Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

[Skate79]

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.

How was he describing the women's tournament as being inferior? By stating that the women's tournament has eight teams? He is being factually correct which is what he should do in writing an article. Did he come out and say that an NCAA women's tournament is vastly inferior to a men's tournament? No he did not. And as I wrote in my post, it is comparing apples to oranges because basketball and hockey tournaments don't have the same number of teams, men or women. His point was that two Harvard teams are going 'dancing'; first up, the women's hockey team. So what if he mentioned the men? He was coming at it from an overall Harvard athletics standpoint and you want to make this into some sexist diatribe as if he has an agenda against women's athletics. I just don't see it. His only factual error was calling Sarah Edney a senior when in fact she is a sophomore.

Look David I get that coverage of women's hockey isn't what it should be. If you are going to slam a media outlet, go after TV because until women's hockey starts to get the same kind of coverage on the NBCSports Network (like say for instance the HE men's tournament this weekend), it will continue to be relegated to second tier status.

 

[ARM]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

So what if he mentioned the men?

That's fine if it serves his point and it is the only way to get where he is going. If he writes a story about, "Women's hockey is a hidden gem", or something of that nature, maybe this serves to make a useful point. But as it is now, it reads as, "I'm going to tell you a story about a NCAA tournament, but not a great one like the men's basketball tournament." Your Edney comment isn't the only inaccuracy. He has Minnesota playing a quarterfinal versus Mercyhurst, which isn't that big of a deal, except he used it in discussing Harvard's next possible opponent. Had we wound up with a Harvard versus North Dakota semi, readers would be left to wonder, "How did we get here?"

I agree with you that there is no way of knowing if he intentionally slanted this story in the way that it is. Even if it is accidental, it's still a rather weak story.

 

[Skate79]

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 made that statement with this in mind; that college reporters are not as skilled or experienced as those who write for the Times. Ergo, they will write with more of a "hometown bias" than a national newspaper. You took my statement and drew conclusions that had nothing to do with the intent of the statement. And you really believe that mainstream newspapers care enough to go on a crusade to remove women's hockey from the Olympics? Really David? Why? How does it help a reporter from the Times or Washington Post to suggest that women's hockey no longer have a place in the Olympics? What does history have to do with what will take place this weekend?

I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from on this. You take the lead paragraph from an article in a college newspaper and make it sound like there is some movement afoot to take down women's hockey. What part of the rest of that Crimson article suggests to you that the author was intentionally 'demeaning' to the Crimson women? I don't see it.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

That's fine if it serves his point and it is the only way to get where he is going. If he writes a story about, "Women's hockey is a hidden gem", or something of that nature, maybe this serves to make a useful point. But as it is now, it reads as, "I'm going to tell you a story about a NCAA tournament, but not a great one like the men's basketball tournament." Your Edney comment isn't the only inaccuracy. He has Minnesota playing a quarterfinal versus Mercyhurst, which isn't that big of a deal, except he used it in discussing Harvard's next possible opponent. Had we wound up with a Harvard versus North Dakota semi, readers would be left to wonder, "How did we get here?"

I agree with you that there is no way of knowing if he intentionally slanted this story in the way that it is. Even if it is accidental, it's still a rather weak story.

Right. I forgot about the Minnesota-Mercyhurst statement. It is important to get that right and he goofed there. Perhaps there was some slight directed at the women's tournament but again, he was factually correct. There are only eight teams. And again, I'll go back to my thought that I'm guessing he was coming at this from a Harvard perspective saying "We've got two teams going dancing; first up, the women's hockey team".

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I made that statement with this in mind; that college reporters are not as skilled or experienced as those who write for the Times. Ergo, they will write with more of a "hometown bias" than a national newspaper. You took my statement and drew conclusions that had nothing to do with the intent of the statement. And you really believe that mainstream newspapers care enough to go on a crusade to remove women's hockey from the Olympics? Really David? Why? How does it help a reporter from the Times or Washington Post to suggest that women's hockey no longer have a place in the Olympics? What does history have to do with what will take place this weekend?

