2017 HP thread...

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Tue May 16, 2017 9:23 pm

IceHiker wrote:Very impressive list. MN always has a great showing at the camps. As always the question moves to who made the camp from the previous year. I know there are still spots to be filled but they are limited. As of now the 2000s have only 3 players making it that did not make it last year to 66s or St. Cloud. 2 goalies and 1 defense. This might be a big reason why numbers are decreasing at the tryouts as the girls get older.

Your thoughts?
They used to brag about 50% turnover from year to year.

woody
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:40 am

Post by woody » Tue May 16, 2017 10:18 pm

Mavs wrote:
IceHiker wrote:Very impressive list. MN always has a great showing at the camps. As always the question moves to who made the camp from the previous year. I know there are still spots to be filled but they are limited. As of now the 2000s have only 3 players making it that did not make it last year to 66s or St. Cloud. 2 goalies and 1 defense. This might be a big reason why numbers are decreasing at the tryouts as the girls get older.

Your thoughts?
They used to brag about 50% turnover from year to year.
That's MN Hockey's claim to fame, not USA hockey.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 7:08 am

woody wrote:
Mavs wrote:They used to brag about 50% turnover from year to year.
That's MN Hockey's claim to fame, not USA hockey.
Thing is that MN Hockey picks the girls that move on, not USA Hockey. The evaluators will recommend players to move on for selection but MN Hockey has the final say and can over rule the evaluation recommendations. Now you can look at the MN Hockey selection panel and their ties to the girls hockey community and the players start to take shape.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Wed May 17, 2017 8:44 am

IceHiker wrote:
woody wrote:
Mavs wrote:They used to brag about 50% turnover from year to year.
That's MN Hockey's claim to fame, not USA hockey.
Thing is that MN Hockey picks the girls that move on, not USA Hockey. The evaluators will recommend players to move on for selection but MN Hockey has the final say and can over rule the evaluation recommendations. Now you can look at the MN Hockey selection panel and their ties to the girls hockey community and the players start to take shape.
Who is the selection panel?

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 8:59 am

Mavs wrote:
IceHiker wrote:
Thing is that MN Hockey picks the girls that move on, not USA Hockey. The evaluators will recommend players to move on for selection but MN Hockey has the final say and can over rule the evaluation recommendations. Now you can look at the MN Hockey selection panel and their ties to the girls hockey community and the players start to take shape.
Who is the selection panel?
Great question Mavs. Wouldn't you think MN Hockey would list the names of all involved in selecting the players that move on and to whom they give the privilege to work with college coaches / players and advance their playing careers. HP's can make or break a D1 (or top D3) commitment, and yes it has happened this year. Only those with a 'connection' know who is making that final decision.

You could always send Tom Peart and Email and ask for the selection committee names. Would like to see if he would send and accurate list.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 9:18 am

And just to finish off the selection for the 16s. Only 4 new players this year compared to the Nat selection as 15s (1 goalie, 3 defense). This does not sit well for MN Hockey when it comes time for new players to tryout for the expensive HP process.

And we thought that USA Hockey and MN Hockey was about teaching this age group ( 15-18 ) to 'Learn to Compete'. Hard for all kids to practice that when MN Hockey is about keeping the same kids at the top with very little turnover.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:13 am

Post by NORTHWOODS HOCKEY » Wed May 17, 2017 11:10 am

IceHiker wrote:And just to finish off the selection for the 16s. Only 4 new players this year compared to the Nat selection as 15s (1 goalie, 3 defense). This does not sit well for MN Hockey when it comes time for new players to tryout for the expensive HP process.

And we thought that USA Hockey and MN Hockey was about teaching this age group ( 15-18 ) to 'Learn to Compete'. Hard for all kids to practice that when MN Hockey is about keeping the same kids at the top with very little turnover.
Are you saying for the sake of turnover and providing others the opportunity, the selection committee should take different and/or less talented players?

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 11:24 am

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:
IceHiker wrote:And just to finish off the selection for the 16s. Only 4 new players this year compared to the Nat selection as 15s (1 goalie, 3 defense). This does not sit well for MN Hockey when it comes time for new players to tryout for the expensive HP process.

And we thought that USA Hockey and MN Hockey was about teaching this age group ( 15-18 ) to 'Learn to Compete'. Hard for all kids to practice that when MN Hockey is about keeping the same kids at the top with very little turnover.
Are you saying for the sake of turnover and providing others the opportunity, the selection committee should take different and/or less talented players?
NO, not at all. But I will put statistics on paper to the questions that others are asking. When a program boasts a certain % to encourage young athletes to participate they might want to honor that or change their stance on said program.

