I agree it was a fun weekend and some very good hockey was played, but I think next year and beyond they have to change that rule where if your team draws a penalty the other team gets a penalty shot. Last night in a 17 game the refs called at least 10 penalties on Section 6 vs. only 3 or so on Section 4. Most of these came from girls just trying so hard because of what was at stake, not because of rough play or "cheap shots". As a result of the lopsided calls, Section 4 was able to win 5-4 in a shootout after the teams skated a scoreless 5 minute overtime. However Section 4 scored only one goal when it was even strength, vs 3 scored by Section 6. So basically the screwy rule and the refs dictated the outcome of the game, not the play on the ice.
The penalty shot thing might be fun in a scrimmage situation, but this was a tournament where if you lose you are no longer in the Championship bracket. Section 6 did come back today to take 3rd place, beating Section 1 by a 3-1 score. In their 3 games they gave up just 3 goals, not counting the penalty shots.
The new and improved (?) NDP tryouts
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
All good points and that would be an interesting poll to do for those that attended.MNHockeyFan wrote:I agree it was a fun weekend and some very good hockey was played, but I think next year and beyond they have to change that rule where if your team draws a penalty the other team gets a penalty shot. Last night in a 17 game the refs called at least 10 penalties on Section 6 vs. only 3 or so on Section 4. Most of these came from girls just trying so hard because of what was at stake, not because of rough play or "cheap shots". As a result of the lopsided calls, Section 4 was able to win 5-4 in a shootout after the teams skated a scoreless 5 minute overtime. However Section 4 scored only one goal when it was even strength, vs 3 scored by Section 6. So basically the screwy rule and the refs dictated the outcome of the game, not the play on the ice.
The penalty shot thing might be fun in a scrimmage situation, but this was a tournament where if you lose you are no longer in the Championship bracket. Section 6 did come back today to take 3rd place, beating Section 1 by a 3-1 score. In their 3 games they gave up just 3 goals, not counting the penalty shots.
Phase II is a tournament to pick 51 top players in that fashion penalty shot does showcase shooting/scoring, not taking needless penalties and puts a big focus on goalies. They keep penalties so they know who is committing them. At the U16 level it was physical and I thought the only calls made were tripping or hooking in the middle of the ice or in the scoring area around the net - not sure I saw any along the boards. I think you would hate as a team or player to have to serve a penalty and miss any of the action - 4 lines really limited the playing time of forwards.
I am not sure what they do at the U16 and U17 National Camps - maybe penalty shots? Last year at U15 the kids had to serve their penalty - so they sat out. Last summer at U15 Select at Mankato the shooter took off and was chased by both teams and the puck was live if it didn't go in - maybe that would be a format to look at?
[quote="MNHockeyFan"] Most of these came from girls just trying so hard because of what was at stake, not because of rough play or "cheap shots".
??????
The penalty shot thing might be fun in a scrimmage situation, but this was a tournament where if you lose you are no longer in the Championship bracket. quote]
This is how they do it at the National Camp, the intent is to evaluate players.
??????
The penalty shot thing might be fun in a scrimmage situation, but this was a tournament where if you lose you are no longer in the Championship bracket. quote]
This is how they do it at the National Camp, the intent is to evaluate players.
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
-
hshockeyfan91
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 12:25 pm
Penalty Shots and Other commments...
The penalty shots were kind of scary - a team could dominate play for many minutes, and find themselves suddenly behind due to a potentially "bad" call and penalty shot. And it does sound like the sec 6 team kind of got ripped off last night. I didn't see the game - so I don't know for sure - but from the general play I saw over the weekend I agree with the comment that there wasn't really much "cheap" play, but rather girls were working hard, so to have a big difference in number of penalties between two teams seems kind of strange, but like I said, I wasn’t there last night.
