I saw a story that Flygh resigned? Not sure if I cut and pasted this link correctly. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...506443781.html
Yale 8 18 3 will wear out your welcome especially when RIT and RPI and their new coaches have found some success. Coaching is a tough business.
With 4 of the top 5 scorers freshmen....some coach has a great opportunity to right this ship.
Stone's record for Harvard in the past 3 years is 29-48-12. Remarkably similar to Flygh at 28-52-11, despite it being fairly well known that Admissions are significantly more flexible for student-athletes at Harvard than at Yale.
Speculation on my part but the new AD at Yale came over from Colgate in September. She was in charge and very involved in the women's hockey program during the turnaround of the Colgate program so she has seen what can be done and maybe realized the former coach was not the right person after a number of years at the helm. Perhaps this is evidence of more attention to the program at Yale. It's easy for some of these coaches, especially at Ivy's, to keep their jobs so long as no one cares about the programs and there are no waves or issues. Obviously there are different challenges at Yale vs. Colgate, foremost being scholarships, but Princeton and Cornell have figured something out.
Perhaps that's why she was brought on board this year in the first place? It may be a changing attitude towards athletics at Yale as a whole: she also quickly dispensed with the Yale women's soccer coach who had been in the position for 23 years.
Hard to believe that Harvard and Yale records are so similar when Harvard continues to get the u18 National team players. Actually says something for Yale that they kept up record wise with Harvard. Tougher admissions, not the u18 players and basically the same record. Time for Harvard to move on?
I'm not trying to shield the coaches here because they do have responsibility for maximizing the talent they have on their rosters. But to say that Harvard has significantly more flexibility than Yale is patently false. I've worked with the admissions committee as an alumni volunteer for ten years and have spoken to the Harvard coaches with recruits (mostly the kids of family and friends) at meetings and I know the director of hockey ops at Harvard. I also have connections through friends to the college hockey world outside of the Ivies. So I have a good handle on how this works.
I do wish that Coach Stone would use her bench more and develop the players she brings in to raise their games. Too often we've lost games because the team wears down in the third period. Depth has been an issue for the Crimson and it's something that I wish the coaches would address.
I was not the one that said that Harvard is more flexible. I do think that Harvard is more creative. Year after year we see players that have very high academics scores that dont touch the ice. (perhaps these are the bench players that are mentioned.) We know this helps the recruits with the lower scores get in through the AI. But we also know that sometimes, it just doesn't work and a player can not make the hurdles to get through admissions. I think this is one of the reasons so many players come from Nobles. If they get into Nobles, and can make it through the academic rigor there, they most likely will get the scores and grades needed to get in. Until recently I do not believe that Yale did this. I had suspicions this was going to happen with the higher number of recruits they are getting. With coaching changes, all bets are off. But they may be just playing the attrition game, knowing they will lose some to the scholarship schools. Interesting that the 2 IVY Schools with the smallest rosters are Princeton and Cornell. (and we know how they did this year!) If you get recruited to play there and get in- you will play. With 18 skaters, everyone touches the ice. Has to make for a better experience for all these players, no one wonders who will be a healthy scratch and if they will play even if they dress. (even more so this year with the 19th skater dressing)
I can assure you I know what I'm talking about. Those with direct experience working with a great many Ivy athletic prospects from all of the Ivies in the process, and are well aware of the scores posted to gain entrance for each-- as I am--, can attest to the fact that Harvard IS significantly more flexible. Harvard has regularly accepted significantly lower scores each year from several of it's players than either Yale or Princeton would ever consider an acceptable minimum. This isn't merely my perception, it's a fact based on a large number of specific athletes, and direct knowledge of their scores and GPAs at each of the Ivies.
Furthermore, Harvard is able is average the AI of it's entire recruiting class. At Yale, every athlete must meet the AI threshold individually. That's a significant difference, and advantage for Harvard.
I do think it's probably true that Harvard is more likely to deliberately recruit certain very high SAT scoring athletes for the specific purpose of meeting it's AI requirement than other Ivy schools (with little/no intention of actually playing them) merely to win the AI game. Most other coaches would have an ethical problem doing this. However, I can also vouch for the fact that this practice does not explain Stone's predilection for running a short bench. I am aware of multiple players she got through Admissions with low (by Ivy Standards) SAT scores, who she still chose not to play much, and despite assurances to the contrary in the recruiting process.
Of course, Cornell is at a significant advantage versus all the other Ivy schools in that most of their athletes actually enroll in the "State School" degree programs they offer, which require a much lower entrance score. This is a big recruiting advantage, and will likely always be the case. I've even heard other coaches from scholarship schools like Colgate and RPI complain over the years, that they couldn't get athletes in that were accepted at Cornell.
Last edited by Trillium; 03-02-2019 at 05:31 PM.
Hmmm. Is there a coach that has a Colgate connection that has a contract expiring around? Just a guesstimate though not a fact.
[QUOTE=Rightnut;6772467]Fargo just re-upped before this season.[/QUOTE
You answered your own question. It has to be an expiring contract.
While it is true that Harvard uses a 'balanced' approach, to term it 'flexible' is simply misleading. Any admissions officer from any school would object to that wording. The process is long and arduous and there are a number of factors that are used to determine whether an applicant is admitted. My nephew and one of his best friends were being recruited by several of the same schools, Connecticut College being one of them. Despite having better grades and scores and a wider and deeper athletic resume, my nephew was rejected from CC and his friend got accepted. But my nephew got accepted to a school where one of his other teammates got rejected even though his friend had slightly better numbers. Not even legacies are assured of getting in.
The elephant in the room is of course $$$. As I mentioned in my post, while Harvard does offer very good financial aid, we'll lose a kid if one of the scholarship schools comes calling and offers a generous package or a full ride. Tough to compete against that.
In the case of Princeton, I would imagine that having a prolific hockey player as the current AD would help a lot with recruiting on the women's side.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)