Div 1 2009-10 recruits

[itsjustasport]

There are quite a few commitments--it's just that the girls in this class aren't into self-promotion, which is admirable.

[ghshockeyfan]

There are quite a few commitments--it's just that the girls in this class aren't into self-promotion, which is admirable.

I don't believe that girls in the other classes were into self promotion.

[itsjustasport]

Correction . . . the girls in this class, and their parents, for the most part are not into self promotion. I have been watching many of the comments regarding the next group coming up and know that it is many of these parents out there tooting the horns of their daughters as being the strongest group ever. Why don't they just enjoy their daughter's successes and what and see what time will bring. The group of girls this year are a special group and really support one another and aren't all into the competitiveness and cockiness that we have seen in some other years.

[Central]

Important distinction in that it is typically the parents or some relatives, not the players, doing the bragging any given year!!!

[brookyone]

Who is it exactly that associates releasing news or information regarding commitments with bragging or cockiness? I'm not getting the connection, nor have I ever noticed any implication of those negative attributes being present in any past disclosure of commitment.

[rinkrat90]

Haven't really noticed any bragging about players committing. Pretty much just info of where the players are going. Typically if a player is good enough to get a D1 scholarship, no bragging by anyone is necessary.

[Central]

Just to clarify my comment about bragging was a general statement not specific to committments and was directed at it is typically not players that are commenting about their own abilities (I don't think). It always gets interesting on a forum if you do bring up a player as standing out.... others refer to the poster that you are a relative or a boy looking for a date or something, too. IDK. It is what it is... a hockey forum filled with varied opinions and points of view!

I very much agree with committments typically it is something like "player Z is committing to U of Hockey" and sometimes a comment with a wish of good luck and looking forward to seeing them play at the next level.

Personally, looking forward to hearing where some of this year's seniors are heading and then following them at the next level!

[Melvin44]

I also agree anyone going D1 or D3 are not bragging and should be very proud of themselves as it takes a lot of hard work and dedication. at least the parents of these girls are allowing us to know who they are. Players making it to the next level is what I want to read about.

[zamboni99]

just wondering if anyone heard anything new? any new girls sign anywhere lately?

[Hux]

just wondering if anyone heard anything new? any new girls sign anywhere lately?

There won't be any signings until December at the earliest, though there should be a rise in "commitments" starting within the next 30-45 days. Looks like it will be slower than last year for Minnesota though, with no local players that are college eligible on the U18 roster.

[joehockey]

The U18 team is very interesting (and Hux says will effect MN signings):

- 10 of the 34 girls in the U17 camp all star game were from MN
- 12 of the 34 girls in the U15 & U16 camp all star game were from MN

There is only one going to the U18 team camp and Ms. McDonald is a class of 2010. The make up of the team/camp is girls playing at the Hockey Academies and playing U19AAA Junior Hockey - is this the future of girls hockey to get to D1 and will it give a rebirth to the Thoroughbreds or have more girls leave MN to play eslewhere in the major Junior Leagues or Academies to prepare for D1? Or is there something different that needs to happen in MN?

[finance_gal]

We just returned yesterday from talking with Coach Giles at the Ontario Hockey Academy and were convinced that the future for the premier hockey player is with outfits like these. A Minnesota high school program can’t offer a dedicated player the training, ice time, and competition that the Academy’s can offer. In no way is it the best choice for most girls but for the premier player who has College, and Olympic ambitions I see it as becoming more of the rule rather than the exception. College Coaches also see this and that is why the U18 team’s make up is what it is.

[hockeywild7]

I think what most girls realize is their hockey careers after high school will be short no matter where or what they do. A select few can play Division I or III college hockey and only an extremely small percentage of those will even have an opportunity to play after college as there are not many places to go. I think you have to understand it from the players persepective. Most of these high school players do more than just play hockey. As a father of teenagers I want them to look 5-10 years ahead and see where they want to be and usually the only reference to hockey will be as a coach.