I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from on this. You take the lead paragraph from an article in a college newspaper and make it sound like there is some movement afoot to take down women's hockey. What part of the rest of that Crimson article suggests to you that the author was intentionally 'demeaning' to the Crimson women? I don't see it.

What's happening in both cases -- the lousy "cut women's hockey" Olympic coverage and the lousy Crimson NCAA preview -- isn't an active conspiracy to defame women's hockey. It's passive, lazy coverage that's ultimately harmful for the sport. When you have writers put a lousy effort into covering the sport, you end up with storylines like "women's hockey shouldn't be in the Olympics" and "the women's hockey tournament is a cheap, smaller imitation of the men's basketball tournament." When enough people repeat these things, it becomes conventional wisdom. As I said, Jacques Rogges and the IOC never seriously threatened to cut women's hockey from the Olympics until we went through several Olympics with considerable media whining about blowouts in the sport. Again, it's not a coordinated conspiracy to eliminate women's hockey. It's the result of a bunch of lazy individuals looking for some provocative angle to write about who end up asking the same questions and writing the same nonsense, and then that nonsense becomes conventional wisdom. Anyway, that's how I view the recent history of Olympic coverage. If you don't agree, I don't think there's much point in debating further.

 

[DC78-82]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

How was he describing the women's tournament as being inferior? By stating that the women's tournament has eight teams? He is being factually correct which is what he should do in writing an article.

You can be factually correct without interjecting a subtle condescending tone. True, the author got the details of the women's NCAA Hockey Tournament correct, but it was as if he were comparing a brand new Toyota with a brand new BMW. The alternative could have been to state that Harvard was the number 5 team in the country, and go on to explain that there are 36 or 38 teams in Division one, and only the top eight as determined by PWR, Krach, USCHO, whatever, are allowed into the NCAA Tournament .This makes the event an accomplishment worthy of respect, not sideshow status.

Did he come out and say that an NCAA women's tournament is vastly inferior to a men's tournament?

By comparing the "Toyota" to the "BMW" he inferred as much. A clever writer does not have to tell you that one is better than the other, he leads you into jumping to that conclusion yourself. He basically said, Look what the women's hockey team is doing, but wow! can you believe that men's basketball tournament, that's March Madness!

It's like when I'm training my puppy the "leave it" command. I put something good (like some kibble) in front of him, and when he shows interest, I tell him "leave it", and reward his good behavior with a piece of cheese. Bait and switch.

Back to hockey, I am really excited to be playing in my first Over 50 nationals next month, more excited that it's in Florida, and even more so because one of my teammates is a former Exeter teammate of mine who played at Harvard from 1977 - 1981. Can any Harvard alums figure out who?!

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

The issue of too many minutes for key players would benefit from a closer analysis of the facts; unfortunately, minutes played aren't reported. Still, I'll try to make a stab at it just to help us approximate what we're discussing.

On D, it really looked like Zdeno Chara-like minutes for three players in the games I went to or saw on the screen, approximately 30 minutes per game. Allowing an average of 4 minutes for a forward playing the point on the second PP unit, that leaves 26 minutes for the other 3 Ds, with one senior accounting for a majority of those 26. That really is a heavy burden. It seemed that the only second of any minute of any game that neither Edney nor Picard was on the ice was on the second PP.

At F, I wonder if it was that lopsided, or as lopsided as in some past years. As a complete guess, 25 minutes for the 1st liners, 20 for the 2nd liners and just under 15 for the 3rd liners. This guess takes the top liners' individual PP and PK time into consideration. By NHL standards, of course, 25 minutes is far too much, but I have no idea what the norm is for comparable women's collegiate teams.

