HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does not have the talent, period. they take to many kids who have solid reps built on past successes. 4th liners from natl team dont cut it, just because they played on natl team.

They do not have the horses, period.

They ignore kids like Wayne Simpson etc and go after others who were real good at 14/15 and than live off their reps.

They dont have the talent, period....

So the Biegas, Dominic Moore, Dylan Reese, Louie LeBlanc, Alex Kilorn, etc have no talent? Seriously, do you think before you post your nonsense? I wonder how a guy like Killorn or LeBlanc would have performed under a guy like York.

[northeastern]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does have talent from time to time & successful seasons will come and go.

D1 Hockey has very little fan support nationally except for a few schools. Harvard is no exception. Players go to Harvard to play & graduate from the U. This is true for several sports programs at the University.


You make long lasting friendships.. great connections.. go work at or start your own gig. Locally, you play men's league with the guys you forged friendships with until your 60s or beyond.. Lead a good life.. leave a nice nest egg for your families.. do some good for society & spend less time (if any).. on forums such as this (guilty ).

That's why you go to Harvard. Ask Teddy G'luck H fans.. it'll come around.

[Hokydad]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

talking about current team.

it is as stated...

[sam12]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

You raise a great point. The college game has changed a lot since the 80's. Here's a link to a good article that discusses that and Harvard today in particular:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/sp....html?emc=eta1



I don't think Harvard gets the same type of players they did in the 80's. Some of the kids they get today are as talented are the calibre of the Fuscos and CJ Young but they do not get the depth of talent that they used to get as Bothman pointed out. Also, the kids they get today are not as committed to their hockey as those kids were back in the 80's.. The kids back in the 80's worked harder in the weight room and during the summers. Some players on the present Harvard team work at their hockey year round but not nearly enough of them do. Instead they are internships on Wall Street and Disney during the summer and never skate all summer.

Many of those kids who were going to Harvard in the 80's now are going to Michigan, Notre Dame etc. More games, against better competition, but more importantly they parctice against better talent every day. If a kid today wants to max out his potential solely as a hockey player he will not go to Harvard. The gap between tution payments has skyrocketed and if a kid comes to Harvard now it's first and foremeost about education, not winning a national championship. The fact that some kids are leaving so much money on the table by going to Harvard over some major scholarship program etc says that he's in it for the education and hockey will not be a priority. In the 80's there was not as much money ( in today's dollars ) being left on the table. Today a scholarship can be worth $50K a year.



I don't doubt that Harvard players hate losing, but they are not willing to put in the time on and off the ice to beat teams that wormore comitted than they are. I agree that these Harvard kids are competors and they hate losing but the work ethic and priorities are not there.They are perhaps realizing that wanting to win and being able to win are no longer the same as thing as it was in high school.

Teddy was hired not as a coach but as an educator, to fulfill the same role that Bill Cleary filled. To say otherwise is an insult to Billy's who was Teddy's chief proponent in the selection process. A college hockey coach is an educator above all else, especially at a place like Harvard. Ask any of Cleary's former players what his main role was and they will tell you that he was an educator first. Teddy is just that. He's a great guy and is a marvelous anbassador for Harvard hockey. He has endured a bit of a rough patch recently after setting the record for most wins of any Harvard hockey coach in his first three years. Yes, more wins than even Billy. Hes' recruited some top kids that other teams backed off because they realized that they were prima donnas. There are a few prima donnas on the way. Today takes what he can get and often what he pulls in surprises some people. He has done an outstanding job recruiting talent but often that talent comes with strings attached ( bad attitudes or players who are retiring from competitive hockey).

The ECAC is now a league of widened parity. Admiitedly Teddy had to learn how to fill out forms better, study game films and learn how to game plan for oponents, something he doesn't have the biggest apetitite for. But he has come around and has made strides in all those areas. He's learned to deal with some spoiled children and their parents and instead of telling them that they can stuff it ( Mazzolini ) he has learned to make accommodations. He has the patience of a saint and without his wonderful sense of humor he I doubt he would still have his sanity.