I will say that there are better players that did not get selected for the Camps from 15s, 16s and 17s. That's easy to see but then again we do not know what the Selection Committee is looking for, as it changed from year to year when you ask.

What would be great is if that same selection committee that works so hard to pick the correct players could return information to players as to what they needed to work on for continued growth. But then again, its hard to pick players from a weekend that touch the ice 10 times a game.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:13 am

Post by NORTHWOODS HOCKEY » Wed May 17, 2017 11:59 am

IceHiker wrote:
NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:
IceHiker wrote:And just to finish off the selection for the 16s. Only 4 new players this year compared to the Nat selection as 15s (1 goalie, 3 defense). This does not sit well for MN Hockey when it comes time for new players to tryout for the expensive HP process.

And we thought that USA Hockey and MN Hockey was about teaching this age group ( 15-18 ) to 'Learn to Compete'. Hard for all kids to practice that when MN Hockey is about keeping the same kids at the top with very little turnover.
Are you saying for the sake of turnover and providing others the opportunity, the selection committee should take different and/or less talented players?
NO, not at all. But I will put statistics on paper to the questions that others are asking. When a program boasts a certain % to encourage young athletes to participate they might want to honor that or change their stance on said program.

I will say that there are better players that did not get selected for the Camps from 15s, 16s and 17s. That's easy to see but then again we do not know what the Selection Committee is looking for, as it changed from year to year when you ask.

What would be great is if that same selection committee that works so hard to pick the correct players could return information to players as to what they needed to work on for continued growth. But then again, its hard to pick players from a weekend that touch the ice 10 times a game.
Better players? Since that statement is opinion based and most likely bias, it would be a difficult, if not an impossible accusation to prove. Stating it as fact, doesn't make it true.

As far as feedback, I am not sure what good that would do. It is pretty obvious as to why they didn't make it, there were a number of players that the evaluators selected ahead of them. All the parent would hear is; "your kid is not very good". Then the parent would run around bashing the feedback and the person who provided it, to whoever would listen. Who knows, they may even jump on this forum and bash it as well, maybe even blame it on one person or one particular program.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 12:18 pm

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:
Better players? Since that statement is opinion based and most likely bias, it would be a difficult, if not an impossible accusation to prove. Stating it as fact, doesn't make it true.

As far as feedback, I am not sure what good that would do. It is pretty obvious as to why they didn't make it, there were a number of players that the evaluators selected ahead of them. All the parent would hear is; "your kid is not very good". Then the parent would run around bashing the feedback and the person who provided it, to whoever would listen. Who knows, they may even jump on this forum and bash it as well, maybe even blame it on one person or one particular program.
Lets just say 'Better Players' based on evaluator comments and ratings that were passed up for a lesser ranked player. Yes that does happen and the evaluators (5 different staff from different levels) know it. If you know an evaluator well enough they will tell you this, as MN Hockey has final say as to whom gets selected.

Some parents don't want to hear this and others do. It is part of the process that has been built by those in the system for many years. It will not change and most don't want to believe it.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Wed May 17, 2017 12:45 pm

There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Wed May 17, 2017 12:49 pm

BTW, I have heard people voice "Edina bias" in the room. I have heard people voice "private school bias" in the room, I have heard people voice "Winny bias" in the room.

I doubt any of them really have a clue but it makes them feel better to rip on politics.

If there was a college basketball pool to select USA basketball camp then there would be a "Duke bias."

massalsa
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Wed May 17, 2017 1:31 pm

IceHiker wrote:
NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote:
Better players? Since that statement is opinion based and most likely bias, it would be a difficult, if not an impossible accusation to prove. Stating it as fact, doesn't make it true.

As far as feedback, I am not sure what good that would do. It is pretty obvious as to why they didn't make it, there were a number of players that the evaluators selected ahead of them. All the parent would hear is; "your kid is not very good". Then the parent would run around bashing the feedback and the person who provided it, to whoever would listen. Who knows, they may even jump on this forum and bash it as well, maybe even blame it on one person or one particular program.
Lets just say 'Better Players' based on evaluator comments and ratings that were passed up for a lesser ranked player. Yes that does happen and the evaluators (5 different staff from different levels) know it. If you know an evaluator well enough they will tell you this, as MN Hockey has final say as to whom gets selected.

Some parents don't want to hear this and others do. It is part of the process that has been built by those in the system for many years. It will not change and most don't want to believe it.
I have heard of this as well but know ZERO evaluators other than barely knowing Winny.