My impression is that Coach Stone played the 3rd liners more this year than in past years. Also, the 3rd line had some offensive pop this year, with 18 even-strength goals in 34 games, in comparison with other third lines that I remember as playing hardnosed defense and keeping puck possession in the attacking end but not scoring much (just a recollection: it could be quite wrong).

It would be great if somebody who's familiar with playing times in womens' college hockey could provide some more accurate facts than my guesses.

PS -- as a thought experiment, consider the impact on the individual Ds' playing time next year if Gedman does or doesn't come back: pencilling her in for 25 minutes or so. Then consider the impact this year if both Pucci and Gedman had played.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

The alternative could have been to state that Harvard was the number 5 team in the country, and go on to explain that there are 36 or 38 teams in Division one, and only the top eight as determined by PWR, Krach, USCHO, whatever, are allowed into the NCAA Tournament.

He actually did reference the fact that Harvard was the 5th ranked team in the country. "The No. 5 Crimson women’s hockey team will also be participating in the NCAA Tournament..." and yes, he did not reference how many teams competed for the top eight selections. I'll give you that and maybe he should have brought that up in the article.

Here is another Crimson article that discusses another team going to a collegiate championship tournament. This is a men's team by the way:

"The focus around campus might be on the men’s basketball team’s return to the Big Dance, but there’s a more obscure Crimson team that also finds itself on the eve of a national tournament—one that most students probably didn’t even know existed. The Harvard men’s cricket club will be competing for the Chanderpaul Trophy in the American College Cricket National Championships this coming weekend. The championships bring together 28 of the best teams from around the country to Fort Lauderdale at the site of the only sanctioned international cricket grounds in the United States."

In the above article, the author mentions how many teams are competing but probably did so because he felt that many students on campus wouldn't know a real "cricket" from the actual sport. Hockey is a more familiar sport or at least should be on campus.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

He basically said, Look what the women's hockey team is doing, but wow! can you believe that men's basketball tournament, that's March Madness!

No he didn't. This is what he wrote and this is the only reference he made to the men: "Men’s basketball is not the only Harvard squad going dancing this week." The rest of the article is devoted to the women's team.

You are really reaching here for something that isn't there. And I'll say it again, if you want a true affront to women's hockey, then go after the media outlets who televise men's hockey but can't be bothered to put women's hockey on the air. The Lifetime network is DEVOTED to women's programming and they can't be bothered with it. So what does that tell you?

Back to hockey, I am really excited to be playing in my first Over 50 nationals next month, more excited that it's in Florida, and even more so because one of my teammates is a former Exeter teammate of mine who played at Harvard from 1977 - 1981. Can any Harvard alums figure out who?!

The only players I remember from those years are Tommy Murray, his roommate Bob MacDonald, and Jackie Burke and I don't think any of them went to Exeter. Tommy went to Natick High I think, MacDonald was from Walpole and Burke went to St. John's. Just a guess.

 

[dontyelldad]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

The only players I remember from those years are Tommy Murray, his roommate Bob MacDonald, and Jackie Burke and I don't think any of them went to Exeter. Tommy went to Natick High I think, MacDonald was from Walpole and Burke went to St. John's. Just a guess.

(Hint: Those GUYS would not have played on teams with DC.)

 

[DC78-82]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

The only players I remember from those years are Tommy Murray, his roommate Bob MacDonald, and Jackie Burke and I don't think any of them went to Exeter. Tommy went to Natick High I think, MacDonald was from Walpole and Burke went to St. John's. Just a guess.

I won't leave you in suspense until next year when you have a chance to once again peruse the photo history at Bright between periods:
Sara Fischer

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

No he didn't. This is what he wrote and this is the only reference he made to the men: "Men’s basketball is not the only Harvard squad going dancing this week." The rest of the article is devoted to the women's team.

No, the second and third sentences also reinforce the point that the women's hockey tournament is smaller than then the men's basketball tournament.

