Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

[HockeyEast33]

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.

I'm not sure that it's that hard to believe. They likely can get 1 very low AI kid per year (and maybe two every now and then). Some of their recruiting is definitely structured around using very high AI kids to offset 1 very low AI kid to have a team average that is acceptable (this is no different than most Ivies, with the exception of Princeton where it seems the team gets few if any admissions breaks). At least one of their recruits for 2013-2014 has near perfect SAT scores and high grades - probably could have gotten in without hockey. So she can pull one low AI kid in mostly by herself. If you get one per year, that is 4 total and qualifies in my definition of several...

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

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.

Heard from a reliable source that that did not sit well with some of the power clubs in the PWHL. Off course there is always two sides to those stories. Did the recruit do due diligence/ask the right questions. Sometimes recruits and parents are like deers staring in the glaring headlights once they think they have secured a spot. They see the light, but forget to pay attention to the details/ask the right questions.

As a parent of an Ivy kid, can tell you that it is harder to get into the Ivy my daughter is at from an Academic standpoint. Our D's school regularly turns away kids on academics that can get in at other Ivies. It is not a level playing field, and not just on the ice. Having said all that, if you have a kid that is strong enough academically to be considered by an ivy, you should be proud of them. It is a lot of hard work just to get into one of those schools.

Clearly Harvard does have an advantage, just on name alone. Ask any Bostonian/Mass kid/parent, and given the choice, chances are Harvard would be their first choice.

 

[Trillium]

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.

Believe what you wish. I personally know of multiple players who were admitted with sub 1800 SAT /27 ACT scores: I don't think too many players would underreport their score achievements in the recruitment process. That does not mean they were necessarily close to minimum AI either. Grades and subject scores were undoubtedly better; it is possible to have an AI in the 180s/190s while falling short on Reading/Math.

While sub 1800 scores are usually not sufficient to get even a high profile national team player into Yale or Princeton despite their other achievements, players who have been admitted with such scores at Harvard don't necessarily even end up with much playing time.

Vaillancourt on the other hand was close to the bare minimum from what I understand from various coaches. I believe she was able to graduate with a degree in French did she not?

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I'm not sure that it's that hard to believe. They likely can get 1 very low AI kid per year (and maybe two every now and then). Some of their recruiting is definitely structured around using very high AI kids to offset 1 very low AI kid to have a team average that is acceptable (this is no different than most Ivies, with the exception of Princeton where it seems the team gets few if any admissions breaks). At least one of their recruits for 2013-2014 has near perfect SAT scores and high grades - probably could have gotten in without hockey. So she can pull one low AI kid in mostly by herself. If you get one per year, that is 4 total and qualifies in my definition of several...

Yes, this is definitely Harvard's admissions game. I know of two other Harvard kids over the years with perfect SATs (one never actually played, the other happened to be a very good player.)...there may be more. Given the prominence of hockey at Harvard, the team's overall AI target is lower than that at Princeton, which is not a hockey school--this also makes it tougher for Princeton to recruit strong players. Yale has the added constraint that the high and low AI prospects cannot be pooled for an overall AI average; each admit must clear the hurdle individually.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

OK, I find the recent posts to be believable. I took the time frame for "admitted several" to mean one admissions cycle. If we're talking about over 4 years and several meaning as little as 4, then that's plausible.

But yeah, that's Ivy admissions. Schools pick their sports.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

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.

You could draw an analogy to the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning. Great regular season success but only one Super Bowl triumph. The NFL measures success in terms of SB wins. Anything less is a disappointment.

From 2001 to 20008, Harvard either won the ECAC tournament or made the championship game six times. That is consistency born from a mindset and attitude combined with talent that dictated success or nothing. It also helped to have Olympians on a regular basis suiting up.

In looking at the Crimson today, the talent is there to win but not the depth. And certainly not the goaltending. We haven't been getting the big save at a crucial moment and that partially explains some of the failures. We also have not been able to bury our chances and in the playoffs, that can mean the difference between winning and losing a game or a tournament. Last year, SLU cashed in on pretty much every opportunity they had on their way to a tournament title. They deserved it. If the Crimson are to advance and win, they will have to start today by grinding away and making every shift count. And hoping that whoever starts in goal, she will raise her game to a championship level necessary for the Crimson to hoist the trophy.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

You could draw an analogy to the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning. Great regular season success but only one Super Bowl triumph. The NFL measures success in terms of SB wins. Anything less is a disappointment.

