"Minnesota Hockey What Needs to Be Done to Stay on Top&

[joehockey]

So lots of discussion post U18 National Team Announcement this week - is Minnesota strong and on the right track? We certainly have the strongest numbers and a great track record what do we do to continue to keep the game strong and to continue to develop top players.

First as a community based hockey state we had 9,467 girls registered U6 to U19 in 2007 with MN Hockey/USA Hockey. Nationally there are 44,143 in this group. The next closest states are Mass 6,844, Mich 3,132, Wisconsin 2,879, CT 1,855, IL 1,552, CO 1,012, Alaska 898.....

In Minnesota we have the nations largest and best HS program with 54 A and 70 AA Girls High School Hockey teams - more than 3000 skaters (not sure of exact number but many schools running a varisty and jv program) maybe only 700 are registered with USA hockey (they have to register with B&A teams or to try out for Phase NDP Tryouts). We also have Shattuck and Thoroughbreds at U19AAA.

As mentioned the State has been a leading in producing top players for the D1 and D3 level and the state has been represented well at NDP and on National Teams.

MN Hockey and the HS Coaches introduced perhaps the most rigorous tryout process to go the NDP this year taking a month at the U16 & U17 and 6 weeks at U15 including a week long camp that maybe 600-900 girls participated in (if anyone has exact number please post). From this and at large 16 U15, 21 U16 and 14 U17 had a chance to go to NDP.

There is a new HS League the Upper Elite Midwest HS League that will allow 60 top players (soph-senior) to play on three teams East Metro, West Metro and Outstate against each other and against SSM with a 12 game schedule in October.

The girls selected for the US U18 were mostly playing U19AAA or at one of the Hockey Academies. So if Minnesota girls will compete against players who play 60 USA Hockey Junior Games and or are at a Hockey Academy and on the ice everyday do we need to do anything different?

Here are some questions:

Other states allow players to play both HS and Club Hockey (U19AAA) at the same time - why not here?

Other States have B&A AAA teams - can MN have other teams to play Shattuck at the U16 level? Can the new HS Elite League create an opportunity for Minnesota to create other teams to play Thoroughbreds or SSM to go to Nationals? It appears we are going the other way and very few teams B&A teams will be playing this year why - they aren't able to go to key tournaments like Stoney Creek ONT?

Does MN need a better top summer tournament to bring D1 coaches to MN? This year only 4 D1 coaches came to International Cup according to sign in sheet.

So what are the right steps forward - this discussion started on another thread and I started this for discussion.

[hockeyrube7]

OK, I'll take a stab at this, just an opinion to share, and to get things started, so take no offense please.

So far this is a one year lapse to be honest, so why all the panic? Last year was the largest year of MN kids with D1 commitments over all. So doesn't it only make sense that the next few years may be down a bit from that? As far as why only 1 kid on the U18 from MN, first look at the U22, seems to be packed with MN players. D1 commitments are completely different than the U18 team, and the U18 is coached by the WI head coach isn't it, so don't you think he'd want to promote WI players vs MN where we tend to have a larger group of kids, and generally a higher level of talent. Will this make the end result, the Olympic, team better, who knows? Herb Brooks had what seemed like odd ideas at the time, and those seemed to work out well.

How about starting with more of the higher level training that all can attend, maybe separate them in to tiers or levels, yet all get the same training? Less of the for cost programs maybe? Problems with this, as usual is cost. So how can we do this in a at cost version would be the question? Far too often many families cannot keep up with the costs of training and more, just to see their kid tossed aside for the Elite. This would again broaden the base, which would raise the upper level higher. Could be wrong I suppose, but makes sense I would think.

Of course there is much more to this, to keep it short we can start here and discuss, argue and bicker.

[joehockey]

OK, I'll take a stab at this, just an opinion to share, and to get things started, so take no offense please.

So far this is a one year lapse to be honest, so why all the panic? Last year was the largest year of MN kids with D1 commitments over all. So doesn't it only make sense that the next few years may be down a bit from that? As far as why only 1 kid on the U18 from MN, first look at the U22, seems to be packed with MN players. D1 commitments are completely different than the U18 team, and the U18 is coached by the WI head coach isn't it, so don't you think he'd want to promote WI players vs MN where we tend to have a larger group of kids, and generally a higher level of talent. Will this make the end result, the Olympic, team better, who knows? Herb Brooks had what seemed like odd ideas at the time, and those seemed to work out well.

