u 14- or high school?

Discussion of Minnesota Girls Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:42 am

jg2112 wrote:Bantams is your daughter's best option if you're concerned about quality of play.

She has a pretty clear path to the varsity when she's a 9th grader. I certainly wouldn't transfer out of where you have her now.
Agreed, love where we are at just the small association. Association girls are an afterthought like most associations.

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

Post by jg2112 » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:23 am

Agreed. That's why my daughter is playing another Choice League season this fall.

At least our girls get the attention they deserve in the spring / summer.

MN_Bowhunter
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:08 am

Post by MN_Bowhunter » Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:18 pm

Bantam boys are idiots on the ice, I would be very concerned about 170 pound kids putting my 120 pound daughter through the back of the net. Coach tells the kids they need to go hard to the net and the kids hear "go knock that goalie on her ass". One bad concussion can end a season or career.

Other than that the level of play would be better than JV girls or U14.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:19 pm

MN_Bowhunter wrote:Bantam boys are idiots on the ice, I would be very concerned about 170 pound kids putting my 120 pound daughter through the back of the net. Coach tells the kids they need to go hard to the net and the kids hear "go knock that goalie on her ass". One bad concussion can end a season or career.

Other than that the level of play would be better than JV girls or U14.
I am not going to wrap her in bubble wrap. Just because she is a girl.

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

Post by jg2112 » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:27 pm

I know Hill-Murray is an outlier, but their goalies, over 25 games, only saw 12 shots per game while going 22-3. If your daughter is the goalie for a very good JV team, it's mostly a waste of time if she's looking for competition.

MN_Bowhunter
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:08 am

Post by MN_Bowhunter » Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:36 pm

zambonidriver wrote:
MN_Bowhunter wrote:Bantam boys are idiots on the ice, I would be very concerned about 170 pound kids putting my 120 pound daughter through the back of the net. Coach tells the kids they need to go hard to the net and the kids hear "go knock that goalie on her ass". One bad concussion can end a season or career.

Other than that the level of play would be better than JV girls or U14.
I am not going to wrap her in bubble wrap. Just because she is a girl.
I don't see how choosing to not put Peewee Herman in the ring with Mike Tyson equates to "wrapping in bubble wrap", but it's your daughter. Who, by the way, has many years left to develop, mature, and decide who and what she wants to be.

If my daughter didn't have an opinion on where she wanted to play, the most dangerous option would be at the bottom of MY list.

hockeywild7
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:20 am

Post by hockeywild7 » Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:32 pm

Oh, the good ole days. Is this what all players go through now or is this an exception? Is it where you play that determines your future successes? Does the "development" of the player also rely on this? I believe my kids got to the level they did because of a great work ethic and desire to be good. Funny that all I hear them talk about now is the fun times they had on road trips and team functions off the ice. A lot of sacrifice but all of this while working with great friends who to this day hang out and have fun. If your daughter is lucky and fortunate enough she will get another 9 years of hockey in her life and at the ripe old age of 21 she will join the rest of us and start a career and play late night pick-up hockey.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:49 am

Is this what all players go through now
Some may even parlay the 8th grade year on a local varsity team into a 'juniors' season of sorts, where they can be scouted by bigger, better, (maybe privater) schools - then transfer in without having to play JV.

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

Post by jg2112 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:03 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
Is this what all players go through now
Some may even parlay the 8th grade year on a local varsity team into a 'juniors' season of sorts, where they can be scouted by bigger, better, (maybe privater) schools - then transfer in without having to play JV.
I know of one girl who did precisely this in the Suburban East conference, after giving assurances to the Varsity coach she would not do so.

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

Post by Mavs » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:12 pm

jg2112 wrote:Bantams is your daughter's best option if you're concerned about quality of play.

She has a pretty clear path to the varsity when she's a 9th grader. I certainly wouldn't transfer out of where you have her now.
Is this HM or Cretin? (maybe its St Paul United) How do you ever know the depth chart in advance when kids come from all over? You can't just look at the U12 or U14 team to see the next wave.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:30 pm

Mavs wrote:
jg2112 wrote:Bantams is your daughter's best option if you're concerned about quality of play.