I feel it's really shameful for a bunch of guys themselves fans jump on Teddy's back after a couple rough seasons. It just like high school parents today who wantr the coach fired after not performming mircacles. As Skate79 said Cleary had some brutal seasons back when. I doubt any fans said a word about it. Billy was growing his insurance biz on the side and nobody ever dared say anything to him about making a choice or resigning. Teddy has a family but he still works hard most of the time. He's still learning about coachihng on the fly but that doesn't always show in the win coulumn. He shoudl never have been thrust into te head coaching without some mentoring but what's done is done. He now is mostly up to speed and he knows the game as well as anyone. If he had more commited talent I think Teddy would have Harvard in the top 3 of the league every year, even in this recently much-improved league.

This post shows a complete lack of knowledge about a) the college game and b) ivy league hockey

I don't like to be critical on this forum because I'm not an insider and there is a ton I don't know and I misunderstand and get things wrong all of the time. However, when a post is blatantly false I have to respond. TO say that the players back in the 80's worked harder in the weight room is false. The off ice training and weight lifting in hockey is a very recent phenomena, and while those 80's teams were tremendously talented(no argument there), I have no doubt in my mind that Ivy players now are in better physical condition (in the weight room). No doubt. Almost every kid spends the entire summer training and lifting weights and conditioning. Those who don't are left behind. Also, I would also say that this era of Ivy Leaguers skates much more in the summers now as well. Div 1 hockey is so good now that you don't make it near this level unless you are skating almost full time since you are young. There are just way too many good players and people that want to be at this level. To me, this is almost indisputable as well. I would say in the 80's the players were more likely to be at Disney or NYC for an internships, especially given the fact that admissions standards for hockey players are at or near an all time low. Also, further evidence is the fact that Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Cornell (seemingly every year except this year) are prominent in the national picture recently. Players at all these schools and harvard were most likely recruited by all the Ivies, or at least looked at. So this is not endemic across the Ivy league, which by itself would lead me to believe that that is not the problem at alll.


What could it be then? I am interested in your comment about Teddy bringing in primma donnas etc. Could it be a thing where the team has talent, but not the right character or not the right mix of players? Too many bad attitudes with talent that are hurting the team system and dynamic? Unfortunately I don't know any of the players at a level to determine that myself, but from what Ive heard from others, you might be on to something.

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard does not have the talent, period. they take to many kids who have solid reps built on past successes. 4th liners from natl team dont cut it, just because they played on natl team.

They do not have the horses, period.

They ignore kids like Wayne Simpson etc and go after others who were real good at 14/15 and than live off their reps.

They dont have the talent, period....

Talent is a funny thing and is as just as much art as it is science. One of things that helps one's talent appraisal / hit rate is knowing what to recruit for (ie, knowing the system you want to play and recruiting guys that fit that system. I think this is primarily where Harvard has fallen short. Do they want to play a fast, up-tempo, skill game? Do they want to play a big and physical, along the boards game? Harvard doesn't have much of an identity when you watch them on the ice.

As far as Harvard & talent, I would break it down like this:

1) You Win some - Grimshaw, Killorn, Leblanc,
2) You Lose Some - Barnes, Kreider
3) You Didn't Assess Well - I'm not going to list names, but clearly there are some guys on Harvard's team that haven't delivered.

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

CMKnight, why don't you google Vinny Saponari and I'll let you figure out the rest as far as BC admissions is concerned.

He must have spelled his name wrong on his SAT

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

talking about current team.

it is as stated...

Yet you state how talented Merrimack is? Give me a break. I bet there that most teams nationally would like to have the "dearth" of talent that Harvard has every year, this year included. Sure, I bet none of their Shattuck or USNDPT kids could make a team as 'great' as the South Shore Kings, but hey, they gotta start somewhere.

[eaglehockeyrules]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

So the Biegas, Dominic Moore, Dylan Reese, Louie LeBlanc, Alex Kilorn, etc have no talent? Seriously, do you think before you post your nonsense? I wonder how a guy like Killorn or LeBlanc would have performed under a guy like York.

LeBlanc would have won a National Championship... that's for sure! But uz bc kidz cants spill our own namez so we'd not make into hahvahd. LOL.