That being said, given the alternative, I think the penalty shot rule was the right thing to do, for several reasons. First of all, while it's nice to win, for the purposes of evaluation I don't think any one player is either going to move on or not because their team won or lost a given game. Much more frustrating, esp. with 12 forwards, would be having forwards miss shifts because of penalties. Also, the penalty shots were a great chance for both the shooter and the goalie to make a big play – and that’s what evaluations are all about! That is especially true for goalies on some teams that didn’t give up a lot of shots – in those cases stopping penalty shots were the goalies’ chance to shine.
On a different front I wish icing was eliminated for these games. First of all most girls are not going to ice the puck excessively – I would guess dumping the puck down the ice again and again would not win a player many kudos from the evaluators – much better would be to try to break out by passing or skating – so I don’t think that there would be an excessive amount of icing in these games. Plus, waiving off icing gives the players a chance to show their speed, puck handling, passing etc. The only thing I would do is leave it in the ref’s judgment if he/she felt that there was a really dangerous play developing while chasing the puck, to avoid the kind of situation that Kurtis Foster ran into. I really don’t think that would happen very often though. In any situation where it looked like a dangerous play was developing the whistle could blow and the puck dropped at center ice. Again, the point of these games is not to field a “winning” team but to produce situations that allow kids to showcase their abilities. While getting rid of icing in a “normal” game would probably not be good, in tryout games like these icing is not needed.
Finally, while I really hate the no-touch offsides, I guess it does make people think twice before just flinging the puck in. Still, I’m not so sure that the disruption in flow is worth the benefit. Again – if a player just dumps the puck excessively I don’t think that would be smart in terms of getting positive reviews.
I don’t know – what do you all think – do you think it’s worth tinkering with the rules a little, or just leave it as it is?
That being said, given the alternative, I think the penalty shot rule was the right thing to do, for several reasons. First of all, while it's nice to win, for the purposes of evaluation I don't think any one player is either going to move on or not because their team won or lost a given game. Much more frustrating, esp. with 12 forwards, would be having forwards miss shifts because of penalties. Also, the penalty shots were a great chance for both the shooter and the goalie to make a big play – and that’s what evaluations are all about! That is especially true for goalies on some teams that didn’t give up a lot of shots – in those cases stopping penalty shots were the goalies’ chance to shine.
On a different front I wish icing was eliminated for these games. First of all most girls are not going to ice the puck excessively – I would guess dumping the puck down the ice again and again would not win a player many kudos from the evaluators – much better would be to try to break out by passing or skating – so I don’t think that there would be an excessive amount of icing in these games. Plus, waiving off icing gives the players a chance to show their speed, puck handling, passing etc. The only thing I would do is leave it in the ref’s judgment if he/she felt that there was a really dangerous play developing while chasing the puck, to avoid the kind of situation that Kurtis Foster ran into. I really don’t think that would happen very often though. In any situation where it looked like a dangerous play was developing the whistle could blow and the puck dropped at center ice. Again, the point of these games is not to field a “winning” team but to produce situations that allow kids to showcase their abilities. While getting rid of icing in a “normal” game would probably not be good, in tryout games like these icing is not needed.
Finally, while I really hate the no-touch offsides, I guess it does make people think twice before just flinging the puck in. Still, I’m not so sure that the disruption in flow is worth the benefit. Again – if a player just dumps the puck excessively I don’t think that would be smart in terms of getting positive reviews.
I don’t know – what do you all think – do you think it’s worth tinkering with the rules a little, or just leave it as it is?
http://www.minnesotahockey.org/news/news.asp?ID=145
U16 and U17 Final 54 are up.
Interesting to note Audrey Hamner of Forest Lake is in the U16 group. She broke her arm late in HS season and missed Phase I & II I think.
U16 and U17 Final 54 are up.
Interesting to note Audrey Hamner of Forest Lake is in the U16 group. She broke her arm late in HS season and missed Phase I & II I think.
No question she is a top player and was invited to the USA Hockey Winter Holiday Camp. I just thought she would likely go in as an "At Large" later. Though King and Henning who were Phase III last year also may need to get to NDP that way......though Henning may be trying out in District where Culver Academy is located.Central wrote:Hamner made Phase III last year and then some.... so possibly they do some type of injury hardship deal and move her forward. Don't know.
