HP14 / HP15

Discussion of Minnesota Girls Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, karl(east)

Bandy
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:35 pm

Post by Bandy » Fri May 06, 2016 4:53 pm

Mavs wrote:Crazy all the high powered scorers and how hard it it to put the puck in the net with such good D and goalies.
That's been my observation too, and it seems to get harder at the higher levels of competition. Harder at MN Hockey state camp, harder still at national camp. The hockey gets really, really good, and the D & goalies get really, really hard to score on.

Hansonbrother
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:28 pm

Post by Hansonbrother » Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:42 pm

Any reports from St Cloud and U15 HP?? Anyone standing out? Any surprises?

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

Post by Mavs » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:57 am

Hansonbrother wrote:Any reports from St Cloud and U15 HP?? Anyone standing out? Any surprises?
Doesn't appear MN Hockey posts scores for this like they did for the spring festivals

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

Post by Mavs » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:46 pm


zambonidriver
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:25 am

Are the results out from St. Cloud yet?

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:05 pm

zambonidriver wrote:Are the results out from St. Cloud yet?
Seems like the girls take longer to pick. The 16's and 17's seemed to take longer than the boys

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

Post by Mavs » Sun Jun 19, 2016 7:34 pm

16's and 17's were apparently set at MN Hockey but they have to wait for USA Hockey approval and they are super slow for whatever reason

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Sun Jun 19, 2016 8:28 pm

Mavs wrote:16's and 17's were apparently set at MN Hockey but they have to wait for USA Hockey approval and they are super slow for whatever reason
I'm sure 102 15 year old girls who have been checking the website every half hour for that last 3 days won't be any more understanding than the 108 16 and 17 year olds.

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

Post by Mavs » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:53 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
Mavs wrote:16's and 17's were apparently set at MN Hockey but they have to wait for USA Hockey approval and they are super slow for whatever reason
I'm sure 102 15 year old girls who have been checking the website every half hour for that last 3 days won't be any more understanding than the 108 16 and 17 year olds.
Its the classic over promise and under deliver and they seem to do it every time. How about setting expectations that its posted in a week and post it sooner? Seems like MN Hockey and USA Hockey speak different languages

nu2hockey
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:19 pm

Post by nu2hockey » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:15 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
Mavs wrote:16's and 17's were apparently set at MN Hockey but they have to wait for USA Hockey approval and they are super slow for whatever reason
I'm sure 102 15 year old girls who have been checking the website every half hour for that last 3 days won't be any more understanding than the 108 16 and 17 year olds.

With the notification date falling on the weekend (which US Hockey set) I would bet that is part of the delay. That doesn't excuse them, but.....

MN Hockey also shares the blame for the over-long,money-grabbing process. I wish one year that a ground-roots boycott against the MN 15‘s process would take hold, but it will never happen

The kids are being notified by email and phone first before any posting takes place.
I would think that some will make Select 66 ,there were at least 53 of the 60 skater spots filled before this weekend, with a few districts not posted yet

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:09 am

So are they really waiting for USA Hockey, or are they waiting for responses from the kids they've emailed, or both? Do the girls know by default that they were not selected?

C_R
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:02 pm

Post by C_R » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:33 pm


Racki2016
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:36 am

Post by Racki2016 » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:50 pm

Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.

massalsa
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:05 pm

Racki2016 wrote:Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.

I may be mistaken but there have been some significant changes at USA hockey over the past several years regarding MN kids. This has benefitted MN kids and most likely USA hockey as a whole.

I first visited St Cloud Nat camp maybe 4 or 5 years ago to see a friend's kid who was a 16 yo. After the friend (who coached and was very in tune to the talent level of 16/17's) watched the first couple of games he remarked to me how there was probably 20-30 MN kids that he knew of that appeared to be better than kids he saw on the ice. This was thru comparing the MN kids he knew on the ice with kids from all over the US. I believe that USA hockey began to see this as well and changed from totally equal allocations to districts to having more flexible allocations to try to get more of the best kids in the country at a specific age group to Natty Camp.

Remember also that the USA hockey allocations appear to be an upside down funnel of sorts. 204 15's, 204 16/17's at "U-18 Nat Camp" with often more 16's than 17's, and "Select 66" with 66 15/16/17s with only 3 15's last year.

I think the MN allocation for 15's camp was 24 F, 17 D, 2 G. There were 4 "at large" F and 2 "at large" G's. 0 D's.

I am guessing that there are some alternates from MN too but different than last year they did NOT post them.

