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 Women 2012-2013
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
ArmedWithAStick
Registered User
no kidding, much better without the sound, where did they find these announcers? pull them out of the dorms between periods? Have they ever seen a hockey game? a disgrace for an NCAA game.
On the positive side, it's now in wide screen
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
I was going to post something similar.
I thought BC's second goal was also soft, but the third one (tipped) was very legit. Harvard has had some chances but haven't been able to convert. They have their work cut out for them to get back in it.
I was going to post something similar.
I thought BC's second goal was also soft, but the third one (tipped) was very legit. Harvard has had some chances but haven't been able to convert. They have their work cut out for them to get back in it.
alslammerz
Harvard Hockey Broadcaster '09-'12
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Mashmeyer most likely lost a bit of focus...doesn't take much of a movement on the paddle end of the stick to lift the blade off the ice due to the smaller angle between the two. Unfortunate lapse...not that it looks as though it would have necessarily changed the result.
Mashmeyer most likely lost a bit of focus...doesn't take much of a movement on the paddle end of the stick to lift the blade off the ice due to the smaller angle between the two. Unfortunate lapse...not that it looks as though it would have necessarily changed the result.
Watson Rink
Registered User
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Congratulations to the departing seniors! It has been a privilege to watch over the past four seasons.
Especially this last season, with the return to the NCAA tourney. Shades of 2009-2010 and Farni, Bassett, Griffin, McDonald, Brawn and Kessler.
Also a touch eerie, in terms of deja view: a NCAA QF loss, the torch passed to a freshman goaltender, a forward converted to defense, McDonald and Chute big sisters, oh my.
And perhaps, out of the Class of '13, we haven't seen the last of Josephine Pucci?
Congratulations to the departing seniors! It has been a privilege to watch over the past four seasons.
Especially this last season, with the return to the NCAA tourney. Shades of 2009-2010 and Farni, Bassett, Griffin, McDonald, Brawn and Kessler.
Also a touch eerie, in terms of deja view: a NCAA QF loss, the torch passed to a freshman goaltender, a forward converted to defense, McDonald and Chute big sisters, oh my.
And perhaps, out of the Class of '13, we haven't seen the last of Josephine Pucci?
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
You can call it soft, but it was a nice bit of misdirection by Walsh.
Blackbeard
Well-known member
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Are we referring to the same goal? The one I'm referring to Mashmeyer tried to flick to her right with the blade of her stick.
Are we referring to the same goal? The one I'm referring to Mashmeyer tried to flick to her right with the blade of her stick.
alslammerz
Harvard Hockey Broadcaster '09-'12
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
1st goal was when Maschmeyer went down to cover and evidently didn't get it.
2nd goal was the shot from the right wing side on the 1 on 1. From that distance, was a bit soft on 1st glance.
3rd goal was the beautiful tip by Carpenter. Can't be mad about that one.
1st goal was when Maschmeyer went down to cover and evidently didn't get it.
2nd goal was the shot from the right wing side on the 1 on 1. From that distance, was a bit soft on 1st glance.
3rd goal was the beautiful tip by Carpenter. Can't be mad about that one.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Second goal was straight through the wickets. Her weight was back and the stick was up off the ice.
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
I'm going to preface my remarks by saying I wasn't at the game yesterday and didn't see it on the video feed. In reading Katey Stone's comments after the game, I'm troubled by a couple of statements she made with respect to her team:
"Again, you create your own luck with your hustle and the tempo of your game and we just didn't have it today. We were just a step behind or hesitant or whatever it was and they made it difficult for us in our own end."
My problem with the above is; why were they hesitant? Where was the hustle and desire to establish tempo? It's not like we don't know what BC brings to the table. Were we playing scared? Why does Harvard not have this big game mentality that enables it to effectively compete outside the conference? This seems to show up time and again and I'm left to wonder about the root cause.
The author of the article also wondered aloud if Harvard was not looking ahead to a possible matchup with Minnesota and what that would mean. I'm not sure I buy that but the tone of her statement suggested that Harvard wasn't up to the challenge of playing highly ranked teams. That should be nonsense until you consider their record outside the conference against ranked teams. There is some validity there.
I don't want to bash the Crimson because obviously after losing Pucci and Gedman at the start of the season and playing shorthanded on D, they made it to the NCAA quarters. Injuries happen and you have to deal with it. But I do think there is something to the Crimson perhaps not having that mental toughness or grit that allows them to compete outside the conference. It's showing up all too often.
I'm going to preface my remarks by saying I wasn't at the game yesterday and didn't see it on the video feed. In reading Katey Stone's comments after the game, I'm troubled by a couple of statements she made with respect to her team:
"Again, you create your own luck with your hustle and the tempo of your game and we just didn't have it today. We were just a step behind or hesitant or whatever it was and they made it difficult for us in our own end."