How about starting with more of the higher level training that all can attend, maybe separate them in to tiers or levels, yet all get the same training? Less of the for cost programs maybe? Problems with this, as usual is cost. So how can we do this in a at cost version would be the question? Far too often many families cannot keep up with the costs of training and more, just to see their kid tossed aside for the Elite. This would again broaden the base, which would raise the upper level higher. Could be wrong I suppose, but makes sense I would think.

Of course there is much more to this, to keep it short we can start here and discuss, argue and bicker.

Good stuff and the right kind of comments - this is not a panic more a question of how do we evolve to continue to develop the best?

Expanding the Pyramid is Job #1 - teaching all of them skills to love and stay in the game #2 and providing elite options just the icing on top.

What is the right price point for training?

Can training all be the same - isn't it a progression or ladder - master skating then do it with a puck then do it finishing with a shot then do it against defender pressure?

Phase tryouts could be a model to teach from - it is spring based. At U16 you got 19 hours of ice, training and competition for $285 - $15/hour.

Today in the summer there are various off season STP skill based programs run by HS. Some appear to be great - what do they all cost not sure? Hill Murray runs a programs in June and July that are very good skill based programs with ice and dryland components and specific power skating cost in total is $450 about $10/hour of training. There are two groups a varsity and younger group - not sure if they do exactly same drills but I think they do.

OS runs great programs May-August $650 or $850 if you add on Prospects. They are training 300 girls at 3 locations North - Fogarty/Super Rink; East - Highland/Drake; South - Bloomington cost is about $12/hour. This is a ladder with three levels but on by great women players who have played college and at the national level.

CODP runs great program 250 girls are training at West - New Hope and East - Highland. This is a tryout program that ladders from U12 to College. Program runs June and July 3x week with ice and dryland strength training. Cost is $12/hour of training.

[hockeywild7]

I think the only question here is how many girls really want to committ 100% of their time to hockey? You might find alot of the girls who play hockey at the highest level are also great athletes and compete in other sports and might not want to committ all their time to just hockey. And personally I think they should be encouraged to do so. Many of the best athletes ever to play sports at the highest levels where multiple sport athletes in high school. Everybody needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and I think you will find there is more to life than hockey for the vast majority of these girls which is the way it should be in my opinion. You can organize and plan the biggest and best training program the world has ever known in Minnesota and succeed in getting a handful of girls players on the olympic team if your lucky. Remember not every kid who excels at the highest level has to train 24/7, some are natural athletes with the genetic makeup and abilitly to be great players.

[hockeyrube7]

I think the only question here is how many girls really want to committ 100% of their time to hockey? You might find alot of the girls who play hockey at the highest level are also great athletes and compete in other sports and might not want to committ all their time to just hockey. And personally I think they should be encouraged to do so. Many of the best athletes ever to play sports at the highest levels where multiple sport athletes in high school. Everybody needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and I think you will find there is more to life than hockey for the vast majority of these girls which is the way it should be in my opinion. You can organize and plan the biggest and best training program the world has ever known in Minnesota and succeed in getting a handful of girls players on the olympic team if your lucky. Remember not every kid who excels at the highest level has to train 24/7, some are natural athletes with the genetic makeup and abilitly to be great players.

Great comments Hockeywild7! IMHO, out of all of the girl hockey players, I would guess the percentages to not be too great on committing 100% to just hockey. While they may love the sport, as much as some of us old timers, they just don't want to take all their time for one sport, or one event for that matter. Some, yes of coarse, but not that many. There are many more things that seem to take top billing as they get older. You may be right, and it may be as good as it gets, not sure. Just seems like an aweful lot disgruntlement with how things are, why is that? Girls hockey is still on a growth pattern, or so it would seem, just many hurtles to jump yet. The first part I would say is to get a consistant system with consitant values set across the nation, and at all levels, might be a start?

