellent, thoughtful and thought provoking post. Thanks for posting that.

I concur in most respects but do question your:
"Not exactly a strong recruiter personally to begin with, she has been extremely fortunate to not only have the enormously helpful Team USA and Harvard cards to help compensate, but an extremely generous admissions department as well. "

That may have been true several years ago but I am not certain that it is true now. My understanding is that the Ivy League rules provide that the mean Academic Index (AI) of all varsity athletes entering must fall within one standard deviation of the mean AI of the class they enter with. Several years ago, in response to pressure from major donors, Harvard decided to place much more emphasis on basketball than any time in Harvard history. They hired a nationally known men's basketball coach and I am certain that when they did they were forced to make a commitment to him about recruiting support. If men's basketball is recruiting more players from the lower AI bands it follows that in order to keep the mean AI of athletes within one standard deviation of the extremely high AI of each entering class then all other teams will be forced to recruit from the higher AI bands, resulting in a significantly smaller pool for a coach to recruit from and it will be more difficult for a coach to obtain the talents she wants. I am convinced that this is a significant factor in the problems of both men's and women's hockey at Harvard in recent years.

Actually, though it is possible that is true for some other Harvard teams, there are many hockey players admitted to Harvard with SAT scores significantly below 1800--and not just top line players. That's extremely difficult to do at some other Ivys, which explains why these are less competitive programs than Harvard and Cornell.

That fact is also reinforced by the fact that scarcely any Harvard Freshmen and Sophs made the All-Academic teams last year. In comparison to historical numbers, if anything it suggests the admission standards may be even lower than they might have been in years' past. Stone obviously has lots of clout because of her tenure.

It probably doesn't hurt either that the Dean of Admissions was a former hockey player.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Since you bring it up.....
Stone stubbornly clings to her old ways despite history repeating itself over and over again in the past 5-6 years at least and the team falling short in the playoffs aftera strong early season start.

I don't dispute your characterization of how Katey allocates playing time, but I'd dispute the recent history.

First, we're definitely talking last five seasons, not the last six. I don't think we can complain too much about 07-08, the postseason of an ECAC championship, Frozen Four team that lost to the defending NCAA champion.

Now yes, Harvard's now lost in the ECAC semis 4 straight years, once as #1, twice as #2, and once as #3. In any of those years would you say Harvard started really strong? I'd say only 09-10, and that collapse was much more about Kessler's injury than anything else. And as I said, I thought this season it was much more about the second-half schedule being tougher than a deep decline. The 08-09 team probably underachieved early, but had a really strong finish down the stretch and earned a #1 seed to their credit. But that team was the ECAC's worst top seed ever recordwise.

Now it's true there's been an unfortunate pattern in recent seasons of losing to teams in the ECAC semis that Harvard swept in the regular season. Part of this is a fluke, that in both the SLU loss last season and Dartmouth the year before, these were teams Harvard swept very early on -- and I don't think in either case the results were more broadly indicative of how good Harvard was or how bad the other team was at the time, as you can see from the overall results. In such scenarios, the underdog is obviously going to be more motivated. The overall of results of those Harvard teams those years hasn't been amazing success and then collapse, though if you just looked at three games in isolation, that's what you get.

Now regarding Katey's system, even if these ECAC semi results last 4 years have disappointed, you have to give credit where credit is due to the regular season success. There are tradeoffs. With this system, Harvard is simply more consistent than a lot of other teams. Clarkson lost to Colgate, Northeastern, SLU, and Princeton. Harvard did not, and that's why Harvard's even with Clarkson in league & national standings despite losing to them twice. When you play weaker teams differently than the rest, that kind of loss happens.

If you look at the overall pattern of results, I don't see any Harvard team that tremendously underachieved overall, and in most seasons (including this one) the team has fared better than it's preseason ranking. And while these ECAC semi losses have been disappointing, there have surely been Harvard teams in years passed that improved down the stretch -- 04-05 probably being the clearest example.

As for recruiting, yes, it's clear that Katey's system is not for everyone, but so be it. Recruiting is finding the right match. It's good that players know what they're getting into, and it's fine if you're informing of them. Some players choosing Cornell over Harvard does not imply that Harvard is wrong for everyone and that Harvard must be getting by based on its name and lax admission standards.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Actually, though it is possible that is true for some other Harvard teams, there are many hockey players admitted to Harvard with SAT scores significantly below 1800--and not just top line players. That's extremely difficult to do at some other Ivys, which explains why these are less competitive programs than Harvard and Cornell.

That fact is also reinforced by the fact that scarcely any Harvard Freshmen and Sophs made the All-Academic teams last year. In comparison to historical numbers, if anything it suggests the admission standards may be even lower than they might have been in years' past. Stone obviously has lots of clout because of her tenure.

It probably doesn't hurt either that the Dean of Admissions was a former hockey player.

To follow up on this, I know that at least one of this year's recruits did not get a likely letter in the Fall due either to grades or test scores, but was still admitted in the EA process. That is almost unheard of at an Ivy League school and certainly an indictation that the department is supporting the program. Coach Stone is not stupid - it appears she typically pads her recruit list with more players than she knows she can get in and then can afford to have the admission department cut one or two for her (or selectively does it herself and blames admissions for it). Don't know the actual events around the two Canadian recruits this recruiting season (for 2013-2014), but wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened to one or both of them.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I'd agree that higher admissions standards have not been a problem for the program, though I confess I had some concerns like Veritas expressed initially when men's basketball became more prominent.

The claim that Harvard's admitted SEVERAL with sub-1800 SATs I find hard to believe though. At least the Ivy minimum AI is something just under a B average and a 1200 on the first two parts. Given how much of a struggle just to get Sarah V accepted (who ended up doing fine academically, by the way) I can't possibly believe that the team now has several players close to the league minimum AI.