Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Discussion of Minnesota Girls High School Hockey

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

Post Reply
j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:49 pm

It will be quite interesting to see how USA Hockey handles selections for the 18 camp and the 16/17 camp this summer. The oldest birth year - 04s this year - are normally the backbone of the U18 team, and the Minnesota 04 group is well known to be very deep so should be reasonably well represented. Choosing well from this group should be important to USA hockey, but sending Vegas to nationals creates a very strange evaluation challenge.

For reference, Vegas is the U16 elite league team made up of the strongest players that are both '04s and '22s (and two '23 goalies), not including Burgen (roster here: http://www.hselitehockey.com/stats#/394 ... 461/roster). Burgen will be at 54s (she was placed on a U19 elite league team since she made the 18 team two years ago). Vegas is made up of 9 forwards and 9 D (a weird roster), and those 18 skaters include 3 or 4 top forwards (opinions vary), 2 or 3 top D, and the rest are all (mostly) very good players, but not clearly differentiated from other very strong '04s, in particular in the '23 class. Comparing those remaining 5 or 6 forwards and the remaining 6 or 7 D to the players at 54s will be tough. 54s will be diluted - potentially not as good hockey as last weekend with those kids gone. And Vegas will absolutely walk through nationals. The next best U16 team in the nation (outside of Minnesota) is a Little Caesars team that is 56-1-2 against a schedule of good remaining U16 teams. Their only game against a strong Minnesota opponent was MSP Grey (made up of half the best ‘23s in MN - and which finished ranked #2 in the nation at U16 at myhockeyrankings.com), which Caesars was lucky to tie at the NIT in a 3-3 game. So how do you choose between the 10+ other kids on Vegas that are good but not super stars and the very good players at 54s (not including Burgen, who is a shoe-in to make the 18 camp). It seems pretty clear to me several forwards on Vegas and several D on Vegas do not compare terribly favorably to the best kids at 54s. But they aren't being seen next to eachother for evaluation.

In terms of numbers, in 2019 I believe there were a total of roughly 15 ’02 (the oldest age group that year) forwards (to focus on one position for a second) taken from Minnesota for the 18 camp (8) and the 16/17 camp (7). Those numbers may not be similar this year. There has been a lot of commentary about how deep Minnesota’s 04 group is, so there may be another spot or two given to 04s at the expense of 05s or 06s. But if those numbers are similar this year, that means those 3-4 forwards from Vegas and Burgen likely make up 4-5 of the 8 estimated forward invites to the 18 camp (with potentially two more for Enright and Broz - neither of whom is participating in either event and both of whom attended the 18 camp two years ago). That would imply there might be somewhere between 1 and 4 selected to the 18 camp from the group made up of the rest of the Vegas roster and from all of the 54s, and another 7 invited to the 16/17 camp from those combined groups (54s and bottom of Vegas). If they tilt more heavily towards the 04s then they did to the 02s two years ago, there may be another spot or two. If you have a forward playing this weekend, hopefully that is of some help to handicap their chances of an invite. The D numbers are proportionately similar (probably a total of 0-5 available invites outside the top 2 or 3 on Vegas), and the G are harder to predict.

bodyup88
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:58 am

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by bodyup88 » Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:05 pm

Are Enright and Broz eligible for the national 18 camp given they didn't participate in the Minnesota Spring Festival or 54's? - asking for a friend

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by jg2112 » Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:27 pm

With regard to Enright and Broz, we probably can answer this question by answering the question as to another absentee.

Is there any possible way Courneia will not be one of the goalies selected for the U18 Select camp?

And if they are selected, it would have been ethical to let all camp attendees know some spots were pre-selected, before parents spent hundreds of dollars and multiple weekends on tryouts.

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:04 pm

USA hockey can do whatever they want. Breza made the 18 camp a few years ago after missing all of the spring HP because of an injury, I believe. Having made the 18 camp two years ago, I'm sure both of them will be on the radar screen. Courniea is perceived as the top of the heap in Minnesota, but there are other good goalies around the country - Burden at Shattuck, McNaughton out east. Not sure what the whole crop looks like. But she has an awfully good chance, at the very least.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by jg2112 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:59 pm

In case anyone was wondering the seriousness with which MN Hockey is taking this weekend's process, they are asking some of the teams to play back-to-back 46 minute games, and one U17 team is playing 3 games in 9 hours. That is in direct violation of their own participation rules governing rest time for players U19 and lower(page 27, under rest time):

https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/ ... _22-35.pdf

Teams/players shall not participate in more than two on-ice activities per day, nor shall they participate in more
than one tournament at a time (no overlapping days). On-ice activities include games (league, tournament, exhibition, etc.)
and/or practices. There shall be a minimum of two hours between on-ice activities on the same day and ten hours between
on-ice activities on consecutive days.