I completely agree that MN hockey should provide SOME feedback to all kids that don't make it thru whatever level they get to. Maybe make people submit in writing to request a phone call or an evaluation or something simple. There are kids that are devastated at each point and those that truly want to get better and try to make it to a higher level the next year or tryout should be given something. Just my opinion.

massalsa
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Wed May 17, 2017 1:48 pm

Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I agree with your last sentence but think it is probably closer to 10 in and 10 out.

I also think that there are a couple of players that are on the U18 camp list at 17s that one might choose over players at 66 that are 16s.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 2:07 pm

Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I think you are missing my point. It does not matter to my either way whom MN Hockey selected to each camp. There has been discussion as to the process and how the system may be flawed. I have provided information as to the selection process and still you want to have confrontation. If you do not wish to listen or fear the truth than just move on. This is not new information as it has been happening for over 20 years starting way back with the MN Selects.

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:13 am

Post by NORTHWOODS HOCKEY » Wed May 17, 2017 2:33 pm

IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I think you are missing my point. It does not matter to my either way whom MN Hockey selected to each camp. There has been discussion as to the process and how the system might be flawed. I have provided information as to the selection process and still you want to have confrontation. If you do not wish to listen or fear the truth than just move on. This is not new information as it has been happening for over 20 years starting way back with the MN Selects.
I don't think Mavs post was to drive confrontation. I think he stated the talent is very close and no matter what players were taken, there would be some that feel they got screwed. Which I think relates to your point.

For me, it is not that I don't wish to listen or even fear the truth, however, just because the "Icehiker" post something, certainly doesn't mean it is true. If you would provide some background and facts, it would be easier to move on, but when you state your opinions (or others opinions on this forum) as if facts, I don't feel it is out of line to ask some questions or challenge your opinion or how you came to it.

I am familiar with the process and some evaluators. There are no conspiracies. However, every process and phase of HP will have a variety of opinions and recommendations, as it should and why you have multiple evaluators. All of these opinions and recommendations are worked through by people with hockey integrity. They do their best to get it right.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Wed May 17, 2017 3:11 pm

IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I think you are missing my point. It does not matter to my either way whom MN Hockey selected to each camp. There has been discussion as to the process and how the system may be flawed. I have provided information as to the selection process and still you want to have confrontation. If you do not wish to listen or fear the truth than just move on. This is not new information as it has been happening for over 20 years starting way back with the MN Selects.
Confrontation?

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 5:17 pm

Mavs wrote: Confrontation?
Very sorry if I took your last post in a bad direction. Not my intent to interpret things incorrectly. When I hear a statement like 'screwed' I feel the author might feel anxious. I will read your replies with a little more relaxation from this point forward.

AAA Dad
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:25 pm

Post by AAA Dad » Wed May 17, 2017 5:18 pm

IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I think you are missing my point. It does not matter to my either way whom MN Hockey selected to each camp. There has been discussion as to the process and how the system may be flawed. I have provided information as to the selection process and still you want to have confrontation. If you do not wish to listen or fear the truth than just move on. This is not new information as it has been happening for over 20 years starting way back with the MN Selects.
I would not think Team Canada thinks USA Selection process is flawed. USA is defending a 3-peat of Gold Medals with younger rosters every year.

I agree that MN Hockey should quit advertising the untrue huge turnover year over year because it does not exist. Very few highly skilled and motivated 15s just fall apart at 16s and 17s. It happens but rare. As with any selection process the end of the list could probably be exchanged with the top players cut.. No selection process is perfect as each player is different with different skill sets but I feel they get it mostly right another than a few head scratchers. Remember that USA hockey keeps tabs on players throughout the year and it is not solely basing their choices on a performance or stats in a tryout. They want the best players not a player that overachieved one weekend.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Wed May 17, 2017 5:22 pm

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote: For me, it is not that I don't wish to listen or even fear the truth, however, just because the "Icehiker" post something, certainly doesn't mean it is true. If you would provide some background and facts, it would be easier to move on, but when you state your opinions (or others opinions on this forum) as if facts, I don't feel it is out of line to ask some questions or challenge your opinion or how you came to it.

I am familiar with the process and some evaluators. There are no conspiracies. However, every process and phase of HP will have a variety of opinions and recommendations, as it should and why you have multiple evaluators. All of these opinions and recommendations are worked through by people with hockey integrity. They do their best to get it right.
You are correct and I agree that there are no conspiracies in the HP process. I also think we can all agree that there is virtually no turnover in the HP selection from 15's to 17's. If a player is not selected for the 15's their chance of making 16's or 17's is very slim.

