LPH Series on the State of HS Hockey

[karl(east)]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/todays-to ... ockey.html

There's an interesting variety of pieces there...some are just the same old talking points, but there are also a few more honest self-examinations. There are also a lot of ideas (of varying quality) on what can be done to improve things, and there's a lot of hating on the MSHSL. Some are worth a read.

[almostashappy]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/todays-to ... ockey.html

I was too busy reading to start this thread before karl...they must teach speedreading Up North.

Lots of ideas bandied about in the article that queried coaches...

Lengthen periods to 20 minutes: Lots of love for this idea, as it would increase playing time without lengthening the season or increasing travel costs. It would also, however, make for some really late nights during the school week in rural parts of the State. And if the JV games were lengthened as well, there'd be need for earlier starts. Making the games longer would make it that much harder for certain coaches to shorten benches and ride their top lines. You'd see more fourth line and 5/6 dman play, which might, ironically, result in less playing time for the kids on the end of the bench (unless MSHSL relaxed the rule that limits the total number of periods a player can play between JV and Varsity games).

Increasing the number of games to 30, without lengthening the season: More love for this idea from the coaches, who noted that you could easily add 5 games to the regular season within the same period of time. I also like this idea; you could add 3 games to each schedule with "face-off" tournaments at the start of the season. Encourage play outside of your region/Section by getting Northern teams to host these tourneys and getting Metro teams to travel (they're better positioned to afford the extra costs).

Increasing the number of games to 30, by lengthening the season a couple of weeks: Some predictable push-back from smaller school coaches, who are more likely to have players in Fall sports. Less concern about extending the end of the season later into March, though, even if it overlaps the start of Spring sports. I'm still drinking the kool-aid when it comes to the benefits of playing multiple sports, though, so I'm not big on this idea. I'm guessing that parents worried about Spring Break and non-refundable tickets/vacation packages might be concerned as well.

[puckbreath]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/todays-to ... ockey.html

I was too busy reading to start this thread before karl...they must teach speedreading Up North.

Lots of ideas bandied about in the article that queried coaches...

Lengthen periods to 20 minutes: Lots of love for this idea, as it would increase playing time without lengthening the season or increasing travel costs. It would also, however, make for some really late nights during the school week in rural parts of the State. And if the JV games were lengthened as well, there'd be need for earlier starts. Making the games longer would make it that much harder for certain coaches to shorten benches and ride their top lines. You'd see more fourth line and 5/6 dman play, which might, ironically, result in less playing time for the kids on the end of the bench (unless MSHSL relaxed the rule that limits the total number of periods a player can play between JV and Varsity games).

Increasing the number of games to 30, without lengthening the season: More love for this idea from the coaches, who noted that you could easily add 5 games to the regular season within the same period of time. I also like this idea; you could add 3 games to each schedule with "face-off" tournaments at the start of the season. Encourage play outside of your region/Section by getting Northern teams to host these tourneys and getting Metro teams to travel (they're better positioned to afford the extra costs).

Increasing the number of games to 30, by lengthening the season a couple of weeks: Some predictable push-back from smaller school coaches, who are more likely to have players in Fall sports. Less concern about extending the end of the season later into March, though, even if it overlaps the start of Spring sports. I'm still drinking the kool-aid when it comes to the benefits of playing multiple sports, though, so I'm not big on this idea. I'm guessing that parents worried about Spring Break and non-refundable tickets/vacation packages might be concerned as well.

Re second point: I don't see the incentive for metro teams to come up north for said tournaments. Plenty of choices in the metro.
Though I'm all over having them travel for a change.

I'll never be convinced that traveling for hours, staying in a hotel, and not eating mom's cooking doesn't make a difference.

Re third point: more games in March would really be a good idea up here in the north. It's still winter for awhile up north.
We never get a spring anyway, and the spring sports end up practicing almost all inside, and playing in truly PLEASE BAN ME weather/cancelled games the vast majority of the time anyway.
Baseball, i.e., up here in the "spring" is a joke.

Haven't read the article yet.

[TheHockeyDJ]

A great way to accomplish the 3 games at the beginning of the year would be an opening tourney at the college rinks of Duluth, St. Cloud, Bemidji, and Mankato. Kind of like the college ice breaker, but on a larger scale. In Duluth you could host an even larger opener by having games at Amsoil and the DECC. Just an idea.

[Defensive Zone]

http://www.letsplayhockey.com/todays-to ... ockey.html

I was too busy reading to start this thread before karl...they must teach speedreading Up North.

Lots of ideas bandied about in the article that queried coaches...

Lengthen periods to 20 minutes: Lots of love for this idea, as it would increase playing time without lengthening the season or increasing travel costs. It would also, however, make for some really late nights during the school week in rural parts of the State. And if the JV games were lengthened as well, there'd be need for earlier starts. Making the games longer would make it that much harder for certain coaches to shorten benches and ride their top lines. You'd see more fourth line and 5/6 dman play, which might, ironically, result in less playing time for the kids on the end of the bench (unless MSHSL relaxed the rule that limits the total number of periods a player can play between JV and Varsity games).