They're not allowing these skaters to recover, and they're putting them at increased risk of injury by overskating them, in violation of their rules.

Money > players.

hunting247
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:02 am

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by hunting247 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:46 pm

jg2112 wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:59 pm
In case anyone was wondering the seriousness with which MN Hockey is taking this weekend's process, they are asking some of the teams to play back-to-back 46 minute games, and one U17 team is playing 3 games in 9 hours. That is in direct violation of their own participation rules governing rest time for players U19 and lower(page 27, under rest time):

https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/ ... _22-35.pdf

Teams/players shall not participate in more than two on-ice activities per day, nor shall they participate in more
than one tournament at a time (no overlapping days). On-ice activities include games (league, tournament, exhibition, etc.)
and/or practices. There shall be a minimum of two hours between on-ice activities on the same day and ten hours between
on-ice activities on consecutive days.


They're not allowing these skaters to recover, and they're putting them at increased risk of injury by overskating them, in violation of their rules.

Money > players.
:roll:

slowD
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by slowD » Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:10 pm

Did anyone take in the games last weekend? Any surprises? Any standouts? Any disappointments? When do the invites go out for the next round?

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:33 pm

Some (mostly the 17s) - and it's worth defining the bar for your question. Lots of good hockey players across those groups. Many future D1 players. But when it comes to defining the bar for advancement, it's useful to think in the terms that I think USA hockey does, which is who might realistically help a US team beat Canada. Then it's less about skill and points, but those in combination with compete, physicality, speed and reliability. Burgen, for example, only had one point on the weekend, but clearly deserves to advance - strong, fast, plays heavy, smart.

Thinking in those terms, in the 04 forward group, on red I thought Boerger and Higuchi looked good, and maybe also Wright (not sure if Higuchi can advance); on blue, Morrison and Zavoral - maybe also Ryskamp and Goettl; and Burgen and Haug on white - maybe Goudreau and Sajevic. At D, I thought Laroche on white and Hemp on red looked good. Some other D that skate well and can handle the puck, but lots of mistakes overhandling the puck that would make me very reluctant to pick them to compete for a spot to play against Canada. The best 04 D are on the Vegas team going to nationals. Hard to evaluate goaltending in a short event, but I thought Weiser on blue and Okane on red looked good.

In the 05 group (particularly in the games against the 17s), and on the same measuring stick of "who can help beat Canada," I thought Lindsay and Avar, in particular, looked good. The 16s were 1-2 against the 17 teams, but the lone win was game 2 for 16 red against 17 white playing their third game in like 7 hours - not sure that was a good measuring stick. The 16s and 17s are competing for different spots, but few other 16s stood out against 17 competition (which was also missing the Vegas group).

In terms of timing, the coaches of the teams issued conflicting guidance - some suggested it might be soon/this week, and others said it may be two to three weeks. In ’19, I think the release was roughly two weeks after the 54s.

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Wed May 05, 2021 9:37 am

Not sure what to make of this, but the Minnesota Hockey website now says the national player development camp invite lists will be released no earlier than June 9 (the girls 16-17 camp is schedule to begin June 26 in St. Cloud). This is much later than it has been released in the past.

InThePipes
Posts: 1006
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by InThePipes » Wed May 05, 2021 9:41 am

j4241 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:37 am
Not sure what to make of this, but the Minnesota Hockey website now says the national player development camp invite lists will be released no earlier than June 9 (the girls 16-17 camp is schedule to begin June 26 in St. Cloud). This is much later than it has been released in the past.
All levels on both the girls and boys side are much later this year, what's the story with that?

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Wed May 05, 2021 9:49 am

Do you mean the dates of the camps? They look similar to me, at least relative to 2019. Or do you mean announcement dates of invites? If that's the case, then I agree. I assume it is COVID related, and they're still working on confirming camp safety protocols, but you'd think they'd have their act together as it relates to who the right kids are.

InThePipes
Posts: 1006
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by InThePipes » Wed May 05, 2021 10:49 am

j4241 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:49 am
Do you mean the dates of the camps? They look similar to me, at least relative to 2019. Or do you mean announcement dates of invites? If that's the case, then I agree. I assume it is COVID related, and they're still working on confirming camp safety protocols, but you'd think they'd have their act together as it relates to who the right kids are.
Announcement of invites

InThePipes
Posts: 1006
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:26 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by InThePipes » Wed May 05, 2021 3:40 pm

InThePipes wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 10:49 am
j4241 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:49 am
Do you mean the dates of the camps? They look similar to me, at least relative to 2019. Or do you mean announcement dates of invites? If that's the case, then I agree. I assume it is COVID related, and they're still working on confirming camp safety protocols, but you'd think they'd have their act together as it relates to who the right kids are.
Announcement of invites
This was posted on the boys side and provides a little justification for the delay there:

USA Hockey has not provided allocations for the player development camp, thus there will be a delay in posting the camp rosters. Please check back periodically.