From 2001 to 20008, Harvard either won the ECAC tournament or made the championship game six times. That is consistency born from a mindset and attitude combined with talent that dictated success or nothing. It also helped to have Olympians on a regular basis suiting up.

In looking at the Crimson today, the talent is there to win but not the depth. And certainly not the goaltending. We haven't been getting the big save at a crucial moment and that partially explains some of the failures. We also have not been able to bury our chances and in the playoffs, that can mean the difference between winning and losing a game or a tournament. Last year, SLU cashed in on pretty much every opportunity they had on their way to a tournament title. They deserved it. If the Crimson are to advance and win, they will have to start today by grinding away and making every shift count. And hoping that whoever starts in goal, she will raise her game to a championship level necessary for the Crimson to hoist the trophy.

Having a top notch goalie at or near the top of her peers can be a HUGE difference maker. Just look at the NHL for proof of that. Nothing against the current crop, but clearly, Kessler was one of those difference makers, and having someone like her in net can be the difference between winning and losing in those big tight games. You need that goaltender, that can make that timely save, and minimize the amount of stinkers she lets in. Clarkson is a good example of a team with a tender that can make a real difference when it counts.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

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.

Hmm. When a #1/#2/#3 seed loses to lower seeds in the ECAC playoffs 4 consecutive years, when does it stop being a fluke? And yes, the 07-08 did get to the FF--but it was Olympian Cahow who took things into her own to barely eke out the ECAC win for Harvard in OT. That one could easily have gone the other way too, despite the fact that Harvard was the favoured.

Sure underdogs are extra motivated. But if a ranked team is not equally motivated, such that they still will prevail more often than not, it should provoke questions. Esecially when it happens consistently. Really good teams win when it counts. That's also how I define good coaches.

Like others, you can choose instead to make excuses, like blaming Kessler for getting injured (and as I recall many pilloried Bellamy for the next 2 years for not being a Harvard-calibre goalie). She seems to have redeemed herself somewhat since.

By the way, if you have any job openings, I'd love to work for you and be able to trot out what I did back in 04-05 when we do my performance review.

About giving credit where credit is due, I guess we just use different criteria to judge what makes a better TEAM or a better coach. If the goal is all about getting as high a ranking as possible for the program during the season via win consistency, it works. I don't think most players would put that high on the list of things they are looking for from their experience though. Harvard wins more consistently during the season simply because they have some very good players they are on the ice much more than just about everyone else's. It could be argued then that Harvard's rankings are overinflated relative to others of comparable potential. If the goal is for the team to achieve its potential, and/or actually aim to win ECAC playoff titles and beyond, it hasn't been working.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Yes, this is definitely Harvard's admissions game. I know of two other Harvard kids over the years with perfect SATs (one never actually played, the other happened to be a very good player.)...there may be more. Given the prominence of hockey at Harvard, the team's overall AI target is lower than that at Princeton, which is not a hockey school--this also makes it tougher for Princeton to recruit strong players. Yale has the added constraint that the high and low AI prospects cannot be pooled for an overall AI average; each admit must clear the hurdle individually.

Are you sure about Yale? I thought the AI was calculated the same across all Ivies and sports by agreement but I could be wrong there.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Heard from a reliable source that that did not sit well with some of the power clubs in the PWHL. Off course there is always two sides to those stories. Did the recruit do due diligence/ask the right questions. Sometimes recruits and parents are like deers staring in the glaring headlights once they think they have secured a spot. They see the light, but forget to pay attention to the details/ask the right questions.

As a parent of an Ivy kid, can tell you that it is harder to get into the Ivy my daughter is at from an Academic standpoint. Our D's school regularly turns away kids on academics that can get in at other Ivies. It is not a level playing field, and not just on the ice. Having said all that, if you have a kid that is strong enough academically to be considered by an ivy, you should be proud of them. It is a lot of hard work just to get into one of those schools.

