Young varsity players

[keepitreal]

I found the discussion of 7th and 8th grade varsity players interesting, but the thread was getting hijacked. Curious what others feel about this and how it relates to this particular point in time in the development of the sport-- a situation that doesn't seem to exist with too many other girls varsity sports and almost never with boys varsity. And most importantly, whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.

Give them credit this season, you never know what the next will bring.

This is certainly the case. More than one person I've talked to has made the observation that early varsity placement in girls hockey seems to be a less than reliable predictor of future success and continued development. I suppose this is because a number of factors... the pool of players is comparatively quite small to boys but equity creates a large number of HS programs and opportunities...the proverbial "burnout" factor... some girls maturing to adult physical stature at age 13-14 while others do not until HS...and a curious phenomenon you often see where a young athlete "loses a step" following these physical changes in their early HS years--doesn't happen to all, but some. I'm sure GHS and some of the coaches might have seen this. Ask any varsity cross country or track coach.

I also think there's been a recent era of expolsive growth in girls hockey that has given rise to expanded training and post-season team opportunities...that have given a large number of young underclass players a good deal more hockey skills and preparation than even some of today's HS seniors. This is evaporating quickly, but I know for our local HS team up until last year there were a number of players who hadn't even started playing until 7th grade! Many hang up their skates in February and have never shot a dryland puck on their own. By contrast, with today's middle schoolers, parents have to remain wary of burnout before they even reach the HS team! Has the number of summer AAA teams and off-season opportunities created a monster? Or is it a positive development step for the sport?

You will easily see some girls "come out of nowhere" in HS in the coming years. They might never be considered elite players, but with a degree of motivation and some training, can easily pass by some who used to be considered elite who now survive on reputation. Parents of young developing players will look past "finding a AAA team" and devote their funds to a good skating and/or stickhandling school instead. If a kid chooses to "compete" against themselves in training rather than focusing against other kids in summer games, I believe they will develop a better ability to succeed.

I think this point in time is a growth bubble in girls HS hockey and that 7th and 8th graders on most HS teams will begin to level out or diminish within the next few years. May not be the case in communities where population will continue to necessitate it however.

It's a strange mix of sports, parental egos, affluence and, although some will argue, a fairly low bar that still exists on many HS teams for a middle schooler to be considered valuable to the varsity. Obviouly it's different with every kid. With these conditions, it's very tough for parents to be patient, but thankfully most HS coaches recognize what can be a fragile situation and do a great job of shepherding their young players.

[hshockeyfan91]

I think the significance of where a player is during the winter of her 7th and 8th grade seasons is overrated. I think it's the overall portfolio of activity during the year that matters the most.

In large programs (Edina, Wayzata, etc.) a girl can stay in U12/U14 all the way to ninth grade and get challenged - other strong players as teammates and opponents, and presumably good coaching. In a smaller association that might not be possible. So for a girl in a smaller program going to a Varsity team in order to complete with players who have similar abilities, and usually to have a good coach, is a positive step. However, by the end of the 9th grade season - maybe even earlier - it will have made zero difference whether the girl played youth Association or Varsity in 7th and 8th grade. The only things that will matter are 1) did she have fun - is she still interested in hockey and 2) was there a challenge / growth opportunity on whatever team she played on.

The real differentiating factor, as you [KeepitReal] alluded to, is what happens in the other 9 months of the season. Too much hockey and the kid burns out; not enough and there isn't growth.

Overall, playing Varsity in 7th and 8th grade should be a decision of the kid and the school - if there's a fit, then go for it. I would not be in favor of a ban on younger kids.

[MNHockeyFan]

There is a lot of great points and knowledge expressed in the two posts above. As often is the case in many of these discussions, it really comes down to numbers - in most associations and high schools there simply are not enough girls playing at a very competitive level yet. This results in the smaller programs taking more younger players (7th and 8th graders) than they otherwise would, assuming tryouts are fair and the coaches are taking the best players available. The large programs with many players at each age level do not have to deal with this "problem" (if you want to call it that) as much, and hopefully the girls' game will continue to expand and it will only be the truly exceptional 7th/8th grader making the varsity team - just like in boys' hockey.

In the meantime I also would be opposed to creating and enforcing additional rules that would prevent the good younger player from playing varsity. That decision should be up to the player, her parents and the coach. Eventually the situation will hopefully be resolved on its own without the need to make any rules that would prevent young players being able to choose to play at the level that's best for them.

[GoFigure]

Given the ratio of girl's hockey players to soccer players, you can see why many hockey players make the varsity in 7th or 8th or 9th gade. Look at the youth program and see how many girl's play and it is not always a large number. You might have over a 100 girl's in a single grade playing soccer, softball, etc. and only 15 hockey players. And that is not counting the number of girl's that drop pout because the cost and expense of hockey is just not affordable for many families with multiple children. You need a varsity and junior varsity team, if there are no numbers, they need to come from the younger girl's. Move the girl's up or cut your varisty program. Which seems like a logical explanation? It is never going to be a win win situation in hockey.

[HockeyHuni4321]

I think its great when yougsters play varsity. Even if they don't play as much as they would say on a U12/U14 team, they still learn a lot. The older girls and better talent are motivation for them. They strive to be as good as the upperclassmen and they work really hard. Their faults and skills they need to improve on become more apparent. This helps becase in the off season they can focus on them. It really helps their development. They can come back the next year better, stronger, and improved. If they can play varsity as a borderline player that's great, they're just gonna get better every year.

[Thunderbird77]

MNhockeyfan wrote: In the meantime I also would be opposed to creating and enforcing additional rules that would prevent the good younger player from playing varsity.

