Nieuwy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jtwcornell91]

Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?

[redice]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]


That certainly is my understanding.   Are we comparing our current student-athletes to professional players?;-)

[peterg]

On the subject ot Ned Harkness, Cornell honored Ned today after the Cornell Dartmouth lacrosse game (CU 12, Dartmuth 11).  Ned's record in three seasons (66-68) as lacrosse coach was 35-1, with two Ivy titles.

[RichS]

I see Joe and the Ottawa captain have had a little war of words in the media after game 5.

Knock on the Sens has always been that they're soft in the playoffs.  This is a big chance for them to prove themselves beginning tonight!

[billhoward]

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

 Isn't the conventional wisdom on why Harkness's phenomenal success at the college level wasn't repeated in the pros that professional players didn't respond to authority figures in the same way?[/q]

That was the conventional and probably correct wisdom. Also:

- Detroit was floundering at the time. Maybe no one could have succeeded.

- Reports say Harkness tried to change a lot of things immediately and some reports say he was brusque or at least overly blunt and direct and that didn't go over at all well. History may record that to be Harkness' mistake.

I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal.

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]billhoward wrote:

He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. (about Dryden)[/Q]Meaning he's not any of those?

[billhoward]

[Q]Jim Hyla Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward wrote:

He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. (about Dryden)[/Q]
Meaning he's not any of those?[/q]

Dryden looks less battle-scarred than, say, Gump Worsley. Although on second thought, a lot of hockey's greats didn't look like hulking tough guys. Bobby Orr, for instance, and he was about the same size as Ryan Vesce. (Imagine how good Orr would have been if he'd had today's knee surgery capabilities.)

[Greg Berge]

Joe in a little scuffle during the early moments of period 2 of game 6, but nothing came of it.  He's playing pretty well in this game, which is a defense-fest so far.  The Leafs look solid.

[ninian '72]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

I'm trying to recall what if anything Ken Dryden had to say about Harkness' troubles in Detroit. That would be a person who could speak with authority. BTW did you see the video of him sitting in the box at the Leafs-Senators games? He looks, in his suit, so mild-mannered and normal. [/q]

Harkness described Dryden as a remarkable and serious guy when he was at Cornell.  Always seemed to have his head in a book when he had the chance.    Even in goal, he oozed composure.  Had this habit of leaning on his stick or the crossbar, looking supremely bored when play wasn't around him.  Must have given opponents fits.

[ninian '72]

[Q]redice Wrote:

 The other important and equally unmeasurable point is "the heart" of the players.   Ned's teams of the late 1960's were not only talented but played with a fire that we don't often see today.   As much as we all admire and respect Mike Shafer's coaching abilities, he's no Ned Harkness when it comes to motivating his players.   Ned's teams simply could not stand losing.   Does anyone know how many times (if ever) Ned's teams lost successive games?   I'll bet it was a very rare occurrance.   My recollections of that era is that the next game, after a Cornell hockey loss, was usually a very bad experience for the opposing team.   After a loss, those boys were fired up!![/q]

Agreed.  It's hard to imagine frequent sub-par performances by the Harkness teams, if only because Ned was incredibly animated on the bench.  I can still hear him yelling, "Skate! Skate!"

There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though.  The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different.  Back in those days, there were only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games.  ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse.  The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses.   Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes).  The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL.  Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.

What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative.  Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced.  So it's difficult to say how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.

[billhoward]

[Q]ninian '72 Wrote:

 
There are other differences between the Harkness teams and those of today, though.  The main ones are that the nature of the college game has changed, and the career path to the NHL is different.  Back in those days, there was only the ECAC and the WCHA, and they played very different games.  ECAC play emphasized speed and finesse.  The WCHA was more an NHL-style physical game with simpler dump and chase type offenses.   Some of you other dinosaurs can chime in if you disagree, but as I recall Ned tended to favor agile, fast kids with good hands who didn't quite have the size to compete in the NHL (e.g., Kevin Pettit and John Hughes).  The temptation to leave early also wasn't there, because almost no one from college hockey could expect to make it in the NHL.  Ken Dryden was the rare exception at the tiime.

What this boils down to is that players with NHL potential typically went the junior route, while today NCAA hockey is a much more viable alternative.  Although this makes for a larger potential talent pool for today's college teams, it also means that a coach can't count on having his most talented players around for a full run and must work harder to reload with blue chip players and can't necessarily reap the rewards of having these kids around after they become more experienced.  So it's difficult to say whether how today's best teams would stack up against the old Harkness teams, since each era has its own set of advantages and constraints for developing quality programs.

[/q]

Agree, and (except?):

- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?

- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both.

[ninian '72]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

Agree, and (except?):

- Harkness teams were the epitome of dump and run, weren't they, regardless of what the WCHA teams did?

- A great recruiter would benefit even if his studs only stick around two years, becasue he'll recruit more to replace them. (The North Dakota style?) A great coach and teacher would benefit from four-year players because he could probably raise their skills level more than the recruiter coach could. Also, if they're not so good going in to college, it's less likely they'll get they million dollar offers that make it hard not to bail ofter two years. I think Harkness was great at both. [/q]

OK on the dump and run.  Harkness offense also emphasized head manning the puck, which made for a more up tempo version than we typically saw in the WCHA.

The main problem with the current practice of early departures, even with a good recruiter, is that players often leave with little warning and leave the coach scrambling to fill holes late in the recruiting process.  This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up.  He's not adverse to letting them go early, but wants to be part of the process in helping them decide when they're ready.

[Robb]

 [Q]billhoward Wrote:

This has often been a real frustration for Red Berenson at Michigan, and apparently he's not on speaking terms with a few of his former team members who kept him out of the loop until their pro deals were wrapped up.  
[/Q]

Yeah - must be really frustrating to have only been to 9 out of the last 13 Frozen Fours...  ::nut:: I know that you meant personally frustrating to Red, but it just goes to show that even in an environment of early departures (even unexpected ones), it is very possible to maintain a consistently high level of play and keep bringing in the great recruits.  Difficult, but possible...

[Greg Berge]

Gorgeous wrister by Joe puts the Leafs up 2-0 in game seven.  And he got control of the puck by wrestling with Todd White (Clarkson).  :-)

[Greg Berge]

AND ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL GOAL!!!!!   3-0.