Jonnie on the Spot: An ECAC Midseason Report Card

Grades. At this time of year, they’re simply terrifying to Harvard students. Many are panicking. Some are mad.

Well, I’m getting even.

While Harvard’s academic calendar winds down to the end of the semester, it’s only midterm season for the 12 schools—er, students—enrolled in ECAC Men’s Hockey 101.

This time of year begs an evaluation of some sort, so—as head teaching fellow in the course—I’ve decided to grab a red pen and rate the mid-year performance of each pupil.

Here are their grades, with the team order following the current conference point standings.

I tried my best to curve the marks around a B-plus.

1. Harvard (8-5-3, 7-2-2 ECAC)

The Crimson has been a good hockey team this year, and it seems to be getting better with time. The key for Harvard going into the season was to find a replacement for Oliver Jonas ’01 between the pipes, and there is no question that Coach Mark Mazzoleni has done just that—times two—with Will Crothers and Dov Grumet-Morris. Their stability in goal has given the Crimson’s offensive talent the chance to find its niche. The result? Three bona-fide scoring lines and the league’s top three scorers in conference play in Brett Nowak, Dominic Moore and Tylker Kolarik. The Crimson’s young defensive corps is also ahead of where it was last year at this time. GRADE: A.

2. Yale (4-9-2, 4-4-2 ECAC)

Following the graduation of all-time leading scorer Jeff Hamilton, no one gave the Elis a snowball’s chance of being in second place right now. However, Yale Coach Tim Taylor ’63 has done an excellent job this season, and his team has been competitive throughout. The Bulldogs’ overall record isn’t dazzling, but—considering that six of their nine losses have been by a single goal—they are a respected commodity around the league and won’t be able to sneak up on anyone in the second half. GRADE: B.

3. Cornell (8-4-1, 4-1-1 ECAC)

The only ECAC team currently ranked in the national polls (No. 13), Cornell has been a very consistent team this season. The main question surrounding the Big Red going into the season was whether or not it would be able to improve upon its anemic offensive production a year ago. Well, that was answered with authority in the early going, as Cornell scored three more or goals in every game until Thanksgiving. The Big Red also has two very solid goaltenders—Matt Underhill and David LeNeveu—and a rugged defensive corps in front of them. Cornell will be a tough team to beat in the second half—especially at home, where it is 5-0-0 this season. GRADE: A.

3. (tie) Dartmouth (7-6-1, 4-2-1 ECAC)

While it hasn’t quite lived up to its early billing in the national polls, look for the Big Green to be a strong team during the stretch run. With all 15 of its remaining games within the ECAC, the Dartmouth should be able to zero in and focus on working its way up the standings. It certainly has the capacity to do so, with Mike Maturo—the ECAC’s fourth leading scorer in league games behind the aforementioned Harvard trio—leading a very potent offense and Trevor Byrne heading up a stingy blue line. GRADE: B+

5. Princeton (5-12-0, 4-6-0 ECAC)

Due to the similarity between the academic calendars of Harvard and Princeton, the Tigers have played as much hockey as the Crimson thus far. Unfortunately for Coach Len Quesnelle, they haven’t fared quite as well. Special teams have hurt the Tigers so far, as they are currently last in the ECAC in power play efficiency and 10th in penalty killing. Princeton has only scored two goals per game in ECAC play, but that stands to improve with Brad Parsons—the Tigers’ leading returning scorer this year—back in the lineup after missing nine games this season. GRADE: C.

5. (tie) Clarkson (7-7-3, 3-0-2 ECAC)

No need to change your prescription. The Golden Knights have indeed played only five ECAC games this year in comparison to Harvard’s 11. Nevertheless, Clarkson holds the distinction of being the only team in the conference without a loss in league play. After last weekend’s home sweep of Mercyhurst, the Golden Knights find themselves back at the .500 mark for the first time since Nov. 23. Known for its regular season prowess, a surging Clarkson team that has won three of its last four figures to be a player in the ECAC race. GRADE: A-.

5. (tie) Brown (4-7-2, 3-5-2 ECAC)

The Bears sent a message with their season-opening upset of the Crimson at Bright Hockey Center, and while the win gave them instant credibility, it has also prevented them from sneaking up on any ECAC opponents the rest of the way. Even though Brown has one league win since a 5-1 drubbing of Vermont on Nov. 10, the Bears’ upset win over Wisconsin in the Badgers’ own holiday tournament showed that Coach Roger Grillo’s team still packs punch. GRADE: B-.

8. Rensselaer (7-6-2, 2-3-2 ECAC)

You want a sign that the Engineers are for real? Well, their dramatic 6-4 win over New Hampshire—now the third-ranked team in the country—should do the trick. With two of the most electrifying players in the ECAC—forwards Marc Cavosie and Matt Murley—RPI is always in a position to win. No. 7 Boston University can attest to that—it saw its 6-1 third-period lead evaporate against the Engineers before holding on for a 6-5 win. With loads of experienced players from last season’s 17-15-2 team, RPI will only get better as the season goes along. GRADE: B+.

9. Vermont (2-11-2, 2-3-1 ECAC)

It’s been a rough year for the Catamounts. Coming in with high expectations after upsetting top-seeded Clarkson in the first round of last season’s playoffs, Vermont surrendered 18 goals in its first three games and has never really recovered. The centerpiece of last season’s playoff success—goaltender Shawn Conschafter—has endured a rough season. The bottom line is that the young Catamount defense must mature in a hurry if Vermont has any hopes of repeating last season’s postseason accomplishments. GRADE: C-.

9. (tie) Union (6-6-3, 2-4-1 ECAC)

The Skating Dutchmen—led by Coach Kevin Sneddon ’92—began the year 3-1-1 before going winless over their next six games. Union has rallied, though, winning two of its last three and taking an early lead against the Crimson before falling 3-2 last weekend. The Dutchmen have done a much better job of staying out of the penalty box this season, and they have also played pretty well in their own end of the ice. With things relatively shored up on the defensive side, Union must focus its efforts in the attacking zone, where it has only mustered a scant 1.71 goals per game in league play. GRADE: C+.

11. Colgate (4-11-0, 2-4-0 ECAC)

Since I used “scant” to describe an offensive output of 1.71 goals per game, I shudder to think how I’ll describe the Raiders’ team average of 1.33. In this case, I’m not so sure that “awful” would be too harsh. What’s more, two of Colgate’s four wins have come against Iona, a mediocre team in the MAAC, a very mediocre conference. Thankfully for the Raiders, things are a little bit better on defense. However, it’s really hard to win hockey games when your leading goal-scorer after 15 games has only six tallies. GRADE: D+.

12. St. Lawrence (3-12-0, 1-4-0 ECAC)

The Saints have gone from a team that absolutely struck fear into the hearts of opposing goaltenders last year to one in the ECAC cellar this time around. However, St. Lawrence was a second-half team last season, and Coach Joe Marsh is a legendary figure behind the bench who has a lot of young talent at his disposal. As Harvard found out in a nail-biting win earlier this year, SLU is a very opportunistic team capable of skating with pretty much anyone in the league. GRADE: C.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well, my mid-term evaluation tabs Clarkson, Cornell and Harvard as the top teams in the league. Look for both the regular season and playoff champion to emerge from those three.

But then again, I’m only a TF for this class. My knowledge is by no means infinite and—after all—I don’t write the exam. That’s up to the professor.

He won’t be here until March.