Bob Gross writes:
>   Regarding the new Dartmouth hockey coach, it has been said that-
>
>>The name you are looking for is Jeff Kosak. But you don't need to
>>remember it any more, because I saw a note in the paper saying that
>>he resigned on Monday, after just 10 days on the job, for personal
>>and family reasons.
>
>  This is correct.  RUMOR has it that the real reason for the resignation
>(did his personal and family situation change that dramatically in 2 weeks?)
>is that there was disagreement in recruiting practices with the
>administration.
 
Mike writes:
>Bob Gross said:
>>   I believe that (former) Dartmouth coach Brian Mason was right in saying
>>that Dartmouth cannot expect to maintain its strict admissions policies and
>>have a winning hockey team - they are mutually exclusive.
>
>    Doesn't this sound like what I lambasted the Ivies for, just a few
>    months ago?  Not only are they losing players, they're losing coaches
>    now, too.  One of these days, people will listen to me...
 
I wouldn't shed too many tears for the poor Ivies if they are losing
"coaches" like Brian Mason and, if the RUMOR is true, Jeff Kosak.  You can't
have a winning hockey team with strict admissions policies?  Mason is WRONG
WRONG WRONG.  Both Cornell and Harvard have had successful hockey programs
for years.  Of course, they have been able to recruit on this winning
tradition and that, coupled with the two schools' being somewhat larger and
more academically diverse (and more "prestigious"?) than Dartmouth, makes it
easier for the Big Red and the Crimson to get the players they need to stay
successful.  Both have had down periods, though, most notably in the late
'70s and early '80s, and anyway, these winning programs of theirs had to
start somewhere.  In addition, Clarkson has consistently fielded good teams
(they have missed the playoffs only once in the 29-year history of the
ECAC), and St. Lawrence, up and down over the years, has become a highly
ranked hockey power over the last few seasons.  Both of these schools are
smaller than Dartmouth, and despite being non-Ivies, both schools, being
members of the ECAC, have virtually the same recruiting restrictions that
Dartmouth and the Ivies do.  (Let's not get into that again, shall we?)
People also forget that Dartmouth has fielded some pretty good hockey teams
in the past.  This is understandable, since the Big Green hasn't made the
playoffs in ten years, but the 1978-79 and 1979-80 teams both played in ECAC
championship games.  The latter squad won the Ivy League championship, and
back then it meant something, as the Ivies were a separate division within
the ECAC.
 
Can Dartmouth rebound from this decade-long slide?  Sure -- just look at the
performances turned in this season by perennial ECAC doormats Princeton and
Brown.  Granted, seventh and eighth place finishes (respectively) do not
necessarily indicate that these two teams are on their way to becoming
national championship material, but they do have some achievements to build
on and they did improve fairly dramatically from their finishes in 1988-89.
With a good coach, some commitment by the players, and maybe some luck,
Dartmouth could do something similar next season.
 
As for Kosak's rumored "disagreement" with the administration over
recruiting, I'm not exactly sure what his beef was supposed to have been
about.  If he was complaining about academic restrictions, lack of athletic
scholarships, and in general not being allowed to recruit players who didn't
meet the college's standards, well, he should have been aware of all that
before even applying for the job.  If on the other hand, he wanted to go
look for players, say, in Canada or out west and the administration was
saying no, that's a different story.  But that would be a Dartmouth problem,
not a problem with the whole Ivy League or ECAC.  Or maybe these rumors are
totally unfounded and there really IS some problem in Kosak's family.  Ah
well, here's hoping that Dartmouth gets a new coach soon and that he (or
she, hey why not?) sticks around.
 
Bob writes:
>                                                           If Dartmouth wants
>to continue these admissions policies, it should run the hockey program to
>allow student-scholars to participate in intercollegiate athletics - solely
>for the "life experience".  This is one philosophy that might be acceptable,
>but the outcry from alumni seems to indicate that this is not a vialbe
>alternative.
 