Clearly Harvard does have an advantage, just on name alone. Ask any Bostonian/Mass kid/parent, and given the choice, chances are Harvard would be their first choice.

Entirely possible that some Ivy schools can get in players that otehrs can't. The AI number is different for women's hockey at each Ivy because:

- The general AI target across all recruits for a school is based on the general population numbers - so if the general population at Cornell has a lower AI than at Princeton, the AI target for Cornell across all recruited athletes is lower.
- The specific school determines the target AI for each sport so that the general recruit average gets to their target.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Ok, so Harvard's regular season success and 14 consecutive ECAC semis are all about Harvard's talent and the coach doesn't deserve any credit, while the last 4 ECAC semifinal defeats are all mainly the coach's fault. Glad you all cleared up that confusion for me.

Now you may be proven right that her approach can no longer take Harvard to ECAC finals, but I'm not ready to conclude that yet. If each of these four ECAC semi losses were like this 2011 loss to Dartmouth, then I'd be more concerned by now, but a couple of these could've gone either way, and in these ECAC 2v3 games t's not like Harvard's been a heavy favorite.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Are you sure about Yale? I thought the AI was calculated the same across all Ivies and sports by agreement but I could be wrong there.

You're right, but (1) schools have different average AIs, and (2) I assume Trillium is saying the Yale admissions office has chosen to self-impose this constraint on athletics. And that's Yale's right to do so.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

From 2001 to 20008, Harvard either won the ECAC tournament or made the championship game six times. That is consistency born from a mindset and attitude combined with talent that dictated success or nothing. It also helped to have Olympians on a regular basis suiting up.

Women's hockey was very different in the early 2000's. The talent pool was much, much smaller. Hockey registrations started growing exponentially in the mid 90's wafter it was announced that it would be an olympic sport starting in 1998. Ten years later those kids entered the D1 pool in numbers. Even as late as 2006, the gap between the top 10% of recruits and the next 20% was pretty huge, and the gap to the next level just as large. While there are still a few head and shoulders above the rest, those gaps between tiers started to disappear around that time. So, while an Olympian on the roster still obviously makes a big impact on a team's performance, that impact would have been far more significant back in the day. Having multiple Olympians would pretty much guarantee success regardless of any mindset.

In looking at the Crimson today, the talent is there to win but not the depth. And certainly not the goaltending. We haven't been getting the big save at a crucial moment and that partially explains some of the failures. We also have not been able to bury our chances and in the playoffs, that can mean the difference between winning and losing a game or a tournament. Last year, SLU cashed in on pretty much every opportunity they had on their way to a tournament title. They deserved it. If the Crimson are to advance and win, they will have to start today by grinding away and making every shift count. And hoping that whoever starts in goal, she will raise her game to a championship level necessary for the Crimson to hoist the trophy.

You're making excuses again.

Harvard has had at least as much or more depth available as any other team in recent years. It has been her choice not to use it or develop it. And infinitely more depth to be able to rotate three or four lines since 2007 than in those glory years, if you believe Stone at her own word. But she still coaches no differently.

Perhaps you need to be reminded Bellamy and Maschmeyer were both All-Ivy 1st team! No human, in net or otherwise, can ever be expected not to make the occasional mistake.

As I tried to suggest previously, it is the prevalent attitude amongst Harvard's associates that if they lose it's only because some player(s) was deficient in quality or number, or screwed up on the ice, that actually plays a role in the team's demise. The pressure for perfection is not helpful.

If you were allowed to create a fantasy team, you probably wouldn't even need a coach at all to win.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

You're right, but (1) schools have different average AIs, and (2) I assume Trillium is saying the Yale admissions office has chosen to self-impose this constraint on athletics. And that's Yale's right to do so.

Correct.

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Ok, so Harvard's regular season success and 14 consecutive ECAC semis are all about Harvard's talent and the coach doesn't deserve any credit, while the last 4 ECAC semifinal defeats are all mainly the coach's fault. Glad you all cleared up that confusion for me.
.