Good Luck to all the players!
I don't think who wins this tourney is very important and feel that it's only a way to get every section 3 games. I like the penalty shot format and am sure that they take into consideration even strength vs. penalty shot goals.
Remember with 4 lines if someone sits out a penalty girls would be shorted ice time. My only thought is that the player who commits the penalty should have to sit, if 2 penalties rest of the period and 3 penalties the rest of the game. Many times a player committed the penalty was still allowed to take her shift.
As far as Audrey Hammner, she is a very good tough player who made it to the 18's tryout last year and if she can come in and dominate this weekend after sitting out this long probably deserves the spot. I know the parents and am sure they will be nervous letting her play at this level of competition first time back from injury.
Remember with 4 lines if someone sits out a penalty girls would be shorted ice time. My only thought is that the player who commits the penalty should have to sit, if 2 penalties rest of the period and 3 penalties the rest of the game. Many times a player committed the penalty was still allowed to take her shift.
As far as Audrey Hammner, she is a very good tough player who made it to the 18's tryout last year and if she can come in and dominate this weekend after sitting out this long probably deserves the spot. I know the parents and am sure they will be nervous letting her play at this level of competition first time back from injury.
If they would sit out the rest of the game for 3 penalties, then the evaluators wont be able to see them. That would be unfair.Melvin44 wrote:I don't think who wins this tourney is very important and feel that it's only a way to get every section 3 games. I like the penalty shot format and am sure that they take into consideration even strength vs. penalty shot goals.
Remember with 4 lines if someone sits out a penalty girls would be shorted ice time. My only thought is that the player who commits the penalty should have to sit, if 2 penalties rest of the period and 3 penalties the rest of the game. Many times a player committed the penalty was still allowed to take her shift.
As far as Audrey Hammner, she is a very good tough player who made it to the 18's tryout last year and if she can come in and dominate this weekend after sitting out this long probably deserves the spot. I know the parents and am sure they will be nervous letting her play at this level of competition first time back from injury.
post 10301
Special congrats to Molly Arola, Jessica Havel, Morgan Illikainen, Dana Gallop, Sadie Lundquist, and Ashley Stenerson.
Congrats to everyone else as well!
Congrats to everyone else as well!
Yes, some calls are questionable. In my opinion playing 4 lines and 2 - 25 minute periods 3 is to many. I would hope my daughter would be more careful after 2 but of course my daughter would have to commit 5 penalties to sit. (just kidding).
Does your daughter get 3 penalties a game very often?
I'm sorry and take that last statement back.
Does your daughter get 3 penalties a game very often?
I'm sorry and take that last statement back.
-
SEhockeyDAD
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:50 am
New and Improved
Addressing the title of this thread, I'd have to agree that the "new NDP" is indeed an improved process. More time consuming to be sure, but I don't know of a single person who complained about that. It did a great job of including deserving players on a state-wide basis. Also, it just seems like its more of an evaluation process because of its sectional tryouts and tournament format, instead of it being an invitation-only format.
As for the penalty shots, I liked it also, for the reasons hshockeyfan91 explained so well. Evaluation is the goal, not wins. However, I disagree on eliminating icing. I believe they'd quickly figure out that icing it with forwards flying up-ice is too easy for them to not do it all the time. True evaluation needs to include defenders able to start the breakout and play in the neutral zone. Without it, its not the same game.
I'd also mention the outstanding job done by the refs all weekend. I don't know of too many complaints for either too many of too few calls. Maybe its easier when most all the players are concentrating on playing well instead of playing physical, but its worth noting a job well done by the refs.
As for the penalty shots, I liked it also, for the reasons hshockeyfan91 explained so well. Evaluation is the goal, not wins. However, I disagree on eliminating icing. I believe they'd quickly figure out that icing it with forwards flying up-ice is too easy for them to not do it all the time. True evaluation needs to include defenders able to start the breakout and play in the neutral zone. Without it, its not the same game.