[Bensonmum]

So everybody is agreed that the evaluators at USA hockey are the best and their word is final. The evaluation process at USA hockey is perfect. And the placement of players on this one team is the final judgement of Minnesota's girls' hockey program from U8 on up. According to this team, Wisconsin's and Illinois' girls' hockey programs are far superior to Minnesota's.

[joehockey]

So everybody is agreed that the evaluators at USA hockey are the best and their word is final. The evaluation process at USA hockey is perfect. And the placement of players on this one team is the final judgement of Minnesota's girls' hockey program from U8 on up. According to this team, Wisconsin's and Illinois' girls' hockey programs are far superior to Minnesota's.

Is this when we say AMEN!? Great points......that is a whole new subject "How to effect USA hockey.......".

[hockeywild7]

I have no idea how good or bad the evaluators where. Show me a system that is 100% perfect. You can't say a system is bad and overhaul it based on one year. The key is to keep making it better for those players that choose to use it. You have to realize that not all the best players even try out for this development program. As I have stated before, some are involved in other sports or had other committements. I guess I am a bit unsure as to why this is so important anyway. It serves a small minority of the "elite" players.

[joehockey]

I have no idea how good or bad the evaluators where. Show me a system that is 100% perfect. You can't say a system is bad and overhaul it based on one year. The key is to keep making it better for those players that choose to use it. You have to realize that not all the best players even try out for this development program. As I have stated before, some are involved in other sports or had other committements. I guess I am a bit unsure as to why this is so important anyway. It serves a small minority of the "elite" players.

I don't know how final is made/picked but evaluators are D1 coaches and members of the National staff including past Olympic coach Ben Smith - so if D1 coaches are not impressed with MN kids that might be more concerning.......I doubt the head coach Mark Johnson of Wisconsin had a lot of impact but he was at the U22/U17 camp in June when many of the players were there but if he did that is concerning - he is in running to be future Olympic coach and speculation is this group in Lake Placid (U18, U22, O22) is the consideration pool for Vancouver. Only Kendal Coyne U16 who was there as part of the U22 camp in June - by the way I think she is good enough to be in Vancouver - many said she was top player on last years U18 team - seems incredible to say that as she stands only 5'1" but she is amazing.

[chickendance]

Remember, they only get to see what our state's evaluators send them. It is the same list of names everytime. I am not surprised that they don't know what MN Hockey has to offer. But this needs to change in our development program as well. If the only way for your hard work is to be seen, is to pay the freight of the three programs in the state who also end up with their coaches as the evaluators, it makes for a pretty small club.

[itsjustasport]

Chicken dance:

Are you suggesting there are 91's from MN who should be on the U18 National team but were not selected for the NDP program? If so I would be interested in knowing who you are referring to?

As to the suggestion it is the same kids every year I think you need to look at the facts. The 91's have been eligible for NDP for three years. In 2006 3 or 4 91's were part of the combined Mn contingent sent to Rochester ( about 20 skaters or more in total- mostly 90 birth years). Last year the 91's were all alone and about 21 skaters from MN were at camp. This year 13 were selected originally (a few at large picks were added). Yes its true that most of the 13 were also at camp the year before but overall only a few have gone all three years and about half of the kids who made it in 2007 did not make it back this year.

[OldGirlsCoach]

I have to sort of agree with Chickendance. I wonder if some of our kids that are seen at a young age get labeled as a certain type of player. "Not aggressive, maybe a poor corner person, etc." Do the evaluators change from year to year? If not, it is natural for some bias to come into play, Often that first year impression our kids make will stick with an evaluator. While our one player on the national team is a VERY good player, there are several others that are just as good or may be better at certain aspects of the game.
We should be proud of our kids making the final stages at such a high level. I do agree that we should or could have had others.


Regardless, we should be proud one of our own wears the red, white and blue!!!!!

[joehockey]

Remember, they only get to see what our state's evaluators send them. It is the same list of names everytime. I am not surprised that they don't know what MN Hockey has to offer. But this needs to change in our development program as well. If the only way for your hard work is to be seen, is to pay the freight of the three programs in the state who also end up with their coaches as the evaluators, it makes for a pretty small club.

At U15 last year 17 were chosen this year when the team was picked 50% were new with at large additions 21 total got to go.

