2009 NDP - MN Phase Tryouts

[wild77]

Any thoughts on how to make it easier for the evaluators or does this format work well? Last year a few people on this board questioned how girls that were on very strong sectional teams did not get chosen over girls that were on some of the weaker sectional teams. I understand that wins and losses mean almost nothing. Having said that I question why the tryout is setup in tournament format. Does it add a competitve flavor and maybe some motivation to the tryout process? If that's the thought does it work as a disadvantage to the girls from weaker sections that know they cannot compete with the stronger sections?
Say for the sake of discussion 80%-90% of the 54 players are identitfied after Saturday. Could you then eliminate the top players along with the bottom players and put together a four team scrimmage on Sunday with all the "bubble" kids? Would that help in contrasting abilities? just thinking out loud......

[joehockey]

Any thoughts on how to make it easier for the evaluators or does this format work well? Last year a few people on this board questioned how girls that were on very strong sectional teams did not get chosen over girls that were on some of the weaker sectional teams. I understand that wins and losses mean almost nothing. Having said that I question why the tryout is setup in tournament format. Does it add a competitve flavor and maybe some motivation to the tryout process? If that's the thought does it work as a disadvantage to the girls from weaker sections that know they cannot compete with the stronger sections?
Say for the sake of discussion 80%-90% of the 54 players are identitfied after Saturday. Could you then eliminate the top players along with the bottom players and put together a four team scrimmage on Sunday with all the "bubble" kids? Would that help in contrasting abilities? just thinking out loud......

Might be something to toss at MN Hockey and Evaluators.

From a parents perspective I think this process works or at least what I saw at the U17 this year - going in talking to parents many thought U17 would be a cake walk for Sec 4 with 8 Stillwater players, 3 Roseville and 3 HM strong team on paper.....they lost 8-3, won 9-2 and lost 3-0. Sec 2 didn't think they had a chance with 10 D, 9 F and 2 G trying out and they had 5 players leave yesterday for spring break - they won it all - odd as they had to juggle D & F forward and back and only sakted 4 D on Sunday....Sec 1 not the first area of the State you think of in terms of strongest area played great with strong goaltending and their players looked good.

I think some players/parents know going in they aren't going to Phase III but enjoy the competitive factor in current format. In Phase III all the players are blended across the 3 teams.

But who knows could be a new or different format next year.

[hockeya1a]

Any thoughts on how to make it easier for the evaluators or does this format work well? Last year a few people on this board questioned how girls that were on very strong sectional teams did not get chosen over girls that were on some of the weaker sectional teams. I understand that wins and losses mean almost nothing. Having said that I question why the tryout is setup in tournament format. Does it add a competitve flavor and maybe some motivation to the tryout process? If that's the thought does it work as a disadvantage to the girls from weaker sections that know they cannot compete with the stronger sections?
Say for the sake of discussion 80%-90% of the 54 players are identitfied after Saturday. Could you then eliminate the top players along with the bottom players and put together a four team scrimmage on Sunday with all the "bubble" kids? Would that help in contrasting abilities? just thinking out loud......

Might be something to toss at MN Hockey and Evaluators.

From a parents perspective I think this process works or at least what I saw at the U17 this year - going in talking to parents many thought U17 would be a cake walk for Sec 4 with 8 Stillwater players, 3 Roseville and 3 HM strong team on paper.....they lost 8-3, won 9-2 and lost 3-0. Sec 2 didn't think they had a chance with 10 D, 9 F and 2 G trying out and they had 5 players leave yesterday for spring break - they won it all - odd as they had to juggle D & F forward and back and only sakted 4 D on Sunday....Sec 1 not the first area of the State you think of in terms of strongest area played great with strong goaltending and their players looked good.

I think some players/parents know going in they aren't going to Phase III but enjoy the competitive factor in current format. In Phase III all the players are blended across the 3 teams.

But who knows could be a new or different format next year.

The one thing I had heard from some attending that there were some very good players that seam to want to play by themselves and not pass.
Think Herb Brooks Miracle “I don’t want the best players,” said Brooks“ I want the right players

[OntheEdge]

Say for the sake of discussion 80%-90% of the 54 players are identitfied after Saturday. Could you then eliminate the top players along with the bottom players and put together a four team scrimmage on Sunday with all the "bubble" kids? Would that help in contrasting abilities? just thinking out loud......