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Wed May 05, 2021 4:56 pm

I’m wondering if they’re still evaluating the covid safety protocols, and are thinking about smaller camp sizes than in the past.

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Tue May 11, 2021 12:58 pm

The boys list is out, but the girls’ page still says after June 9. Anyone with info or theories as to why the difference?

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by jg2112 » Wed May 12, 2021 7:01 am

j4241 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:58 pm
The boys list is out, but the girls’ page still says after June 9. Anyone with info or theories as to why the difference?
I don't think all USA Hockey Districts have held their girls' tryout camps. One example - the Southeastern District holds its camp May 21-23, and on its site is this:

.....some players may not be notified until the last of the twelve district tryouts are complete. With the final tryout ending on June 16th and the first National Camp starting on June 24th.....

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Wed May 12, 2021 8:42 am

That is true on the boys side, too (I just looked up one, but the Mass festival is still later in May). Not sure what is going on with the girls...

slowD
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by slowD » Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:12 pm

Well, invites are out... what does everyone think.


j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:04 am

A few sets of observations:

Colleges vs. USA Hockey

2 uncommitted '04s that are '22s at the 18 camp. There are something like 30 Minnesotans committed in the '22 class, so for these two to have been overlooked that many times but have a chance to represent their country is cool - congrats to them! 1F, 1D and 1G uncommitted '22s at the 16/17 camp - hopefully a nice boost to their college efforts, too.

Outliers/birth month effect

At the 18 camp, the '04 invitees include 6 of 9 D that are older half, 6 of 6 F, and 0 of 1 G. USA Hockey appears to write articles about birth month effect but doesn't read them.

Defensive explosion

There are a huge number of D selected to the 18 camp from Minnesota - way more than I expected (12 of what will be 24 spots in total, versus only 10 of 40 forwards). I have to believe this reflects a relatively weak D group nationally. The Minnesota invitees include one or two players I saw routinely beaten in Minnesota high school hockey - I'm not sure how an evaluator sees them as the answer against Canada. Almost all of them skate well, and are inclined to rush the puck. That's a great attribute in a modern D. But several couple that with very high risk decision making and turnover propensities which was amply on display at the Festival and 54s (and at nationals with Vegas).

Uncommitted '23s

Calls start Tuesday, and obviously the 4 '23 D invited to the 18 camp likely got a boost, as did the one uncommitted '23 F (from SSM) and the one goalie. The 16/17 camp invite is not as noteworthy, but the 3 uncommitted '23 D and 12 uncommitted '23 F may get a slight boost. Note every one of the 9 forward invitees to the 16/17 from the '05 group is a '23. There were some awfully good '23s not on these lists, and the separate selections of '04s and '05s from this class make for some shocking side by side comparisons ('04s that didn't make it vs '05s that did). Boerger and Broz, in my opinion, are shocking absences. Those two are among the best centers in the '23 class (arguably after Lindsay), and as Wild fans know all too well, 1Cs don't grow on trees.

Gophers

The U normally has a major tailiwind effect - whether because they select the best, everyone assumes they select the best, or the coaches are deeply involved in USA hockey (or used to be) and bias the selection is a topic for a different day. But there wasn't much of a tailwind this year. Of the 6 (5?) eligible Gophers in the two age groups, only two make the 18 camp, and two make the 16/17. The '04 group includes three kids (of 4) who transferred high schools their junior year, and only one of those three made a camp, and that one made the 16/17. Rumor is the two upcoming Gophers are also transferring next year as juniors. That is a lot of Gophers (looking for a better education? trophy chasing?) transferring high schools (5 of 7 in two years). Given the relative lack of success for the '22 transfers with USA hockey this year, it will be interesting to see if there is an impact on the '23 transfers next year.

Colleges represented at the 18 camp include:

Gophers (x2), MSU (x2), tOSU (x2), UMD, Harvard, Dartmouth, Clarkson, PSU.

Colleges at the 16/17 camp include:

Gophers (x2), Quinnipiac, Yale.

j4241
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: Final 54s and national camp selection conundrum

Post by j4241 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 3:57 pm

My comments reflect my frustration about transfers undermining the spirit of how Minnesota high school hockey should work, in my opinion. I don’t know the specifics of the situations in any of those family’s - I’m sure each has a reasonable basis for the choice they made or are making. My comment is more about a pattern with a common underlying link, Gopher women’s hockey. It is unique to that program, and strange.

Post Reply