[rinkrat90]

Some random thoughts about the U18 selection process. It appears that the coaches for last year's team and probably this year's team have used a little of Herb Brook's philosophy regarding team selection. Brooks on his 1980 team said he didn't want the best players; he wanted the right players. If you look at last year's U18 team, an argument could be made that the best individual players were not selected; but obviously the right players were selected. All you have to do is look at the roster changes made between the first Select Team that got clobbered by Canada in Ottawa, and the National team that beat Canada in Calgary.

Regarding the state of girls hockey in MN; how it compares to other areas of the country; and how to improve the game.

I think the main reason that these issues are being discussed is that in Minnesota we have the HS program (as a result of the overwhelming success and popularity of the boys HS program already in place); and the rest of the country has the AAA system/teams... Chicago Mission, Assebet, Madison Capitols, Colorado Selects, etc.; and the HS teams like SSM and Culver.

Everything associated with these type of teams is light years more intense than any HS team in MN. More games, more practice, more travel, tougher competition, higher cost, more top players on a team, etc.

On a typical HS team, there may be three or four players that are really totally dedicated to the sport and are willing to devote all the extra time necessary to become an elite player. And there is nothing wrong with this; its just the way it is. However, when you contrast this attitude with the typical player on the previously mentioned AAA teams, it is not hard to understand why so many of the players on those teams are selected to National teams.

However, it is interesting to note that many parents of these AAA players are somewhat envious of our youth and HS system. Far less travel and obviously much cheaper.

[hockeywonder]

I have no idea how good or bad the evaluators where. Show me a system that is 100% perfect. You can't say a system is bad and overhaul it based on one year. The key is to keep making it better for those players that choose to use it. You have to realize that not all the best players even try out for this development program. As I have stated before, some are involved in other sports or had other committements. I guess I am a bit unsure as to why this is so important anyway. It serves a small minority of the "elite" players.

I don't know how final is made/picked but evaluators are D1 coaches and members of the National staff including past Olympic coach Ben Smith - so if D1 coaches are not impressed with MN kids that might be more concerning.......I doubt the head coach Mark Johnson of Wisconsin had a lot of impact but he was at the U22/U17 camp in June when many of the players were there but if he did that is concerning - he is in running to be future Olympic coach and speculation is this group in Lake Placid (U18, U22, O22) is the consideration pool for Vancouver. Only Kendal Coyne U16 who was there as part of the U22 camp in June - by the way I think she is good enough to be in Vancouver - many said she was top player on last years U18 team - seems incredible to say that as she stands only 5'1" but she is amazing.

I am sure that Mark Johnson had a lot of say in who was picked for the team. I have to disagree with you about who is good enough to be in Vancouver -- IMHO the only player on the U18 select team who is good enough to be considered for the 2010 Olympic team is Amanda Kessel. We will see in a week or two just how much changing up is going to be needed to have a U18 team that is competitive with Canada.

In watching the national camps, it is interesting to see the lack of skating skills in some of the older - former DI players who are coaching in college now. The younger girls can skate circles around them. Girls hockey has come a long way!

[chickendance]

Chicken dance:

Are you suggesting there are 91's from MN who should be on the U18 National team but were not selected for the NDP program? If so I would be interested in knowing who you are referring to?

As to the suggestion it is the same kids every year I think you need to look at the facts. The 91's have been eligible for NDP for three years. In 2006 3 or 4 91's were part of the combined Mn contingent sent to Rochester ( about 20 skaters or more in total- mostly 90 birth years). Last year the 91's were all alone and about 21 skaters from MN were at camp. This year 13 were selected originally (a few at large picks were added). Yes its true that most of the 13 were also at camp the year before but overall only a few have gone all three years and about half of the kids who made it in 2007 did not make it back this year.

Yes I am sure you want a name of a kid that I think was missed. Sorry to disappoint by not biting on that. By the way its more than 1.

You need to consider some facts as well. They only get to see who we send them. We only send them who we chose to let in the tryouts. There are kids that get missed and there always will be. However, because we know that there are players getting missed we should always strive to improve the way in which players are invited to the tryouts, how evaluators are picked, and how the evaluations are done.

Have you ever seen a kid play in a game and stop a "superstar" and say wow who is that? There is a reason you haven't heard of that kid, its because they never get to be seen. Maybe you haven't had that experience, but then I would suggest you may need to get out to more games.