Last year's list from here:

http://www.ushsho.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34157

There were girls that went to camp last year that I know of that were not on that list of alternates so something else must have happened beyond the listed alternates. Looks like last year there were 22 F, 14 D, 2 G, and a bunch of alternates (at least 9).

massalsa
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:08 pm

Racki2016 wrote:Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.
Here is the list of 16's (both to National U18 & Select 66)

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -selectees

Here are the 17's (both Nat & 66)

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -selectees

Lace'emUp
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:37 am

Post by Lace'emUp » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:31 pm

Racki2016 wrote:Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.
See my April 28th post on this topic. Also see page 5 of the posted USA Hockey Development Guide: http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 1___1_.pdf

Under the U15 portion they state:
USA Hockey has doubled the number of participants at the Girls’ 15 Development Camp to provide development tools to a wider range of players at this age to generate a more skilled and competitive player pool in future years.

The U18 camp doubled in size two years ago from 90 to 180. I do not have a problem with them doubling the size of the camps to give more girls exposure and the experience. However, I would find it hard to believe it will make a difference in who your top players are at the end of camp. As an example, MN is sending 28 forwards for U15. In the past this number would be around 14. Of those top 14, maybe 5-10 will make the Lake Placid Women's National Camp a year or two from now (precursor to making the Under 18 Select and U18 National teams). I would find it hard to believe that any of the bottom 14 forwards selected will make that festival or rosters. So they are there for the experience and exposure, nothing more. Please keep in mind, I know they all are really good players and they all worked hard to get where they are at. But doubling the sizes of the camps will not change the end result.

Racki2016
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:36 am

Post by Racki2016 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:36 pm

Lace'emUp wrote:
Racki2016 wrote:Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.
See my April 28th post on this topic. Also see page 5 of the posted USA Hockey Development Guide: http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 1___1_.pdf

Under the U15 portion they state:
USA Hockey has doubled the number of participants at the Girls’ 15 Development Camp to provide development tools to a wider range of players at this age to generate a more skilled and competitive player pool in future years.


The U18 camp doubled in size two years ago from 90 to 180. I do not have a problem with them doubling the size of the camps to give more girls exposure and the experience. However, I would find it hard to believe it will make a difference in who your top players are at the end of camp. As an example, MN is sending 28 forwards for U15. In the past this number would be around 14. Of those top 14, maybe 5-10 will make the Lake Placid Women's National Camp a year or two from now (precursor to making the Under 18 Select and U18 National teams). I would find it hard to believe that any of the bottom 14 forwards selected will make that festival or rosters. So they are there for the experience and exposure, nothing more. Please keep in mind, I know they all are really good players and they all worked hard to get where they are at. But doubling the sizes of the camps will not change the end result.
True top 15 will still be top 15. Just another money maker. Some girls that will now be attending are JV players on average teams.

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

Post by Mavs » Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:02 am

Racki2016 wrote:
Lace'emUp wrote:
Racki2016 wrote:Holy Crap. Take a few more girls. What happened to the days it meant something to make it to Nat'l Camp. My kids year they took 8 maybe 9 forwards and 6 D.
See my April 28th post on this topic. Also see page 5 of the posted USA Hockey Development Guide: http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/docu ... 1___1_.pdf

Under the U15 portion they state:
USA Hockey has doubled the number of participants at the Girls’ 15 Development Camp to provide development tools to a wider range of players at this age to generate a more skilled and competitive player pool in future years.



The U18 camp doubled in size two years ago from 90 to 180. I do not have a problem with them doubling the size of the camps to give more girls exposure and the experience. However, I would find it hard to believe it will make a difference in who your top players are at the end of camp. As an example, MN is sending 28 forwards for U15. In the past this number would be around 14. Of those top 14, maybe 5-10 will make the Lake Placid Women's National Camp a year or two from now (precursor to making the Under 18 Select and U18 National teams). I would find it hard to believe that any of the bottom 14 forwards selected will make that festival or rosters. So they are there for the experience and exposure, nothing more. Please keep in mind, I know they all are really good players and they all worked hard to get where they are at. But doubling the sizes of the camps will not change the end result.
True top 15 will still be top 15. Just another money maker. Some girls that will now be attending are JV players on average teams.


I have no idea who that would be but there will be top 6 forwards from good teams like Cretin x2, Burnsville, Stillwater, Brainerd and St. Paul united that did not make it, among others. One will be playing her 3rd year of varsity this winter for a team that lost in the state championship game yet didn't make the national camp. Not sure who the JV for average team kid/s would be???