[4faz]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Teddy is doing a good job with the talent he's got. As an educator he's peerless. We do not need a new coach at Harvard, just managed expectations for some lunatic fringe fans. The bottom line is that Harvard is never going to ever compete for a national title in the present landscape. Harvard will never be able to compete for the brass ring and probably no ECAC school ( Yale included ) will once push comes to shove in March. The talent simply isn't there.
.

If Donato's doing a good job with the talent he's got -- a dubious claim in my opinion, I just think he can't coach -- then whose fault is the lack of talent? Ivy schools can compete with the best programs in college hockey; we'll see how deep into the NCAA's Yale gets this year. Whether they can go all the way is beside the point here, as I don't think anyone on this board is feeling deprived of a Harvard national championship. How about an Ivy League championship? Or winning an Ivy League game? Seems like the only suspense left is whether they can pull one out against Brown, Yale, Cornel or Princeton. Harvard has plunged in its peer group and that's what matters most from a competitive standpoint.

I don't agree that a hockey coach is first and foremost an educator, especially at a place like Harvard, but even if that's the case, Donato has not educated his recent teams and the players he's recruited a CRITICAL life skill: Winning! Business is all about how to work together in teams and win. This team has more talent than 3-15, but they don't have that skill. And winning is a skill, just like skating and shooting and stickhandling. Success helps people gain confidence and having such a disappointing hockey experience at Harvard is a lost opportunity. Not to mention the deprivation of an opportunity for a broader group of fans to be drawn to Harvard hockey, which desperately needs fans. A half-filled Bright Center with half-interested fans is a touch sell for a recruit also considering Cornell/Lynah, where the players are rock stars (and presumably good students as well). Fewer and fewer local kids are being inspired to play hockey, as I was as a kid attending Harvard hockey games. And playing hockey taught me a lot.

CMKnight, you speak as if the coaching spot is an entitlement for Donato, that he's "earned his glide" and given so much to the Harvard program. This is a job; it's not a reward. The Harvard hockey prorgam is about more than one great guy and ex-Harvard star being granted work/life balance. Harvard hockey coach is not a tenured position. Just ask his two predecessors.

There are PLENTY of potential coaches out there who can be both educators and winners, like Bill Clearly. It's time to go find one. Fast.

[troyboy]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

talking about current team.

it is as stated...

Never thought I would do this but I partially agree w/hokydad.Watched Harvard play RPI over the weekend (for matters of full disclosure Im a RPI fan)and contrary to there record they are not a horrible team.They have some high end talent Huxley/Biegas/Grimshaw and especially Kilorn the problem seems to be it ends there.Speaking for our team we are much improved over previous years even losing 2 top end players to the pro's.....but top to bottom we have really good hockey players and run out 4 competitive lines every night.Appert has brought in a lot of players both scholorship and non and it is really hard to crack the line up we have good players in the stands watching every week.We still have some work to do but we are save a few in every game.It looked to me like once you get into your bench things get ugly.Who's fault is that I don't know several factors go into depth issues.RPI is much improved and in my opinion Union is as hard a team to play against in the country.both are nationally ranked and Harvard gave them all they could handle over the weekend.Its hard for me to believe Ted Danato forgot how to coach He's had some good teams.

[ALONZO]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

If Donato's doing a good job with the talent he's got -- a dubious claim in my opinion, I just think he can't coach -- then whose fault is the lack of talent? Ivy schools can compete with the best programs in college hockey; we'll see how deep into the NCAA's Yale gets this year. Whether they can go all the way is beside the point here, as I don't think anyone on this board is feeling deprived of a Harvard national championship. How about an Ivy League championship? Or winning an Ivy League game? Seems like the only suspense left is whether they can pull one out against Brown, Yale, Cornel or Princeton. Harvard has plunged in its peer group and that's what matters most from a competitive standpoint.