She has a pretty clear path to the varsity when she's a 9th grader. I certainly wouldn't transfer out of where you have her now.
Is this HM or Cretin? (maybe its St Paul United) How do you ever know the depth chart in advance when kids come from all over? You can't just look at the U12 or U14 team to see the next wave.
Not to worried about 9th grade if she continues to develop she will beat out all comers. More worried about development next year one year at at time

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:47 am

One thing is for sure, her dad doesn't lack confidence. If she is truly that good, then it seems like a slam dunk to me. I assume there is a senior goalie on varsity that will vacate next year. If your kid is #2 walking in, she'll likely get the lion's share of JV games and a few varsity games here and there - probably as many games as she'd get at 14U, if there are two, and especially if there are 3 goalies. She starts STP next summer as king of the hill, daring the rest to knock her off.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:11 am

InigoMontoya wrote:One thing is for sure, her dad doesn't lack confidence. If she is truly that good, then it seems like a slam dunk to me. I assume there is a senior goalie on varsity that will vacate next year. If your kid is #2 walking in, she'll likely get the lion's share of JV games and a few varsity games here and there - probably as many games as she'd get at 14U, if there are two, and especially if there are 3 goalies. She starts STP next summer as king of the hill, daring the rest to knock her off.
I have coached and taught for a long time. Over the years I have learned that no one should ever apologize for being good. That said don't be a braggart or arrogant. We have been told by experts we trust that she should play either boys or Varsity nothing else. The hard part is you can't wave a magic wand and make it happen. I have reached out to a couple of people on the boys side of our association about her trying out and have not received a reply so their silence sends a pretty good message. She trains with boys and is better than most boys she trains with but when you put evaluators in the mix biases do show themselves. Just the system we are in. Choice league might be an option also. problem is it is late June and we have to figure it out soon.

hockeywild7
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:20 am

Post by hockeywild7 » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:07 am

So why would a boys program want to develop a female goalie for the girls program over their current goalies? Doubt any boys HS coach that is fed by that hockey association would approve of that. Maybe an association that lacks goalies on the boys side, otherwise it doesn't make sense for them to do this.

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1716
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:46 am

So why would a boys program want to develop a female goalie for the girls program over their current goalies?
I don't think there is a St Paul Capitals Boys Hockey Association and a St Paul Capitals Girls Hockey Association, so theoretically the development of each of the players should be equal, eh?

Doubt any boys HS coach that is fed by that hockey association would approve of that.
That's probably true. Some would say irrelevant, though.


My question would be, didn't the Peewee A team just win the state championship? I'm guessing the goalie(s) didn't suck.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:51 am

hockeywild7 wrote:So why would a boys program want to develop a female goalie for the girls program over their current goalies? Doubt any boys HS coach that is fed by that hockey association would approve of that. Maybe an association that lacks goalies on the boys side, otherwise it doesn't make sense for them to do this.
It is done all over the twin cities, Andover, Elk River, Armstrong Cooper, Lakeville North to name a few.

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

Post by jg2112 » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:52 am

hockeywild7 wrote:So why would a boys program want to develop a female goalie for the girls program over their current goalies? Doubt any boys HS coach that is fed by that hockey association would approve of that. Maybe an association that lacks goalies on the boys side, otherwise it doesn't make sense for them to do this.
Andover's boys' teams didn't seem to mind winning state titles with Maddie Rooney in net. And....it ended up that Rooney almost helped the boys' varsity team to state this past year.

Further, St. Paul's U12A team went to state last year with the discussed goalie in net.

If an association exists to give its players the best chance to succeed in the right place, then this goalie should play Bantams next year if she's not playing varsity girls.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:56 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
So why would a boys program want to develop a female goalie for the girls program over their current goalies?
I don't think there is a St Paul Capitals Boys Hockey Association and a St Paul Capitals Girls Hockey Association, so theoretically the development of each of the players should be equal, eh?

Doubt any boys HS coach that is fed by that hockey association would approve of that.
That's probably true. Some would say irrelevant, though.