Nope. That's not it. But attributing Harvard's long-term regular season success primarily to brilliant coaching and the players don't deserve much credit, while playoff struggles in the past 5 years are all about Harvard's players being at fault (regardless that the team composition changes annually) and the coach doesn't deserve any blame is far more ridiculous.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Nope. That's not it. But attributing Harvard's long-term regular season success primarily to brilliant coaching and the players don't deserve much credit, while playoff struggles in the past 5 years are all about Harvard's players being at fault (regardless that the team composition changes annually) and the coach doesn't deserve any blame is far more ridiculous.

I think that's a fair statement.

Women's hockey was very different in the early 2000's. The talent pool was much, much smaller. Hockey registrations started growing exponentially in the mid 90's wafter it was announced that it would be an olympic sport starting in 1998. Ten years later those kids entered the D1 pool in numbers. Even as late as 2006, the gap between the top 10% of recruits and the next 20% was pretty huge, and the gap to the next level just as large. While there are still a few head and shoulders above the rest, those gaps between tiers started to disappear around that time. So, while an Olympian on the roster still obviously makes a big impact on a team's performance, that impact would have been far more significant back in the day. Having multiple Olympians would pretty much guarantee success regardless of any mindset.

True. Now I can remember posters here a decade ago telling me how soon the Ivy schools would become far inferior to BU/BC/UNH and the whole ECAC clearly inferior to Hockey East, because Harvard and Stone's success was all about getting a few Olympians. Granted, Harvard's had less success than BU and BC in recent years, but the Harvard program as a whole is still more successful and more competitive with those clubs than people here were predicting a decade ago. And I won't say any more about UNH. So taking a longer-term perspective, I'm not going to claim the program has fallen far short of my expectations in the last five years, but maybe a bit short due to the poor playoff results since 2009.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

"And yes, the 07-08 did get to the FF--but it was Olympian Cahow who took things into her own to barely eke out the ECAC win for Harvard in OT. That one could easily have gone the other way too, despite the fact that Harvard was the favoured. "

Gosh, so if a 25-0-0 ECAC season had ended with an overtime loss to a good SLU team, that would have proved that the coach and/or players were worthless?

How high does the bar have to be in this thread?

Addendum: Cahow's goal is one of my most gratifying memories; as I posted at the time:

"Q&A

Q. What do you do when, in overtime of the ECAC tournament final, with a perfect 26-0-0 season hanging in the balance, your team's apparent game-winning goal is disallowed?

A. Pick up the puck in front of your own goal, stickhandle through their entire team, and put the puck in the net."

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Hey, gang, did anybody notice there was a game today?

Tomorrow's game will need to build on today, but gosh, today looked like a return to normalcy. Among other things:

Armstrong returned, and was the #1 star.
The lines were restored.
Mashmeyer and the rest of the team shut out a tough opponent.
The PP clicked twice with set plays requiring deft cross-ice passing.
The first (and deciding) goal was scored by the third line on a blazing foray into the attacking zone.

Maybe none of this was good enough, though. Failing to win by six means the team's lost its way since the first half of the season? Just askin'.

 

[dave1381]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I'm with you. From this thread and the USCHO articles ("Harvard stumbled BADLY" in the picks) you would think Harvard lost back-to-back 5-0 games last weekend, rather than a draw and 3-1 loss and out shooting the opponents 77-40 for the weekend.

And meanwhile, every other ECAC team and BC needed OT.

Congrats to Katey on win 400. I think this makes Harvard 26-1 in ECAC quarters since 1999. One thing you can say for sure of Katey is she has her team ready for these playoff openers. Also, nice to see Emerance bounce back.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

Armstrong returned, and was the #1 star.
The lines were restored.

Me thinks that might be a key observation. Don't underestimate the power of chemistry on a line combination. Losing a strong player on a top line can often upset the chemistry on other lines as well. Seen it happen with other teams then whey lose a key player.

We saw five OT games yesterday, including three in the ECAC. Sign of more parity, good for the sport.

P.S....In an e-mail to ARM earlier this week, I mentioned that the Key the key to success for Harvard in the playoffs might very well the return of Armstrong, for the exact reasons outlined above. Giving Harvard not one but two lines with a scoring puch. I'm sure ARM can confirm I made that observation earlier this week.