Girls High Performance 16 / 17 teams

leftwing · Post by **leftwing** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:21 am

My understanding with the goalies is that the talent level varies considerably between districts. Having an automatic slot or two for each district meant that goalies were showing up at national camp who really didn't belong at that level. I think the at-large selections have been going on for several years now....

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:30 pm

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

Why is it every year during "Select" or in the case of Minnesota, "High Performance" selection process someone questions players with scholarships in hand participating in the selection process? What does having a scholarship have to do with looking for...or attempting to identify players with National Team potential? Is their some connection between this process and college hockey I'm unaware of? Should players who've received a scholarship offer be ineligible to compete for any potential spots on a National Team roster?

Maybe the sole, exclusive purpose of the Select or High Performance process is for the opportunity to be seen for a chance at garnering a division I college hockey scholarship. If so, I didn't know that was the case.

observer · Post by **observer** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:46 pm

I think you're better educated than elkpower. Maybe just a little confusion so I wouldn’t make much of it. Certainly the Reebok High Performance process leads to National Team berths.

There are other tournaments that are used for exposure to college coaches but this is not one of them. At one time a couple of those boys and girls tournaments were limited to players still hoping for college exposure but that seems to have changed as well. The current philosophy is to get the best players on the ice and not exclude anyone.

moose jaw · Post by **moose jaw** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:58 pm

Maybe the so-called educated that are always on this board promoting arent as wise as they claim to be.Since when is a verbal a scholarship in hand,nobody other than the player and coech really knows ,a verbal guarantees nothing,other than maybe grab some attention,looks to me by who was selected the early commits might have some work to do and the girls who have not made commitments yet might prove to be the wisest ones yet.

Bandy · Post by **Bandy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:17 pm

I think they're earning opportunities for themselves (and the national U18 team), rather than taking opportunities from anyone. Furthermore, look at how many 17's from Minnesota make it to National Camp: 6 F's, 5 D's, and maybe 1-2 goalies. How many Minnesota girls make a D1 team every year? Maybe 25-35??? Clearly, making national camp is huge, but it is not the only pathway to D1. There probably are some deserving kids that get passed over, but maybe their best course of action is to step back, evaluate their game, and work their butts off so they can come out and finish off their high school career with a bang.

moose jaw · Post by **moose jaw** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:37 pm

Well said Bandy.

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:09 pm

moose jaw wrote:Maybe the so-called educated that are always on this board promoting arent as wise as they claim to be.Since when is a verbal a scholarship in hand,nobody other than the player and coech really knows ,a verbal guarantees nothing,other than maybe grab some attention,looks to me by who was selected the early commits might have some work to do and the girls who have not made commitments yet might prove to be the wisest ones yet.

This post reads a bit like the comments were directed at me and the observations of my previous post, including the questions I posed.

If that is accurate, I'd like to ask a couple more questions. What is it...or what has it been in the past that constitutes me "always on this board promoting?" Promoting what exactly? Also, where did I indicate I considered a verbal commitment a "scholarship in hand?" I was responding with regards to, and focused on future division I players that have very likely received a scholarship offer, or in other words, the players referenced by elkpower in their earlier post. If your implying that none of the players who have made a verbal commitment have any personal and private knowledge of scholarship $$ they can expect...I don't buy that one. I have serious doubts that a lot of verbal commitments by top Minnesota players are made in complete absence of any info / agreement between their future coach and themselves with regards to scholarship $$.

I'd also have to strongly disagree that players make knowledge of their verbal commitment known publicly with "grabbing attention" as their primary motive for doing so. I'd actually tend to believe grabbing attention isn't even an objective that enters their mind. I can definitely understand the peace of mind some might be looking to achieve with their commitment made.

moose jaw · Post by **moose jaw** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:47 pm

No it was not directed to you but if you read my post i stated outside the player and coaches no one really knows what the offers are,and if you dont think that certain people dont throw out the verbals to draw some attention you are naive,maybe not so much on girls side but it happens with the boys 15 year olds making verbals who you never here of again after high school.

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:34 pm

moose jaw wrote:No it was not directed to you but if you read my post i stated outside the player and coaches no one really knows what the offers are,and if you dont think that certain people dont throw out the verbals to draw some attention you are naive,maybe not so much on girls side but it happens with the boys 15 year olds making verbals who you never here of again after high school.

Nothing I posted has anything to do with verbal commitments from the boys. Circumstances are quite different for each IMO and thankfully, verbals by the girls are honored and kept at a very high percentage from all I've seen. I've seen commitments not kept due to injury or other unforeseen personal circumstances but next to zero commitments not fulfilled outside of those situations for the girls. Also, up to this point in time anyway, you also see far less meddling, poaching...or whatever you want to call it, in the way of attempts by coaching staffs to recruit players away from programs between the time the unofficial verbal is made and signing the dotted line for NCAA women's hockey. IMO, that's a dishonorable practice by staffs although not at all uncommon for big time NCAA athletics...mostly large revenue generating sports for the men. I like the "alternative" reality for women's hockey where commitments are kept and largely respected by most staffs. It is as it should be for all college athletics in my view.