Increasing the number of games to 30, without lengthening the season: More love for this idea from the coaches, who noted that you could easily add 5 games to the regular season within the same period of time. I also like this idea; you could add 3 games to each schedule with "face-off" tournaments at the start of the season. Encourage play outside of your region/Section by getting Northern teams to host these tourneys and getting Metro teams to travel (they're better positioned to afford the extra costs).

Increasing the number of games to 30, by lengthening the season a couple of weeks: Some predictable push-back from smaller school coaches, who are more likely to have players in Fall sports. Less concern about extending the end of the season later into March, though, even if it overlaps the start of Spring sports. I'm still drinking the kool-aid when it comes to the benefits of playing multiple sports, though, so I'm not big on this idea. I'm guessing that parents worried about Spring Break and non-refundable tickets/vacation packages might be concerned as well.

Re second point: I don't see the incentive for metro teams to come up north for said tournaments. Plenty of choices in the metro.
Though I'm all over having them travel for a change.

I'll never be convinced that traveling for hours, staying in a hotel, and not eating mom's cooking doesn't make a difference.

Re third point: more games in March would really be a good idea up here in the north. It's still winter for awhile up north.
We never get a spring anyway, and the spring sports end up practicing almost all inside, and playing in truly PLEASE BAN ME weather/cancelled games the vast majority of the time anyway.
Baseball, i.e., up here in the "spring" is a joke.

Haven't read the article yet.

I would love to see more HS Hockey!!!! If I had to pick one of the points above, #2 would be it. Keeping the season within the excessing parameters would be logical. An already long winter season, adding more games inside the hockey calendar would make since…adding more games outside the calendar would be conflicting with other HS activities during fall and spring. But remember, if there are additions to the hockey season, this will cost $$$$. With an already strapped HS financial budget, either way you look at it, this would be a tough sale. Just my thoughts.

[puckbreath]

I was too busy reading to start this thread before karl...they must teach speedreading Up North.

Lots of ideas bandied about in the article that queried coaches...

Lengthen periods to 20 minutes: Lots of love for this idea, as it would increase playing time without lengthening the season or increasing travel costs. It would also, however, make for some really late nights during the school week in rural parts of the State. And if the JV games were lengthened as well, there'd be need for earlier starts. Making the games longer would make it that much harder for certain coaches to shorten benches and ride their top lines. You'd see more fourth line and 5/6 dman play, which might, ironically, result in less playing time for the kids on the end of the bench (unless MSHSL relaxed the rule that limits the total number of periods a player can play between JV and Varsity games).

Increasing the number of games to 30, without lengthening the season: More love for this idea from the coaches, who noted that you could easily add 5 games to the regular season within the same period of time. I also like this idea; you could add 3 games to each schedule with "face-off" tournaments at the start of the season. Encourage play outside of your region/Section by getting Northern teams to host these tourneys and getting Metro teams to travel (they're better positioned to afford the extra costs).

Increasing the number of games to 30, by lengthening the season a couple of weeks: Some predictable push-back from smaller school coaches, who are more likely to have players in Fall sports. Less concern about extending the end of the season later into March, though, even if it overlaps the start of Spring sports. I'm still drinking the kool-aid when it comes to the benefits of playing multiple sports, though, so I'm not big on this idea. I'm guessing that parents worried about Spring Break and non-refundable tickets/vacation packages might be concerned as well.

Re second point: I don't see the incentive for metro teams to come up north for said tournaments. Plenty of choices in the metro.
Though I'm all over having them travel for a change.

I'll never be convinced that traveling for hours, staying in a hotel, and not eating mom's cooking doesn't make a difference.

Re third point: more games in March would really be a good idea up here in the north. It's still winter for awhile up north.
We never get a spring anyway, and the spring sports end up practicing almost all inside, and playing in truly PLEASE BAN ME weather/cancelled games the vast majority of the time anyway.
Baseball, i.e., up here in the "spring" is a joke.

Haven't read the article yet.

I would love to see more HS Hockey!!!! If I had to pick one of the points above, #2 would be it. Keeping the season within the excessing parameters would be logical. An already long winter season, adding more games inside the hockey calendar would make since…adding more games outside the calendar would be conflicting with other HS activities during fall and spring. But remember, if there are additions to the hockey season, this will cost $$$$. With an already strapped HS financial budget, either way you look at it, this would be a tough sale. Just my thoughts.

That, and the guaranteed resulting whine from the other sports of "Hey, if they (hockey) get a longer season, we should get one too !"

[almostashappy]

That, and the guaranteed resulting whine from the other sports of "Hey, if they (hockey) get a longer season, we should get one too !"