I'd also mention the outstanding job done by the refs all weekend. I don't know of too many complaints for either too many of too few calls. Maybe its easier when most all the players are concentrating on playing well instead of playing physical, but its worth noting a job well done by the refs.
-
itsjustasport
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:47 pm
I would have to disagree about it being an "improved" tryout for the girls and must say I heard plenty of complaints this weekend including, but not limited to: tryouts are more diluted this year given the numbers of girls trying out (girls still don't have the numbers or depth as the boys); more time has to be committed this year to the tryout process which makes things difficult for those who do spring sports; more expensive; offensive to charge parents/spectators for the "festival"; poor communication as to tryout particulars; conflict with ACT tests; high school coaches voting/lobbying heavily for their own players; some of the few college coach evaluators that were there have their own interest in the matter as they are recruiting these same girls and have already offered some scholarships; and you never see all of the girls on the ice together so that you can make an apples to apples comparison. Not sure that anything was broke that needed to be fixed in such a drastic fashion.
Those are the concerns that I have heard from a number of people, too. Before I get flamed that those are simply disgruntled parents whose daughters did not make it. It was a mix of parents whose daughters did and did not make it. Don't know what the "correct" answer is but have heard similar concerns as described by "itsjustasport".itsjustasport wrote:I would have to disagree about it being an "improved" tryout for the girls and must say I heard plenty of complaints this weekend including, but not limited to: tryouts are more diluted this year given the numbers of girls trying out (girls still don't have the numbers or depth as the boys); more time has to be committed this year to the tryout process which makes things difficult for those who do spring sports; more expensive; offensive to charge parents/spectators for the "festival"; poor communication as to tryout particulars; conflict with ACT tests; high school coaches voting/lobbying heavily for their own players; some of the few college coach evaluators that were there have their own interest in the matter as they are recruiting these same girls and have already offered some scholarships; and you never see all of the girls on the ice together so that you can make an apples to apples comparison. Not sure that anything was broke that needed to be fixed in such a drastic fashion.
-
hockeyrube7
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:29 pm
One question I'd like to see defined a bit more clearly at the onset is how many positions are all these kids actaully trying out for at each age level. I have no problem with the process. It just seems that several kids make it through no matter how well they try out or not, I have heard several comments on this board of kids that either did not make some or any of the session yet made it through to P3. So in this years version it seems there were really only a few spots that all were trying to get in to. The process is good, and seems to be a great experience over all, would just think things could be more up front.
Regarding reffing, who cares, it is just an evaluation, maybe they should leave the tourney format out of the process, and just play games.
Regarding reffing, who cares, it is just an evaluation, maybe they should leave the tourney format out of the process, and just play games.
-
hockeyfan85
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:09 pm
I think this is going to be a work in progress. People need to be paitient. I think MN hockey is on the right track with giving kids opportunites to showcase their talent. I hope the coaching staffs are attempting to provide some feedback for the players. So even if you don't make it you know what to work on. I also heard one of the evaluators say. If we find 5 kids throughout this process we might not have in the old system. its worth it.
I think at the U15 level 260 kids trying out was probably too many. I know people in District 2 and they said their coaching staffs worked very hard with the kids and took it pretty seriously. They also said teams of 20 were too big and too much to manage.
My first suggestion would be to find a way to subsidize this program. $1,000 is too much to spend for a kid to make it all the way through at the U15 level. Find a sponsor that would be willing to pay for some of this. If USA hockey can sponsor the NDTP program, they can look at this as well.
The talk amongst people in the know is that MN hockey isn't producing the top talent they were 5-6 yeras ago with the Brodts, wendel's, Potters, ect.
They need to find ways to cultivate more talent. HOwever, lets not make the sport a if you can afford it you can have opportunities anymore than it already is.....
just my thoughts.