My problem with the above is; why were they hesitant? Where was the hustle and desire to establish tempo? It's not like we don't know what BC brings to the table. Were we playing scared? Why does Harvard not have this big game mentality that enables it to effectively compete outside the conference? This seems to show up time and again and I'm left to wonder about the root cause.
The author of the article also wondered aloud if Harvard was not looking ahead to a possible matchup with Minnesota and what that would mean. I'm not sure I buy that but the tone of her statement suggested that Harvard wasn't up to the challenge of playing highly ranked teams. That should be nonsense until you consider their record outside the conference against ranked teams. There is some validity there.
I don't want to bash the Crimson because obviously after losing Pucci and Gedman at the start of the season and playing shorthanded on D, they made it to the NCAA quarters. Injuries happen and you have to deal with it. But I do think there is something to the Crimson perhaps not having that mental toughness or grit that allows them to compete outside the conference. It's showing up all too often.
David De Remer
Moderator
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Some thoughts I'd posted elsewhere on the Crimson's preview of the NCAA quarterfinal that I wanted to repost here.
Here's a simple example of how to write about women using language that's ostensibly accurate yet demeaning. The message the author has chosen to emphasize in the first three sentences is that the women's event is an inferior imitation of the men's event. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/15/harvard-womens-hockey-bc-tournament/
-----
There's endless scope to be pedantic about your college newspaper, but this one bothers me deeply. The success of your college's men's basketball team is uniquely exciting because the sport has such widespread popularity, but there's no reason that success should have to diminish the achievements of other campus extracurriculars.
I actually believe there's nothing wrong in principle with attempting to build interest in a lesser-known event by linking it to the prestige of a more popular event. It's natural to think you're doing good by doing this, which is why it's extremely common in sportswriting, particularly in college newspapers. But you have to be careful not to reinforce or cement the existing hierarchy of popularity when you do this.
The reality is that younger sports have been most successful when linked to the prestige of older brands, e.g. the Olympics, NCAA championships, and Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Since men's athletics have been supported longer than women's athletics, that means you're often linking younger women's sports to older men's sports. The Olympics are very successful here, to the point where you wouldn't even know today that some women's events are decades younger than the men's events. The NCAA is less successful here, I guess in part because men's basketball is so huge. I always made sure to emphasize the NCAA tournament prospects for any team I was covering, because I knew everyone recognized the prestige of the NCAA tournament brand that was built primarily through men's basketball. I liked to analyze NCAA seeding and selection prospects for Harvard teams, because these pursuits are popular in men's basketball. But I never felt the need to make explicit mention of the men's basketball tournament when invoking the prestige of an NCAA championship in another sport.
As for the question of sexism, it's a good question. But can you imagine the following being written for Harvard men's hockey? (Ignore the fiction of Harvard's ranking.) --- "Men’s basketball is not the only Harvard squad going dancing this week. The No. 10 Crimson men’s hockey team will also be participating in the NCAA Tournament--albeit a much smaller one--beginning Saturday when it travels to face No. 7 New Hampshire at the Worcester Centrum. With only 16 teams in the bracket, just two wins would give Harvard its first Frozen Four birth since 1994....Harvard is just 14-29-1 all-time in the NCAA tournament [no mention of the 1989 title anywhere]." --- I can't imagine anyone printing that.
Some thoughts I'd posted elsewhere on the Crimson's preview of the NCAA quarterfinal that I wanted to repost here.
Here's a simple example of how to write about women using language that's ostensibly accurate yet demeaning. The message the author has chosen to emphasize in the first three sentences is that the women's event is an inferior imitation of the men's event. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/15/harvard-womens-hockey-bc-tournament/
-----
There's endless scope to be pedantic about your college newspaper, but this one bothers me deeply. The success of your college's men's basketball team is uniquely exciting because the sport has such widespread popularity, but there's no reason that success should have to diminish the achievements of other campus extracurriculars.
I actually believe there's nothing wrong in principle with attempting to build interest in a lesser-known event by linking it to the prestige of a more popular event. It's natural to think you're doing good by doing this, which is why it's extremely common in sportswriting, particularly in college newspapers. But you have to be careful not to reinforce or cement the existing hierarchy of popularity when you do this.
The reality is that younger sports have been most successful when linked to the prestige of older brands, e.g. the Olympics, NCAA championships, and Grand Slam tennis tournaments. Since men's athletics have been supported longer than women's athletics, that means you're often linking younger women's sports to older men's sports. The Olympics are very successful here, to the point where you wouldn't even know today that some women's events are decades younger than the men's events. The NCAA is less successful here, I guess in part because men's basketball is so huge. I always made sure to emphasize the NCAA tournament prospects for any team I was covering, because I knew everyone recognized the prestige of the NCAA tournament brand that was built primarily through men's basketball. I liked to analyze NCAA seeding and selection prospects for Harvard teams, because these pursuits are popular in men's basketball. But I never felt the need to make explicit mention of the men's basketball tournament when invoking the prestige of an NCAA championship in another sport.
