Girls High Performance 16 / 17 teams

Gopher04 · Post by **Gopher04** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:15 pm

Can anyone elaborate on the Girls High Performance 16 / 17 teams selection process, and who really chooses and / or evaluates the teams? I've heard that there are evaluators in the stands, I've heard that the on ice personnel evaluates, I've heard that Administrative staff helps out too? Also, what part, if any, do the highschool coaches of those girls play in the selection process? Do they, or are they, asked to contribute information on individuals in any way? This is all relatively new to me, and from what I've heard can be a little skewed at times - I couldn't say if it is or isn't as I don't know much about the whole selection process. It just seems that the evaluators try to take at least one representative from each school in the Section to fill out their teams?

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:29 am

Evaluators are in the stands.

Any and all processes of selection through out youth and high school hockey appear to skewed by some.

It's additional off season ice, and a good opportunity for kids to play at a higher level than their normal season teams probably have in most cases. Also a chance to meet and make new friends

hometown warrior · Post by **hometown warrior** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:46 pm

Or if your the Warroad coach, you can move your daughter through the process. Again.

Tigers33 · Post by **Tigers33** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:17 am

Your daughter not good enough to play at Warroad? So...are you telling me that the Marvin's are not good and dont deserve to make the advanced teams. Is that what you are saying?

observer · Post by **observer** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:38 am

How was day one? Scores? Did you see some outstanding players?

The Boy's Hub has all the info. on their site and the Girl's Hub has zero which is too bad.

Boy's info.

http://www.mnhockeyhub.com

Girl's no info.

http://www.mngirlshockeyhub.com

Girl's Hub editors need to pick up their game.

stagefright · Post by **stagefright** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:25 pm

Final 54 roster is posted.

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:46 pm

The girls are posted at the USA hockey website.

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Pretty sure you mean Minnesota Hockey site,

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -16-and-17

inthestands · Post by **inthestands** » Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:31 pm

observer wrote:Pretty sure you mean Minnesota Hockey site,

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/page/sho ... -16-and-17

Yes, thanks for the correction.

ustayclassyminnesota · Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:48 pm

Just curious--Is the 15/16/17 selection process for girls as political as it is for boys?

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:29 am

ustayclassyminnesota wrote:Just curious--Is the 15/16/17 selection process for girls as political as it is for boys?

It sure is!
And it is too bad that it is that way!

observer · Post by **observer** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:44 am

Just curious--Is the 15/16/17 selection process for girls as political as it is for boys?

I'll say no. There are so many more boys there are bound to be more questionable decisions made. The goal is to put together the best possible team so I would call them perceived mistakes more than politics. With the boys it will come down to the eye of the evaluator and some liking a small skilled player over a bigger stronger, less mobile, one. Both very good players, just different. With the girls the separation between players is greater as there are fewer of them. I think the teams are easier to pick. And, they don't hit which can be a difference maker. It does seem like some coaches do a better job of getting more players involved and the coaches on the ice can be more familiar with some players than some others. Overall I think of it more as mistakes by the evaluators and coaches as they haven't watched the players for 5-6 years like some of the spectators have. They don't know the entire history of some of the individual players. That can be a good thing though, the reverse of what you're suggesting, not political choices made because they don't know all the politics you speak of.

woogieboogiewoogie · Post by **woogieboogiewoogie** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:47 am

How so hockeya1a? Details would be nice??

hockeya1a · Post by **hockeya1a** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:18 am

woogieboogiewoogie wrote:How so hockeya1a? Details would be nice??

I would say that if a kid is given a chance to play in 15/16/17’s and after observing them and or knowing them, you believe that the kid that was chosen was most likely only given the chance because of who their coach was, would be one reason I would call it politics, I have seen and heard where the evaluators point out who certain kids are on the ice and use there names, I have heard of a guy that was suppose to help evaluate and when he got there the was told lets go get something to eat and when he commented that he did not have a chance to evaluate the kids they said it does not matter they already know who they want. Don’t get me wrong most of the best make it to the end, but some are never given a chance that I felt could possibly make it.
I have seen a team win the whole thing and only send 3 girls to the next level and the team that takes 5 or 6 send 12 players to the next level, so yes there is politics, and it is unfortunate! Do I think it’s a perfect system? No. Can it be Good? Yes! Another thing I have also witnessed coaches laughing and making fun of girls on the ice when they fall or get schooled by another player, it was not overly professional.

jumpstart · Post by **jumpstart** » Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:55 pm

Here are two issues I find fault with in these types of evaluations:

1. Having high school coaches evaluate their own players. I see no problem with high school coaches evaluating the girls, but they should be moved to a different section where they are not as familiar with the players, don’t base their decisions on what they might know about a player, and are not trying to promote their own players to the next level.

2. The system is not geared toward the best team player. In order to move onto the next level, a player must be selfish with the puck and stand out to the evaluators. These programs do not reward the defensive defender or the playmaker forward. This, in my opinion, is not what the game of hockey should be about nor is it what should be promoted.

allhoc11 · Post by **allhoc11** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:38 pm

jumpstart wrote:Here are two issues I find fault with in these types of evaluations:

1. Having high school coaches evaluate their own players. I see no problem with high school coaches evaluating the girls, but they should be moved to a different section where they are not as familiar with the players, don’t base their decisions on what they might know about a player, and are not trying to promote their own players to the next level.

2. The system is not geared toward the best team player. In order to move onto the next level, a player must be selfish with the puck and stand out to the evaluators. These programs do not reward the defensive defender or the playmaker forward. This, in my opinion, is not what the game of hockey should be about nor is it what should be promoted.

Interesting points, my question to you is are you sure HS coaches evaluate their own players? From what I've seen the HS coaches coach, and have little to do with evaluation except in the beginning stages(selecting advanced teams, not final 54). When you look around the rink most evaluators are D 3 coaches, and these people make a living judging talent. I'm not saying they are always correct and mistakes aren't made but evaluations are subjective, and most evaluators have different things they value. I think what MN hockey does well, is have a wide range of evaluators, and I think with that process the scores equal out, and the better hockey players are selected.

The good news for girls hockey is this is getting tougher to do each year (evaluate). That means the gap between the top end players and bottom is closing which means our talent pool is getting better, which I think is shown in the climb in numbers that we as a state have sent to play D1 hockey the past couple years. The one thing IMO that we aren't doing is producing D1 superstars, and olympians. That however is an entirely different debate, as I think those aren't produced but born.

elkpower · Post by **elkpower** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:01 pm

Why are there girls playing who have D-1 Scholarships?. Are they taking away opportunities from the other players?

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:10 pm

That would be a reason not to do Junior Fest. These girls still have the opportunity to make it to the National camp and then possibly the Under 18 team.

On another note…does anyone know how the roster was determined for the NIT? Furthermore…was one of the requirements that you had to be a senior?

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:17 pm

elkpower wrote:Why are there girls playing who have D-1 Scholarships?. Are they taking away opportunities from the other players?

I thought this was for National Camp exposure for future consideration to National Teams - I would expect lots of D1 girls - Right?

leftwing · Post by **leftwing** » Mon Apr 18, 2011 5:06 pm

From observing, I think at the lower levels of the tryouts, the talent distinctions tend to be fairly clear. The toughest is with the 'bubble' players - it's hard to say if one particular player should have been chosen vs. another.

At the higher levels, there's just an awful lot of great talent on the ice - a tribute to the growing depth and sophistication of girls' development here in the state.

I think the previous comment is probably pretty accurate - what one evaluator likes, another may not. I would guess they take their roles pretty seriously; the girls selected need to have the chops to play well at the next level up the ladder.

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:32 am

Since there is really no information to be found on either the Hub or the MH web sites…anyone care to give a recap of the weekend. What teams…players looked good, etc?

woogieboogiewoogie · Post by **woogieboogiewoogie** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:04 am

National Camp 16's List

Defense
Hannah Behounek Minnetonka
Kelsey Cline Bloomington Jefferson
Paige Haley Red Wing
Sidney Morin Minnetonka
Becca Senden Wayzata

Forwards
Brianna Breiland Crookston
Emilie Brigham Anoka
Dani Cameranesi Blake
Kate Flug Roseville
Amy Menke Shakopee
Caitlyn Reilly Benilde-St. Margaret's
Kate Schipper Breck
Christi Vetter Lakeville North
Megan Wolfe Eagan

National Camp 17's List

Defense
Ali Austin Edina
Sara Bustad Stillwater
Caitlyn Hunt Thief River Falls
Lexi Slattery Centennial
Lee Stechlein Roseville

Forwards
Laura Bowman Minnetonka
Hanna Brodt Roseville
Jonna Curtis Elk River
Kayla Gardner Warroad
Molly Illikainen Grand Rapids/Greenway
Courtney Kukowski Eastview

Congratulations Girls!!

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:12 am

Hannah Brandt?

Oh you probably mean Hannah Brodt -Roseville.

woogieboogiewoogie · Post by **woogieboogiewoogie** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:34 am

Just copied pasted the list off the minnesota website.
Just went to double check they just changed it to Brodt.

hockeyheaven wrote:Hannah Brandt?

Oh you probably mean Hannah Brodt -Roseville.

MinnGirlsHockey · Post by **MinnGirlsHockey** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:17 am

I wonder why Goaltenders are to be determined by USA Hockey. Has it been done this way in the past?

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Girls High Performance 16 / 17 teams

Girls High Performance 16 / 17 teams

National Camp 16's & 17's