My question would be, didn't the Peewee A team just win the state championship? I'm guessing the goalie(s) didn't suck.
No, One goalie per team at peewee's One goalie per team at Bantam's last year. The peewee team was just average until they got Gleason back.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:12 pm

I guess the problem can be brought right back to the perception that what sex you are born either limits your opportunities or not. All change is not bad women now are fighter pilots and firemen, jobs until just a short time ago were male only jobs. We have to be willing to put our male ego's aside and not only accept change embrace it. The greatest female hockey player in the sport played boys until she went to varsity. She played peewee's and bantams when you could hit in both. The Idea of associations should be to develop players for both the boys and girls side equally. If a girl is a standout player and needs to play boys she should be welcomed with open arms and be praised for having the courage to tryout. She should then be judged on her ability not by her sex.
Granted I am biased, whether a girl plays on the boys or girls side the development should be equal. I have always argued that boys and girls should play together through bantams for the best possible development. Then the boys and girls would be used to playing with each other all the way up and you would produce well developed boys and girls players. It would never fly because it makes to much sense.

yolo
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:34 pm

Post by yolo » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:46 pm

JG,

Andover has not won any youth state title's. Their Boys HS team also lost in the first round of sections last year. Not sure how that would qualify as almost getting to the state tournament. No doubt their goalie was a bright spot on their team.

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

Post by jg2112 » Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:50 pm

yolo wrote:JG,

Andover has not won any youth state title's. Their Boys HS team also lost in the first round of sections last year. Not sure how that would qualify as almost getting to the state tournament. No doubt their goalie was a bright spot on their team.
I've been lied to!!!

Oh well.

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

Post by Mavs » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:21 am

zambonidriver wrote:I guess the problem can be brought right back to the perception that what sex you are born either limits your opportunities or not. All change is not bad women now are fighter pilots and firemen, jobs until just a short time ago were male only jobs. We have to be willing to put our male ego's aside and not only accept change embrace it. The greatest female hockey player in the sport played boys until she went to varsity. She played peewee's and bantams when you could hit in both. The Idea of associations should be to develop players for both the boys and girls side equally. If a girl is a standout player and needs to play boys she should be welcomed with open arms and be praised for having the courage to tryout. She should then be judged on her ability not by her sex.
Granted I am biased, whether a girl plays on the boys or girls side the development should be equal. I have always argued that boys and girls should play together through bantams for the best possible development. Then the boys and girls would be used to playing with each other all the way up and you would produce well developed boys and girls players. It would never fly because it makes to much sense.
Do the boys get the opportunity to play girls or are their opportunities limited?

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:42 am

In almost all instances U14 is a better choice. In ideal situations HS hockey starts in 10th grade.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:47 am

Mavs wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:I guess the problem can be brought right back to the perception that what sex you are born either limits your opportunities or not. All change is not bad women now are fighter pilots and firemen, jobs until just a short time ago were male only jobs. We have to be willing to put our male ego's aside and not only accept change embrace it. The greatest female hockey player in the sport played boys until she went to varsity. She played peewee's and bantams when you could hit in both. The Idea of associations should be to develop players for both the boys and girls side equally. If a girl is a standout player and needs to play boys she should be welcomed with open arms and be praised for having the courage to tryout. She should then be judged on her ability not by her sex.
Granted I am biased, whether a girl plays on the boys or girls side the development should be equal. I have always argued that boys and girls should play together through bantams for the best possible development. Then the boys and girls would be used to playing with each other all the way up and you would produce well developed boys and girls players. It would never fly because it makes to much sense.
Do the boys get the opportunity to play girls or are their opportunities limited?
Come on Mavs you are more intelligent than this you know what I was saying. Combine boys and girls develop all of them at the same rate then numbers are not that important.

zambonidriver
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:49 am

observer wrote:In almost all instances U14 is a better choice. In ideal situations HS hockey starts in 10th grade.
For boys yes look at the u14 numbers you have almost no b teams and all the really good players are playing high school. Some high schools are dipping into 7th grade (HM)

Post Reply