Agreed. For their best development, players should play at the level that is at or above where they are currently playing at because this raises their level of play. Go too far above and you will have the opposite effect. It depends on SOS for the varsity team they are looking at and the potential for playing time. It may be better to play U14 and get regular shifts than to play third line varsity on a team that mostly plays only two lines. My daughter's varsity coach gave her some good advice her 8th grade year. "It isn't what you do as an 8th grader that matters, or even what you do as a 9th or 10th grader. Its about how you improve year after year that counts.". This has been a good focus for her to have.

IMO, it is too bad that some areas are too small to be able to offer Varsity and U14. On the flip side, some of the larger schools have made rules prohibiting 8th grade participants because it takes a varsity spot away from a high school student. While this policy makes sense, neither situation is good for individual player development those that have choices should be greatful.

[xk1]

For their best development, players should play at the level that is at or above where they are currently playing

If this is true, who will be left to play at that players the age level? I guess only those at or below the level they are playing.

[NE14HKY]

im going against the norm here. i hope im not DELETED. but im against it. what i here people saying is, there isnt enough girls for varsity sooo move them up. that is in some cities.
i have a neighbor girl next door that is on the U12A here in town. shes played 50+ games this year, and went all over the state to play many different teams. high school is around 25 or so.
now granted there are a few out there that deserve to be there in 7th grade, but not many. again, its only MY OPINION, but i think most 7th and also many 8th graders are just not ready.

[Zamman]

50+ games and all over the state. The parents from that association must have a lot of money to send their kids all over the state....

[ghshockeyfan]

im going against the norm here. i hope im not DELETED. but im against it. what i here people saying is, there isnt enough girls for varsity sooo move them up. that is in some cities.
i have a neighbor girl next door that is on the U12A here in town. shes played 50+ games this year, and went all over the state to play many different teams. high school is around 25 or so.
now granted there are a few out there that deserve to be there in 7th grade, but not many. again, its only MY OPINION, but i think most 7th and also many 8th graders are just not ready.

NE - I don't think it will be deleted. You're most definitely entitled to your opinion. Thank goodness for free speech!

That aside, there is a tough consideration here. If a program has to use 7th & 8th graders year-after-year to sustain a HS program, then I agree with you - that shouldn't be happening. If a program has a low spot #'s wise, then I think it's a different story to ensure that a program continues so that future players have a place to play. Also though, it would help if those 7th/8th graders were very solid - like from a U12A ranked in the top 10 in the state the year prior, and also is important that the coach of such a program with such young players knows how to deal with young players in a program.

That aside, I don't want to get into the number of games, practices, value of ice time, etc. that comes with the HS vs youth argument. This can be argued either way, and contrary to what may seem logical this comparison (youth vs. HS) isn't one that can be done in a general sense. Each community needs to consider the unique opportunities that it can afford and how it can best continue to offer the most opportunities to the most players within its community. This isn't always an easily answered dilemma either might I add! Also, each player must consider the decision and decide what is best for them as well. Are they ready emotionally & physically???

[NE14HKY]

50+ games and all over the state. The parents from that association must have a lot of money to send their kids all over the state....

do ya read LPH. looks to me many teams are all over: lets see centennial in rochester, minnetonka in duluth, lakeville in duluth. just a few i saw. so i dont think it has to do with MY ASSOCIATION. meanwhile back at the ranch, we were talking about young players.

[Zamman]

Taking kids all across the state is one of the reasons associations are failing. Maybe if we decide that it is just as good to keep kids nearer to home and play then running to all four corners of the state, the costs would drop and more kids could stay in the sport. JMO...

[MNHockeyFan]

Taking kids all across the state is one of the reasons associations are failing. Maybe if we decide that it is just as good to keep kids nearer to home and play then running to all four corners of the state, the costs would drop and more kids could stay in the sport. JMO...

Great point. I go back a long ways, but the cost for a kid to play hockey at a "competitive level" has really put a lid on the growth of the sport as a whole. One only has to look at the health of the programs in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, plus the inner suburbs, to figure out that cost is a deal breaker for too many families to even consider hockey as a sport for their kids. Too bad, but I'm afraid that's the situation today.

[pondhockey]

Keep in mind the fact that many communites outside of the metro area don't have close neighbors and some that are close don't even have a girls hockey program. At the youth level it was normal for us to have to drive well over an hour for a section game, and even farther for competitive games. Some day I may share my poem "My Car is My Second Home" with you.

[SportsMa]

Thanks pondhockey for pointing out the nonmetro perspective.

What you describe was similar in our daughter's youth experience and I would guess likely for many non-metro associations. Driving a distance to play is just the way it is.

[ice29]

I agree that it is better to have 7th and some 8th graders play at the Youth level - 12U or 14U. But there are alot of hockey programs that are expanding and getting better. In order to get a respectable Schedule a team has to have a Junior Varsity, that is where a majority of the 7th and 8th graders are playing. That in itself takes alot of players anyway from Youth hockey and in your smaller towns it is a Problem.

note: As-to traveling distances - from my association to the nearest girls or boys program is ; Duluth (1 hr.) Cloquet (11/2hr.) Hibbing (2 hr.) I-Falls (4 hr). This is what parents have had to face for the last 40 yrs, but the program Survives. I don't even want to mention OE

[Zamman]

My point of traveling is more going all around the state. In the metro, why take a team from MPLS and take them all aroun to the four corners of the state. Take them to any of the 7 county area, there are plenty of teams. In th e out state, I understand that you will have to travel to play a team, but why not schedule 3 games or 4 games in one area on a weekend. Iknow it is hard to do that, but costs of hockey are crazy and there are some associations, inner-city, first ring suburbs that are suffering and folding because of the costs.

[ice29]

I AGREE!!!!!!