[MNHockeyFan]

We just returned yesterday from talking with Coach Giles at the Ontario Hockey Academy and were convinced that the future for the premier hockey player is with outfits like these. A Minnesota high school program can’t offer a dedicated player the training, ice time, and competition that the Academy’s can offer. In no way is it the best choice for most girls but for the premier player who has College, and Olympic ambitions I see it as becoming more of the rule rather than the exception. College Coaches also see this and that is why the U18 team’s make up is what it is.

A couple of observations on this.

First, just last year there were over 30 girls from Minnesota high schools who were awarded D1 scholarships. This year, that number will obviously be less, but does one year make a trend? I think you have to conclude that last year was an exceptional class; this year's is probably below average in terms of exceptional players. We'll see what the next few years bring.

Second, for many "dedicated players" hockey is pretty much a year-round sport. The high school season takes up, at most, one third of the year. With so many off-season options open to players, including training like Os, CODP, and all kinds of specialized shooting/skating/goaltending instruction, etc., how much does a dedicated player "lose" by choosing to play for her high school? I suppose much depends on:

A. The quality of coaching she receives
B. The talent level of her teammates that she is practicing against everyday in practice
C. The quality of competition she plays against in most games, and
D. Perhaps most important, how much individual motivation and drive the player has to improve her skills, strength and conditioning even if the above three are not ideal. Many excellent players have developed and come from schools that aren't known to be traditional girls hockey powers.

Again I hope the relative lack of success that this year's class has had at the national level is more of an anomoly than a trend. For the above reasons I suspect that this might be the case, but as they say, only time will tell.

[finance_gal]

We just returned yesterday from talking with Coach Giles at the Ontario Hockey Academy and were convinced that the future for the premier hockey player is with outfits like these. A Minnesota high school program can’t offer a dedicated player the training, ice time, and competition that the Academy’s can offer. In no way is it the best choice for most girls but for the premier player who has College, and Olympic ambitions I see it as becoming more of the rule rather than the exception. College Coaches also see this and that is why the U18 team’s make up is what it is.

A couple of observations on this.

First, just last year there were over 30 girls from Minnesota high schools who were awarded D1 scholarships. This year, that number will obviously be less, but does one year make a trend? I think you have to conclude that last year was an exceptional class; this year's is probably below average in terms of exceptional players. We'll see what the next few years bring.

Second, for many "dedicated players" hockey is pretty much a year-round sport. The high school season takes up, at most, one third of the year. With so many off-season options open to players, including training like Os, CODP, and all kinds of specialized shooting/skating/goaltending instruction, etc., how much does a dedicated player "lose" by choosing to play for her high school? I suppose much depends on:

A. The quality of coaching she receives
B. The talent level of her teammates that she is practicing against everyday in practice
C. The quality of competition she plays against in most games, and
D. Perhaps most important, how much individual motivation and drive the player has to improve her skills, strength and conditioning even if the above three are not ideal. Many excellent players have developed and come from schools that aren't known to be traditional girls hockey powers.

Again I hope the relative lack of success that this year's class has had at the national level is more of an anomoly than a trend. For the above reasons I suspect that this might be the case, but as they say, only time will tell.

You make a very good point and of the things you listed A, B and C go to the Hockey Academy experiance hands down, but the true difference maker will always be D the inner motivation of the player and it just seems that the highly motivated players are being successfully recruited by the Hockey academy's of the world.

[keepitreal]

... it just seems that the highly motivated parents are being successfully recruited by the Hockey academy's of the world.

fixed.

[finance_gal]

... it just seems that the highly motivated parents are being successfully recruited by the Hockey academy's of the world.

fixed.

hahahaha, that also is true to a certain extent, we went out there because it was a free trip to Cornwall, Ontario. and it was kind of scary at how motivated the kids have to be to succed in hockey because it's all hockey all the time there. If you want a well rounded kid I wouldn't recommend it,

[Hux]

First, just last year there were over 30 girls from Minnesota high schools who were awarded D1 scholarships. This year, that number will obviously be less, but does one year make a trend? I think you have to conclude that last year was an exceptional class; this year's is probably below average in terms of exceptional players. We'll see what the next few years bring.