The argument is that MSHSL has incentives to treat boys hockey differently because it's the cash cow that is being milked.

Heard that University of Texas is planning on paying all of its scholarship athletes $10k/year...$5k for incidental college-related costs, and $5k for using/selling/profiting from the athlete's likeness. It's nice that they're doing that for every athlete (male or female, revenue or non-revenue sport), but how long before the football players start to whine about socialistic revenue sharing?

[WCHBlog]

Twenty-minute periods is a bad idea. Every coach skates their top line into the ground. There are kids playing too many minutes in a 51-minute game as it is. There's no reason to believe those extra nine minutes would go to third and fourth liners, unless we're talking about there potentially being more garbage time in blowout games. Lengthening the game will just teach the top kids to pace themselves, which is a terrible habit to get into.

I could see some of the coaches at big hockey schools pushing for this though because an extra nine minutes really reduces the variance in results. I don't think Stillwater or Orono hangs on in their section final if they have to defend for another half a period.

[puckbreath]

That, and the guaranteed resulting whine from the other sports of "Hey, if they (hockey) get a longer season, we should get one too !"

The argument is that MSHSL has incentives to treat boys hockey differently because it's the cash cow that is being milked.

Heard that University of Texas is planning on paying all of its scholarship athletes $10k/year...$5k for incidental college-related costs, and $5k for using/selling/profiting from the athlete's likeness. It's nice that they're doing that for every athlete (male or female, revenue or non-revenue sport), but how long before the football players start to whine about socialistic revenue sharing?

My comment was pertaining to the local ad's, who would be dealing with such.

Cash cow or not for the MSHSL, it isn't at many local levels.

[WestMetro]

I SEE KEN PAULYS ARTICLES ASK MY OFTEN STATED QUESTION OF WHY ANN ARBOR NDTP LOCATION IS SEEN AS THE GREATEST CHOICE EVER MADE. AGAIN I SAY, THE SUITS SHOULD LOBBY TO GET NDTP MOVED TO ROCHESTER, OR A PARALLEL NDTP STARTED THERE, AS PART OF THE MAYO $5 BILL EXPLANSION PLAN. OR GET BETTER FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY FOR THE EXISTING ELITE LEAGUE. OR BOTH.


"Meanwhile, USA Hockey sits back and does nothing. It holds up the USHL and Ann Arbor as the ultimate carrot for the Minnesota kid when, in fact, it should be proactive in helping place the Minnesota Model on equal footing.



The opportunity to go to USA Hockey’s National Team Development Program in Ann Arbor is an attractive option for any family. Why wouldn’t it be? It has limitless resources for a very small amount of players. Of course, a full accounting of that program’s success has never really been given, but that’s a topic for another time. It’s amazing that Minnesota produces as many NHL players as the Ann Arbor program without the benefit of these NHL dollars.



In Let’s Play Hockey’s last issue, columnist Kevin Hartzell bemoaned the Elite League’s weak performance against the U.S. Under-17 Team in recent games. However, let’s put that performance into context. The Ann Arbor team is just that – it’s a team! They have been together for months and they practice and train together on a regular basis. Also, let’s be cognizant that one series does not a pattern make. Last year the high school kids in the Elite League gave a very good accounting of themselves against “Team USA”– a fact that Mr. Hartzell fails to mention.



However, it’s worth asking what if USA Hockey would look at the Minnesota high school/Elite League model the same way that it views its Ann Arbor program? USA Hockey could lobby the NHL to place significant development funding into the Upper Midwest High School Elite League and the CCM Minnesota Hockey High Performance programs.



Isn’t it time for Minnesota hockey families to demand that its national governing body give financial priority to its most important state? Has USA Hockey failed to notice that of 33 Minnesotans currently in the NHL, 20 completed their senior year in high school? Isn’t there even one voice in Colorado Springs that has the courage to put forth the idea that we could potentially double this NHL number by working with Minnesota’s community based/high school model

[stromboli]

Twenty-minute periods is a bad idea. Every coach skates their top line into the ground. There are kids playing too many minutes in a 51-minute game as it is. There's no reason to believe those extra nine minutes would go to third and fourth liners, unless we're talking about there potentially being more garbage time in blowout games. Lengthening the game will just teach the top kids to pace themselves, which is a terrible habit to get into.

I could see some of the coaches at big hockey schools pushing for this though because an extra nine minutes really reduces the variance in results. I don't think Stillwater or Orono hangs on in their section final if they have to defend for another half a period.

Where to start...

Twenty minute periods work well for summer teams, anytime of the year outside of Mn, juniors, college, pro.

Not every coach skates their top line into the ground. Some believe that at points throughout the season, and especially during a long playoff run at the end of the year, that the team with fresher legs wins more often than not. Tough to do that relying on just one or two lines.

Learning to pace yourself seems to have worked out just fine for Ryan Suter. $13m a year for being a top player AND chewing up more minutes than most.