You are really reaching here for something that isn't there. And I'll say it again, if you want a true affront to women's hockey, then go after the media outlets who televise men's hockey but can't be bothered to put women's hockey on the air. The Lifetime network is DEVOTED to women's programming and they can't be bothered with it. So what does that tell you?

Ok, let me try one more time to make my case. I understand you don't find anything out of the ordinary about the article. But my problem isn't with how you would react to it. My problem is with how the vast majority of readers would react to it -- they'll read the first three sentences, and the message of each is that the women's hockey tournament is a smaller-scale imitator of the men's basketball tournament. And then they'll stop reading, because if that's the most interesting thing you could lead the article with, then why keep reading? If they do keep reading, it's still the dominant message of the article.

There's nothing wrong with comparing the two tournaments. It's all about the emphasis - the choice to start the article that way. The author chose not to find anything more interesting than the comparison to men's basketball to emphasize. He clearly wanted to be writing about men's basketball at that moment. That's why he's in Salt Lake City with the men's basketball team right now.

As for TV coverage, I honestly don't fault their choice. But the Harvard Crimson does cover women's ice hockey, and so I'll complain if something in their coverage really bothers me. Yet I've generally found the Crimson coverage to be first-rate in the decade since I graduated. I was hoping that if the men's basketball team every stepped up, they'd continue to have good coverage of women's hockey along with men's basketball. Now instead you have the NCAA preview written by someone who'd rather be writing about men's basketball. It's a step backwards, so that's why it bothers me more than the lack of TV coverage.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

(Hint: Those GUYS would not have played on teams with DC.)

Right. My head cold is interfering with my ability to process at the moment. Good call.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

I won't leave you in suspense until next year when you have a chance to once again peruse the photo history at Bright between periods:
Sara Fischer

Got it. I don't remember Sara but I'm sure that Joe Bertagna would since he started the program my senior year.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

While we're debating the even-handedness of the sports coverage of the "ink-stained wretches" on the Crimson, let's double back to their basic journalistic competence.

As in no, Virginia, the men's BB and women's ice hockey teams were NOT the only ones dancing at the national level this winter. How a writer and his/her editor managed to print the assertion they printed is disconcerting.

Let's see:

A few weeks ago the men's squash team finished #2 in the national team tournament and the women finished #1. (Crimson men and women subsequently finished #3 and #1, respectively, in the subsequent individual national tournaments).

A Harvard skiier who won the gold medal in GS at the NCAAs last year went to the championship again this year (though she did not medal this time).

Men's and women's fencing teams will compete at the nationals next week.

For the fourth time in the past five years, the wrestling team had at least three individuals advance to the nationals.

Minor sports, you say? About 40 colleges in women's squash, 50 in men's, no doubt not that many in alpine skiing or fencing or wrestling, either. But how many colleges have a swim team or an indoor track team-- quite a few, I'd venture.

Among the qualifiers for the upcoming NCAA swimming and diving championships are two female swimmers, a male diver and all four men's relay teams. The women's team is currently ranked #1 in the mid-major bracket this year according to the (controversial? non-controversial? I'd love to know) computerized system used in that sport.

In indoor track, Crimson women qualified for the nationals in the pentathelon, 800 meters and weight throw. All three have been named All-Americans.

I truly hope the Crimson as a institution has been appropriately covering all of these spectacular athletes.

The writer of the women's ice hockey story and his/her editor, though, appear to have the profoundest ignorance in the matter. Or maybe they think all these other national championship tournaments are held in another country.

PS Admittedly, the men's ice hockey and water polo teams are having inconsistent seasons, but the 13-6 women hope to advance to the nationals in late April. No word from the quidditch team, but then it's only a club sport after all.

 

[Skate79]

Re: Harvard Crimson Women 2012-2013

No, the second and third sentences also reinforce the point that the women's hockey tournament is smaller than then the men's basketball tournament.