Its a good idea in theory but practically speaking what you are suggesting would be a nightmare. Right now the last games on Saturday end around 10 PM. In order to do what you suggest, phone calls or e-mails would have to be sent late Saturday night to tell people which team they are on and when they play on Sunday. Having run tryouts before its not a good idea to rush decisions or give people short notice on anything. It appears hurried and unorganized which wouldn't sit well with parents.

The only way I think your idea would work is to spread the tryout over two weekends or have an additional game sometime during the following week to sort out the bubble players.

I think what is being done now is pretty good and as long as the numbers continue to grow its the right way to do it. If the numbers don't increase or decrease I think the way they used to do it (4 regions vs 8 sections) would be better since there would be more competition at Phase I.

[SuperStar]

How did the U17 - 4AA do this weekend...?

[OntheEdge]

The one thing I had heard from some attending that there were some very good players that seam to want to play by themselves and not pass.
Think Herb Brooks Miracle “I don’t want the best players,” said Brooks“ I want the right players

There was some selfish play, and there always will be, until evaluators decide that they will cut players that are talented but not playing good hockey. I think you see most of it from D players because I think its believed that to show off your talent you have to be a little selfish. I saw some defenders take it too far and it seemed like every time they touched the puck they were carrying it up until they were stripped or took a shot. Its too bad because it seems contagious in that once one defender does it then the others seem to feel that they have to do it too to be noticed.

BTW I think Section 2 won it because their players played more like a team than some of the other more talented Sections. However, its not a team competition so it will be interesting to see if winning it gives Section 2 an advantage and gets them more girls selected than other Sections.

[joehockey]

Any thoughts on how to make it easier for the evaluators or does this format work well? Last year a few people on this board questioned how girls that were on very strong sectional teams did not get chosen over girls that were on some of the weaker sectional teams. I understand that wins and losses mean almost nothing. Having said that I question why the tryout is setup in tournament format. Does it add a competitve flavor and maybe some motivation to the tryout process? If that's the thought does it work as a disadvantage to the girls from weaker sections that know they cannot compete with the stronger sections?
Say for the sake of discussion 80%-90% of the 54 players are identitfied after Saturday. Could you then eliminate the top players along with the bottom players and put together a four team scrimmage on Sunday with all the "bubble" kids? Would that help in contrasting abilities? just thinking out loud......

Might be something to toss at MN Hockey and Evaluators.

From a parents perspective I think this process works or at least what I saw at the U17 this year - going in talking to parents many thought U17 would be a cake walk for Sec 4 with 8 Stillwater players, 3 Roseville and 3 HM strong team on paper.....they lost 8-3, won 9-2 and lost 3-0. Sec 2 didn't think they had a chance with 10 D, 9 F and 2 G trying out and they had 5 players leave yesterday for spring break - they won it all - odd as they had to juggle D & F forward and back and only sakted 4 D on Sunday....Sec 1 not the first area of the State you think of in terms of strongest area played great with strong goaltending and their players looked good.

I think some players/parents know going in they aren't going to Phase III but enjoy the competitive factor in current format. In Phase III all the players are blended across the 3 teams.

But who knows could be a new or different format next year.

The one thing I had heard from some attending that there were some very good players that seam to want to play by themselves and not pass.
Think Herb Brooks Miracle “I don’t want the best players,” said Brooks“ I want the right players

This is tough when coaches are reminding players that they are being individually rated by evaluators. I agree with your perspective the players that tried to do it all alone often failed....a few that I think looked great in every game made the right hockey play be it pass, carry or shoot - best play I saw all weekend at U17 was Friday a 2-1 rush against Sec 4 by Section 2 Buie, Edina gave Riggs, EP a great pass to put her in goalie went across with the pass and instead of trying to shoot Riggs gave a great pass back to Buie who buried it in a wide open net - both made the right play - I have to believe the Evaluators took note of both good and poor decisions over the course of the weekend.

The National Team is several steps down the line where the final "Brooks mentality" of right players who have individual and team skills to play roles will be applied/real team created - Phase III 54 players - Phase IV (74 players of which MN will have 8 F, 5 D, 1 G and any At Large) then the summer U18 camp in August.....those who play alone will have to be very very good!

[SuperStar]

So how did the U17 4AA team do...?