I highly doubt that many of you thought the list of names we sent would produce this as a result on the U18 team. We need to have the courage to look at this as an opportunity to ask whether we need to learn something from this. Continuous improvement of our program should be the goal.

[DmanDad1980]

Chicken dance:

Are you suggesting there are 91's from MN who should be on the U18 National team but were not selected for the NDP program? If so I would be interested in knowing who you are referring to?

As to the suggestion it is the same kids every year I think you need to look at the facts. The 91's have been eligible for NDP for three years. In 2006 3 or 4 91's were part of the combined Mn contingent sent to Rochester ( about 20 skaters or more in total- mostly 90 birth years). Last year the 91's were all alone and about 21 skaters from MN were at camp. This year 13 were selected originally (a few at large picks were added). Yes its true that most of the 13 were also at camp the year before but overall only a few have gone all three years and about half of the kids who made it in 2007 did not make it back this year.

Yes I am sure you want a name of a kid that I think was missed. Sorry to disappoint by not biting on that. By the way its more than 1.

You need to consider some facts as well. They only get to see who we send them. We only send them who we chose to let in the tryouts. There are kids that get missed and there always will be. However, because we know that there are players getting missed we should always strive to improve the way in which players are invited to the tryouts, how evaluators are picked, and how the evaluations are done.

Have you ever seen a kid play in a game and stop a "superstar" and say wow who is that? There is a reason you haven't heard of that kid, its because they never get to be seen. Maybe you haven't had that experience, but then I would suggest you may need to get out to more games.

I highly doubt that many of you thought the list of names we sent would produce this as a result on the U18 team. We need to have the courage to look at this as an opportunity to ask whether we need to learn something from this. Continuous improvement of our program should be the goal.

Well said Chickendance, well said
Thank you

[hockeymaven]

Well over 250 girls participated in the '91 tryout process and over 100 in Phase 2 and over 40 in Phase 3 so with only 13-15 selections to the NDP camp lots of kids were given the opportunity to show their skills.

Yes it is true we only send who we send them but plenty were given the opportunity. I think the real issue is not which kids were sent ( I think those that were selected were representative of MN talent) but rather what is it about Minnesota HS players that the evaluators do not like.

We should also remember that last year at least 3 or 4 MN HS Players (including at least 2 Ms. Hockey candidates) were not asked back from the August team that lost 3 in a row to Canada and they were replaced by kids from various U19 Elite programs.

[Hux]

Well over 250 girls participated in the '91 tryout process and over 100 in Phase 2 and over 40 in Phase 3 so with only 13-15 selections to the NDP camp lots of kids were given the opportunity to show their skills.

Yes it is true we only send who we send them but plenty were given the opportunity. I think the real issue is not which kids were sent ( I think those that were selected were representative of MN talent) but rather what is it about Minnesota HS players that the evaluators do not like.

We should also remember that last year at least 3 or 4 MN HS Players (including at least 2 Ms. Hockey candidates) were not asked back from the August team that lost 3 in a row to Canada and they were replaced by kids from various U19 Elite programs.

Go back to the Herb Brooks metaphor, and there is your answer. It isn't about putting together an all-star team, it is about finding players that meet the needs and have the chemistry to be part of the team. Additionally, some players, despite their obvious abilities, aren't able to make the adjustments to the coach's systems, or their strength and conditioning doesn't fit the parameters.

And remember, last year's team was about 1/3 Minny high school players, so it isn't that the evaluators don't like high schoolers, or that they have a preference for full season players.

[chickendance]

Well over 250 girls participated in the '91 tryout process and over 100 in Phase 2 and over 40 in Phase 3 so with only 13-15 selections to the NDP camp lots of kids were given the opportunity to show their skills.

Yes it is true we only send who we send them but plenty were given the opportunity. I think the real issue is not which kids were sent ( I think those that were selected were representative of MN talent) but rather what is it about Minnesota HS players that the evaluators do not like.

We should also remember that last year at least 3 or 4 MN HS Players (including at least 2 Ms. Hockey candidates) were not asked back from the August team that lost 3 in a row to Canada and they were replaced by kids from various U19 Elite programs.

