I would agree. It is the hard-*****ed "old school" kind of coaching that is thankfully becoming less tolerated by both players and administrators as societal values and expectations begin to change. This certainly does not exclude long-time female coaches, not all of whom have yet to either change or be relieved of their responsibilities.
I can't say I'm surprised at all about Seeley leaving, though certainly not due to alleged physical abuse. Negative stories out of most of the programs now or previously "in the news" (and some yet to be addressed) have been reasonably common knowledge in the playing community long before any coaching changes were ultimately announced. Ironically, this one immediately follows the team's most successful season in history. The sad fact is that such behaviours tend to be overlooked much, much longer on teams with performance success.
I find it telling that the definition of good coaches among many posters on this board relates only, or mostly, on championships and win record, as if this is some sort of professional sport, and success on the ice is the be all, end all or even #1 aspect of these girls' entire experience in college. If that's the case, these girls will not be very successful in life once hockey is over. Hopefully, their athletic experience gives them positive role models, work ethic, time management, confidence, teamwork, communication and leadership skills among others, to enhance all their achievements on and off the ice, in college and beyond.
Several outsiders have commented that the decision on the new coach at Brown reflects a lack of caring about women's hockey, and that there were several more deserving candidates....presumably based on the availability of individuals with a winning track record elsewhere. Yet I have heard from several people with inside knowledge that the new Brown coach is in fact an inspired choice--someone with not only a long track record of leadership success at Brown as well as a deep playing history, but first and foremost someone who is loved, admired and respected by those who have come through the program, and who is a great communicator and people person. Maybe more programs should be putting more emphasis on such qualities. Many coaches who would have been available to Brown come with the kind of baggage that would not be appropriate in this situation to say the least.
I find it sad that for many athletes, and probably more often in programs considered among the most successful (and perceived to be "well-coached"!), their playing experiences are among the most negative aspect of their college experience, with their coaches among the worst possible role models for how to conduct yourself as a leader/manager in the workplace, or in any way a motivator of people, performance, or personal development. Not too long ago, I was told of a gathering of many player alums from one high profile esteemed program. Despite a mix of former national team players with impressive NCAA team and individual accomplishments as well as a few "lesser lights", and various vintages from recent grads to 10+ years--most of whom had never been on that same team at the same time, they all had one thing in common beyond their team affiliation: not one looked backed on their playing days under their coach as a positive part of their college experience at all. A winning record at the expense of respect, admiration and developer of people? Each to his own.
From a long-term perspective, perhaps some of the middle-of-the-pack programs are actually the most successful for their respective schools and athletes.