[hockfan1980]

I think this format is as good as you can get with so many girls. Srong players will still stand out against stronger competition. Maybe eliminate the high school coaches. I would also like to see coaches try to keep shifts even. Some players were out for more than 2+ minutes. Some sections seemed to short shift players. It shouldn't be about winning. It should be about equal playing time for all. as far as blaming the D. What if the forwards never use the point. I saw that a lot. I don't fault a D player trying to get noticed. Just not every play. How do you evaluate goalies in something like this?? They should have a seperate hour to evaluate them.

Evaluators had a very difficult job as all the girls played hard.

Good luck to all!

[OntheEdge]

This is tough when coaches are reminding players that they are being individually rated by evaluators. I agree with your perspective the players that tried to do it all alone often failed....a few that I think looked great in every game made the right hockey play be it pass, carry or shoot - best play I saw all weekend at U17 was Friday a 2-1 rush against Sec 4 by Section 2 Buie, Edina gave Riggs, EP a great pass to put her in goalie went across with the pass and instead of trying to shoot Riggs gave a great pass back to Buie who buried it in a wide open net - both made the right play - I have to believe the Evaluators took note of both good and poor decisions over the course of the weekend.

Good example Joe but if its the example I think you are talking about I think it was Natalie Berg of Minnetonka not Riggs that made the pass. Natalie is a D but was playing forward at the time.

[joehockey]

This is tough when coaches are reminding players that they are being individually rated by evaluators. I agree with your perspective the players that tried to do it all alone often failed....a few that I think looked great in every game made the right hockey play be it pass, carry or shoot - best play I saw all weekend at U17 was Friday a 2-1 rush against Sec 4 by Section 2 Buie, Edina gave Riggs, EP a great pass to put her in goalie went across with the pass and instead of trying to shoot Riggs gave a great pass back to Buie who buried it in a wide open net - both made the right play - I have to believe the Evaluators took note of both good and poor decisions over the course of the weekend.

Good example Joe but if its the example I think you are talking about I think it was Natalie Berg of Minnetonka not Riggs that made the pass. Natalie is a D but was playing forward at the time.

Ok you know Sec 2 players better than I - sorry for any confusion.

Other player who did a good job gving the puck to linemates all weekend was Brausen - she has really made a big jump over the last year in her total game and it was strong to begin with. She also scored some pretty goals.

[rinkrat90]

The only place that I have observed where selfish play is not rewarded is in Lake Placid where the National Teams are selected. For these tryouts, the coaches are looking for the "right players." And judging by the results of the last couple world tournaments, they have chosen the right players.

[MNHockeyFan]

There was some selfish play, and there always will be, until evaluators decide that they will cut players that are talented but not playing good hockey.

You sometimes hear the compliment: "She makes everyone around her look better".

But what you say about these evaluations is true, it's more like: "Use everyone around you so YOU look better".

[goalzilla]

This is a development program and when selections are made that is what should be taken into account. That player being developed or having the potential to develop. Some of the players may not have had the greatest showing, but by observing their skills is where I believe the talent can be found. I really notice this in goaltenders a kid may exibit solid skills, but I worry that the number of goals scored against overshadows the development potential of the tender. IMO the number one observation priority for all players should be their potential for development. And I also believe that sportsmanship should be taken into account. Chemestry is huge, I'm sure we've all seen it; a player in any sport may be a superstar, but their personality and behavior can be a cancer to the team.

[hockeya1a]

This is a development program and when selections are made that is what should be taken into account. That player being developed or having the potential to develop. Some of the players may not have had the greatest showing, but by observing their skills is where I believe the talent can be found. I really notice this in goaltenders a kid may exibit solid skills, but I worry that the number of goals scored against overshadows the development potential of the tender. IMO the number one observation priority for all players should be their potential for development. And I also believe that sportsmanship should be taken into account. Chemestry is huge, I'm sure we've all seen it; a player in any sport may be a superstar, but their personality and behavior can be a cancer to the team.

Just a thought, if it is truly development team and they choose the same girls again then they are only developing a few.
Also the part on goaltender being scored on isn’t that the point.
The players want to score and if they do not are they then looked down on because they could not finish? There also may be players out there who have been playing for 12 years and might have reached there highest level of growth then there might be that gal that has only played for 3-4 years that is still learning but almost as good and is not done learning.