I think at the U15 level 260 kids trying out was probably too many. I know people in District 2 and they said their coaching staffs worked very hard with the kids and took it pretty seriously. They also said teams of 20 were too big and too much to manage.
My first suggestion would be to find a way to subsidize this program. $1,000 is too much to spend for a kid to make it all the way through at the U15 level. Find a sponsor that would be willing to pay for some of this. If USA hockey can sponsor the NDTP program, they can look at this as well.
The talk amongst people in the know is that MN hockey isn't producing the top talent they were 5-6 yeras ago with the Brodts, wendel's, Potters, ect.
They need to find ways to cultivate more talent. HOwever, lets not make the sport a if you can afford it you can have opportunities anymore than it already is.....
just my thoughts.
-
SEhockeyDAD
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:50 am
New and Improved
I think thats the most important aspect of the new format. As an example, Sara Olson of Dodge County may have had a hard time even getting to phase 1 in the old format, but was given a chance and has earned a spot in phase 2. I also know that evaluators told coaches to put specific line combinations together on Sunday in order to evaluate some on-the-bubble candidates. This was an important message to some girls who knew they played well enough to be considered, even if they didn't quite make it to phase 2.hockeyfan85 wrote:I think this is going to be a work in progress. People need to be paitient. I think MN hockey is on the right track with giving kids opportunites to showcase their talent. I hope the coaching staffs are attempting to provide some feedback for the players. So even if you don't make it you know what to work on. I also heard one of the evaluators say. If we find 5 kids throughout this process we might not have in the old system. its worth it.
I believe there'll be complaints no matter what the system is. Spring sports are a conflict with any kind of spring hockey, there'll be rumors of coaches lobbying no matter the format, and I for one, don't mind the expense. It was well worth the admission price to see that amount of high caliber games we saw. (They've charged for boys before this year, too.) Most important, the best players will still be chosen in the end. There' just a better chance they won't miss any girl worthy of phase 2 or beyond.
-
14all all41
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:52 am
First Impressions
Minnesota Hockey and the MGHCA had an incredible opportunity to make a good first impression. From the irrelevant state tournament cover and letter from Dennis Green to the incomplete and inaccurate rosters, the programs were typical of the last-minute, disorganized flavor of the entire event.
Before you flame on about this being a first attempt, remember that the economy requires parents, kids and college coaches to make sound decisions about their limited resources. Today’s marketplace now offers a multitude of opportunities including prospect camps, tournaments, training clinics, recruiting services, post-secondary play, and more. There is no single, perfect path to the national team.
Looking for college exposure at NDP? Look elsewhere. Very little notice, no scout books, no player info available. A handful of college coaches attended, with relatively no representation from the ivies, the big states, or the tried-and-true Minnesota supporters. For those parents who labored over your kids profile pages, perhaps you can find the circular file they went into, if your section even bothered to collect them.
If you were a boys parent, you suffered even greater disappointment as only a couple of junior team reps bothered to make the trip this year. Perhaps the guys have learned that there are far better ways of creating visibility and judging talent than this process. More than one young participant suggested his 75 bucks would have been better spent on filling his Yukon. As notable as those names who did attend are the many who did not.
Ultimately, this convoluted girls process produced only two section teams out of 16 at Phase 2 from a competitive process. Congrats to Section 5A/AA, especially their 17U team which clearly could have advanced in its entirety. As for the format, the return on investment required more time, more expense and produced virtually the same result as the old process. That hardly qualifies as new or improved by any standard. The level of hockey? Very uneven. No where near the old process. The tempo slower than a typical practice session at many of the local training programs or AAA teams.
AWOL with the college coaches was Minnesota Hockey’s long-standing devotion to the multi-sport athlete. Many young athletes, male and female, risked or gave up spots in baseball, softball, track, golf, tennis, lacrosse and rugby to attend. The tryout date, cost and location varied greatly across sections and districts causing confusion. This confusion and poor communication produced unnecessary headaches and discouraged participation.