The talent is SO much deeper than it was even 10 years ago. The difference between the best player on the ice and the worst player on the ice in St. Cloud was very small.

massalsa
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:37 pm

Post by massalsa » Fri Jun 24, 2016 3:17 pm

Racki2016 wrote:
True top 15 will still be top 15. Just another money maker. Some girls that will now be attending are JV players on average teams.
Not true last year and not true this year. Do not think it will be true next year either.

Look at the list who made it and those who did not.

I saw a handful of games in St Cloud and I would say that there were a couple of kids on each team that stood out in each game I saw. On the other hand there were kids I thought could have been more dominating if they had been put on a line with another strong player or two. Lots of missed opportunities from kids to receive passes moving forward across ice that kids who were carrying the puck with their heads down never saw.

Heard that many goals in games were scored when 2 or 3 strong players were on the same line. Also interesting that the MN Hockey did NOT post offensive statistics from the games, only the final scores. There were kids that I saw play that had multiple goals/points that did not make the National Camp list.

titleist
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:12 am

Post by titleist » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:16 am

massalsa wrote:
Racki2016 wrote:
True top 15 will still be top 15. Just another money maker. Some girls that will now be attending are JV players on average teams.
Not true last year and not true this year. Do not think it will be true next year either.

Look at the list who made it and those who did not.

I saw a handful of games in St Cloud and I would say that there were a couple of kids on each team that stood out in each game I saw. On the other hand there were kids I thought could have been more dominating if they had been put on a line with another strong player or two. Lots of missed opportunities from kids to receive passes moving forward across ice that kids who were carrying the puck with their heads down never saw.

Heard that many goals in games were scored when 2 or 3 strong players were on the same line. Also interesting that the MN Hockey did NOT post offensive statistics from the games, only the final scores. There were kids that I saw play that had multiple goals/points that did not make the National Camp list.
I too thought this number of kids taken is inflated. I also watched a few of the games in St Cloud and it was clear to me that there are way too many D taken to National Camp. The forwards that are taken are pretty close to true, (I felt that there is a bubble of a few taken and a few cut that are the same player, different number) and quality goaltending was scarce. I think they got that right too...from what I could see. But the Defense was far to generous in their takes for camp.

zambonidriver
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:47 am


nu2hockey
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:19 pm

Post by nu2hockey » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:50 pm

It does appear that 28 F plus 17 D out 216 players seems somewhat inflated,however, Mn placed 63 players out of a possible 246 in the U18 national camps(U18 national plus U18 Select 66). That is a larger percentage than the 01's.( leaving out goalies for all of the groups)

Fyi there were 2 players added to the Select 66:
Tina Kampa D 1999 Maple Grove
Sadie Peart F 2000 GR/G



A few players added for the U18 camp:

00's
Erin Olson F Lkvl N
Aliyah Lance F Edina

99's
Kalli Prekker D Maple Grove
Olivia Konigson D Stillwater
McKenzie Revering D Alexandria
Morgan Helgeson F BE
Reily Springman F ER/Z

CONGRATS to these players!

Also expect a few names will be added for the 01's

InigoMontoya
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:36 pm

Post by InigoMontoya » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:29 am

seems somewhat inflated
And every year the stories from kids returning from national camp, both boys and girls, include comments about how many of the kids that were not selected were better than most of the kids attending the camp from other USAH districts.

zambonidriver
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:31 am

Post by zambonidriver » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:38 am

InigoMontoya wrote:
seems somewhat inflated
And every year the stories from kids returning from national camp, both boys and girls, include comments about how many of the kids that were not selected were better than most of the kids attending the camp from other USAH districts.
interesting comment. We just returned from the CanAm U 14 camp in NY. There were 5 MN girls there and they were easily the best players on the rink.

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

Post by Mavs » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:44 am

zambonidriver wrote:
InigoMontoya wrote:
seems somewhat inflated
And every year the stories from kids returning from national camp, both boys and girls, include comments about how many of the kids that were not selected were better than most of the kids attending the camp from other USAH districts.
interesting comment. We just returned from the CanAm U 14 camp in NY. There were 5 MN girls there and they were easily the best players on the rink.
I think the MN teams in the National Championship this year erased all doubt. If they truly took the top 102 (or whatever the number is) at a given birth year I would expect 60+ to be from MN. The 40 that they take still allows for a lot of kids (which is fine) from other states that are not even close to MN kids that didn't make it.

Post Reply