If a player has taken the time, done their research with due diligence and made their decision, that should be respected by coaches of other programs. Nothing wrong with a player changing their mind at some point based on their own criteria...but coercion from opposing staffs is bull doody. End of general college athletics rant...doesn't apply so much to women's hockey anyway.

Regarding actual offers being known only to coaches and players, that is mostly correct and also as it should be IMO. There have been times that information has been willingly given to me personally by individual players / parents who were friends. Not something I'd EVER discuss outside the personal friendships. I've never claimed to know such information within this forum. Not my business and no interest in knowing those details.

Bandy · Post by **Bandy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:52 pm

On a hopefully less political note... I was not at the games, but I heard that one of the 16 teams whooped one of the 17 teams at the final 54 games last weekend. Red 16s beat White 17s 7-3 Sunday. I think this is evidence of something I've noticed all year on hockey hub -- a strong sophomore class last season. And I don't think the freshmen (15's) are gonna give them an inch of room -- some great talent there too. Not to take anything away from the 17s, but I think girls hockey is coming on STRONG in Minnesota.

mnhcp · Post by **mnhcp** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:25 pm

What you'll also notice (hello, oblivious HS coaches) - the sophmore class is yes "good". Freshman "better" ..then the 97/98 "best". Yes, girls hockey has reached it's apex. So you juniors - watch your backs. That's not meant to be "mean spirited" but many haven't seen this wave of girls yet.

Watch the recorded 2011 St Girls Tournament, watch the next girls again in 2012...record and save it! Then, watch it in 4 and 5 years. It'll be like watching 1980 boys high school tournament. Hockey and girls hockey have come a long way.

I'm speaking in generalities for the critics.

hometown warrior · Post by **hometown warrior** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:35 pm

LZ94 · Post by **LZ94** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:34 am

hometown warrior wrote:
Tigers33 wrote: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?
yes that is what I am saying. Can only ride coat tails so long and coach can't buy way into the national camp. Youngest only 1 of 3. Recruits to make his own look good. Can't do it on their own. Trust me. Sylvester Ms. Hockey regardless of where she played. Helped #13 look good, tho. Kudos to the work ethic of the rest of the Warriors. thanks to Holly and Gigi for putting warroad girls on the radar.

Was Holly from Warroad?

OntheEdge · Post by **OntheEdge** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:36 am

mnhcp wrote:What you'll also notice (hello, oblivious HS coaches) - the sophmore class is yes "good". Freshman "better" ..then the 97/98 "best". Yes, girls hockey has reached it's apex. So you juniors - watch your backs. That's not meant to be "mean spirited" but many haven't seen this wave of girls yet.

Watch the recorded 2011 St Girls Tournament, watch the next girls again in 2012...record and save it! Then, watch it in 4 and 5 years. It'll be like watching 1980 boys high school tournament. Hockey and girls hockey have come a long way.

I'm speaking in generalities for the critics.

I agree with you but IMO girls hockey is getting better mostly from the bottom up. I don't think there are as many superstars in the younger groups but there seems to be much more depth every year. More and more teams have more than a few good to great players which is making the game overall better every year.

Its my opinion that this is a result of all of the training that girls have done in the off season over the years to get better. Girls hockey has become a big business as many are spending big $ on training programs and chasing the dream to play college hockey. Unless the economy improves soon I think this could be the beginning of the tail end of the golden age for girls hockey. In the current economy, money is a lot tighter and I can't see families paying as much for training as they did in the past. My daughter has trained at a lot of different programs over the years. 5 years ago training programs were full and hard to get into. Currently I have noticed a big drop off in attendance at some of the programs which I think is because people can't afford it as much. If this continues I think it can slow the upward trend in quality of play in the long term. Only time will tell.

hockeywild7 · Post by **hockeywild7** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:55 am

There are also alot more training options for girls than 10 or even 5 years ago so that also accounts for what you are seeing.

mnhcp · Post by **mnhcp** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:53 pm

OntheEdge wrote:
mnhcp wrote:What you'll also notice (hello, oblivious HS coaches) - the sophmore class is yes "good". Freshman "better" ..then the 97/98 "best". Yes, girls hockey has reached it's apex. So you juniors - watch your backs. That's not meant to be "mean spirited" but many haven't seen this wave of girls yet.

Watch the recorded 2011 St Girls Tournament, watch the next girls again in 2012...record and save it! Then, watch it in 4 and 5 years. It'll be like watching 1980 boys high school tournament. Hockey and girls hockey have come a long way.

I'm speaking in generalities for the critics.
I agree with you but IMO girls hockey is getting better mostly from the bottom up. I don't think there are as many superstars in the younger groups but there seems to be much more depth every year. More and more teams have more than a few good to great players which is making the game overall better every year.