As for the question of sexism, it's a good question. But can you imagine the following being written for Harvard men's hockey? (Ignore the fiction of Harvard's ranking.) --- "Men’s basketball is not the only Harvard squad going dancing this week. The No. 10 Crimson men’s hockey team will also be participating in the NCAA Tournament--albeit a much smaller one--beginning Saturday when it travels to face No. 7 New Hampshire at the Worcester Centrum. With only 16 teams in the bracket, just two wins would give Harvard its first Frozen Four birth since 1994....Harvard is just 14-29-1 all-time in the NCAA tournament [no mention of the 1989 title anywhere]." --- I can't imagine anyone printing that.
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
I can. You're talking about a college newspaper, not the NY Times. Kids don't often stop and think before writing something like the above. One can argue that adults make the same mistake now and then! As you say David, it is ostensibly accurate and yet demeaning to the hockey team in question.
I read the article in the Crimson and I want to say that the author wasn't trying to demean the women intentionally. Really. I think he was just going on size of the respective tournaments and their popularity. Let's face it, even the men's NCAA hockey tournament pales in comparison to the basketball tournament. Not even close. So in a way, we are comparing apples to oranges albeit in different sports regardless of gender. Women's hockey in particular has shrunk in terms of fan support. There was a time when in the late nineties and the early part of this century Harvard drew crowds approaching 1200 fans for certain games. Now you are lucky to get 400 to 500 fans for traditional rivals like Dartmouth and Cornell. It really is *** backward when you consider that Olympic coverage for women's hockey has increased, yet attendance at women's games at least here at Harvard has decreased over the years since the 1998 gold medal.
I don't think anyone is trying to intentionally demean women's athletics at Harvard. During my time at Harvard, I pioneered radio broadcasts of Harvard women's hoops and we did the first broadcast of the Ivy tournament while I was there. The basketball program was in its infancy and I caught a lot of flak. Having a major crush on one of the players provided my motivation for pushing forward. It's really about what is hot on campus and right now, the men's hoop team is de rigueur. Everyone else plays second fiddle including women's hockey.
I can. You're talking about a college newspaper, not the NY Times. Kids don't often stop and think before writing something like the above. One can argue that adults make the same mistake now and then! As you say David, it is ostensibly accurate and yet demeaning to the hockey team in question.
I read the article in the Crimson and I want to say that the author wasn't trying to demean the women intentionally. Really. I think he was just going on size of the respective tournaments and their popularity. Let's face it, even the men's NCAA hockey tournament pales in comparison to the basketball tournament. Not even close. So in a way, we are comparing apples to oranges albeit in different sports regardless of gender. Women's hockey in particular has shrunk in terms of fan support. There was a time when in the late nineties and the early part of this century Harvard drew crowds approaching 1200 fans for certain games. Now you are lucky to get 400 to 500 fans for traditional rivals like Dartmouth and Cornell. It really is *** backward when you consider that Olympic coverage for women's hockey has increased, yet attendance at women's games at least here at Harvard has decreased over the years since the 1998 gold medal.
I don't think anyone is trying to intentionally demean women's athletics at Harvard. During my time at Harvard, I pioneered radio broadcasts of Harvard women's hoops and we did the first broadcast of the Ivy tournament while I was there. The basketball program was in its infancy and I caught a lot of flak. Having a major crush on one of the players provided my motivation for pushing forward. It's really about what is hot on campus and right now, the men's hoop team is de rigueur. Everyone else plays second fiddle including women's hockey.
HockeyEast33
New member
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Lack of grit, desire, hustle, resolve, etc. is usually the outcome of being a tired team at the end of a long season. This goes to another part of the thread which claims that Stone plays the same 10 players over and over again game in game out regardless of score while perfectly capable 3rd liners/D sit on the bench. I'm not informed enough to know if this is true (others seem to think so), but after 5 months of playing every other shift 2-3 games per week, I could easily see where the team's key performers were simply worn out. Even if the top 10 are significantly better than the next five, as a coach you have to pick your places where the next 5 are going to play - second/third periods of blowouts, pick two or three game in the season and sit 5 of your top players all/most of the game (don't dress them and there is no risk of them playing), sit one or two top 10 players each game, whatever works. If Stone ground the top 10 every other shift every game all season long, no surprise to me that they were unable to get up for the NCAA quarters as well as the BC team.