Well, Dartmouth's policies are not going to change any time soon.  If those
pesky alumni are clamoring for wins at all costs, as alumni will do on
occasion, then they aren't helping the program either.  I don't know about
"life experience", but ideally, the student-athlete is at a college
primarily to get a good education, and is involved in sports because he or
she likes it (and is a good athlete, which leads to the enjoyment).  I say
"ideally" because you don't have to look far to discover that this is not
always the case.  Not being a big-time money-hungry sport like college foot-
ball or basketball, college hockey is probably freer of the tremendous
pressure to WIN NOW, and thus has the freedom to be more fun for the
players.
 
Some will say that it's NO fun playing for a perennial loser, but that's not
always true, particularly if you have understanding fans.  I remember
reading an article in _Sports Illustrated_ about some players on a dreadful
1-22 Princeton hockey team back in the early '70s (I think), and between
reminiscing about teammates' strange habits and some of the bizarre losses
they suffered, they mentioned the good fan support they had.  These guys did
not sound particularly bitter -- it seemed like they had a lot of fun.  This
does NOT mean that I think the Dartmouth team shouldn't be trying to
improve.  Far from it -- I think it would be good for the ECAC as well as
the Big Green if their team were to become more competitive.
 
Bob also writes:
>            My understanding is that of the three major spectator sports at
>Dartmouth (football, basketball, and hockey), the recruiting budget for hockey
>is by far the smallest.
 
This, unfortunately, is not surprising.  Athletic departments supposedly
support all of a college's sports, but they often wind up funneling most of
the dollars into football and basketball because those two are often the
school's only money makers.  Thus, these two sports get the new state-of-
the-art facilities while the others have to get by on older equipment.  Can
you tell that this is a sore point with me?  I won't bother repeating the
stories about the women's basketball programs at Oklahoma and Penn State.
Of course, some colleges are more supportive of their "minor" sports than
others.  I hope it's a trend.
 
>                         In addition, the recently departing acting athletic
>director was not a major supporter of hockey.  The new director, Dick Jaeger,
>is a hockey fan and will do the best possible to find a good coach and support
>the hockey team.  Your suggestion that we turn Dartmouth into "a place where
>'smart' hockey players want to go" is the right attitude and I think that is
>what Dick has in mind.
>   There just is not much to start from at this point and, as you might
>expect, the team morale is not great either.
 
Glad to hear about Jaeger; it sounds like he will help out Dartmouth a lot.
Obviously the last thing the Dartmouth hockey team needed was a director who
didn't support hockey much (here we go again, aren't they supposed to
support ALL the sports?).  The picture DOES look pretty bleak at Dartmouth;
not only will they becoming off a 4-18-4 record that included a 17-game
winless streak, but defenseman Dave Williams and goalie Steve Laurin, two of
the Big Green's best players, are leaving this year.  They don't have much
firepower on offense either.  Once again, however, I have to cite the
examples of Princeton and Brown, particularly Brown.  You don't get much
lower than Brown did in 1988-89 when they fielded a team that went 1-25, one
of the worst in history.  Heading into this season, the Bruins did not have
much in the way of talent -- when asked about his team's strengths, head
coach Bob Gaudet referred to his players' "enthusiasm".  However, thanks
mainly to a more physical, "blue-collar" style of play, Brown wound up with
a much improved 9-14-3 record, including a couple of shockers over Colgate
and Providence.  The real test, of course, comes next season, when they
won't be such a big surprise.  Will they continue to improve, or will they
drop back into the ECAC cellar (especially without goalie Chris Harvey)?
Personally, I think they'll do all right.  The morale, at least, has got to
be far better than it was before.
 
Anyway, there's still some hope for Dartmouth.  It'll take time, probably a
lot of it, to build a winning tradition there, but despite the seemingly
insurmountable odds, the Big Green can improve.  Here's hoping that the
fans, alumni, and media up there are understanding and supportive of a
rebuilding process.  I also hope (selfishly, I admit) that any Dartmouth
improvement does NOT include beating up on Cornell :-)
 
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86
LET'S GO RED!!
 
"CTI 30 DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
 If not fully satisfied with the product, return within 15 days for a full
 refund!"
--_Computer Shopper_, December 1989