News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

HARVARD HOCKEY: What Was (Is) the Story?

By Bill Scheft

The zamboni of the mind is now at work. The magic machine that sweeps away the refuse of what's transpired and lays clear the glassy sparkle of what's to ensue now attempts to construct a state of Harvard hockey that is positive and justified.

It can't.

It can't and it won't because Harvard hockey now finds itself beyond propaganda and beyond excuses about referees and scheduling. After a season in which the squad suffered its lowest winning percentage (.296) since 1940-41 and the most losses in history, "We'll get 'em next year!" has taken the form of a punchline, not an exhortation.

The 1978-79 edition of Harvard hockey came into the season hungry, talented, and rink-less. Fifteen lettermen returned, all of whom had tasted the bitterness of the winter before, when the icemen missed the ECAC playoffs for the second year in a row and underwent their first losing season in 11 years.

The kids came, too. Seven freshmen, the most coach Billy Cleary had carried in four years of first-year eligibility, grabbed spots on the big club. We were told that Burke was the gunner, Olson the hitter, Watson the digger, Lau the stopper, while Cleary told more than one person that the crop of Crimson rookies was the best he's ever seen.

The Brothers Hughes were there, cool and glory-bound, and veterans Jim Trainor and Gene Purdy. You wondered if the sophomores could put it all together, and if Randy Millen would indeed "trade two years of potential for one year of production."

On paper this seemed without question one of the top seven or eight teams in Division One, a fact reinforced throughout the season by the respect opposing coaches had for the Crimson.

So what happened?

The most tangible place to start would be the loss of home ice. The problem here was not one of small crowds and no section 18, but of practice time. The icemen were forced to work out at haphazard hours of the day amd at multiple sites. What resulted from the catch-as-catch-can training was chaotic cohesion and execution during games.

Vagabonds are usually lonely and unappreciated. Time warps their intensity, saps their purpose. So time and the course of the season slowly robbed the emotion and the fight from the guys who were always on the move, who used travel bags for lockers, who always had to pull their goalie at the end of the game.

Consider the life of the vagabond and you'll realize that the Harvard hockey season, as those of us who can find the way to Arlington and Charlestown know it, ended on December 27.

Before then there had been hope and some strong play. Goaltender Wade Lau was untouchable in the 5-2 win over Providence on November 29. A questionable hooking call had negated an inspiring comeback at RPI on November 25. George Hughes had four goals in the second period of the 8-4 win over New Hampshire on December 12. Mike Watson copped a hat-trick in the 9-5 thumping of Notre Dame 11 days later.

After losing two games out in Minnesota (the 5-4 loss to Minnesota-Minneapolis on the 27th being the last display of objectively competitive hockey as we know it), Harvard found itself with five important Division One games in January and a chance to turn around its uncharacteristically dismal 2-5 ECAC start.

It was around this time when you started to notice how much ice time Jack Hughes was getting and how he was forced to play more than one position at the same time to cover up for the team's defensive madequacies. You began to notice that it wasn't just first game jitters that made Lau susceptible to long shots. And you couldn't understand why the hell a natural center like George Hughes was playing wing.

Soon it was only January 6 and though the Crimson was still mathematically in the race for the playoffs, the 7-3 "home" loss to Brown that afternoon brought the icemen face to face with the grim fact that they were indeed vagabonds and that the promise of autumn would be dispatched by the reality of winter.

And except for one tradition-orchestrated near upset of B.U. in the opening round of the Beanpot, the realities came, cold, consistent, and impossible to overlook. They came in setbacks to perennial triumph material like Northeastern (twice), St. Lawrence and Yale (twice), in an 11-3 Son-of-Sam job to Cornell, and in several ambiguous one-goal encounters.

The nightmare finally ended last Saturday night in the cheezy New Haven Coliseum with a 6-5 loss against Yale, and it all left you wondering whether the season as a whole had been a preview of mediocrity to come or some sort of devil's advocate to tradition.

Things do not appear to be taking a turn for the better. The squad will graduate its two best forwards (George Hughes and Purdy), its second best defenseman (Trainor), and veteran spare parts like Steve Andrews, Murray Dea, John Dunderdale, John Cochrane, and Millen. In addition, Jack Hughes, quite possibly the best defenseman in the East, will probably make the Olympic team and pass up his final year of eligibility. These are cavities that refurbished Watson Rink and normal practice hours cannot hope to fill.

The talent of next year's freshman class is critical, but may unfortunately cement the realization that Harvard lost more than a freshman hockey coach when Tim Taylor left for Yale three years ago.

Meanwhile, the zamboni of the mind has stopped, held fast in time by a tradition with seemingly little future. There is no way that any lover of Harvard hockey will let it travel and kid himself about the prospects for next year. Similarly, there is no way that Harvard hockey can sidestep the serious problems of talent and performance that have slowly dispatched it from the pedestal of collegiate hockey. ECAC DIVISION ONE FINAL STANDINGS 1. Boston University  17-4-2 2. New Hampshire  17-5-3 3. Cornell  16-6-0 4. Dartmouth  14-7-0 5. Clarkson  13-9-0 6. Providence  13-9-2 7. Yale  12-9-1 8. Vermont  11-10-0 9. Northeastern  11-11-0 10. Brown  10-11-0 11. Boston College  10-12-0 12. Colgate  7-13-0 13. RPI  8-16-1 14. HARVARD  5-16-1 15. St. Lawrence  5-18-1 16. Princeton  2-15-4

THE RECORD

at Dartmouth 2-7

at RPI 5-6 (ot)

at Providence 5-2

BOSTON UNIV. 5-8

at Bowdoin 6-4

at Brown 1-2

NEW HAMPSHIRE 8-4

at Vermont 4-7

NOTRE DAME 9-5

at Minn. (Mpls.) 4-5

at Minn. (Dul.) 3-8

at Northeastern 3-5

BROWN 3-7

at Boston College 5-4 (ot)

ST. LAWRENCE 2-3

at Providence 3-5

at Princeton 7-7

Beanpot vs. B.U. 2-4

CORNELL 2-4

YALE 1-4

Beanpot vs. Northeastern 4-5

PRINCETON 4-3

at Cornell 3-11

at Colgate 10-2

DARTMOUTH 2-3

at Yale 5-6

IVY LEAGUE: 1-8-1

ECAC Div. I: 5-16-1

OVERALL: 7-18-1

THE RECORD

at Dartmouth 2-7

at RPI 5-6 (ot)

at Providence 5-2

BOSTON UNIV. 5-8

at Bowdoin 6-4

at Brown 1-2

NEW HAMPSHIRE 8-4

at Vermont 4-7

NOTRE DAME 9-5

at Minn. (Mpls.) 4-5

at Minn. (Dul.) 3-8

at Northeastern 3-5

BROWN 3-7

at Boston College 5-4 (ot)

ST. LAWRENCE 2-3

at Providence 3-5

at Princeton 7-7

Beanpot vs. B.U. 2-4

CORNELL 2-4

YALE 1-4

Beanpot vs. Northeastern 4-5

PRINCETON 4-3

at Cornell 3-11

at Colgate 10-2

DARTMOUTH 2-3

at Yale 5-6

IVY LEAGUE: 1-8-1

ECAC Div. I: 5-16-1

OVERALL: 7-18-1

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags