Thoroughbreds

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:19 pm

Great Comments Bensonmum, and I agree with you completely. Travel anywhere else in the USA and they are talking positively about our HS system. Numbers at the HS level are a great indicator of the success of a program. The girls HS coaches in minnesota should be offended by some of the comments being made here. Not sure how some of you know anything about what types of "systems" the coaches are using but to say they aren't teaching them is ridiculous. The level of play for girls HS in minnesota gets better every year and has come along way since 1995. Do you think the coaching staffs at Roseville, Hill-Murray, SSP, Eden Prairie, Stillwater, Blake, Coon Rapids, Hopkins, to just scratch the surface do not teach systems? I wouldn't take everything a D1 coach tells you as the gospel.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:55 pm

In response to the idea that WCHA coaches have issues with the coaching at the MSHSL level and the notion that this being possible reason for club- vs community- based hockey I can only say this:

1) It's a heck of a lot better situation to be producing more high-level talent players that may need some "team-skill" coaching at the D1/WCHA level than to produce fewer high-talent players based on an elitist setup of club-team only hockey from youth-thru-HS.

2) I suppose in the elitist club hockey setup the D1/WCHA coaches wouldn't have to do THEIR job of helping these players acclimate to that level of play... But, recruiting would become a heck of a lot more work as we'd lose a lot of talented players due to lack of early opportunity to develop or even try hockey (community based youth & HS hockey).

3) Every HS team I've watched has a system. Some teams do rely on their better players more. Coaches in programs with only 1 or a select few "above average" players help these players get opportunities to play with like-ability players off-season. I have a hard time believing that the truly "elite" D1/WCHA player doesn't know how to play as a "team-player" either within their HS team setting - or from their exposure to off-season "elite" opportunities.

4) Lastly - If D1/WCHA coaches want to help maybe they could make their concerns more widely known and addressed through the annual fall coaching seminar by the MGHCA (if they even know what that entity is).

5) MN has nothing to prove on the national/international/AAA or other stage. It's fun to do, very expensive, great experience, exposure, etc., etc. though I will give it that. For a long time I believed that we had to go to AAA nationals with a team or teams of HS all-stars to prove that NDP should give MN more spots more than anything else. I'm not so sure that we have to prove MN spots for NDP anymore.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:06 pm

ghshockeyfan wrote:In response to the idea that WCHA coaches have issues with the coaching at the MSHSL level and the notion that this being possible reason for club- vs community- based hockey I can only say this:

1) It's a heck of a lot better situation to be producing more high-level talent players that may need some "team-skill" coaching at the D1/WCHA level than to produce fewer high-talent players based on an elitist setup of club-team only hockey from youth-thru-HS.

2) I suppose in the elitist club hockey setup the D1/WCHA coaches wouldn't have to do THEIR job of helping these players acclimate to that level of play... But, recruiting would become a heck of a lot more work as we'd lose a lot of talented players due to lack of early opportunity to develop or even try hockey (community based youth & HS hockey).

3) Every HS team I've watched has a system. Some teams do rely on their better players more. Coaches in programs with only 1 or a select few "above average" players help these players get opportunities to play with like-ability players off-season. I have a hard time believing that the truly "elite" D1/WCHA player doesn't know how to play as a "team-player" either within their HS team setting - or from their exposure to off-season "elite" opportunities.

4) Lastly - If D1/WCHA coaches want to help maybe they could make their concerns more widely known and addressed through the annual fall coaching seminar by the MGHCA (if they even know what that entity is).

5) MN has nothing to prove on the national/international/AAA or other stage. It's fun to do, very expensive, great experience, exposure, etc., etc. though I will give it that. For a long time I believed that we had to go to AAA nationals with a team or teams of HS all-stars to prove that NDP should give MN more spots more than anything else. I'm not so sure that we have to prove MN spots for NDP anymore.

Good post. This is always an interesting subject. My two cents is I think if you look at the numbers its working in Minnesota (I bet the Minnesota numbers would be even more impressive if you counted the Wisconsin players that live in western Wisconsin which I think is natural outgrowth from Minnesota). Getting rid of HS hockey? That's crazy. Would we get rid of HS football, basketball, baseball... We have great numbers because of our community based system of hockey and its affordability. Great numbers mean there is a better chance that good athletes will choose hockey. Joe and Hux seem to be arguing that other states produce better teams than us. So what if they do. Its not about the few elite players and winning at NAHA (or whatever tourney) its about the sport and the numbers to make it competitive and fun.

SECoach · Post by **SECoach** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:27 pm

In defense of Joe and Hux I think i took some liberties with a somewhat innocent comment and turned it into what i wanted to debate, and always want to debate. I don't think either of them are advocating going fully to club hockey in Minnesota. I just believe its a dangerous slope when we put too much emphasis on it and fall under its spell of being the ultimate direction to take our programs.

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:40 pm

SECoach wrote:In defense of Joe and Hux I think i took some liberties with a somewhat innocent comment and turned it into what i wanted to debate, and always want to debate. I don't think either of them are advocating going fully to club hockey in Minnesota. I just believe its a dangerous slope when we put too much emphasis on it and fall under its spell of being the ultimate direction to take our programs.

There was some talk about year round teams which isn't possible under our HS rules or USA/MH rules. I'm sure that Joe is arguing that MH should permit more special affiliation agreements so that Minnesota teams can compete nationally with USA sanctioned hockey teams.

Currently under USA/MH rules it is impossible to play USA Tier II Hockey and High School Hockey at the same time. I have done some related research in the past regarding this issue in regards to so called AAA teams that want to play in our youth hockey tournaments in Minnesota. My research might be old so I will apologize ahead of time for any changes in recent years or any details that have become fuzzy over time.

From what found out USA hockey divides up sanctioned hockey into two categories. Tier II which is the community based hockey that we have in Minnesota and Tier I which is the rest of the country. I and II has nothing to do with the quality of play. It has to do with the fact that the rest of the country cannot or has decided not to operate on the community based system for various reasons mostly due to the lack of players in small locales. The Crunch, SSM and the Thoroughbreds are exceptions in Minnesota and are Tier I teams.

Minnesota Hockey, which is a governing body under USA Hockey, has the power to permit Before and After Affiliation Agreements which in short means that MH can allow a team to be sanctioned under USA Hockey either before or after the HS season for limited purposes. It is my understanding that MH does not like to give out these affiliation agreements too easily and someone needs to give them a good reason to grant such an agreement. The Elite League has such an agreement.

I've been told that Minnesota Hockey wants to protect our community based hockey model. This is related to (I have a problem with MH's logic on this one) why girls that are U14 eligible and have not played varsity hockey will not be permitted to play on a sanctioned USA hockey team that are part of the affiliation agreement before or after the HS season.

I personally would like to see more special Affiliation Agreements to allow some of our girls to play USA sanctioned tournaments before and after our HS season. I doubt it will happen.

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:49 pm

ghshockeyfan you are right on in my humble opinion.

Hansonbrother · Post by **Hansonbrother** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:11 pm

Can I ask a simple question? What are these so called "systems" that the high school coaches teach? Are you referring to a specific power play or a penalty kill? (Which in my mind are simply formations that require the same read and react skills required during regular 5 on 5 play.)

Or were you referring to a systems of 5 on 5 hockey?

Media · Post by **Media** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:15 pm

I was talking about more than 1 or two forchecks in an entire year something as simple as a trap something more than a defensive zone box several power other than the parachute something like defensive regrouping, d-d reverse russian breakouts etc etc , You will note I support high school hockey and its retention Only point is the coaches could challenge the players more than they do

joxs · Post by **joxs** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:02 am

Here are three links to follow the Thoroughbreds this season:
http://www.mnthoroughbreds.com/
http://mnthoroughbreds.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Minnesota ... 3904907683

northwoods oldtimer · Post by **northwoods oldtimer** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:01 pm

Media wrote:Media's Thoughts for your disection !

1) High school hockey must be maintained
2) players should not move from u-12 to high school
3) A post grad program(s) are now required ! ie like the Crunch based on increased talent levels
4) Highschool coaches must be able to teach systems
5) The words "no checking" in womens hockey should be removed and replaced with the words limited contact .

Common sense: If you steal the best player from a team who is trying to get players you in effect have the potential to destroy a program or at a minimum limit its potential to grow .

That sould keep you going a while LOL

Media's bullet points are indeed correct. You want to grow the sport and high school programs are a part of that solution. Rolling 1 line is not the answer and depending on a few all stars is not the solution to the girls game. I think Roseville is a pretty darn good example of a program that thinks outside the box and tweaks and turns with any given year to develop a team approach to the game. That is where you need to head as not everyone can afford Thoroughbread hockey. High school hockey needs to remain a viable option for kids and youth to high school need to develop a partnership mentality not an adverse mentaility to the respective programs. Throw arrogance aside folks for the betterment of your girls and the programs will flourish!

Bensonmum · Post by **Bensonmum** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Isn't it weird that the elite athletes in every team sport except hockey play the sport in HS? LeBron James honed his skills playing with and against inferior players in high school, along with some AAU in the off-season. Why wasn't it necessary for him to play year-round on an all-star team vs. other all-star teams. Same for Joe Mauer--he only played baseball about 4 months per year and never really with peers. All the pitchers he ever faced before turning professional were inferior competition for him. How in the hell did he ever master the most difficult task in all of sports that way?
But apparently women's college hockey coaches want to make it so that 16-year-old girls have to sign on to a team and travel the country for two or three years, spending 10s of thousands of their parents' money in the process, in order to play hockey at the D1 level. Isn't that weird?
And why is it that the US is apparently the only country on earth where the universities offer athletic scholarships?

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:18 pm

I guess I’m interested in why one would question our system… or better yet see it as a disadvantage. I mean I’ve read the hearsay quotes from D-1 coaches, I understand the advantage that our elite players would have competing more against players of equal abilities and I get the theories related to the watered down reality (competition, poor coaching) of our association and high school systems, etc. But I can’t help dismissing all that when I see the end results. That being greater numbers of players on D-1, D-3 rosters, high performance of teams in select tournaments, leagues, etc. Let’s also keep in perspective that the population streams these others teams (areas) have to draw upon are so much greater. Little Caesars represents the best players Michigan has to offer, same with Chicago Mission, NAHA…and these teams play together almost year round. You can put Shattuck in the category also. We send two teams that have played a couple of tournaments together to the high profile Labor Day Tournament and they were as competitive as any of the teams out there (and we could have sent another two that would have had similar success). Let’s put it into the right perspective. What if we sent the Elite league all star team out there? No contest. Hand them the trophy, and congratulate the team that came in second. I think we are doing alright. I truly feel we may have the right mix now. The high school season has really become the off season. Time to play with your friends, take in the civic pride thing, get your name in the paper, all at the same time setting the stage for greater numbers of participants. The before and after stuff, summer training is really when the development happens. More leagues like the Two Nations could possibly help develop “playing with in a system”. My take on the girls out east (with their systems and coaching) is that they are good in the defensive and neutral zone but become somewhat less effective in the offensive zone. Too much positioning to take the big shot…maybe I’ll get noticed by the scouts…I guess. Would I like to see AAA hockey year round, forgo High School or have the ability to do both? Sure, but that would be for personal reasons. But for the greater good, the system that encourages greater participation has to be the right one. I mean the more oysters you have the better chance you have at finding the pearls…right

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:51 pm

Seems ironic that we as parents, coaches and just spectators who enjoy hockey never seem to wonder what the girls actually playing think about all this. They can spend more and more time participating in all the programs we can think up as adults to make them these great players, so we can go watch and talk about how many are from minnesota. Spend thousands of dollars and they just might get to where we think they should go. Then if they are one of the fortunate few who get a "full-ride" after four years, exept for a fraction of a percent, go off and start a career, get married have kids and maybe even a few will decide to coach. It's a wonderful world we create for our kids.

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:59 pm

I think some people believe that something worth doing is worth doing well. I also think the references being made are focused on the top ten percent of the athletes that have a true passion and are asking…no demanding that these programs be developed. As parent my role is as a facilitator who makes calls and writes checks. Not saying it’s for everyone.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:19 pm

hockeyheaven wrote:I think some people believe that something worth doing is worth doing well. I also think the references being made are focused on the top ten percent of the athletes that have a true passion and are asking…no demanding that these programs be developed. As parent my role is as a facilitator who makes calls and writes checks. Not saying it’s for everyone.

I know of quite a few girls that have lots of passion for hockey but not the funds to match it, so some very good players do get left behind being they cant afford all of the AAA and other camps and clinics that are there, and for those girls HS is their dream.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:35 pm

One thing that I want to make clear as I'm very proud of the MN teams & players that did go out east or up into Canada and represented us so very well. I think the AAA teams that do spend the $ and go out east/up north help the rest of the MN girls that can't do so. The key assumption is that the college coaches realize that there may be talent left at home that couldn't make the trip for economic or other reasons.

I don't want to come across as anti-AAA, anti-NAHA, anti-All-Star Team, etc. I just don't agree with the idea that we should go club-only and not keep a community based opportunity.

A hybrid (as I think we actually have now) and opportunities for those that want to go AAA & can afford and want to do all the travel, etc. is what's best. Again, I think we have this now. I've complained that some rules could be tweaked to help better coordinate the hybrid scenario but bottom line is what we have is probably just as good if not better than the rest of the nation.

titleist · Post by **titleist** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:47 am

Rolling 1 line is not the answer and depending on a few all stars is not the solution to the girls game. I think Roseville is a pretty darn good example of a program that thinks outside the box and tweaks and turns with any given year to develop a team approach to the game. quote]

Wow, Coach Brodt must be lining your pockets for comments like this! But in fairness to this blog, I know Roseville doesn't teach any systems. They might have a formation on special teams in which they move around in, but no systems other than that.

Thunderbird77 · Post by **Thunderbird77** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:12 pm

Given that Minnesota Hockey has just changed to definition of "community-based" hockey for this season, I wonder what the future will hold. I was told by a Minnesota hockey official that they changed the definition in response to overwhelming feedback from constituents (parents and players) that they want choice about where they play

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:58 am

Since this thread is about the Thoroughbreds....here are teams and scores from their opening Tournament (great field) at Union College NY this is from info on the College Forum

Friday, September 11, 2009
Div. Time Home Team (South Bench) RM Visiting Team (Press Box Bench) RM
Garnet 11:30a Stoney Creek Sabres vs. Minnesota Thoroughbreds ....4-1
Garnet 2:00p Aurora Panthers vs. Buffalo Bison ...4-0
White 12:45p Wyoming Seminary vs. London Devilettes ...1-3
White 3:15p Hamilton Hawks vs. Syracuse Nationals ...0-0
Grey 6:00p Mississauga Jr. Chiefs vs. Cornwall Typhoons ...4-0
Grey 7:15p Southwest Wildcats vs. Troy-Albany IceCats ...5-0
Garnet 8:30p Minnesota Thoroughbreds vs. Aurora Panthers ...1-3

Saturday, September 12, 2009
Garnet 8:15a Buffalo Bison vs. Stoney Creek Sabres ...1-3
White 7:00a Wyoming Seminary vs. Hamilton Hawks ...1-4
White 9:30a London Devilettes vs. Syracuse Nationals ...4-1
Grey 10:45a Troy-Albany IceCats vs. Mississauga Jr. Chiefs ...1-13
Grey 12:00p Cornwall Typhoons vs. Southwest Wildcats ...2-3

Standings after 2 games:
Garnet: Stoney 4, Aurora 4, Minny 0, Buffalo 0.
White: London 4, Hamilton 3, Syracuse 1, Wyoming 0
Grey: Missy 4, Windsor 4, Cornwall 0, Troy 0 with a minus 17

3 head to head matches for pool wins coming up:
Aurora vs Stoney
London vs Hamilton
Missy vs Windsor

Semis matchups are:
Mississauga vs Aurora
Stoney vs London

northwoods oldtimer · Post by **northwoods oldtimer** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:02 pm

titleist wrote: Wow, Coach Brodt must be lining your pockets for comments like this! But in fairness to this blog, I know Roseville doesn't teach any systems. They might have a formation on special teams in which they move around in, but no systems other than that.

Herb Brooks wanted to do "broaden the pyramid" in hockey. What is wrong with programs taking that approach? It is a great game to participate in. Too many youth programs are narrowing the focus and it is negatively impacting the growth of girls hockey. Thoroughbreds and USA hockey offer many great alternative but not every family can afford it. Thus the importance of the community based model.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:24 am

Some facts that need to be stated. Number of Mn Women at the D I level and D III levels :
Mn DI-132,DIII-242, TOTAL 374
Mass. DI-70,DIII-163,TOTAL 233
NY DI-34,DIII-111,TOTAL 145
Mich DI-26,DIII-52,TOTAL 78
WIS. DI-15,DIII-47 TOTAL-62
ILL. DI-22,DIII-38 TOTAL -60
CT DI-25,DIII-33 TOTAL -58

Total American women DI-462,DIII 951 TOTAL 1413

Total D1-773, DIII-1101, TOTAL 1874

Do we need to change what Mn Hockey and High School hockey and the summer programs are doing? Be careful what you wish for we can end up like Michigan OR Wisconsin.

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:01 pm

Looking at those numbers maybe all these other states should be trying to imitate what Minnesota does.

titleist · Post by **titleist** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:28 pm

hockeywild7 wrote:Looking at those numbers maybe all these other states should be trying to imitate what Minnesota does.

don't let Ben Smith see those numbers, he might actually start to think that there might be some talent outside of the east coast.

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:56 pm

titleist wrote:
hockeywild7 wrote:Looking at those numbers maybe all these other states should be trying to imitate what Minnesota does.
don't let Ben Smith see those numbers, he might actually start to think that there might be some talent outside of the east coast.

It is very easy to pick the talent that is in front of your nose!

titleist · Post by **titleist** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:31 pm

hockeya1a wrote:
titleist wrote:
hockeywild7 wrote:Looking at those numbers maybe all these other states should be trying to imitate what Minnesota does.
don't let Ben Smith see those numbers, he might actually start to think that there might be some talent outside of the east coast.
It is very easy to pick the talent that is in front of your nose!

you meant in his case, "it's easy to pick your nose!"

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Thoroughbreds

Thoroughbreds Links

Girls HS Hockey

Re: Girls HS Hockey

Re: Girls HS Hockey