This is what my original post was about. All facts.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Thu May 18, 2017 9:11 am

IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote:There are a lot of really good players that didn't make it. Which ones got screwed???

My guess is if you take the 10 that you think got screwed (at one level) and give them spots and take 10 out then we will simply have a different 10 that got screwed.

Probably very little difference between the last 20 in and the last 10 out.
I think you are missing my point. It does not matter to my either way whom MN Hockey selected to each camp. There has been discussion as to the process and how the system may be flawed. I have provided information as to the selection process and still you want to have confrontation. If you do not wish to listen or fear the truth than just move on. This is not new information as it has been happening for over 20 years starting way back with the MN Selects.
You had stated there are better players not selected and it was easy to see. I was pointing out that those better players (no denying they are really good players) could be substituted for other player and you would still have really good players not selected. There just isn't much difference in the talent pool. Even the top end isn't crazy far superior to the last 10 out. Better, yes....but the gap isn't big like it was 10-15 years ago.

There are kids that don't make the summer camp, the 54, national camp or whatever that I am shocked by but maybe others aren't shocked by. There are kids that make it that I am shocked by but again others may not be shocked by. How can we all be experts on all of them? Impossible.

Everyone that doesn't make it was a bubble player. There are 20 that make it that are also bubble players. I highly doubt they ever cut a top 10 player and the bubble is huge. The bubble for the final 20 spots is at least 30 deep. Those 30 kids could be pulled out of a hat and the complaints or shock would likely be pretty similar to what it already is. No matter how you slice it, there will be 10 more more really good players on the outside looking in. Life on the bubble is never easy.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Thu May 18, 2017 12:27 pm

Mavs wrote: You had stated there are better players not selected and it was easy to see. I was pointing out that those better players (no denying they are really good players) could be substituted for other player and you would still have really good players not selected. There just isn't much difference in the talent pool. Even the top end isn't crazy far superior to the last 10 out. Better, yes....but the gap isn't big like it was 10-15 years ago.

There are kids that don't make the summer camp, the 54, national camp or whatever that I am shocked by but maybe others aren't shocked by. There are kids that make it that I am shocked by but again others may not be shocked by. How can we all be experts on all of them? Impossible.

Everyone that doesn't make it was a bubble player. There are 20 that make it that are also bubble players. I highly doubt they ever cut a top 10 player and the bubble is huge. The bubble for the final 20 spots is at least 30 deep. Those 30 kids could be pulled out of a hat and the complaints or shock would likely be pretty similar to what it already is. No matter how you slice it, there will be 10 more more really good players on the outside looking in. Life on the bubble is never easy.
I think we can all agree that HPs have a very low turnover (almost to nothing). That needs to be communicated to parents and players first and foremost so there is no questioning the final decisions.

I think we can all agree that a DI commit should not be a bubble player and should be in contention, let alone make the 54 round which was not the case this year.

As for better players not making the selection, that is and always will be a tough call to make. My point is and will always be that evaluators that rank players higher than others will be overturned by MN Hockey. When you watch a player that is faster, great hands, better hockey sense and a team player not make the cut over others that can not cut the ice you question the system. I believe most of us here could make that distinction.

In the end HP's will provide a great opportunity for our MN players. How that selection will happen is and will be questioned by many. Until you are on the inside you will not understand it.

Now lets wait for the June 20th deadline for 'Players at Large' to be picked and added to the lists.

Mavs
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Mavs » Thu May 18, 2017 12:33 pm

IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote: You had stated there are better players not selected and it was easy to see. I was pointing out that those better players (no denying they are really good players) could be substituted for other player and you would still have really good players not selected. There just isn't much difference in the talent pool. Even the top end isn't crazy far superior to the last 10 out. Better, yes....but the gap isn't big like it was 10-15 years ago.

There are kids that don't make the summer camp, the 54, national camp or whatever that I am shocked by but maybe others aren't shocked by. There are kids that make it that I am shocked by but again others may not be shocked by. How can we all be experts on all of them? Impossible.

Everyone that doesn't make it was a bubble player. There are 20 that make it that are also bubble players. I highly doubt they ever cut a top 10 player and the bubble is huge. The bubble for the final 20 spots is at least 30 deep. Those 30 kids could be pulled out of a hat and the complaints or shock would likely be pretty similar to what it already is. No matter how you slice it, there will be 10 more more really good players on the outside looking in. Life on the bubble is never easy.
I think we can all agree that HPs have a very low turnover (almost to nothing). That needs to be communicated to parents and players first and foremost so there is no questioning the final decisions.