I don't agree that a hockey coach is first and foremost an educator, especially at a place like Harvard, but even if that's the case, Donato has not educated his recent teams and the players he's recruited a CRITICAL life skill: Winning! Business is all about how to work together in teams and win. This team has more talent than 3-15, but they don't have that skill. And winning is a skill, just like skating and shooting and stickhandling. Success helps people gain confidence and having such a disappointing hockey experience at Harvard is a lost opportunity. Not to mention the deprivation of an opportunity for a broader group of fans to be drawn to Harvard hockey, which desperately needs fans. A half-filled Bright Center with half-interested fans is a touch sell for a recruit also considering Cornell/Lynah, where the players are rock stars (and presumably good students as well). Fewer and fewer local kids are being inspired to play hockey, as I was as a kid attending Harvard hockey games. And playing hockey taught me a lot.

CMKnight, you speak as if the coaching spot is an entitlement for Donato, that he's "earned his glide" and given so much to the Harvard program. This is a job; it's not a reward. The Harvard hockey prorgam is about more than one great guy and ex-Harvard star being granted work/life balance. Harvard hockey coach is not a tenured position. Just ask his two predecessors.

There are PLENTY of potential coaches out there who can be both educators and winners, like Bill Clearly. It's time to go find one. Fast.

Faz:

Yes, I agreed with your recommendation a year ago and I agree with you now. Like you I have refrained from mudslinging but something has to be done. I don't know Ted Donato and have not seen enough Harvard games to critique his coaching, nor am I qualified to pass judgment, but I can read the record. Very simply he took over a team which was 1-2 in the Ivy League and guided it into the cellar. I thought Bob Scalise would make a move after last season. He didn't and now the pressure is mounting.

Some posters point out that Bill Cleary and John Wooden had some lean years before making their marks as coaches. True, but their programs did not deteriorate during those years...they just didn't progress. Donato, on the other hand, has been at the helm for seven years and it has been virtually all downhill. Ironicly the mens hockey decline has come about during an era of unprecedented success for Harvard teams, both men and women, across the board. Other Harvard coaches for the most part have been able to recruit successfully and build winning programs. Mens hockey, a flagship sport at Harvard, stands out in contrast like a sore thumb.

Aside from the team performance I think the recruiting leaves something to be desired. There are a number of guys Donato and his staff were well aware of but chose not to pursue presumedly because the coaches felt these guys were not good enough to play for Harvard. The Devin brothers from a nearby Boston suburb are now at Cornell. Not good enough? Joe Devin is second in points and goals for the Big Red and Mike, a defenseman, is second in assists. Then there is George Hughes, son of a Harvard hockey legend, who plays for SLU. Not good enough? George only made the ECAC All-Rookie team last year and was a pre-season pick as a defenseman for the 2010-2011 all ECAC team. And how about Andrew Miller at Yale? Not good enough? Andrew merely leads the nationally #1 ranked Elis in assists, +/-, gwg's and trails Yale points leader, Broc Little, by just one point....besides being rated one of the best defensive forwards in the ECAC. He would probably be the Yale MVP if he were not just a sophomore. And there are others.

To sum up it is time for a change. The team is struggling, the players don't seem to develop once they reach Cambridge, there are many empty seats at Bright and there is nothing to suggest things will improve. It is time to bring Nate Leaman back to Harvard. He has done an unbelievable job at Union, taking over a team in disarray and elevating it into the national spotlight. Yes, Union no less. His tenure at Union exactly parallels Donato's at Harvard but the the programs have moved in precisely opposite directions.

Having said all this I still think the Crimson can win six or seven games this season. Perhaps the best chance to start is this weekend when the weakest opposing tandem, Colgate and Cornell, visits Bright. Better late than never.

GO CRIMSON!

[Greg Ambrose]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

I'm putting my two cents strictly as an observer, mostly from afar, of Harvard Hockey for over 40 years. Bill Cleary, and Cooney Weiland before him, were great coaches. Sure it was a different time, the rosters were filled with local kids who obviously jumped at the chance to play college hockey and get a Harvard degree to boot. But even when recruiting became more competitive in the '80's, Harvard continued to be a national power. The players they had, you all know who they are, were equal to anything that BU, North Dakota or Wisconsin were producing.