Lack of grit, desire, hustle, resolve, etc. is usually the outcome of being a tired team at the end of a long season. This goes to another part of the thread which claims that Stone plays the same 10 players over and over again game in game out regardless of score while perfectly capable 3rd liners/D sit on the bench. I'm not informed enough to know if this is true (others seem to think so), but after 5 months of playing every other shift 2-3 games per week, I could easily see where the team's key performers were simply worn out. Even if the top 10 are significantly better than the next five, as a coach you have to pick your places where the next 5 are going to play - second/third periods of blowouts, pick two or three game in the season and sit 5 of your top players all/most of the game (don't dress them and there is no risk of them playing), sit one or two top 10 players each game, whatever works. If Stone ground the top 10 every other shift every game all season long, no surprise to me that they were unable to get up for the NCAA quarters as well as the BC team.
OnMAA
Vort Doen.....Heija Heija Heija
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Cool.....Did that blossom into anything beyond college ? (The crush that is not the motivation
)
Cool.....Did that blossom into anything beyond college ? (The crush that is not the motivation
)Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
We dated for a year after graduation but realized quickly that living in different states (she in Texas, me in CA) was taking a toll on the relationship. She's happily married now with kids and I'm happy for her and her family. Great people.
Cool.....Did that blossom into anything beyond college ? (The crush that is not the motivation
We dated for a year after graduation but realized quickly that living in different states (she in Texas, me in CA) was taking a toll on the relationship. She's happily married now with kids and I'm happy for her and her family. Great people.
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
Yes and no. They were definitely tired especially the D. Not having a consistent third D pairing really hurt this year. I've posted before on how Edney and Picard played major minutes and I have to believe it factored into late season mistakes. Romotoski as well. However I'm not sure I would tie grit and desire to being tired necessarily. A team either has grit or it doesn't. That isn't something IMHO you can turn on and off like a spigot. Hustle and resolve. Sure that can take certainly take a hit when one is overworked. I just don't feel the same about the other two.
Yes and no. They were definitely tired especially the D. Not having a consistent third D pairing really hurt this year. I've posted before on how Edney and Picard played major minutes and I have to believe it factored into late season mistakes. Romotoski as well. However I'm not sure I would tie grit and desire to being tired necessarily. A team either has grit or it doesn't. That isn't something IMHO you can turn on and off like a spigot. Hustle and resolve. Sure that can take certainly take a hit when one is overworked. I just don't feel the same about the other two.
David De Remer
Moderator
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
I keep thinking of letting this go, but no. The author made the choice to lead the article with a description of how inferior the NCAA women's hockey tournament was to the NCAA men's basketball tournament. He chose not to lead the article with any other information about Harvard women's hockey. This is an experienced Crimson writer with hundreds of articles who knew what he was doing. He'd rather have been writing about Harvard men's basketball at the moment, and ignoring Harvard women's hockey. He then chose to write an article where the main message reinforced his own view that you shouldn't care about Harvard women's hockey.
David De Remer
Moderator
Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013
I also wanted to strongly disagree with the point made here.
The biggest threat to women's hockey in the Olympics comes from mainstream newspapers. They have writers cover the sport for the first time. These writers can think of nothing to write about other than how boring it is and how it should be cut from the Olympics. And of course, every new (male) writer thinks he is being highly innovative by writing such a thing, because he's never bother to look at the history, because he's subpar at his job, which is why he's been assigned to a sport he doesn't like in the first place. The idea that women's sports should be cut from the Olympics due to lack of parity comes primarily from men in the mainstream media, not from the IOC, though the IOC has since been influenced by what the mainstream media writes about women's hockey. Of course, this idea didn't exist during the men's hockey competition before World War II, which was even more lopsided than women's hockey today.
If anyone should be able to get women's hockey coverage right, it's the college newspapers, which have writers who cover these teams on a regular basis and share classrooms with the players.
I also wanted to strongly disagree with the point made here.
The biggest threat to women's hockey in the Olympics comes from mainstream newspapers. They have writers cover the sport for the first time. These writers can think of nothing to write about other than how boring it is and how it should be cut from the Olympics. And of course, every new (male) writer thinks he is being highly innovative by writing such a thing, because he's never bother to look at the history, because he's subpar at his job, which is why he's been assigned to a sport he doesn't like in the first place. The idea that women's sports should be cut from the Olympics due to lack of parity comes primarily from men in the mainstream media, not from the IOC, though the IOC has since been influenced by what the mainstream media writes about women's hockey. Of course, this idea didn't exist during the men's hockey competition before World War II, which was even more lopsided than women's hockey today.
If anyone should be able to get women's hockey coverage right, it's the college newspapers, which have writers who cover these teams on a regular basis and share classrooms with the players.