Its my opinion that this is a result of all of the training that girls have done in the off season over the years to get better. Girls hockey has become a big business as many are spending big $ on training programs and chasing the dream to play college hockey. Unless the economy improves soon I think this could be the beginning of the tail end of the golden age for girls hockey. In the current economy, money is a lot tighter and I can't see families paying as much for training as they did in the past. My daughter has trained at a lot of different programs over the years. 5 years ago training programs were full and hard to get into. Currently I have noticed a big drop off in attendance at some of the programs which I think is because people can't afford it as much. If this continues I think it can slow the upward trend in quality of play in the long term. Only time will tell.

Agreed. I think the apex has been reached (top of the bubble) somewhere in the 1996 to 1999 range.

puckskillz · Post by **puckskillz** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:04 pm

I also agree with last few posts.
A consensus from some recruiters over the past few years is that there appears to be increasing depth in the upcoming classes but fewer elite players developing. There may never be another Wendell or Darwitz. Not sure why?? I know there is a concern about more and more hockey players becoming single sport athletes and never fully developing their athletic potential. Overall, MN is doing a great job in developing players which is terriffic for those of us that love watching competitive hockey and for the girls that want options to play at the next level.

iceage · Post by **iceage** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 8:15 am

puckskillz wrote:I also agree with last few posts.
A consensus from some recruiters over the past few years is that there appears to be increasing depth in the upcoming classes but fewer elite players developing. There may never be another Wendell or Darwitz. Not sure why?? I know there is a concern about more and more hockey players becoming single sport athletes and never fully developing their athletic potential. Overall, MN is doing a great job in developing players which is terriffic for those of us that love watching competitive hockey and for the girls that want options to play at the next level.

I disagree (no offense to Wendell or Darwitz - they were great players) but it is because girl's hockey is being built from the bottom up that you think elite players are not being developed. It is now much harder to stand out above the higher level of hockey talent. In Wendell and Darwitz days it wasn't that hard. I was/am a great fan of Bobby Orr. He was a superstar, he stood out head and shoulders above defensemen of his day but now when I watch the old films that I have of him, I wonder if he would be even be an average player in today's hockey. The girl's superstars will come along. There will be others. It just takes a lot more to be "elite" these days.

joehockey · Post by **joehockey** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:45 am

Kind of agree with Iceage.

Over the last 10 years have watched a lot of Girls Hockey - youth, HS and college each year the bar goes up. I took my 1st grade daughter to the first Gopher College game vs Augsberg. She is a freshman now in College and I had a chance to watch a lot of college hockey this year some great players even 4th liners would have been killers back then.

Super stars are born, put in an enviornment to grow and have an incredible passion to compete/win. Girls Hockey is not Boys Hockey - Wendell played Boys Baseball at the Little League World Series and Boys Hockey she had an older borther who also played for the Gophers. Darwitz played Boys Hockey. They were great gifted athletes but also had to competing hard and when you hear their stories they were rink rats compete against boys for hours on the outdoor rinks. The Twins up at UND have a similar DNA from thier Dad and brothers all who played D1. The best girls I see know stand out - how good would they be competing with Boys - to be great find ways to play against Boys in 3x3, summer teams or just on the Pond. I think there are some girls from MN who will make a National Mark similar in length to Darwitz and Wendell - they will occur over a decade like those two did not every year.

stagefright · Post by **stagefright** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:23 pm

Camp ended today. All-Star Roster posted.

http://www.usahockey.com/Template_Usaho ... &id=305368

goal4it · Post by **goal4it** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:56 pm

LZ94 wrote:
hometown warrior wrote:
Tigers33 wrote: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?
yes that is what I am saying. Can only ride coat tails so long and coach can't buy way into the national camp. Youngest only 1 of 3. Recruits to make his own look good. Can't do it on their own. Trust me. Sylvester Ms. Hockey regardless of where she played. Helped #13 look good, tho. Kudos to the work ethic of the rest of the Warriors. thanks to Holly and Gigi for putting warroad girls on the radar.
Was Holly from Warroad?

Atleast Izzy is smart to know that surrounding his daughters with good players can only make his daughters work hard and strive to be better, unlike the Grand Rapids coaches that obviously think there kids looks better by pushing other good players back/out!!

Hansonbrother · Post by **Hansonbrother** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:46 pm

goal4it wrote:
LZ94 wrote:
hometown warrior wrote: yes that is what I am saying. Can only ride coat tails so long and coach can't buy way into the national camp. Youngest only 1 of 3. Recruits to make his own look good. Can't do it on their own. Trust me. Sylvester Ms. Hockey regardless of where she played. Helped #13 look good, tho. Kudos to the work ethic of the rest of the Warriors. thanks to Holly and Gigi for putting warroad girls on the radar.
Was Holly from Warroad?
Atleast Izzy is smart to know that surrounding his daughters with good players can only make his daughters work hard and strive to be better, unlike the Grand Rapids coaches that obviously think there kids looks better by pushing other good players back/out!!

I would love to know who you are referring to...simply because I've seen Rapids play alot over the years and I don't know that there are more of these Elite players in their program other than the ones that are there. I know of players who decided on their own to leave and play out east to get more exposure from D-1 coaches, but that wasn't a case of being pushed out