I think we can all agree that a DI commit should not be a bubble player and should be in contention, let alone make the 54 round which was not the case this year.

As for better players not making the selection, that is and always will be a tough call to make. My point is and will always be that evaluators that rank players higher than others will be overturned by MN Hockey. When you watch a player that is faster, great hands, better hockey sense and a team player not make the cut over others that can not cut the ice you question the system. I believe most of us here could make that distinction.

In the end HP's will provide a great opportunity for our MN players. How that selection will happen is and will be questioned by many. Until you are on the inside you will not understand it.

Now lets wait for the June 20th deadline for 'Players at Large' to be picked and added to the lists.
Yes, I agree with you that there isn't much turnover. Very good players can have an uncharacteristically bad weekend yet move on anyway. They are clearly not starting from scratch with the evaluations.

Nothing is ever perfect but improving on things can always happen. I think they need to ditch the 50% turnover stuff as that must be from years ago?

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:13 am

Post by NORTHWOODS HOCKEY » Fri May 19, 2017 8:30 am

Mavs wrote:
IceHiker wrote:
Mavs wrote: You had stated there are better players not selected and it was easy to see. I was pointing out that those better players (no denying they are really good players) could be substituted for other player and you would still have really good players not selected. There just isn't much difference in the talent pool. Even the top end isn't crazy far superior to the last 10 out. Better, yes....but the gap isn't big like it was 10-15 years ago.

There are kids that don't make the summer camp, the 54, national camp or whatever that I am shocked by but maybe others aren't shocked by. There are kids that make it that I am shocked by but again others may not be shocked by. How can we all be experts on all of them? Impossible.

Everyone that doesn't make it was a bubble player. There are 20 that make it that are also bubble players. I highly doubt they ever cut a top 10 player and the bubble is huge. The bubble for the final 20 spots is at least 30 deep. Those 30 kids could be pulled out of a hat and the complaints or shock would likely be pretty similar to what it already is. No matter how you slice it, there will be 10 more more really good players on the outside looking in. Life on the bubble is never easy.
I think we can all agree that HPs have a very low turnover (almost to nothing). That needs to be communicated to parents and players first and foremost so there is no questioning the final decisions.

I think we can all agree that a DI commit should not be a bubble player and should be in contention, let alone make the 54 round which was not the case this year.

As for better players not making the selection, that is and always will be a tough call to make. My point is and will always be that evaluators that rank players higher than others will be overturned by MN Hockey. When you watch a player that is faster, great hands, better hockey sense and a team player not make the cut over others that can not cut the ice you question the system. I believe most of us here could make that distinction.

In the end HP's will provide a great opportunity for our MN players. How that selection will happen is and will be questioned by many. Until you are on the inside you will not understand it.

Now lets wait for the June 20th deadline for 'Players at Large' to be picked and added to the lists.
Yes, I agree with you that there isn't much turnover. Very good players can have an uncharacteristically bad weekend yet move on anyway. They are clearly not starting from scratch with the evaluations.

Nothing is ever perfect but improving on things can always happen. I think they need to ditch the 50% turnover stuff as that must be from years ago?
There is a lot more that goes into the selection process, than just the one weekend's on ice performance. Maybe that needs to be communicated more. A player that appears to cut the ice better, appears to have better vision, and looks to be more skilled, may have presented some other qualities that are not conducive to what they are looking for.

That does leave it open for questioning, especially for those not involved and why people do want and request feedback.

There are players that I was surprised didn't make what I expected, but as Mavs states, they may not be the same players that another was surprised by.

IceHiker
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Post by IceHiker » Fri May 19, 2017 9:05 am

NORTHWOODS HOCKEY wrote: There is a lot more that goes into the selection process, than just the one weekend's on ice performance. Maybe that needs to be communicated more. A player that appears to cut the ice better, appears to have better vision, and looks to be more skilled, may have presented some other qualities that are not conducive to what they are looking for.

That does leave it open for questioning, especially for those not involved and why people do want and request feedback.

There are players that I was surprised didn't make what I expected, but as Mavs states, they may not be the same players that another was surprised by.
You are correct that the selections process is not just the weekend. A player that played in 1 game over that weekend still made 66s. Yes, she is a good player but was only evaluated for 1 game.

And YES you are correct that we along with the selection committee will not see players the same. That is the reason for multiple evaluators.

Post Reply