Was adding the fresh/soph camp and Juniorfest tryouts to the same weekend a wise idea? Organizers openly discussed the difficulty with evaluating the players at New Hope with those at PIC. Of course, the comment that size was a primary selection criteria turned a few heads too.
One gigantic anchor dragging credibility down? Adding kids back in who missed key tryout portions. It destroys the validity of the process. Filling out rosters with heavy representation from certain schools, often those tied to coaches and general managers is a small-time move. It smacks of favoritism, and yes, even desperation. It does not convey careful thought, extensive preparation and objective evaluation.
If the goal is increased participation at a reasonable cost, schedule the girls event for one weekend at one central location and run open tryouts. Fly the USA Hockey coaches here to serve as real evaluators instead of the heavily-conflict-of-interest ones who quickly volunteer for such duty. Perhaps then Minnesota will return to having more top-ranking players at camp. Note to whoever books the site, avoid any location offering a free electronics recycling drop-off that weekend.
Who was the real winner at the Advanced Tryouts? That’s simple: the Wayzata Youth Hockey Association who openly credited this process as their best annual fundraiser.
Before you flame on about this being a first attempt, remember that the economy requires parents, kids and college coaches to make sound decisions about their limited resources. Today’s marketplace now offers a multitude of opportunities including prospect camps, tournaments, training clinics, recruiting services, post-secondary play, and more. There is no single, perfect path to the national team.
Looking for college exposure at NDP? Look elsewhere. Very little notice, no scout books, no player info available. A handful of college coaches attended, with relatively no representation from the ivies, the big states, or the tried-and-true Minnesota supporters. For those parents who labored over your kids profile pages, perhaps you can find the circular file they went into, if your section even bothered to collect them.
If you were a boys parent, you suffered even greater disappointment as only a couple of junior team reps bothered to make the trip this year. Perhaps the guys have learned that there are far better ways of creating visibility and judging talent than this process. More than one young participant suggested his 75 bucks would have been better spent on filling his Yukon. As notable as those names who did attend are the many who did not.
Ultimately, this convoluted girls process produced only two section teams out of 16 at Phase 2 from a competitive process. Congrats to Section 5A/AA, especially their 17U team which clearly could have advanced in its entirety. As for the format, the return on investment required more time, more expense and produced virtually the same result as the old process. That hardly qualifies as new or improved by any standard. The level of hockey? Very uneven. No where near the old process. The tempo slower than a typical practice session at many of the local training programs or AAA teams.
AWOL with the college coaches was Minnesota Hockey’s long-standing devotion to the multi-sport athlete. Many young athletes, male and female, risked or gave up spots in baseball, softball, track, golf, tennis, lacrosse and rugby to attend. The tryout date, cost and location varied greatly across sections and districts causing confusion. This confusion and poor communication produced unnecessary headaches and discouraged participation.
Was adding the fresh/soph camp and Juniorfest tryouts to the same weekend a wise idea? Organizers openly discussed the difficulty with evaluating the players at New Hope with those at PIC. Of course, the comment that size was a primary selection criteria turned a few heads too.
One gigantic anchor dragging credibility down? Adding kids back in who missed key tryout portions. It destroys the validity of the process. Filling out rosters with heavy representation from certain schools, often those tied to coaches and general managers is a small-time move. It smacks of favoritism, and yes, even desperation. It does not convey careful thought, extensive preparation and objective evaluation.
If the goal is increased participation at a reasonable cost, schedule the girls event for one weekend at one central location and run open tryouts. Fly the USA Hockey coaches here to serve as real evaluators instead of the heavily-conflict-of-interest ones who quickly volunteer for such duty. Perhaps then Minnesota will return to having more top-ranking players at camp. Note to whoever books the site, avoid any location offering a free electronics recycling drop-off that weekend.
Who was the real winner at the Advanced Tryouts? That’s simple: the Wayzata Youth Hockey Association who openly credited this process as their best annual fundraiser.