Ok, let me try one more time to make my case. I understand you don't find anything out of the ordinary about the article. But my problem isn't with how you would react to it. My problem is with how the vast majority of readers would react to it -- they'll read the first three sentences, and the message of each is that the women's hockey tournament is a smaller-scale imitator of the men's basketball tournament. And then they'll stop reading, because if that's the most interesting thing you could lead the article with, then why keep reading? If they do keep reading, it's still the dominant message of the article.

There's nothing wrong with comparing the two tournaments. It's all about the emphasis - the choice to start the article that way. The author chose not to find anything more interesting than the comparison to men's basketball to emphasize. He clearly wanted to be writing about men's basketball at that moment. That's why he's in Salt Lake City with the men's basketball team right now.

As for TV coverage, I honestly don't fault their choice. But the Harvard Crimson does cover women's ice hockey, and so I'll complain if something in their coverage really bothers me. Yet I've generally found the Crimson coverage to be first-rate in the decade since I graduated. I was hoping that if the men's basketball team every stepped up, they'd continue to have good coverage of women's hockey along with men's basketball. Now instead you have the NCAA preview written by someone who'd rather be writing about men's basketball. It's a step backwards, so that's why it bothers me more than the lack of TV coverage.

Okay, I now get where you are coming from. I didn't realize that the author of the article regularly covers men's hoop at Harvard. It is disappointing that they can't have a hockey writer follow the team and write more in-depth pieces. If I were covering the team, I'd choose to focus solely on the women's tournament offering some background and maybe profiling the seniors as it was their last game (even though at the time the article was published, we didn't know that). David, I agree that tossing in the men's tournament doesn't do justice to what the Crimson women had to accomplish to get in this year. I was taking the article and his opening at face value from a Harvard perspective with no gender bias. Obviously, there is something there to consider.

I'd really like to see a face-to-face dialogue about what it would take to jumpstart coverage of women's hockey, not only locally but nationally. ESPN3 covered the ECAC women's semis and finals yet this weekend, I've just learned there is to be no TV coverage of the Frozen Four unless the individual schools provide video feeds? If true, that is beyond embarrassing. We have two Boston schools involved with national reps on the men's side yet no one could be bothered to televise their games? If something isn't done and soon, then your point about dropping women's hockey from the Olympics becomes not only a scary proposition, but very real.

 

[Watson Rink]

squash, anyone?

squash, anyone?

Thought I'd mention women's squash without gloating? Not on your life!

At the recent national championships, you'll recognize the names of some "hockey schools," some "football schools" and some "basketball schools." For instance, down in the "D" bracket:


SLU beat BC to finish #27; BC had previously beaten Northeastern
UVA (which had previously defeated Georgetown) ended up at #26

40 teams competed

Harvard (which had previously swept Stanford 9-0) finished #1


Sorry....had to mention it!

 

[alslammerz]

Re: squash, anyone?

Re: squash, anyone?

As a former WHRB alum, I'm all for this bashing of The Crimson. Boy do WHRBies ever have some stories - none that I'd ever share in public out of journalistic camaraderie or something (sorry for the tease). Think Watson and Skate nail this issue on the head though.

 

[Skate79]

Re: squash, anyone?

Re: squash, anyone?

As a former WHRB alum, I'm all for this bashing of The Crimson. Boy do WHRBies ever have some stories - none that I'd ever share in public out of journalistic camaraderie or something (sorry for the tease). Think Watson and Skate nail this issue on the head though.

You mean "Ghost" don't you? . Do they still use that term at the station? Yeah, I've got some stories but I can't share them either. Not without repercussions.

 

[alslammerz]

Re: squash, anyone?

Re: squash, anyone?

You mean "Ghost" don't you? . Do they still use that term at the station? Yeah, I've got some stories but I can't share them either. Not without repercussions.

Yup, we still use ghost and most whrbic. I was also comp director so I studied the obscure terms for putting together the Bill Lamb tests. But I was translating for the real people.