What has happened over the last few years is beyond puzzling to me. While Cornell, Yale, Dartmouth and even Brown are representing the Ivies well, Harvard is now like a poor stepchild. I hardly ever see them play, but their performance in the opening round of the Beanpot last year was shocking. Despite the 5 PM start, I made a point to get there as early as I could, just so I could see Louis LeBlanc play. I was not impressed, either with him specifically or the team in general. Of course I had no reason to believe that they could beat BC, but they didn't even put up a fight. You would have thought a local guy like Donato, who has been going to the Beanpot since he was kid, would be able to instill in them the will to battle even in the late stages of a below average season. To see a Harvard team just lay down should be embarrassing to the team, its fans, and the school. It was no wonder that Montreal suggested that LeBlanc go back to Major Juniors.

Something is wrong at Harvard. While Yale, which for most of the last 30 years has been a patsy, is rejuvenated under Allain. I had a Yale grad, who played for them in the late '70's, tell me that Allain's focus was to recruit kids who in an earlier time would have gone to Harvard. He said that, at first it was a difficult sell, but not anymore. My team, UNH, played Brown earlier this year. They were lucky to tie. Then Brown tied at BU, then smoked them, 6-1, in a holiday tournament in Chicago. UNH then lost to Dartmouth a couple of weeks ago. Anybody think that Harvard could do any of that right now.

I'm in no position to say who should be the Harvard coach but it is obvious that it should be someone other than the guy who is behind the bench now.

[Slasher7]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

I'm putting my two cents strictly as an observer, mostly from afar, of Harvard Hockey for over 40 years. Bill Cleary, and Cooney Weiland before him, were great coaches. Sure it was a different time, the rosters were filled with local kids who obviously jumped at the chance to play college hockey and get a Harvard degree to boot. But even when recruiting became more competitive in the '80's, Harvard continued to be a national power. The players they had, you all know who they are, were equal to anything that BU, North Dakota or Wisconsin were producing.

What has happened over the last few years is beyond puzzling to me. While Cornell, Yale, Dartmouth and even Brown are representing the Ivies well, Harvard is now like a poor stepchild. I hardly ever see them play, but their performance in the opening round of the Beanpot last year was shocking. Despite the 5 PM start, I made a point to get there as early as I could, just so I could see Louis LeBlanc play. I was not impressed, either with him specifically or the team in general. Of course I had no reason to believe that they could beat BC, but they didn't even put up a fight. You would have thought a local guy like Donato, who has been going to the Beanpot since he was kid, would be able to instill in them the will to battle even in the late stages of a below average season. To see a Harvard team just lay down should be embarrassing to the team, its fans, and the school. It was no wonder that Montreal suggested that LeBlanc go back to Major Juniors.

Something is wrong at Harvard. While Yale, which for most of the last 30 years has been a patsy, is rejuvenated under Allain. I had a Yale grad, who played for them in the late '70's, tell me that Allain's focus was to recruit kids who in an earlier time would have gone to Harvard. He said that, at first it was a difficult sell, but not anymore. My team, UNH, played Brown earlier this year. They were lucky to tie. Then Brown tied at BU, then smoked them, 6-1, in a holiday tournament in Chicago. UNH then lost to Dartmouth a couple of weeks ago. Anybody think that Harvard could do any of that right now.

I'm in no position to say who should be the Harvard coach but it is obvious that it should be someone other than the guy who is behind the bench now.

Harvard, with the right coach, could challenge for a Frozen Four spot every year. They have underachieved for decades now.

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

Harvard, with the right coach, could challenge for a Frozen Four spot every year. They have underachieved for decades now.

Hmmm... Not sure I could agree with that. I really could never say that about any ECAC team. Throw in the tough academic requirement for admission and that's something I'm just not buying.

Regardless, I think Greg's post is pretty spot on (for once). At the end of the day, Donato has brought in a good amount of talent and he's a disaster behind that bench (like I said a few months ago).

[bothman]

Re: HARVARD CRIMSON 2010-2011 - A New Beginning

There has been some great discussion and I am glad that folks outside of Harvard are chiming in. We are lucky to have some of the best posters on this board (TimU & Puck Swami) chiming in from time to time.

4faz & Greag Ambrose - Thanks for stating your POVs and doing so in a way that is constructive and not filled with petty insults and disparaging remarks. Your points are valid and well-taken.