xwildfan wrote:Another big obstacle to the team game is the quest for scholarships. And unfortunately, the players that get the most attention in this area are the players who put up the most points. Not exactly conducive to team play. Everyone knows of players and parents whose team has won a game but are still unhappy because their child didn't have a big night on the scoresheet.
IMO these two posts are spot on. SSM and the Thoroughbreds, by playing, practicing and training together as a team for an extended season, make everybody on the team better simply because they are a team and play as a team. Same can be said for the higher level Canadian clubs and Eastern preps and clubs. When they enter a tournament or play against a collection of Minnesota high school "elite" players - including the off-season "AAA" teams - they have a decided advantage. The club teams' coaches can rein in any player that tries to "do it all" and reinforce their practiced team systems. The individuals selected to play on the MN "select" team try to impress, as Hux calls it the "showcase element", and right there you know which "team" is going to have the advantage. Hockey is very much a team sport.Hux wrote:One of the keys to the success of these programs is their ability to train, practice and play together for an extended period of time...And as noted, the "showcase" element comes into play with a relatively limited schedule with which to put on a show in the hopes of garnering the coveted D1 ride.
I'm still 100% in favor of the MN high school concept for all of the reasons mentioned. Building "the base of the pyrimad" is the best way to assure long term success to get more girls playing hockey in the first place, which gives as many good athletes as possible to advance to the "elite" level. The astute D1 coaches should be able to sort through all of this and determine which individual players will make their college team the best that they can be.