This translates into roughly 2 kids per varsity program. Approximately 10% of the girls in a varsity program. I don't buy that this is lots of opportunity. We then turn around and invite the exact same bunch to Jr Fest.

It's interesting, this thread was about how do we continue to move forward. I am suggesting that part of this is opening up the tryout process. Being more discriminating about who does the evaluations. Why is it that allowing a broader opportunity to see kids is such a problem? I suppose it should strike fear into the core of MN Hockey that there may be greater opportunity.

You are right that we ought to find out what they don't like about the kids we send them. I disagree that this is then translated as what they don't like about MN HS hockey players. If we find out what they see as the weaknesses in what we send as players, then we can go to the best pool of HS hockey players in the country and find those kids that have those skills. I am convinced they are out there.

[rinkrat90]

One of the big disadvantages that a dominant MN player faces on her HS team is lack of players that can play at her level. Often times a coach will totally gear the offense totally around the dominant player. The plan is to get the puck to this player at all times. The result is that the dominant player never really learns to pass, dig for the puck, or move without the puck.

In leagues like those that the T-Breds and other AAA teams play, a player described above would have to change her game. She would have to learn to pass and move without the puck; be a more complete player. I think that is a huge factor when evaluators pick national teams. It seemed to be the case with the final selections of last year's U18 team.

[keepitreal]

One of the big disadvantages that a dominant MN player faces on her HS team is lack of players that can play at her level. Often times a coach will totally gear the offense totally around the dominant player. The plan is to get the puck to this player at all times. The result is that the dominant player never really learns to pass, dig for the puck, or move without the puck.

In leagues like those that the T-Breds and other AAA teams play, a player described above would have to change her game. She would have to learn to pass and move without the puck; be a more complete player. I think that is a huge factor when evaluators pick national teams. It seemed to be the case with the final selections of last year's U18 team.

Exactly.

[Bensonmum]

One of the big disadvantages that a dominant MN player faces on her HS team is lack of players that can play at her level. Often times a coach will totally gear the offense totally around the dominant player. The plan is to get the puck to this player at all times. The result is that the dominant player never really learns to pass, dig for the puck, or move without the puck.

In leagues like those that the T-Breds and other AAA teams play, a player described above would have to change her game. She would have to learn to pass and move without the puck; be a more complete player. I think that is a huge factor when evaluators pick national teams. It seemed to be the case with the final selections of last year's U18 team.

Do you think this problem will take care of itself if girls' hockey continues to grow? Right now many top teams make sure to schedule other top teams from around the state for their non-conference games. You see Grand Rapids coming to town to play Edina, EP, Roseville, etc. If girls' hockey keeps growing, the level of competition will be elevated and less star-driven. My worry is that some time soon we'll see a levelling off or decline in numbers (like the boys right now) at the youngest age groups, and this will become a bigger issue.

[rinkrat90]

Greater numbers will definitely help. IMO, by far the most important factor in getting better players is to have more players participating. When Canada and the USSR dominated the hockey scene, they had the most players. I hope girls hockey continues to grow; but the current economy and the still erroneous reputation of hockey causing all kinds of injuries certainly is not conducive to growing the sport. As mentioned many times on this board and others, hockey doesn't come close to soccer or gymnastics in the injury department. Yet both those sports continue to grow.

[MNHockeyFan]

Greater numbers will definitely help. IMO, by far the most important factor in getting better players is to have more players participating. When Canada and the USSR dominated the hockey scene, they had the most players. I hope girls hockey continues to grow; but the current economy and the still erroneous reputation of hockey causing all kinds of injuries certainly is not conducive to growing the sport. As mentioned many times on this board and others, hockey doesn't come close to soccer or gymnastics in the injury department. Yet both those sports continue to grow.

I agree with everything you say here about getting more players participating and the overblown reputation that hockey has for causing injuries, etc. This is what I believe Herb Brooks referred to as expanding the base of the pyramid. But since Minnesota already has more players participating in youth hockey than any other state I believe the real question is how do you best develop the players who advance to the very top of the pyramid (national teams), which I think was what joehockey was asking when he started the thread. With the number of girls we have playing hockey, there should be more than one Minnesota player on the USA U18 roster.