Second, for many "dedicated players" hockey is pretty much a year-round sport. The high school season takes up, at most, one third of the year. With so many off-season options open to players, including training like Os, CODP, and all kinds of specialized shooting/skating/goaltending instruction, etc., how much does a dedicated player "lose" by choosing to play for her high school? I suppose much depends on:

A. The quality of coaching she receives
B. The talent level of her teammates that she is practicing against everyday in practice
C. The quality of competition she plays against in most games, and
D. Perhaps most important, how much individual motivation and drive the player has to improve her skills, strength and conditioning even if the above three are not ideal. Many excellent players have developed and come from schools that aren't known to be traditional girls hockey powers.

Again I hope the relative lack of success that this year's class has had at the national level is more of an anomoly than a trend. For the above reasons I suspect that this might be the case, but as they say, only time will tell.

To be honest, I am rather surprised that only one player, and an underclassman at that, made the U18s. I think this most certainly is an anomaly, especially given the typical number of D1 players (approx 30) that come out of Minnesota each year. Obviously there is a lot of talent in your neck of the woods, but it would be interesting to see how many of the Minnesota girls who attended the NDCs came through CODP or similar S&C program, and whether the strength and conditioning testing played as big a role in the selection process for the U18s as it appeared to last year.

[Whatthe]

and whether the strength and conditioning testing played as big a role in the selection process for the U18s as it appeared to last year.

Can you provide any details on what strength and conditioning tests are used?

[keepitreal]

In all seriousness though, the results of the U18 selection will certainly renew debate about the Minnesota high school girls system to produce the types of players they are looking for at the national level. However, most hockey minds will agree the scope of this discussion extends far earlier than high school. And we need to keep in perspective the handful of players we are talking about here. I don't believe the goal of the MSHSL is to produce a very small number of national/Olympic caliber athletes.

Perhaps this is an "off year" at the 91 level, but the Minnesota 92's and 93's have been discussed as being deep classes for talent. While they will have another shot (or two) at this, the lack of representation here is alarming. We'll see. By this, the MWEHL seems to be the road to take for the truly elite player, by all accounts, a road that starts far earlier than freshman HS year.

Congrats to Ms. McDonald on her well-earned recognition!

[keepitreal]

The U18 team is very interesting (and Hux says will effect MN signings):

- 10 of the 34 girls in the U17 camp all star game were from MN
- 12 of the 34 girls in the U15 & U16 camp all star game were from MN

There is only one going to the U18 team camp and Ms. McDonald is a class of 2010. The make up of the team/camp is girls playing at the Hockey Academies and playing U19AAA Junior Hockey - is this the future of girls hockey to get to D1 and will it give a rebirth to the Thoroughbreds or have more girls leave MN to play eslewhere in the major Junior Leagues or Academies to prepare for D1? Or is there something different that needs to happen in MN?

It's very easy to draw that conclusion. What will be interesting to watch now is the response of Minnesota Hockey to this development.

[Hux]

and whether the strength and conditioning testing played as big a role in the selection process for the U18s as it appeared to last year.

Can you provide any details on what strength and conditioning tests are used?

Pretty intensive on ice skating drills for time and conditioning, and a number of standard benchmarks for strength off ice such as vertical and horizontal leap (including single and both legs) pull-ups, dead lift and some others. This is one of the reasons there were limited numbers of games, as they spent more time working on off-ice training and testing.

[hshockeyfan91]

Interesting observations this morning, but to me it seems like people are jumping to conclusions really fast based primarily on selection to one team. I would like to make a couple of points:

First, there are a number of senior girls who have made commitments already, most of whom have not yet been named on this forum. Many others are having discussions with various colleges. Will there be 30 MN DI girls when this is all said and done? I would bet that there will be roughly that number of Minnesota girls playing DI hockey as Freshman in a year. Just as a point of comparison - go back three years - can anyone tell us how many 2005 graduates were committed to any school at this time (early Aug)? My recollection is that it was less than this year - in other words most players committed after taking official visits to multiple schools in the fall. Why should we say that Minnesota girls are falling behind in commitments when we're expecting a rate much faster than in previous years?