I do not think it should be a what if game, it should be bring your game or go home.

[hockeyrube7]

Just a thought, if it is truly development team and they choose the same girls again then they are only developing a few.

Have to agree here. Why is it always the same names, why not send new kids each year, or at least a portion.

[hockfan1980]

Have to disagree.

Last year there was a 30-40% turnaround. Last year they did pick players just because of where they were from. The best players should make it PERIOD! I'm tired of hearing she should make it because she's from here or she should make it because it would make her feel better. This isn't youth hockey. It's USA team development!

Pick the BEST PLAYERS PERIOD!

[hockeya1a]

Have to disagree.

Last year there was a 30-40% turnaround. Last year they did pick players just because of where they were from. The best players should make it PERIOD! I'm tired of hearing she should make it because she's from here or she should make it because it would make her feel better. This isn't youth hockey. It's USA team development!

Pick the BEST PLAYERS PERIOD!

exactly! That is why I said Bring your game or go home!

I think Goalzilla was concerned that his daughter did not play the best and should get to go because she is good!

[OntheEdge]

Have to disagree.

Last year there was a 30-40% turnaround. Last year they did pick players just because of where they were from. The best players should make it PERIOD! I'm tired of hearing she should make it because she's from here or she should make it because it would make her feel better. This isn't youth hockey. It's USA team development!

Pick the BEST PLAYERS PERIOD!

Everytime I hear stats being thrown around I think of my college class, "How to Lie with Statistics". Nothing personal HockFan1980 but stats can be used to make any point and I think the 30-40% thrown around was the turnover at the Phase 3 level from 15 to 16 which means that 16 to 21 new players made Phase III (out of 54) which is not a big deal since I think starting at the 16 level only 25-35 or so girls actually have a chance to make Phase IV.

Everyone agrees that the best player should make it and for the most part I think they do. I think the 15s are run correctly but at the 17 level and with no bitterness intended, I really think MN Hockey/USA hockey can save us all a lot of time and money if they selected a smaller pool of players to tryout. There are a lot of good players out there but realistically there are very few that actually have a chance to go to Phase IV (at least at the 17 level).

The other question I have regarding the tryouts is, is it the tryout that matters or the reputation and years of accomplishment of the player? I think the latter counts for who is in the running for Phase IV and the former counts for who makes it from the small pool identified from the latter.

[hockfan1980]

Have to disagree.

Last year there was a 30-40% turnaround. Last year they did pick players just because of where they were from. The best players should make it PERIOD! I'm tired of hearing she should make it because she's from here or she should make it because it would make her feel better. This isn't youth hockey. It's USA team development!

Pick the BEST PLAYERS PERIOD!

Everytime I hear stats being thrown around I think of my college class, "How to Lie with Statistics". Nothing personal HockFan1980 but stats can be used to make any point and I think the 30-40% thrown around was primaril the turnover at the Phase 3 level which means that 16 to 21 new players made Phase III which is not a big deal since I think only 20-30 girls actual have a chance to make Phase IV each year.

Everyone agrees that the best player should make it but there is real differences in perception of what is the "best" player. I think the 15s are run correctly but at the 17 level and with no bitterness intended, I really think MN Hockey/USA hockey can save us all a lot of time and money if they selected a smaller pool of players to tryout. There are a lot of good players out there but realistically there are very few that actually have a chance to go to Phase IV (at least at the 17 level).

The other question I have regarding the tryouts is, is it the tryout that matters or the reputation and years of accomplishment of the player? I think the latter counts for who is in the running and the former counts for who makes it from the small pool identified from the latter.

I get what you're saying. But do you really think D1 and D3 coaches are picking the popular kids. I have to believe they are grading the girls by number only. What do they care about a name? I have more of a problem with High School coaches being involved. Look at section 4. 8 Stillwater girls made it. I saw one of their games and it seemed like they ruled the roost. Long shifts. Not passing. My kid is from the north and her coach was playing a certain 2 D every other shift it seemed. Parents always feel their daughter doesn't make it because of something.

[Melvin44]

My opinion.

If my daughter makes. It's a perfect system.

If my daughter doesn't. It sucks.

I'm kidding of course. Then again?

I hate these darn life lessons.

Good luck to all the girls!

[OntheEdge]

Have to disagree.

Last year there was a 30-40% turnaround. Last year they did pick players just because of where they were from. The best players should make it PERIOD! I'm tired of hearing she should make it because she's from here or she should make it because it would make her feel better. This isn't youth hockey. It's USA team development!

Pick the BEST PLAYERS PERIOD!

Everytime I hear stats being thrown around I think of my college class, "How to Lie with Statistics". Nothing personal HockFan1980 but stats can be used to make any point and I think the 30-40% thrown around was primaril the turnover at the Phase 3 level which means that 16 to 21 new players made Phase III which is not a big deal since I think only 20-30 girls actual have a chance to make Phase IV each year.

Everyone agrees that the best player should make it but there is real differences in perception of what is the "best" player. I think the 15s are run correctly but at the 17 level and with no bitterness intended, I really think MN Hockey/USA hockey can save us all a lot of time and money if they selected a smaller pool of players to tryout. There are a lot of good players out there but realistically there are very few that actually have a chance to go to Phase IV (at least at the 17 level).

The other question I have regarding the tryouts is, is it the tryout that matters or the reputation and years of accomplishment of the player? I think the latter counts for who is in the running and the former counts for who makes it from the small pool identified from the latter.

I get what you're saying. But do you really think D1 and D3 coaches are picking the popular kids. I have to believe they are grading the girls by number only. What do they care about a name?

I really don't know what the D1 and D3 coaches are doing but the hockey community is small so I would think that even they know the top players without having to look at the program. I don't have a problem with any of this. I just think its a little expensive and time consuming to get to the end result which most of us could come pretty close in predicting before the process started. I think there's a lot of familiarity by the time you get to the 17s. At the 15s there's more to discover.

[hockeya1a]

My opinion.

If my daughter makes. It's a perfect system.

If my daughter doesn't. It sucks.

I'm kidding of course. Then again?

I hate these darn life lessons.

Good luck to all the girls!

you got it!

[joehockey]

Somebody said last week enjoy the ride and you have to all through life where ever you are....going into the process the numbers were outlined - up to 360 tryout Phase I - up to 160 in Phase II - 54 in Phase III - and 8 F, 5 D & 1 G will be picked to go to Phase IV where they will be 1 of 74 kids - it isn't the best 74 kids in the country it is the one's picked from thier area to fill thier USA Hockey District Quota. Last weekend we can all point to some top players that were not there and when the F54 comes out we will all have girls who we think should or shouldn't be and when the final list for Phase IV is up we won't all agree with it. The fact is MN could supply half of the girls to the National Camp and the over all talent would go up but the quota doesn't allow it. I am not sure Phase I-II or III are much development they are competition. At Phase IV there is some great coaching and development but a lot is drills and testing to evaluate. From the Phase IV set of 74 U17 20 will go to a summer camp in August to finalize the U18 team - 6 kids played last year (I G, 1 D, 4 F) so there may only be 14 spots open - OnEdge you need to apply you College Stats experience to spin that number but it says something aobut the long odds for everyone who even made it to Plymouth for Phase II.

Are the best kids always picked or to many kids left out I don't know - was it a good experience for those there......Watching the U16 and U17 girls last weekend it was great hockey - better than most HS games. I didn't see players sweating their play near as much as any of the parents. The girls were out playing, competing hard and having fun playing hockey it was great to watch.....off the rink lots of buzz as girls from various areas of the State interacted, hugged and caught up. Phase II at $125 is a pretty cheap experience and a bargain if you got 4.5 hours of practice compared to other events that are $200-$300 like Selects, Junior Fest, Pinnacle, Gopher State, Hockey Night in Boston, Prospects....and yes I think you have to pay gate fees at those to. So if your daughter doesn't advance would you or she say boy that sure was a dumb wasted weekend?

Enjoy the ride....as a U17 parent it kind of hit me that wow we were fortunate and this is the last time we will be in this process and I know my daughter felt the same way.

[OntheEdge]

Good discussion. All good points. Disagreement but no name calling. Now for the Economy. Joe, one point you made that makes me sad is that it is the last time for all of this and our kids are growing up and soon this will all be just a memory. I think my daughter has enjoyed the experience which is all that really matters. The one worry I have is that we have put too much into hockey. Its a great experience but I'm hoping that my daughter realizes that its just a game and that she has bigger fish to fry in life.