Second, the fact that 22 / 68 all star game girls (33%) were from Minnesota says that Minnesota girls do compare very favorably across the nation. In addition, there were HIGHLY capable MN girls who did not make the all-star teams, and even ones that didn't make the national camps at all would have looked very good out there, had Minnesota been allowed to bring more kids.

I would say that there are not "Natalie D / Krissy W" type players in this senior class, but frankly I don't think there are many of them around at any level or any geography. This is partially because those two (and possibly others in the past) are uniquely gifted / motivated, but also, more significantly, the world has changed and there are many, many excellent players today - i.e the pool is deeper and more consistent - fewer kids stand out head and shoulders above everyone.

There have been a lot of discussions on this forum about whether the new format of the national camps was good or bad. I think there was a little of both, but the bottom line is that by the time the girls played the games EVERYONE was tired. While there was still a lot of skill displayed, these were not "crisp", well played scrimmages. And while the skill development was really good - it wasn't really much of a differentiator - almost all of the girls looked good in drills - yeah there was some difference, but not tons - not enough to make the final determination on who did or didn't make the U18 team. So, in the absence of significant differentiators during most of the week, and the "I'm trying my hardest, but my body is tired" effort at the end of the week, and the fact that there are MANY very good girls across the country, with minimal differences between them - I think the final "tie-breakers" (for lack of a better term) came down to non-camp successes. Minnesota girls, with their lack of national competition during the winter, had less opportunity to win those tie-breakers.

Again, while I'm not saying that the camps should change back away from heavily skill / drill orientations, I do think that as long as they are structured in that format that the tie-breakers for the U18 team will work against Minnesota girls. Do colleges have 2.5 to 3 hours of ice and stretching, weights, etc. day after day and then play games on days that that there are still strenuous practices? Do we do this in the Olympics? Obviously college players / national team members work hard and do have lots of ice and dryland activities, but not piled on top of "key" game days. To evaluate girls at the end of the week minimizes the differences and makes "game" evaluations tougher.

I don't envy the evaluators - they easily could have picked a second whole team that would have been virtually as good as the team they picked. Does that mean they were wrong? No - not at all. It means that there are many very good, and few outstanding, players. It means girls hockey is starting to evolve and develop depth - it's a good thing for girls hockey overall.

I think it will be really interesting to look back at this discussion on Minnesota senior girls in two or three years. The advantages / disadvantages of high school play will dissipate as these girls play in the same format as others across the country while in college. I think we'll see a large number of these Minnesota girls excelling at the DI level, and a significant number of them on the U22 roster. The lack more than one Minnesota girl on the U18 roster doesn't tell me that SKILL is down; rather it tells me that opportunity is tougher - that national camp play is not the same barometer for U18 team selection as it was in the past.

[brookyone]

I think what most girls realize is their hockey careers after high school will be short no matter where or what they do. A select few can play Division I or III college hockey and only an extremely small percentage of those will even have an opportunity to play after college as there are not many places to go.

This is precisely why I am, and will always be a big fan of MSHSL girls hockey...because there should always be a place for every girl to play the game regardless of whether they plan on playing collegiate hockey...or are gifted enough to do so. What, to that end, is better than playing for your high school?

I wouldn't be overly concerned with a perceived downward trend per representation on select / national teams...or D-I college hockey for that matter. I believe MSHSL girls hockey will continue to nurture and develop players talented enough to play and impact at all levels of competition.

I think you have to acknowledge that other areas around the US not previously developing players of this type are making great strides towards skilled player development also. Makes the competition for those college roster / US select team spots pretty intense.

[keepitreal]

hsfan91, agree with many of your points. The U18 selection comments really belong in the other thread as they can be misconstrued against the 91 (09-10) recruits. I don't think that's anyone's intention. And you are correct that it's far too early for most commitments, least of all public ones. I started this thread as a placeholder to recognize these excellent players as they make their intentions clear over the course of the upcoming season.

However, I will stand by my assertion these results should serve as a indicator that Minnesota Hockey needs to look carefully, not so much at how we evaluate players, but at how we develop them compared to other regions in the country, especially when considering how the organization's policies move forward.